Unsolicited Credit Rating Explained

An unsolicited credit rating is a credit rating assigned by an agency to a borrower or issuer without the issuer having hired or paid for the rating. Agencies publish these ratings to provide information to investors, but issuers often view them skeptically because the issuer cannot control the narrative, supply additional data, or decide whether to disclose the rating. Unsolicited ratings tend to be more conservative, less relied upon by investors, and sometimes deliberately withheld from public view.

How Unsolicited Ratings Arise

When the bond market needs information, rating agencies step in. A large municipality, corporation, or sovereign may not have approached a rating agency and paid the customary fee. Yet if the borrower is materially important—if its bonds trade in significant volume and traders need guidance—a major agency may decide to assign a rating on its own, simply to serve the information market.

For instance, a sovereign nation might issue bonds in international markets but refuse to pay the fee for a formal solicited rating. A rating agency might still publish a rating to investors because the existence of the debt is public and material. Similarly, a large private company might decline solicitation but be significant enough that the agency rates it anyway.

The unsolicited rating is the agency’s independent view, based on public filings, research, and conversations with other market participants (but not with the issuer directly, or only in a limited way). It reflects what the agency believes the credit quality to be, without the issuer’s opportunity to present additional non-public information or to dispute the agency’s conclusions before publication.

The Solicited vs. Unsolicited Divide

Solicited ratings are the dominant form. The issuer hires the agency, provides detailed financial data and management access, and often discusses the agency’s findings before the rating is released. This process costs money—often hundreds of thousands of dollars for a large bond issue—and includes built-in dialogue. If an issuer believes a rating is too harsh or based on faulty assumptions, the agency may be willing to reconsider before publication, though the final rating decision is the agency’s alone.

The advantage to issuers is that solicited ratings are usually more favorable, more detailed, and more widely used. Credit officers and portfolio managers expect to see them; many contracts require a minimum rating level, and many regulations reference solicited ratings specifically.

Unsolicited ratings are the agency’s unilateral decision. The issuer has no pre-publication dialogue, cannot provide context, and in some cases may not even learn of the rating until it is public. The agency bears the cost and the risk of it being wrong. As a result, unsolicited ratings tend to be more conservative—the agency, lacking a relationship with the issuer and wanting to avoid accusations of bias, tends to give the benefit of the doubt less often.

Why Agencies Issue Unsolicited Ratings

Investor demand. Significant borrowers must be rated. If an issuer refuses to pay for a solicited rating, investors still want to know the credit quality, and the agency has an incentive to supply that information to maintain its role as an information intermediary.

Market coverage and prestige. A rating agency’s usefulness to investors depends on how many important issuers it rates. If it only rates borrowers who hire it, its coverage will be spotty and its advisory value limited. Rating major entities unsolicited helps establish comprehensiveness.

Reputational risk. If a major issuer defaults and the agency had not published any rating, the agency might be criticized for a gap in coverage. Publishing an unsolicited rating creates a record and allows the agency to contribute to market knowledge.

Regulatory or competitive pressure. In some markets, if one agency publishes an unsolicited rating and it becomes known, competitors may follow to avoid being seen as unhelpful to investors.

Investor Reception and Reliance

Unsolicited ratings are treated with greater skepticism by institutional investors. The lack of direct issuer engagement is known to correlate with more conservative outcomes, so a rating that might be “BB+” on a solicited basis could be “BB” unsolicited. Astute investors adjust for this, discounting the unsolicited rating upward by one or two notches in a rough mental correction.

Some institutional investors and funds are contractually barred from holding instruments below certain rating thresholds, and unsolicited ratings may not be permitted for this purpose. Mortgage-backed securities and other structured products usually have specific rating agency requirements, and unsolicited ratings are often not acceptable in those contexts.

Regulatory Status and Disclosure

In the United States and many other jurisdictions, unsolicited ratings are not automatically public. An agency may publish a solicited rating in its public database, but an unsolicited rating might be distributed only to institutional subscribers or remain internal. The agency makes this choice based on its business model and the likely use.

However, if the rating becomes known (the issuer learns of it, or it leaks), the agency is obligated to disclose it under Securities and Exchange Commission rules. The issuer may request that an unsolicited rating be removed from the agency’s books, and in practice, many issuers do so to avoid permanent record of an unfavorable unsolicited assessment.

In some regulatory schemes, only solicited ratings may be used to determine regulatory capital or compliance. This restriction stems partly from the principle that unsolicited ratings lack the issuer’s cooperation and thus may be based on incomplete information.

Real-World Patterns

Unsolicited ratings are most common for:

• Sovereigns that are large and well-covered by the press but resist paying for formal ratings (some argue this is a matter of national pride).
• Large private companies that do not issue public bonds and thus have less incentive to pay for ratings, but whose creditworthiness is tracked by investors.
• Small issuers where the agency’s profit margin would be too thin to justify the solicitation cost.
• Controversial or high-risk entities that are significant but wary of the formal rating process.

In contrast, unsolicited ratings are rare for investment-grade corporate bonds in major markets. If a corporation is issuing bonds, it typically hires a rating agency because the underwriting market and credit spread on the bonds depend on having a public, credible solicited rating.

The Trust Issue

The fundamental tension is that an unsolicited rating, while more independent, is also less informative in one crucial sense: it reflects what the agency knows from public sources and general investigation, not the full picture that the issuer could provide. A conservative bias in the absence of dialogue can mean that an issuer genuinely in better condition than the unsolicited rating suggests has no easy recourse. It can also mean that borrowers have an incentive to hire the agency to solicit a formal rating, paying the fee partly to have a chance to explain themselves.

This dynamic reinforces the divided market: major borrowers use solicited ratings as their primary mechanism of disclosure; unsolicited ratings serve as a supplementary check and a source of information for issuers that choose to remain opaque.

See also