Menu

Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs)

Reimagining Africa’s Relationship with the Credit Rating System

Welcome to our comprehensive database exploring Africa’s intricate relationship with international credit rating agencies. This platform provides a comprehensive exploration of Africa’s relationship with credit rating agencies (CRAs), highlighting the latest ratings, local African CRAs, and official rejections of ratings. Through interactive visualizations and in-depth data, we aim to foster informed discussions on establishing a credit rating framework that aligns with Africa’s priorities and untapped potential.

Africa’s economic narrative is one of resilience, diversity, and untapped potential, yet it is frequently misrepresented by the methodologies of global credit rating agencies (CRAs) – Fitch, S&P, and Moody’s, collectively known as the “Big Three.” These agencies often apply standardized frameworks that overlook the continent’s unique socioeconomic dynamics, such as informal economies, regional integration efforts, and resilience to global shocks. This has led to credit ratings that many African nations argue undervalue their economic stability and growth prospects, resulting in higher borrowing costs and limited access to international capital markets. The growing dissatisfaction has spurred calls for an African Credit Rating Agency and the expansion of local CRAs to provide contextually relevant evaluations.

This platform offers a comprehensive exploration of Africa’s relationship with credit ratings, leveraging data visualizations, historical trends, and critical analyses to advocate for a rating system that aligns with Africa’s developmental priorities and economic realities.

EXPLORE OUR DATA


African Countries Current Credit Ratings Distribution by S&P Global, Moody’s and Fitch

The “Big Three” CRAs have historically been criticised for their opaque methodologies and failure to incorporate Africa-specific factors, such as the role of remittances, intra-African trade, or the informal sector, which can account for up to 40% of GDP in some African nations. The colour-coded maps below highlight overall ratings distribution and grading scales across the continent.

Key Takeaways:

  1. As of Jan 2026, of the 55 African countries, 20 countries (37%) remain unrated by the ‘Big 3 Agencies’, limiting their access to global capital markets, perpetuating reliance on high-cost borrowing.
  2. Moody’s maintains the widest coverage with 27 rated countries, followed by S&P Global and Fitch at 24 each.
  3. Out of the rated countries, 95% fall into the Non-Investment/Speculative/Junk Grade category, with only 3 countries (Botswana, Morocco, and Mauritius) maintaining Investment Grade status.
  4. Despite Botswana possessing a higher per-capita purchasing power parity and sounder governance indicators than similar economies such as Indonesia, it’s consistently assigned more negative outlooks, illustrating a systemic “Africa Premium Bias” where African countries are penalized more heavily than global peers with weaker economic fundamentals.

Rejection Statements from African Officials

This scatter visualization, maps statements from African officials rejecting or challenging CRA decisions. The rejection of CRA ratings by African officials underscores a broader critique of their methodologies, which often prioritize short-term fiscal metrics over long-term growth potential. For example, Ghana’s finance minister in 2022 publicly contested a Moody’s downgrade, arguing it failed to consider the country’s robust cocoa exports and AfCFTA-driven trade growth. Similarly, Nigeria has challenged ratings that overlook its informal economy, which contributes significantly to GDP.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Significant Pushback – At least 29 statements from 12 countries between 2011 and 2024 signal widespread dissatisfaction with CRA decisions.
  2. Contextual Misalignment – African officials argue that ratings often ignore local economic strengths, such as informal markets or regional trade initiatives.
  3. Advocacy for Reform – The visualization underscores the need for a new rating paradigm, potentially led by African institutions, to better reflect the continent’s economic realities.
  4. Temporal Trend – Rejections have increased since 2015, reflecting rising debt and global economic challenges.
  5. Country-Specific Grievances – Nations like Ghana and Nigeria cite specific strengths (e.g., cocoa exports, tech sector) ignored by CRAs.
  6. Regional Representation – Rejections are concentrated in West and East Africa, where economic reforms are often undervalued.

African Credit Rating Agencies Based Across the Region

The emergence of African CRAs addresses the limitations of global agencies by incorporating local market knowledge and Africa-specific metrics. The Pan African Credit Rating Agency, backed by the African Financial Services Association (AFSA), aims to create a continent-wide rating framework, emphasizing metrics like intra-African trade (which is projected to grow to US$250 billion by 2030) and climate resilience.
The below visualisation maps the presence of African-based CRAs and shows a concentration of these CRAs in economic hubs like South Africa and Nigeria, suggesting a need for broader regional representation to ensure equitable coverage.

Key Takeaways:

  1. CareEdge Africa has the highest number of rated African countries at 10, followed by Bloomfield Investment at 8, Sovereign Africa Ratings at 5, and Agusto & Co at 4.
  2. African-owned and Africa-focused CRAs such as Care Edge Africa are increasingly filling critical gaps in the continent’s credit assessment landscape by delivering ratings deeply rooted in local economic realities, informal sector dynamics, and country-specific contexts often overlooked by global agencies.
  3. The African Credit Rating Agency (AfCRA) initiative represents a growing push toward a unified, Africa-centric rating framework that prioritizes regional integration, Agenda 2063 goals, and intra-African economic dynamics.
  4. The majority of established African CRAs remain concentrated across the West and Central African Francophone regions, highlighting the importance of expanding institutional presence and capacity to other key regions, particularly East and Anglophone regions.

  5. Local CRAs demonstrate strong expertise in rating sectors such as banking, insurance, fintech, and infrastructure areas, where they possess a superior understanding of African market nuances compared to traditional global rating agencies.

Chinese Credit Rating Agencies: An Emerging Counterweight in Global Ratings? 

China’s credit rating industry has grown substantially over the past three decades, producing a set of domestic and internationally oriented agencies that collectively challenge the Big Three’s monopoly on global ratings.
The table below profiles China’s key CRAs from the largest domestic agency, China Chengxin Credit Rating Group (CCXI).

Key Takeaways:

  1. China’s CRA industry is dominated by China Chengxin Credit Rating Group (CCXI), which holds the largest domestic market share and operates internationally through its Hong Kong subsidiary CCXAP.
  2. Only China Chengxin Credit Rating Group (CCXI) currently rates African sovereigns, assigning long-term issuer credit ratings to 9 countries as of May 2026.
  3. Understanding these agencies matters for Africa as Chinese financing, Belt and Road investments, and growing South-South financial flows mean that Chinese CRA assessments will increasingly shape how African sovereigns and corporates are perceived in Asian and cross-border capital markets.
  4. CCXI is increasingly rating major African multilateral financial institutions, including African Export-Import Bank, Africa Finance Corporation, and Trade and Development Bank, all of which maintain investment-grade AAAg ratings with stable outlooks from the Chinese agency, reflecting their growing access to China’s capital markets and diversification of funding sources beyond traditional Western financial systems.

China Chengxin Credit Rating Group (CCXI)’s Rating Scales Overview: Which African Countries Are Rated?

The maps below show CCXI’s credit rating coverage across Africa, distinguishing between countries assigned investment grade status, those rated non-investment grade (speculative/junk), and those not yet rated.

Key Takeaways:

  1. CCXI has rated 9 African countries, covering approximately 16% of the continent, which is a meaningful but still limited footprint compared to Moody’s (27 countries), S&P, and Fitch (24 each).
  2. Of the 9 rated African countries, only Botswana holds investment-grade status.
  3. As of May 2026, CCXI has assigned stable outlooks to all its 9 rated countries, signaling confidence in their near-term credit trajectories amid global uncertainties.
  4. CCXI’s ratings potentially offer a more favorable lens for countries with deep economic links to China, incorporating factors such as infrastructure development, trade partnerships, and long-term growth potential that are sometimes underweighted by traditional agencies.
  5. The presence of an active Chinese CRA like CCXI diversifies the rating ecosystem and could help reduce over-reliance on Big Three assessments, potentially supporting more competitive borrowing terms for African nations.

Comparative Structuring of External Credit Assessment Institutions (ECAI) and Credit Rating Agencies (CRA) Recognition Frameworks

The following table synthesizes the listed African countries, providing a comparative directory of regulators, approved credit rating agencies, and specific regulatory instruments.

GLOSSARY 


A Cross-Agency Glossary on Credit Rating Scales

A Cross-Agency Glossary on Sovereign Ratings of African Countries

Overall DR’s Key Takeaways:

  1. Historical Milestone – The first African credit rating was issued to South Africa in 1994 by Moody’s and Fitch, post-apartheid, marking the continent’s entry into global credit markets. This pivotal moment set the stage for other African nations to seek ratings, though progress has been uneven due to methodological biases and limited CRA capacity.
  2. Limited Rating Coverage – Only 35 of 55 African countries are rated by the “Big Three,” leaving 20 nations, often smaller economies like Somalia or Equatorial Guinea, excluded from global financial systems. This gap restricts access to affordable capital, perpetuating reliance on high-cost loans or multilateral aid.
  3. Economic Impact of Misaligned Ratings – Undervalued ratings increase borrowing costs by 2-3% for sub-investment-grade countries, diverting resources from critical sectors like education and healthcare. For example, Zambia’s 2020 downgrade raised bond yields, exacerbating its debt crisis.
  4. Regional Disparities in Engagement – Resistance to CRA decisions is concentrated in West and East Africa (e.g., Ghana, Nigeria, Ethiopia), where economic reforms, such as Nigeria’s tech-driven growth or Ethiopia’s infrastructure investments, are often undervalued by global agencies.
  5. Advocacy for Structural Reform – The 29 statements reflect a broader movement toward financial sovereignty, with African leaders advocating for rating systems that align with the African Union’s Agenda 2063, emphasizing sustainable development and economic self-reliance.
  6. As of May 2026, all 9 African sovereigns with CCXI outlooks carry Stable outlooks compared to a pattern of frequent negative actions from the Big Three, thus meaningfully reducing borrowing cost pressure for rated African countries.
  7. The imminent launch of AfCRA, the expansion of CCXI’s African footprint, the inclusion of African credit agencies, and growing official pushback from African governments collectively signal a structural shift in how African sovereigns engage with and challenge the global rating system.

Previous DR work

  1. Reimagining Credit Rating Agencies for African Priorities: Policy Brief
  2. The Africa Disagreement Tax: How Credit Rating Divergence Is Increasing the Cost of African Finance. – Report
Scroll to Top

Follow us to stay updated