Rating action

The rating action is as follows:

Series 2022-308 (ISIN: XS2563843296), EUR 114,383,000: rated A+

Transaction overview

The transaction is a repackaged issuance of the Czech Republic’s 0.45% 2023, 1.25% 2025, 2.4% 2025, 0.25% 2027, FRN 2027, 2.5% 2028, 0.05% 2029, and 1.2% 2031 bonds to EUR instalment notes. The rated notes are issued by Single Platform Investment Repackaging Entity SA (SPIRE), acting in respect of its Compartment Series 2022-308. They offer investors a fixed schedule of interest and principal instalment repayments in EUR, whereas the underlying Czech sovereign bonds pay fixed and floating interest rates in Czech Koruna (CZK). The interest and currency mismatch is addressed through an embedded swap between the swap counterparty Credit Suisse International (CSI) and the issuer of the rated notes.

SPIRE is a securitisation programme created on 26 May 2016 and domiciled in Luxembourg.

The transaction also has counterparty risk exposures to HSBC Bank plc as custodian and CSI as disposal and calculation agent.

Rating rationale

The rating reflects: i) the legal and financial structure of the transaction; ii) the quality of the underlying collateral reflected by the sovereign rating on the Czech Republic; iii) CSI’s ability as transaction swap counterparty; and iv) the exposure to other transaction counterparties.

Key rating drivers

Underlying collateral (positive)¹. The credit strength of sovereign debt issued by the Czech Republic is directly linked to its macroeconomic environment. The Czech Republic’s long-term ratings of AA are underpinned by the following credit strengths: i) robust public finances with a good record of fiscal consolidation and moderate debt; and ii) a competitive industrial base supported by large, steady foreign direct investment and EU funds.

Transaction structure (positive)². SPIRE established its single platform in May 2016 and has since facilitated several transactions. The issuance terms agreed for this platform make the issuance of the rated notes simple and efficient. The availability of other ‘dealers’ reduces any friction should the swap counterparty be replaced.

Low correlation (positive). The Czech Republic and CSI have different operating macroeconomic conditions, which reduces the likelihood of a joint default of the underlying collateral and the swap counterparty.

Overcollateralisation (positive)³. The overcollateralisation present for most of the transaction life would provide an additional source of recovery upon the default of the assets.

Instalment schedule (positive)³. The repayment of note principal in the form of instalments as opposed to a bullet repayment at maturity reduces outstanding note notional and therefore reduces the severity of loss upon a Czech Republic default.

Early settlement of swap mark-to-market (negative)³. A mismatch between incoming and outgoing legs of the swap could create large mark-to-market positions that need to be settled upon early termination of the transaction.

Eligible currency for credit support (negative)³. If CSI had to post collateral according to the Credit Support Annex, it would have several currency options. This could expose the transaction to foreign exchange risk.

Margining risks (negative). Large swap mark-to-market spikes in favour of the issuer introduce potential scenarios of mismatch between the mark-to-market and collateral posted. However, this is partially mitigated by the strict margining requirements under the Credit Support Annex.

Rating-change drivers

Positive:

Better-than-expected performance of underlying collateral. The notes’ rating could improve if for the Czech Republic, individually or collectively: i) fiscal performance improved materially, resulting in a significant decline of public debt ratios; and/or ii) resilience to supply chain shocks and/or energy supply disruptions strengthened notably, supporting macroeconomic sustainability.

Negative:

Worse-than-expected performance of underlying collateral. The notes’ ratings could worsen if for the Czech Republic, individually or collectively: i) growth prospects deteriorated; and/or ii) Scope observes materially higher fiscal deficits and/or debt ratios than projected.

Quantitative analysis and assumptions

Scope performed the quantitative analysis using a bespoke tool tailored to capture the main risks associated with the notes. The tool calculates the expected loss and weighted average life of the notes in line with Scope’s General Structured Finance Rating Methodology.

As a first step, Scope identified the primary risks:

Scenario 1: default of the underlying collateral,

Scenario 2: default of the swap counterparty.

For Scenario 1, Scope derived the probability of default for the expected maturity from the ratings of the underlying collateral. The loss given default is calculated as the sum of: i) the unrecovered notional amount from the sale of the Czech bonds; and ii) amounts to cover any negative mark-to-market position owed to the swap counterparty.

Scope also assumes a 50% recovery rate from the sale of the Czech bonds, which is consistent with historical data for such scenarios. Scope tested several assumptions on future mark-to-market values, including a stressed negative value, a stressed positive value, and the forward implied mark-to-market value.

For Scenario 2, Scope derived the probability of default based on CSI’s credit ratings, calculated as the probability of CSI’s default conditional to the survival of the underlying collateral.

Upon the swap counterparty’s replacement, loss given default would only arise from replacement costs incurred by SPIRE due to changes in value of both the collateral posted under the credit support annex and the mark-to-market position until a swap counterparty replacement were found.

Further, commingling risk with the custodian is immaterial due to the strong credit profile of the custodian together with the level of the rating trigger for replacement. Therefore, Scope did not consider it in its quantitative analysis.

Finally, Scope calculated the notes’ total expected loss by weighing the loss given default for each scenario with its respective likelihood.

Sensitivity analysis

Scope tested the resilience of the rating to deviations in the main input parameters: the underlying bond ratings, the swap counterparty rating and the mark-to-market value change of the swap. This analysis’ sole purpose is to illustrate the sensitivity of the ratings to input assumptions and is not indicative of expected or likely scenarios.

The following shows how results would change compared to the assigned credit rating in the event of:

• a downgrade of the underlying entity by one notch, zero notches;

• a downgrade of the swap counterparty by three notches, one notch; and

• the assumption of a stressed negative value for the mark-to-market value of the swap, one notch.

Rating driver references
1. Scope Sovereign rating on the Czech Republic
2. Base documentation and marketing materials for the SPIRE programme
3. Term sheets, series memorandum, issue deed, swap confirmation (Confidential)

Stress testing
No stress testing was performed.

Cash flow analysis
Scope Ratings performed a cash flow analysis of the transaction with the use of a bespoke tool incorporating the relevant asset assumptions, taking into account the transaction’s main structural features. The outcome of the analysis is an expected loss and an expected weighted average life for the notes.

Methodology
The methodologies used for this Credit Rating, (General Structured Finance Rating Methodology, 17 December 2021; Counterparty Risk Methodology, 14 July 2022) are available on https://scoperatings.com/governance-and-policies/rating-governance/methodologies.
Information on the meaning of each Credit Rating category, including definitions of default, recoveries, Outlooks and Under Review, can be viewed in ‘Rating Definitions – Credit Ratings, Ancillary and Other Services’, published on https://www.scoperatings.com/governance-and-policies/rating-governance/definitions-and-scales. Historical default rates of the entities rated by Scope Ratings can be viewed in the Credit Rating performance report at https://scoperatings.com/governance-and-policies/regulatory/eu-regulation. Also refer to the central platform (CEREP) of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA): http://cerep.esma.europa.eu/cerep-web/statistics/defaults.xhtml. A comprehensive clarification of Scope Ratings’ definitions of default and Credit Rating notations can be found at https://www.scoperatings.com/governance-and-policies/rating-governance/definitions-and-scales. Guidance and information on how environmental, social or governance factors (ESG factors) are incorporated into the Credit Rating can be found in the respective sections of the methodologies or guidance documents provided on https://scoperatings.com/governance-and-policies/rating-governance/methodologies.

Solicitation, key sources and quality of information
The Rated Entity and its agents participated in the Credit Rating process.
The following substantially material sources of information were used to prepare the Credit Rating: public domain, the Rated Entity, the Rated Entities’ agents, third parties and Scope Ratings’ internal sources.
Scope Ratings considers the quality of information available to Scope Ratings on the Rated Entity or instrument to be satisfactory. Information and data supporting the Credit Rating originate from sources Scope Ratings considers to be reliable and accurate. Scope Ratings does not, however, independently verify the reliability and accuracy of the information and data.
Scope Ratings has not received a third-party asset due diligence assessment/asset audit. Scope Ratings has performed its own analysis of the data quality, based on information received from the Rated Entity or Related Third Parties, which is not and should be not deemed equivalent to the performance of due diligence or an audit. The internal analysis was considered when preparing the Credit Rating and it has no impact on the Credit Rating.
Prior to the issuance of the Credit Rating action, the Rated Entity was given the opportunity to review the Credit Rating and the principal grounds on which the Credit Rating are based. Following that review, the Credit Rating was not amended before being issued.

Regulatory disclosures
The Credit Rating is issued by Scope Ratings GmbH, Lennéstraße 5, D-10785 Berlin, Tel +49 30 27891-0. The Credit Rating is UK-endorsed.
Lead analyst: Jack Holbrook, Associate
Person responsible for approval of the Credit Rating: David Bergman, Managing Director
The Credit Rating was first released by Scope Ratings on 12 December 2022.

Potential conflicts
See www.scoperatings.com under Governance & Policies/EU Regulation/Disclosures for a list of potential conflicts of interest related to the issuance of Credit Ratings.

Conditions of use / exclusion of liability
© 2022 Scope SE & Co. KGaA and all its subsidiaries including Scope Ratings GmbH, Scope Ratings UK Limited, Scope Fund Analysis GmbH, Scope Investor Services GmbH, and Scope ESG Analysis GmbH (collectively, Scope). All rights reserved. The information and data supporting Scope’s ratings, rating reports, rating opinions and related research and credit opinions originate from sources Scope considers to be reliable and accurate. Scope does not, however, independently verify the reliability and accuracy of the information and data. Scope’s ratings, rating reports, rating opinions, or related research and credit opinions are provided ‘as is’ without any representation or warranty of any kind. In no circumstance shall Scope or its directors, officers, employees and other representatives be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental or other damages, expenses of any kind, or losses arising from any use of Scope’s ratings, rating reports, rating opinions, related research or credit opinions. Ratings and other related credit opinions issued by Scope are, and have to be viewed by any party as, opinions on relative credit risk and not a statement of fact or recommendation to purchase, hold or sell securities. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results. Any report issued by Scope is not a prospectus or similar document related to a debt security or issuing entity. Scope issues credit ratings and related research and opinions with the understanding and expectation that parties using them will assess independently the suitability of each security for investment or transaction purposes. Scope’s credit ratings address relative credit risk, they do not address other risks such as market, liquidity, legal, or volatility. The information and data included herein is protected by copyright and other laws. To reproduce, transmit, transfer, disseminate, translate, resell, or store for subsequent use for any such purpose the information and data contained herein, contact Scope Ratings GmbH at Lennéstraße 5 D-10785 Berlin.