A Group Exposure That Outgrows Its AA Rating
A Lahore-based commercial bank has PKR 34bn of exposure to one conglomerate - 22% of its corporate book - spread across seven entities in textiles, sugar and an independent power plant, all cross-guaranteed and managed by a single relationship manager. The group is rated internally AA (PD 0.4%), based on FY2023 consolidated accounts. FY2024 management accounts show EBITDA down 28%, short-term borrowing up 40%, and the sugar arm's auditor has added a going-concern emphasis. The power plant's receivables from the state utility equal nine months of billing. A covenant test on the textile entity falls due next month; the relationship manager is proposing a pre-emptive waiver so the relationship is not damaged. The bank's equity is PKR 150bn, so the single-obligor limit is PKR 37.5bn. Expected loss under the current rating is PKR 136m; workout estimates 45% recovery in a default.
1. Is the AA rating defensible? Re-derive PD and expected loss, and state what you would do about the limit.
Read the worked answer
The AA rating is not defensible on the evidence. A going-concern emphasis, a 28% EBITDA decline and a 40% rise in short-term debt are all indicators of significant increase in credit risk; the rating is also based on stale FY2023 consolidated accounts while the group is being run on FY2024 management information. Add the nine months of utility receivables - effectively unsecured lending to the state - and the cross-guarantees that make the seven entities one obligor.
Re-derive: LGD = 55% (45% recovery). EAD = PKR 34bn, so EL at 0.4% PD = 34bn x 0.55 x 0.004 = PKR 74.8m; the stated PKR 136m implies a different EAD or PD, so the number itself is inconsistent and should be reconciled. At a stressed PD of 4%, EL = 34bn x 0.55 x 0.04 = PKR 748m, roughly 5.5 times the current figure and about 0.5% of equity. At 6% PD, EL exceeds PKR 1.1bn.
Limit: 34bn / 37.5bn = 91% utilisation of the regulatory single-obligor ceiling. Even where legal, that is far above any prudent internal group limit. Actions: freeze new facilities, move the group to watchlist and re-rate, aggregate exposure on a connected-counterparty basis, obtain audited consolidated accounts and a cash-flow statement, commission an independent valuation of the utility receivables, and escalate to the management and board risk committees. A 91% utilisation leaves no headroom for accrued interest, FX or a further drawdown.
2. The relationship manager wants a pre-emptive covenant waiver. Advise the credit committee.
Read the worked answer
A waiver before the test is not a credit decision; it is a decision to remove an early-warning signal. Covenants exist to force a conversation at exactly this point. Granting the waiver without consideration means the bank gives up its only contractual trigger while the borrower's condition is deteriorating, and it sets a precedent across the corporate book.
If a waiver is genuinely necessary to preserve value, it should be priced and exchanged: fresh equity or a sponsor injection, a parent guarantee, cash sweep or escrow of power receivables, amortisation of the textile term loan, enhanced information covenants (monthly management accounts, 13-week cash flow), and a pledge over additional collateral. The waiver should be short - three to six months - and tied to verifiable milestones.
Independently of the waiver, IFRS 9 staging must be assessed. A 28% EBITDA decline and a going-concern emphasis are objective evidence of a significant increase in credit risk; the facility should move to Stage 2 and ECL should be measured on a lifetime basis, with Stage 3 considered for the sugar arm. Pre-emptive waivers do not defer staging. Document the rationale, the downgrade and the provisioning impact together, and minute any dissent.
3. How would you test the group for wrong-way risk and contagion across the seven entities?
Read the worked answer
Start by mapping the cash: dividends and management fees upstream to the holding company, intercompany loans, shared treasury, common collateral and cross-default clauses. Then identify where exposure and credit quality are positively correlated. The clearest case is the power plant: the bank is exposed to a receivable that depends on the same state utility whose payment delays drive the plant's liquidity, and the receivable is itself nine months of billing. That is wrong-way risk - the bank's exposure grows as the obligor's ability to pay falls.
Next, build a group stress. Combine a 12-month delay in utility payments, a 20% fall in sugar prices and a 15% PKR depreciation, and see which entity breaches first and how the cross-guarantees transmit the loss. Test collateral values under the same stress, since property and plant values are correlated with the group's fortunes.
Controls: a single group limit with sub-limits per entity, mandatory consolidated reporting, cross-default monitoring, a single accountable credit officer with independent review, and a wrong-way risk flag in the credit system for any facility secured by receivables from the same counterparty group's customers. Concentration should be measured against capital and against the corporate book, and reported to the board quarterly.