What's new

S&P downgrades Pakistan’s long-term credit rating

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,988
ISLAMABAD: Raising questions over economic fundamentals over the next two years, Standard & Poor’s on Monday downgraded Pakistan’s long-term credit rating to ‘B-Negative’ from ‘B’, as the new government struggled with structural reform push.

“Pakistan’s economic outlook, as well as its external position, have deteriorated well beyond our previous expectations,” said the New York-based rating agency, adding that it also lowered the long-term issue rating on senior unsecured debt and Sukuk bond to ‘B-’ from ‘B’.

With weaker economic settings and limited progress in addressing fiscal imbalances following the elections in mid-2018, the rating agency said: “The prospects for a rapid recovery in fiscal and external settings are now diminished.”

More modest growth prospects and limited reserve buffers will continue to challenge the country’s external position, even as the government receives financial aid from various partners. Negotia*tions with the International Monetary Fund had taken longer than anticipated, the S&P said, believing that the reform timeline would be more protracted in nature.

Says prospects for rapid recovery in fiscal, external settings now diminished

In the short-term, the agency affirmed Pakistan’s ‘B’ rating on the basis of expectations that the country would secure sufficient funding to meet its external obligations in the next one year and that neither external nor fiscal metrics would deteriorate well beyond current projections.

“We may raise our ratings on Pakistan if the economy materially outperforms our expectations, strengthening the country’s fiscal and external positions,” the agency said, but warned that ratings could be lowered further if Pakistan’s fiscal, economic or external indicators continued to deteriorate, such that the government’s external debt repayments came under pressure.

The S&P said the GDP growth rate would fall to four per cent this year (2019) from 5.8pc last year (2018) and then stay 3.5pc for the next two years (2020 and 2021) and fall further to 3.3pc by 2022.

It noted that Pakistan had secured financial aid from bilateral partners to address its immediate external financing needs, but fiscal and external imbalances would remain elevated. The government’s protracted negotiations with the IMF suggest that any resulting reforms, whether under the programme or otherwise, will be less expedient than previously anticipated.

Read more: Special report: What will the year ahead bring for Pakistan's economy?

Fiscal consolidation will be challenging as the economy slows owing to a paucity of growth drivers, and as the stimulus from China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) investment fades. Although Pakistan will benefit over the long term from the associated improvements in its infrastructure, this will be counterbalanced by heightened fiscal and external stresses over the next few years.

“In our opinion, the government led by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party has yet to introduce fiscal measures that are sufficient to bring about a substantial improvement in the general government deficit,” the S&P noted. It expressed concern over the measures taken in the October 2018 mini-budget to increase revenue from petroleum products and infrastructure development and said additional measures would be necessary to bring about a more meaningful decline in the fiscal deficit.

The second mini-budget presented in January should be marginally supportive of the economy, but is unlikely to have a significant impact on fiscal imbalances.

The ratings on Pakistan remain constrained by a narrow tax base and domestic and external security risks, which continue to be high. Although the country’s security situation has gradually improved over the recent years, the ongoing vulnerabilities weaken the government’s effectiveness and weigh on the business climate. Moreover, the change in government after the elections failed to yield serious reform push on institutional and economic profile even though it publicly acknowledged the necessity of economic and fiscal reform. “Progress has been slower than anticipated,” the rating agency said.

On top of that, the country’s very low income level remained a rating weakness and inadequate infrastructure and security risks continued to act as structural impediments to foreign direct investment and sustainable economic growth. “The 2018 general elections have thus far not elicited a significant improvement in Pakistan’s economic environment and these difficulties would persist for some time, and key metrics will worsen further through 2019,” the S&P said.

The agency estimated Pakistan’s GDP per capita at just over $1,500 in 2018, one of the lowest, and forecast annual real GDP growth to an average 3.6pc over 2019-22. Pakistan’s per capita GDP growth is somewhat lower, at about 1.5pc, due to a fast-growing population.

“Our weaker growth projections mainly reflect the diminishing stimulatory impact of the investments associated with the CPEC, negative fiscal impulse as the government looks to rein in its deficit, and declining economic sentiment. Growth will also be constrained by domestic security challenges and long-lasting hostility with neighbouring India and Afghanistan,” it added.

The S&P said the previous Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government had improved the security situation, and “we would expect the PTI government to continue this positive momentum to improve business climate”.

It said the pressure on external accounts would increase further in 2019 and general government debt was forecast to rise toward 70.2pc of GDP by the end of fiscal 2022, with slower GDP growth and still-elevated deficits. Likewise, Pakistan’s interest-servicing burden will remain elevated, at an average of 32.4pc of revenues.

The rating agency expected the current account deficit to decline somewhat over the next two years, with energy prices falling and the economy slowing, but Pakistan’s external financing and indebtedness metrics remained stressed. The country’s high degree of external stress is marked by a significant rise in the economy’s gross external financing needs relative to its current account receipts and useable reserves. “We forecast this ratio will climb to 151.1pc at the end of fiscal 2019, versus approximately 131pc in the previous year,” it said.

The S&P also projected the country’s narrow net external debt to rise to more than 170pc of current account receipts from just below 140pc the previous year. Though external aid will help meet immediate payment needs, indebtedness will continue to rise in kind. Although the new government has elucidated its aim to consolidate its fiscal accounts, the rating agency believed the progress would be diminished by political constraints, especially in view of more difficult economic circumstances.


https://www.dawn.com/news/1461907/sp-downgrades-pakistans-long-term-credit-rating
 
135 views, 1 reply.

PTI supporters taking a detour. :91:
 
Yes other than that these rating agencies are sell outs of Western world we all know what happened in 2008.

Bingo. But there is no other legitimate alternative though
 
Bingo. But there is no other legitimate alternative though

Yes, but even credit system and all these instruments are made by these countries, you can't play their game and compete when odds will be against you.
 
Yes, but even credit system and all these instruments are made by these countries, you can't play their game and compete when odds will be against you.

Well..As long as these countries are the ones doling out loans, there is no other option but to follow their credit rating system. There's gotto be an alternative for world bank. I know China started something a few years ago but it will take a while to be a viable alternative.
 
Well..As long as these countries are the ones doling out loans, there is no other option but to follow their credit rating system. There's gotto be an alternative for world bank. I know China started something a few years ago but it will take a while to be a viable alternative.

Yes , no other go, even I love to see my FICO score which seems like the biggest farce, apparently having more credit card helps better the score, look at the nonsense lol.
 
135 views, 1 reply.

PTI supporters taking a detour. :91:

You have a pragmatic view of the situation.

I have been making the same points in dozens of posts on this forum, and S&P is saying the same thing.

Economics is not that difficult. If a country produces goods and services the rest of the world wants to buys, whether it be software, tourism, automobiles, health services, pharma etc., then it will earn foreign exchanges and be able to pay for its imports.

Nawaz, irrespective of whether he stole "hundreds of millions of dollars" had the right ideas for Pakistan's economic development, the foremost of which was an improvement in the security situation. The necessary condition for that improvement would be peace with India. However, peace with India does not suit the Army, as it weakens it domestically.

Pakistan's lost wealth creation every year is of the order of a hundred of billion dollars. By focussing on what Nawaz may or may not have stolen, his critics miss the big picture.

IK spends his time insulting Modi ("small man") and discussing the conditions of Muslims in India. The Army and ISI continue supporting jihadi groups who kill US (Haqqanis) and Indian soldiers. There is going to be no improvement in the security situation under IK. Note that S&P writes "security risks continued to act as structural impediments to foreign direct investment".

This year Pakistan has borrowed about $12+ billion from China, Saudis and other Mid-eastern countries. Obviously this is not tenable and there will be a reckoning in future years. However "friendly" these countries may be to Pakistan, they will not continue donating these amounts of money. There are of course nasty strings attached to these borrowings.

These facts lead S&P to write "“Pakistan’s economic outlook, as well as its external position, have deteriorated well beyond our previous expectations”. To improve the economy needs pragmatic thinking and getting rid of an obsession with Kashmir, Afghanistan etc.
 
Yes , no other go, even I love to see my FICO score which seems like the biggest farce, apparently having more credit card helps better the score, look at the nonsense lol.

I you have credit cards and make regular payments, you have demonstrated you pay your debts, in which case people are ready to lend more to you.
 
Bingo. But there is no other legitimate alternative though

I was hoping for cryptocurrency to provide a decent alternative to escape the global cabal of mafia finance firms but sadly that was not to be.
 
This will raise the cost of borrowing and bond yields will go up.

There aren't a whole lot of buyers for freshly issued junk debt, and a country would usually refrain from issuing debt at 15% or 30% interest rates (as S&P ratings would require) as it would have to answer to the public if it did so.

These ratings main impact is on the price at which already issued Pakistani debt which are traded between different private (not governmental) parties.
 
I was hoping for cryptocurrency to provide a decent alternative to escape the global cabal of mafia finance firms but sadly that was not to be.

If crypto currencies really did become widely used, and did not align with the Western financial system or the interests of their governments, you can get that the Western nations would outlaw purchases using cryptocurrencies and their value would collapse immediately.
 
If crypto currencies really did become widely used, and did not align with the Western financial system or the interests of their governments, you can get that the Western nations would outlaw purchases using cryptocurrencies and their value would collapse immediately.

Yeah, true that.
 
There aren't a whole lot of buyers for freshly issued junk debt, and a country would usually refrain from issuing debt at 15% or 30% interest rates (as S&P ratings would require) as it would have to answer to the public if it did so.

These ratings main impact is on the price at which already issued Pakistani debt which are traded between different private (not governmental) parties.

the global junk market is a multi trillion dollar market, and contrary to what your saying there are consistent buyers for junk debt, which usually gets bid for many times to issue size espcially for big name issues such as brazil, sa, nigeria, etc, pak supply of a billion odd would get gobbled up without anyone even noticing if pak wanted to come to issuing.

your second point doesnt really make sense either, the snp do not "require" anyone to issue at any given rate. the premium as you slide down the ratings scale is driven by scarcity of supply. if investors are desperate for yield, borrowing costs would come down regardless of the nominal rating.

borrowing costs are a multi faceted variable global rate outlooks, supply, investor sentiment, short term shocks, etc all play as much of a role as a ratings agencies.

the only caveat being when a company or country falls from investment grade to junk, in which case many funds, banks, etc have to sell it because they cant hold junk by mandate, then u can see may a 0.5% increase in borrowing costs.
 
the global junk market is a multi trillion dollar market, and contrary to what your saying there are consistent buyers for junk debt, which usually gets bid for many times to issue size espcially for big name issues such as brazil, sa, nigeria, etc, pak supply of a billion odd would get gobbled up without anyone even noticing if pak wanted to come to issuing.

When was the last time Pakistan issued debt to private buyers? I admit I have incomplete information in this matter, and if you are able to point me to a cite, please do so.

your second point doesnt really make sense either, the snp do not "require" anyone to issue at any given rate. the premium as you slide down the ratings scale is driven by scarcity of supply. if investors are desperate for yield, borrowing costs would come down regardless of the nominal rating.

Of course S&P doesn't "require" any seller to offer a particular yield, but most buyers pay attention to S&P ratings and a fall in S&Ps ratings requires sellers to sell at lower prices (higher yields).

borrowing costs are a multi faceted variable global rate outlooks, supply, investor sentiment, short term shocks, etc all play as much of a role as a ratings agencies.

the only caveat being when a company or country falls from investment grade to junk, in which case many funds, banks, etc have to sell it because they cant hold junk by mandate, then u can see may a 0.5% increase in borrowing costs.

Given Pakistan's current outlook, where it is essentially balancing its foreign exchange inflows and outflows by borrowing money from China, SA etc., what hope does a buyer of Pakistan's sovereign have that he will be paid back before China and SA are? Would you buy newly issued Pakistani sovereign debt keeping in mind that the difference between inflows and outflows is about $10+ billion a year? And if you did buy, what yield would you require?
 
Last edited:
your second point doesnt really make sense either, the snp do not "require" anyone to issue at any given rate.

I did not use the word "require" to mean that Pakistan is "legally required" to sell its debt at a higher yield, rather I meant that the market would "require" Pakistan to offer a higher yield.
 
your second point doesnt really make sense either, the snp do not "require" anyone to issue at any given rate.

I did not use the word "require" to mean that Pakistan is "legally required" to sell its debt at a higher yield, rather I meant that the market would "require" Pakistan to offer a higher yield.
 
the global junk market is a multi trillion dollar market, and contrary to what your saying there are consistent buyers for junk debt, which usually gets bid for many times to issue size espcially for big name issues such as brazil, sa, nigeria, etc, pak supply of a billion odd would get gobbled up without anyone even noticing if pak wanted to come to issuing.

A billion dollar (especially short term) may get "gobbled up" by the market, but Pakistan's requirement is more like $20+ billion.

I would think a large issue of any new long term debt by Pakistan would be difficult to sell. Take a look at the following yields on Pakistani long term debt, they are at 13%+ for 10+ year maturity.

Screen Shot 2019-02-05 at 5.34.11 PM.jpg

http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/pakistan/

Would the Pakistani government sell new debt of 10+ year maturity to private parties? Most likely not in substantial quantities. It is not as if the Pakistani government can go to the markets and say "I am selling $15 billion of new 10-year debt at an yield of 13%". The borrowing cost for Pakistan would promptly shoot up way beyond 13%, as the new debt would not have collateral backing it (assuming Pakistan doesn't start pledging its infrastructure) and buyers would have little legal recourse in the case of default as this would be sovereign debt.

IMF loans of course would require a much lower interest payment than 13%, but IMF requires Pakistan to take steps for long-term solvency, which PTI is currently resisting.
 
Last edited:
When was the last time Pakistan issued debt to private buyers? I admit I have incomplete information in this matter, and if you are able to point me to a cite, please do so.

about 18 months ago, give or take a few months.

Given Pakistan's current outlook, where it is essentially balancing its foreign exchange inflows and outflows by borrowing money from China, SA etc., what hope does a buyer of Pakistan's sovereign have that he will be paid back before China and SA are? Would you buy newly issued Pakistani sovereign debt keeping in mind that the difference between inflows and outflows is about $10+ billion a year? And if you did buy, what yield would you require?

pak has defaulted in the past, on local power deals in rupees like ten years ago or something, but usd bond payments were made and paid up on maturity. its simply too big a fall out for relatively small portion of debt to default on eurobonds, plus the negative press, etc, is not worth it.

pak has a huge young population, and nominal levels of debt arent that high. the real problem is a lot of borrowing by the previous government went into keeping the pkr artifically propped up to keep inflation low, increased imports, and what we are seeing now is the unwinding of that spending binge.

I did not use the word "require" to mean that Pakistan is "legally required" to sell its debt at a higher yield, rather I meant that the market would "require" Pakistan to offer a higher yield.

theoretically, but as i said market factors in the real world trump nominal credit ratings, an entity rated A will pay lower borrowing costs in a low rate environment than a AAA rated entity in a higher rate environment.

the real killer for developing countries is servicing debt in a rising rate environment as they cannot print the foreign currency they owe, so long as the base rate expectations remain dovish, poorer countries will manage debt burdens, and they key is in deleveraging before global rates start increasing, which may be a year or two away still.
 
A billion dollar (especially short term) may get "gobbled up" by the market, but Pakistan's requirement is more like $20+ billion.

I would think a large issue of any new long term debt by Pakistan would be difficult to sell. Take a look at the following yields on Pakistani long term debt, they are at 13%+ for 10+ year maturity.

View attachment 87672

http://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/country/pakistan/

Would the Pakistani government sell new debt of 10+ year maturity to private parties? Most likely not in substantial quantities. It is not as if the Pakistani government can go to the markets and say "I am selling $15 billion of new 10-year debt at an yield of 13%". The borrowing cost for Pakistan would promptly shoot up way beyond 13%, as the new debt would not have collateral backing it (assuming Pakistan doesn't start pledging its infrastructure) and buyers would have little legal recourse in the case of default as this would be sovereign debt.

IMF loans of course would require a much lower interest payment than 13%, but IMF requires Pakistan to take steps for long-term solvency, which PTI is currently resisting.

your comparing USD issuing to PKR borrowing rate, the 13+% you are referring to is local currency bonds sold primarily to pakistani banks, financial institutions and local high net worth individuals.

paks usd borrowing costs are between 6% and 7.5% from short term to about 10 years out, which is obviously poorer than stronger economies but not as bad as being made out in this thread, nor has it been impacted massively on being downgraded, it was junk rated before, its still junk.

few countries collateralises eurobond issuance unless it is for certain types of sukuks, even in which case the collaterlisation is rarely bricks and mortar assets, rather a revenue stream from some project.

in an ideal world pak would curb defense spending and route it towards development funding, growth is poor, and that is the main problem, if you can outpace your borrowing needs you will remain virtually perennially credit worthy.
 
your comparing USD issuing to PKR borrowing rate, the 13+% you are referring to is local currency bonds sold primarily to pakistani banks, financial institutions and local high net worth individuals.

Thanks for your replies. Yes, the table is for interest rates in the domestic currency.

paks usd borrowing costs are between 6% and 7.5% from short term to about 10 years out, which is obviously poorer than stronger economies but not as bad as being made out in this thread,

The difference between Pakistan's inflation and US inflation is about 5% (assuming US inflation to be about 2%). I couldn't find a source for Pakistan's dollar borrowing costs, but if you believe in the "international Fisher effect", it should be about 13.25% - 5% = 8.25%, which is about what you wrote.

https://tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/inflation-cpi

nor has it been impacted massively on being downgraded, it was junk rated before, its still junk.

If you look at the section "10Y Bond Yield Spread - Pakistan vs Main Countries" of the following link, you will see that the change in interest rate for Pakistan wrt other countries has been about 3.5% to 5% over the last 6 months. As this is a change in the rates (in a situation of relatively stable inflation), it doesn't matter if it is USD or PKR borrowings.

Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 7.13.32 PM.jpg

It appears that the market is demanding higher yields for Pakistani government's borrowings. Yes, this is not an immediate impact of S&P's downgrade, but rather an ongoing process occurring in the last few months. PTI's supporters will claim that it was bound to happen and is not due to wrong priorities of the PTI government.

few countries collateralises eurobond issuance unless it is for certain types of sukuks, even in which case the collaterlisation is rarely bricks and mortar assets, rather a revenue stream from some project.

Yes, and the lack of collateralization pushes up the interest rate.

in an ideal world pak would curb defense spending and route it towards development funding, growth is poor, and that is the main problem, if you can outpace your borrowing needs you will remain virtually perennially credit worthy.

Pakistan has very good human capital. Its per cap GDP could easily be three to five times of the current value. Lack of security which scares away investors, the tight grip the establishment has on the economy etc. are holding Pakistan back.
 
pak has a huge young population, and nominal levels of debt arent that high. the real problem is a lot of borrowing by the previous government went into keeping the pkr artifically propped up to keep inflation low, increased imports, and what we are seeing now is the unwinding of that spending binge.

The real problem for Pakistan is its failure to develop modern industries. Its exports are mainly textiles and some commodity like goods. Given its high quality human capital, it really should be doing much better. The fastest (and possibly the only) way for modern industries to develop is to get foreign investments. I don't have to elaborate what Pakistan needs to do to raise its profile as an investment destination.
 
Thanks for your replies. Yes, the table is for interest rates in the domestic currency.

no prob.

If you look at the section "10Y Bond Yield Spread - Pakistan vs Main Countries" of the following link, you will see that the change in interest rate for Pakistan wrt other countries has been about 3.5% to 5% over the last 6 months. As this is a change in the rates (in a situation of relatively stable inflation), it doesn't matter if it is USD or PKR borrowings.

View attachment 87704

It appears that the market is demanding higher yields for Pakistani government's borrowings. Yes, this is not an immediate impact of S&P's downgrade, but rather an ongoing process occurring in the last few months. PTI's supporters will claim that it was bound to happen and is not due to wrong priorities of the PTI government.

incorrect, the currency of issue does matter. paks pkr borrowing curve is fairly flat, the spread widening you see are direct results of the central bank raising local base rates, see this link.

the base rate has been raised 300 bps in the last six months which explains most of the spread widening.

Pakistan has very good human capital. Its per cap GDP could easily be three to five times of the current value. Lack of security which scares away investors, the tight grip the establishment has on the economy etc. are holding Pakistan back.

on the contrary pakistans strongest period of fdi coincided with the peak in terrorist attacks, in the late noughties. i will have to disagree with you on the following.....

The real problem for Pakistan is its failure to develop modern industries. Its exports are mainly textiles and some commodity like goods. Given its high quality human capital, it really should be doing much better. The fastest (and possibly the only) way for modern industries to develop is to get foreign investments. I don't have to elaborate what Pakistan needs to do to raise its profile as an investment destination.

what you are talking about is true, however what we are seeing in the current downgrade is a liquidity issue, which i believe is, one amongst other factors, however still primarily driven by a currency which was appreciated to unsustainable levels by the previous regime.
 
no prob.

incorrect, the currency of issue does matter. paks pkr borrowing curve is fairly flat, the spread widening you see are direct results of the central bank raising local base rates, see this link.

The central bank raising domestic rates by 350+ basis points, while its external borrowing rate remains the same is a bit contradictory. One explanation can be that a larger domestic inflation is expected, and lenders in the domestic currency need to be compensated for that. However it seems that Pakistan's inflation rate is quite stable around 7%.

https://tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/inflation-cpi

Pushing up domestic interest rates has severe fiscal consequences, with a damper put on investments and general economic activity. It is not something central banks do unless threatened with inflation, or forced to due to falling credit worthiness.

Maybe the external borrowing rates that I am thinking about are the longer term rates, while the external rates that you mention which are stable are the short term rates. I am not even sure that term borrowing (> 10 years) from non-governmental institutions is an option for Pakistan at this point. You had mentioned that Pakistan issued debt about 18 months ago, I wonder what the maturity of that debt was?

on the contrary pakistans strongest period of fdi coincided with the peak in terrorist attacks, in the late noughties. i will have to disagree with you on the following.....

It is a cumulative effect. These attacks may have peaked at the end of the last century, but the bad publicity due to Daniel Pearl, Bin Laden, suicide bombings of Shia mosques, the accusations of Pakistan helping the Afghan Taliban etc. keep accumulating. Reputation is gradually lost and can only be gradually regained.

what you are talking about is true, however what we are seeing in the current downgrade is a liquidity issue, which i believe is, one amongst other factors, however still primarily driven by a currency which was appreciated to unsustainable levels by the previous regime.

You are looking at it from a finance perspective. And indeed liquidity is very important in the short run. Looking at the economy as a whole, the level of the currency would have been sustainable if exports were growing. Exports have not been growing. Forget about new industries (like software and pharma which are major foreign currency earners for India), even in textiles Pakistan is falling behind. With the end of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and its successor Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, the competition has increased. Bangladesh has gone from exporting less than Pakistan a decade ago, to now exporting about double.

Thinking about financial issues such as liquidity is necessary for the short term, but for the longer term the economy needs to provide a stable and secure environment for entrepreneurs to make investments.
 
Last edited:
Moody's changes Pakistan banking system outlook to negative

Moody’s Investors Service has changed its outlook for the banking system in Pakistan (B3 negative) to negative from stable.

“Over the next 12-18 months, banks in Pakistan will see their credit profiles challenged by their high exposure to the country’s low-rated sovereign debt and a slowing economy,” Constantinos Kypreos, Moody’s Senior Vice President, said in a report released Monday.

The banks’ operating conditions will be difficult, with Pakistan’s real GDP growth slowing to 4.3% in the fiscal year ending June 2019, down from 5.8% in 2018, the report said.

The Pakistani rupee has depreciated 30% versus the US dollar, interest rates rose by 450 basis points between December 2017 and February 2019, and inflation is rising; all factors which affect business and consumer confidence and the private sector’s debt repayment capacities, Moody’s noted.

The agency also pointed out that Pakistan's banks face the risk of macroeconomic contagion through a range of channels, including: 1) their large holdings of government securities, which caps their credit profiles to the sovereign, and 2) from the authorities' weakening capacity to support the banks in case of need, as evidenced by the negative outlook on the sovereign rating.

“On a more positive note, the banks will continue to benefit from stable customer deposits and high liquidity,” Kypreos added.

The negative outlook is based on Moody’s assessment of six drivers: operating environment (deteriorating); asset risk (deteriorating), capital (stable); profitability and efficiency (stable); funding and liquidity (stable); and government support (deteriorating).

Moody’s rates the five largest banks in Pakistan by assets. Together, these banks account for around 50% of system deposits.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/227818-moodys-changes-pakistan-banking-system-outlook-to-negative
 
Back
Top