A credit rating is the passport to the debt capital markets. It is the prerequisite for a first bond or sukuk issue, it sets the price investors demand, and it opens the door to institutional investors whose mandates exclude unrated paper. Across MENA and the GCC, issuers are turning to bond and sukuk markets to diversify away from bank lending, and the first question every arranger asks is whether the issuer is rated, and by whom.
Agencies publish their methodologies, but the outcome still depends on what analysts are shown and how management answers. Issuers in the region often hold the strengths an agency values, such as market position, contracted revenues and shareholder support, yet present them poorly: inconsistent historical data, no forward projections, governance that is real in practice but undocumented. The rating then reflects the gaps in the file rather than the credit. A further constraint is the sovereign ceiling: an issuer's foreign-currency rating is generally capped at or close to the rating of the country in which it operates.
Rating advisory works on the issuer's side of the table. It does not influence the agency's independent judgement; it makes sure that judgement is formed on complete, consistent and well-explained information. Orion's partners have spent their careers on both sides of that table. The service tests the likely outcome against the agency's own criteria before the process starts, prepares the information package and management, and stays with the issuer through committee, publication and the annual reviews that follow.
A first rating typically takes 12 to 14 weeks from mandate to publication, including the four to six weeks the agency needs to analyse the file and determine the rating. The stages below follow the issuer's side of that process; all timings are indicative.
The stages below describe a typical mandate and reflect best practice in the market. Every engagement is scoped to the case at hand: stages may be combined, re-ordered, shortened or omitted, and timings depend on the company, its counterparties and the regulatory setting.
Establish, before any agency is engaged, the rating the issuer can realistically expect and what drives it.
The issuer's financial statements, projections, governance and market position are scored against the published methodology of the relevant agency, factor by factor, to produce an indicative rating range. The exercise identifies the factors that pull the rating down, separates those that can be addressed before the meeting from those that cannot, and tests the effect of the sovereign ceiling and of group or government support. Best practice treats this as a go or no-go decision: if the expected rating will not serve the financing objective, it is better to know now. The common pitfall it avoids is commissioning a rating, paying the agency's fees and receiving a public result below what the market needs.
Choose the agency or agencies, the rating scale and the form of rating that best serve the financing plan.
The choice depends on the target investors and the instrument. International investors in a Eurobond or international sukuk generally expect a rating on the global scale from one or two of the large agencies; domestic issues may be better served by a national-scale rating, which ranks issuers against each other within one country and remains meaningful where the sovereign itself is low on the global scale. The issuer also decides between a public rating and a private rating shared only with selected lenders or counterparties, and between an issuer rating and an instrument rating. The pitfall avoided is choosing an agency by reputation alone, without checking whose methodology and scale fit the issuer's profile.
Give the analysts a complete, consistent and well-argued file that answers their questions before they are asked.
The agency's information request is answered in full: audited accounts for several years, reconciled to one another; a business plan with base and stress projections; debt schedules, covenants and maturity profile; liquidity and funding policy; ownership, governance and related-party disclosures; for financial institutions, capital and asset-quality data under Basel and IFRS 9. Alongside the data, the management presentation sets out strategy, competitive position and the qualitative strengths behind the numbers. The pitfall avoided is an assembled data dump with figures that do not reconcile, which costs credibility in the first hour of the meeting and invites conservative assumptions.
Prepare the management team to present the company and answer hard questions with clarity and consistency.
The chief executive, the chief financial officer and the heads of key functions rehearse the presentation in full, then face a mock question-and-answer session run as the analysts would run it, with emphasis on the weaknesses identified in the shadow rating. Each speaker learns to answer with evidence rather than assurance, and to commit to follow-up rather than improvise a figure. Best practice holds at least two rehearsals, with the presentation revised in between. The pitfall avoided is a management team that knows its business thoroughly but contradicts itself or the written file in front of the agency, which analysts read as weak control.
Present the company to the rating analysts and manage the follow-up requests efficiently.
Management presents to the lead and supporting analysts, typically over one day, often with a site visit. The adviser attends in support where the agency and issuer agree, records commitments made in the room and coordinates the written follow-up. Additional data requests are answered quickly, completely and consistently with what was said, because the four to six weeks of agency analysis start in earnest at this point and delays on the issuer's side extend them. The pitfall avoided is allowing follow-up requests to drift for weeks, or answering them piecemeal with figures that do not match the original package.
Ensure the committee decides on accurate facts and that the issuer uses its rights of review properly.
The lead analyst presents a recommendation to the agency's rating committee, which assigns the rating; the issuer does not attend. The agency then communicates the rating and shares a draft of its rationale or press release. The issuer reviews the draft for factual accuracy and for confidential information that must not be published; it is not an opportunity to negotiate the opinion. Where the committee relied on incorrect information or overlooked material new evidence, the major agencies allow an appeal, to be used selectively and argued on facts. The pitfall avoided is either accepting factual errors in a published rationale or lodging an appeal on opinion alone, which rarely succeeds and costs goodwill.
Release the rating to the market with a clear message and a coherent communication plan.
For a public rating, the agency publishes the rating and its rationale; the issuer coordinates its own announcement with the agency's release, the stock exchange or the applicable regulator where disclosure rules apply, and its arrangers if an issue is planned. Communication to lenders and investors explains the rating and the drivers of an upgrade or downgrade the agency identified. For a private rating, the process stops at communication to the issuer, which then shares it with selected counterparties under the agency's terms. The pitfall avoided is a rating that appears without context, leaving investors to interpret the outlook and sensitivities alone.
Keep the rating stable and the relationship with the agency predictable through every year that follows.
Once assigned, the rating is under continuous surveillance and is formally reviewed at least once a year. The issuer supplies periodic financial information, informs the agency promptly of material events such as acquisitions, new debt or changes in ownership. Thorough initial preparation sharply reduces the workload of every review that follows, because the data structure and the narrative already exist. Best practice also tests major decisions against the agency's published rating sensitivities before they are taken. The pitfall avoided is a surprise: a transaction announced without warning that triggers a review the issuer did not anticipate.
Every large agency publishes its criteria by sector. The issuer should know, before the first meeting, how it scores on each factor and why. Preparation built on the published methodology replaces guesswork with evidence and lets management focus its time on the factors that actually move the rating.
An adviser prepares the issuer; it does not negotiate the rating. The agency's opinion belongs to its committee, and any attempt to lobby analysts undermines the credibility the rating is meant to create. The issuer's legitimate levers are complete information, consistent answers, factual review and, where justified, a reasoned appeal.
An issuer's foreign-currency rating is generally capped at or near the rating of its country of operation, reflecting the risk that the state restricts transfer or convertibility. Exceptions exist, usually for issuers with substantial offshore revenues, assets or parent support, and must be argued on evidence. A national-scale rating can differentiate issuers where the global ceiling compresses them.
Analysts compare what management says with the written file, the audited accounts and prior disclosures. A single unexplained discrepancy weighs more than a polished slide. Figures should reconcile across every document, and weaknesses should be acknowledged with a credible plan rather than left for the analyst to find.
The information an agency requires is commercially sensitive. It is handled under strict confidentiality from the readiness diagnostic onwards, and the draft rationale is checked so that nothing confidential is published. Orion treats every mandate, and the identity of every issuer it advises, as confidential.
Every Orion mandate is conducted under a strict non-disclosure agreement. We do not publish client names, transactions or outcomes, and we never use a client as a reference without written consent. What we can share openly is how we work — and the research on which our advice rests.
A first conversation with a partner is confidential and without commitment.
Discuss a mandate