October 26, 2017 / 11:21 AM / a year ago

Fitch: South African MTBPS Confirms Shift from Fiscal Consolidation

(The following statement was released by the rating agency) HONG KONG/LONDON, October 26 (Fitch) South Africa's (BB+/Stable) Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) projects a sharp fall in fiscal revenue, but has no measures to contain the impact on deficits and debt, Fitch Ratings says. This suggests that the change in direction of policy making away from a focus on fiscal consolidation that we anticipated as a consequence of March's cabinet reshuffle is under way and occurring faster than we had expected. Wednesday's MTBPS is the first major fiscal announcement since Malusi Gigaba was appointed Finance Minister in March. The government no longer forecasts stabilising debt, having raised its forecast for gross loan debt (its measure of consolidated government debt) to 58.2% of GDP for the financial year to end-March 2020 (FY19/20) from 52.4% previously. It expects a further rise to 60.8% by FY21/22. This reflects large upward revisions in the Treasury's consolidated government deficit forecast, to 4.3% of GDP (1.2pp wider than in the February budget) this year with only a moderate improvement to 3.9% next year and no further reduction in the two following years. Previously, the government had projected a decline to 2.6% in FY19/20. The revisions reflect significant revenue shortfalls, of ZAR50.8 billion (1.1% of GDP) in FY17/18, as a result of lower GDP growth (now predicted to be 0.7% in 2017, down from 1.3% in the budget) and lower-than-expected tax buoyancy (the increase in tax revenues for a given increase in GDP). The government's GDP growth forecasts are now in line with or lower than Fitch's. However, there remains a substantial risk of additional revenue slippage if tax buoyancy fails to recover. The MTBPS also raises questions about the role of the non-interest expenditure ceiling as a key fiscal policy anchor. The statement predicts that spending will exceed the ceiling set in February's budget by ZAR4 billion in FY17/18, driven by the recapitalisation of South African Airways and South African Post Office. The amount is small at 0.1% of GDP, and the government is looking for ways to make the recapitalisation revenue-neutral so that a breach of the ceiling could still be avoided. But the fact that a breach is included in official projections points to a significant loss of credibility for this policy tool. There are substantial risks to the ceiling from the expenditure side. Public-sector wage negotiations are under way, with a large divergence between trade union demands and MTBPS wage bill projections. The government also noted that capital injections for other state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are likely as profitability has declined sharply and lenders are reluctant to roll over maturing debt, but these are not included in fiscal projections. The SOEs most likely to require injections, such as Denel, South African Express and the South African Broadcasting Corporation, are relatively small and the fiscal impact would be limited. But the document also points to a risk that Eskom, which holds much larger debt of 9.3% of GDP, may require renewed injections if stabilisation measures do not materialise. Gigaba emphasised that a nuclear power programme is not affordable, but the appointment of a new energy minister last week may signal a desire on the part of the government to accelerate a programme. Proposals to shore up the public finances are being considered by a team of cabinet ministers, with measures to be announced in next year's budget. But the fact that no agreement on consolidation measures or even headline targets for revenue increases were included in the MTBPS highlights how disagreements in the ANC have made it difficult to agree on savings measures. We think that divisions in the ANC will persist beyond the party's electoral conference in December, and it is not clear that the political environment will become more conducive to consolidation. The government also seems increasingly concerned that fiscal tightening measures might dent GDP growth and undermine efforts to rein in deficits. Contact: Jan Friederich Senior Director, Sovereigns +852 2263 9910 Fitch (Hong Kong) Ltd 19/F Man Yee Building 68 Des Voeux Road Central Hong Kong Ed Parker Managing Director, Sovereigns +44 20 3520 1176 Mark Brown Senior Analyst, Fitch Wire +44 20 3530 1588 Media Relations: Peter Fitzpatrick, London, Tel: +44 20 3530 1103, Email: peter.fitzpatrick@fitchratings.com. The above article originally appeared as a post on the Fitch Wire credit market commentary page. The original article can be accessed at www.fitchratings.com. All opinions expressed are those of Fitch Ratings. ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: here. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY'S PUBLIC WEB SITE AT WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA, AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH'S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE, AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE CODE OF CONDUCT SECTION OF THIS SITE. DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS RELEVANT INTERESTS ARE AVAILABLE here. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE. Copyright © 2017 by Fitch Ratings, Inc., Fitch Ratings Ltd. and its subsidiaries. 33 Whitehall Street, NY, NY 10004. Telephone: 1-800-753-4824, (212) 908-0500. Fax: (212) 480-4435. Reproduction or retransmission in whole or in part is prohibited except by permission. All rights reserved. In issuing and maintaining its ratings and in making other reports (including forecast information), Fitch relies on factual information it receives from issuers and underwriters and from other sources Fitch believes to be credible. Fitch conducts a reasonable investigation of the factual information relied upon by it in accordance with its ratings methodology, and obtains reasonable verification of that information from independent sources, to the extent such sources are available for a given security or in a given jurisdiction. The manner of Fitch’s factual investigation and the scope of the third-party verification it obtains will vary depending on the nature of the rated security and its issuer, the requirements and practices in the jurisdiction in which the rated security is offered and sold and/or the issuer is located, the availability and nature of relevant public information, access to the management of the issuer and its advisers, the availability of pre-existing third-party verifications such as audit reports, agreed-upon procedures letters, appraisals, actuarial reports, engineering reports, legal opinions and other reports provided by third parties, the availability of independent and competent third- party verification sources with respect to the particular security or in the particular jurisdiction of the issuer, and a variety of other factors. Users of Fitch’s ratings and reports should understand that neither an enhanced factual investigation nor any third-party verification can ensure that all of the information Fitch relies on in connection with a rating or a report will be accurate and complete. Ultimately, the issuer and its advisers are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide to Fitch and to the market in offering documents and other reports. In issuing its ratings and its reports, Fitch must rely on the work of experts, including independent auditors with respect to financial statements and attorneys with respect to legal and tax matters. Further, ratings and forecasts of financial and other information are inherently forward-looking and embody assumptions and predictions about future events that by their nature cannot be verified as facts. As a result, despite any verification of current facts, ratings and forecasts can be affected by future events or conditions that were not anticipated at the time a rating or forecast was issued or affirmed. The information in this report is provided “as is” without any representation or warranty of any kind, and Fitch does not represent or warrant that the report or any of its contents will meet any of the requirements of a recipient of the report. A Fitch rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a security. This opinion and reports made by Fitch are based on established criteria and methodologies that Fitch is continuously evaluating and updating. Therefore, ratings and reports are the collective work product of Fitch and no individual, or group of individuals, is solely responsible for a rating or a report. The rating does not address the risk of loss due to risks other than credit risk, unless such risk is specifically mentioned. Fitch is not engaged in the offer or sale of any security. All Fitch reports have shared authorship. Individuals identified in a Fitch report were involved in, but are not solely responsible for, the opinions stated therein. The individuals are named for contact purposes only. A report providing a Fitch rating is neither a prospectus nor a substitute for the information assembled, verified and presented to investors by the issuer and its agents in connection with the sale of the securities. Ratings may be changed or withdrawn at any time for any reason in the sole discretion of Fitch. Fitch does not provide investment advice of any sort. Ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Ratings do not comment on the adequacy of market price, the suitability of any security for a particular investor, or the tax-exempt nature or taxability of payments made in respect to any security. Fitch receives fees from issuers, insurers, guarantors, other obligors, and underwriters for rating securities. Such fees generally vary from US$1,000 to US$750,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent) per issue. In certain cases, Fitch will rate all or a number of issues issued by a particular issuer, or insured or guaranteed by a particular insurer or guarantor, for a single annual fee. Such fees are expected to vary from US$10,000 to US$1,500,000 (or the applicable currency equivalent). The assignment, publication, or dissemination of a rating by Fitch shall not constitute a consent by Fitch to use its name as an expert in connection with any registration statement filed under the United States securities laws, the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 of the United Kingdom, or the securities laws of any particular jurisdiction. Due to the relative efficiency of electronic publishing and distribution, Fitch research may be available to electronic subscribers up to three days earlier than to print subscribers. For Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea only: Fitch Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian financial services license (AFS license no. 337123) which authorizes it to provide credit ratings to wholesale clients only. Credit ratings information published by Fitch is not intended to be used by persons who are retail clients within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001

0 : 0
  • narrow-browser-and-phone
  • medium-browser-and-portrait-tablet
  • landscape-tablet
  • medium-wide-browser
  • wide-browser-and-larger
  • medium-browser-and-landscape-tablet
  • medium-wide-browser-and-larger
  • above-phone
  • portrait-tablet-and-above
  • above-portrait-tablet
  • landscape-tablet-and-above
  • landscape-tablet-and-medium-wide-browser
  • portrait-tablet-and-below
  • landscape-tablet-and-below