The Path to a Successful Rating

A financial institution in Austria faced an important strategic decision: it aimed to obtain an official rating from an international agency — a seal of quality that builds trust and opens the door to capital markets. Yet the path to achieving this goal was anything but straightforward. A rating is not merely a set of letters or a simple score. It is the outcome of a complex process in which an institution must demonstrate its stability, strategy, and long-term viability. All these factors feed into the credit assessment conducted by the three major global rating agencies.

Initial Situation

The Financial Institution was solidly positioned, with a stable business model and growing earnings. Still, pursuing an official rating was uncharted territory. Management understood that good preparation could make the decisive difference — between receiving a barely adequate grade or achieving a rating that inspires confidence.

At this point, Rating Advisory became involved. From the very beginning, it was agreed to structure the project into two phases: first, the creation of shadow ratings — essentially a simulation of the ratings likely to be assigned by each of the major agencies, including identifying the most suitable agency (phase 1); only then would the formal rating process begin with the selected agency (phase 2).

Phase 1: The Shadow Rating

The first question was which rating agency the bank should choose. Rather than making this decision based on intuition, Rating Advisory prepared the choice systematically and thoroughly.

Understanding the perspective of the three major agencies was essential. Each agency applies its own methodology, emphasizes different factors, weights those factors differently, and interprets figures in its own way — in other words, each views the world “through its own lens.”

Over several weeks of intensive work, financial data, risk analyses, and strategic plans were prepared and assessed from the standpoint of each of the agencies. This phase was not only analytical but also revealing: Senior management gained a clear understanding of the institution’s strengths and of where refinements might still be needed — all from the perspective of the rating agencies, and without having to conduct a single meeting with international rating agency analysts or pay them any upfront fees.

In the end, the choice became clear: the bank selected a globally renowned agency whose methodology aligned best with its structure. And yes — pricing considerations also played a role in the final decision.

Phase 2: The Rating Process

With the agency selected, the actual rating process began — a period marked by intensive preparation and close coordination. Together with Rating Advisory, the bank developed a compelling overall narrative: the so-called rating story, which distilled figures, data, strategy, and future prospects into a clear and coherent presentation.

This was followed by workshops, Q&A rounds, discussions with top management, countless emails, and continuous refinement of details. Which developments should be emphasized? How were the strengths of the business model best highlighted? Every element was shaped with the agency’s methodology in mind — ensuring that the story would be interpreted as intended.

This phase was not only technical but also emotionally demanding. A rating always requires allowing external parties a deep look inside the organization. Yet the thorough preparation paid off: the institution was able to present a clear, transparent, and highly professional set of materials. The story held together seamlessly.

The Result

After several months of intensive work, the moment arrived: the rating agency published the result — a rating that matched the bank’s expectations precisely. It was the reward for a strategically planned and expertly guided journey.

The rating strengthened the institution’s position in the capital markets and reinforced its internal sense of confidence. Bank employees could take pride in what had been achieved.
The rating process improved internal structures, constructively challenged decision-making paths, and strengthened trust in the bank’s long-term stability.

Looking Back

In retrospect, the key to success lay in the combination of preparation, structure, and professional guidance.
The shadow rating helped identify the right agency and provided a realistic view of the institution’s credit profile.
The support throughout the formal rating process ensured that every thread came together — professionally, transparently, and with clear direction.

The project became a prime example of how a rating is not only an end goal but also a learning journey.

Both strengthens the bank for the long term.