Moody's and S&P Ratings: Are They Equivalent? Conservative Ratings and Split Rated Bond Yields

We examine the relative impact of Moody's and S&P ratings on bond yields and find that at issuance, yields on split rated bonds with superior Moody's ratings are about 8 basis points lower than yields on split rated bonds with superior S&P ratings. This suggests that investors differentiate between the two ratings and assign more weight to the ratings from Moody’s, the more conservative rating agency. Moody's becomes more conservative after 1998 and the impact of a superior Moody's rating becomes stronger. Furthermore, the differential impact of the two ratings is more pronounced for the more opaque Rule 144A issues.     

Cross‐Listed Bonds,Information Asymmetry,and Conservatism in Credit Ratings

We propose information asymmetry as an additional explanation for rating conservatism. Because information asymmetry is likely higher for cross‐listed bonds than for U.S. bonds, we expect and find that cross‐listed bonds are rated more conservatively than U.S. domestic bonds at issuance. Further, cross‐listed bonds receive less frequent upgrades and take longer to be upgraded after issuance. Because lower ratings might also reflect higher default risk based on agencies’ private information, we conduct additional tests to discriminate between the rating conservatism and private information explanations. The results are consistent with ratings conservatism and inconsistent with the private information explanation.     

INFORMATION OPACITY AND FITCH BOND RATINGS

We examine the marginal impact of Fitch ratings on the at‐issuance yields of industrial and utility bonds rated by Moody's and Standard & Poor's. We find that Fitch ratings reduce the yield premiums on information‐opaque bonds by about 30%, or 15 basis points. The finding is robust even when a Fitch rating exactly equals the two major ratings or their average. The findings suggest that Fitch ratings are not redundant but bring additional information to investors. Increased competition in the rating industry enhances the information efficiency of the bond market, and the existence of smaller rating agencies is economically justified.     

SPLIT RATINGS,BOND YIELDS,AND UNDERWRITER SPREADS

A split bond rating occurs when Moody's and Standard & Poor give different ratings to the same issue. We examine 1,277 public industrial bond issues, where 221 have split ratings, issued from 1980 through mid-1993. For split-rated industrial bonds, neither rating agency consistently gives higher ratings. Earlier studies find yields for split-rated bonds to be priced as either the higher or the lower of the ratings. We find the yields on split-rated bonds to be an average of the yields on the two ratings. Split ratings for industrial bonds appear to reflect random differences on the part of rating agencies. Our results differ from previous studies because we use a substantially larger sample and include high-yield bonds. As long as a bond has an investment-grade rating, the underwriter fees are found to be essentially the same for all rating categories. Below investment grade, the rating substantially affects the underwriter fee. Thus, split ratings for high-yield bonds have an important effect on the underwriter spread.     

Competition in the credit rating Industry: Benefits for investors and issuers

We empirically investigate the benefits of multiple ratings not only at issuance of debt instruments but also during the subsequent monitoring phase. Using a record of monthly credit rating migration data on all U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities rated by Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch between 1985 and 2012 (154,600 tranches), our results provide empirical evidence that rating agencies put more effort in rating and outlook revisions when tranches have assigned multiple ratings. Furthermore, we see that in the case of multiple ratings, agencies do a better job in discriminating tranches with respect to default risk. On the downside, we observe a shift in collateral towards senior tranches and incentives for issuers to engage in rating shopping activities, but find no evidence that rating agencies exploit such behavior to attract more rating business. Our results contribute to the literature on information production of credit ratings and extend the perspective to the monitoring period after issuance.     

Split Bond Ratings and Information Opacity Premiums

This paper examines the relationship between split bond ratings and bond yields at the notch level for newly issued corporate bonds. We find that split rated bonds average a 7-basis-point yield premium over nonsplit rated bonds of similar credit risk. The yield premium increases from 5 basis points for one-notch splits to 15 (20) basis points for two-notch (three-notch) splits. These findings indicate that investors demand higher yields for split rated bonds to compensate for the information opacity of such bonds. In addition, the yield premium for split rated bonds is higher during economic recessions, indicating investors are more risk averse during economic downturns. Consequently, split ratings impose higher borrowing costs for firms, especially during economic downturns.     

Does it matter who pays for bond ratings? Historical evidence

We test whether Standard and Poor's (S&P) assigns higher bond ratings after it switches from investor-pay to issuer-pay fees in 1974. Using Moody's rating for the same bond as a benchmark, we find that when S&P charges investors and Moody's charges issuers, S&P's ratings are lower than Moody's. Once S&P adopts issuer-pay, its ratings increase and no longer differ from Moody's. More importantly, S&P only assigns higher ratings for bonds that are subject to greater conflicts of interest, measured by higher expected rating fees or lower credit quality. These findings suggest that the issuer-pay model leads to higher ratings.     

The Costs of Issuing Preferred Stock

U.S. firms commonly use preferred stocks to raise external capital. Yet this hybrid security's issuance costs and offer yields have not been previously examined in a systematic manner. We analyze a sample of 3,042 U.S. preferred stocks issued between 1980 and 1999. We find that convertible issues, which are riskier than straight issues, entail higher gross spreads and other direct expenses. Scale, credit rating, and industry effects influence gross spreads and issuance costs. We also compare preferred stocks yields with various bellwether bond yields. Our results support the tax‐based argument that suggests that yields on preferred stocks should be lower than comparable risky bonds.     

The informational content of unsolicited ratings

This paper investigates whether the stock market reacts to unsolicited ratings for a sample of firms rated by S&P between January 1996 and December 2005. We first analyze the stock market reaction to the assignment of an initial unsolicited rating. We find evidence that this reaction is negative and particularly accentuated for small Japanese firms. We then analyze the stock market reaction to changes in unsolicited ratings for a Japanese sub-sample and find that here too the stock market reacts negatively. Our results imply that unsolicited ratings convey new information to the stock market and that investors react to this information. Although unsolicited ratings are based on publicly available information only, the stock market seems to be inefficient in processing this information for Japanese companies.     

债券评级机构变更——基于评级选购与评级迎合视角

本文以2008年至2017年的公司债券为样本,研究了发行人变更评级机构的影响,以此来解释评级市场上发行人频繁变更评级机构的现象。本文发现发行人变更评级机构后,其信用等级得到显著提升。发行人变更评级机构的行为对信用等级的影响在以下两种情形中更显著:一是当发行人所处行业或评级机构所在的评级市场竞争激烈时;二是当发行人主体评级位于AA信用等级的临界点时。进一步研究发现,考虑到评级机构变更与信用等级之间的交互影响,变更评级机构的发行人整体上可实现发债成本的降低。但该类发行人未来的违约风险增加、经营业绩下降。最后,本文发现债券发行规模较大以及非国有发行人更倾向于变更评级机构来提高信用等级。本文通过分析发行人更换信用评级机构的动机和后果,为监管部门构建以评级质量为导向的良性竞争环境提供借鉴参考。     

Managerial ability and bond rating changes

This study examines the relation between managerial ability and bond credit rating changes. We attempt to add to the credit rating agency literature by exploring the role managerial ability plays in the initial bond rating assignments and in rating changes. We predict firms with more‐able managers are more likely to have higher bond ratings and to be more able to have a positive influence on rating changes. We find a significant and positive relation between managerial ability and change in credit ratings, suggesting that more‐able managers can take effective actions to improve their credit ratings.     

Rating Agency Reputation,the Global Financial Crisis,and the Cost of Debt

Why do foreign firms obtain credit ratings by global rating agencies rather than from their home country's rating agencies even though global raters typically assign lower credit ratings when these foreign firms issue bonds in their home currencies? We find that bonds rated by a global agency decreased yields 11‐14 basis points (bps) when compared to those rated by Japanese rating agencies but, during the 2007‐2009 financial crisis, the yields on these Japanese bonds increased 12‐17 bps, thus fully negating the advantage of obtaining a bond rating from a global rater. This suggests that the reputation of global rating agencies declined during the 2007‐2009 crisis period.     

The adjustment of credit ratings in advance of defaults

This paper assesses biases in credit ratings and lead–lag relationships for near-to-default issuers with multiple ratings by Moody’s and S&P. Based on defaults from 1997 to 2004, we find evidence that Moody’s seems to adjust its ratings to increasing default risk in a timelier manner than S&P. Second, credit ratings by the two US-based agencies are not subject to any home preference. Third, given a downgrade (upgrade) by the first rating agency, subsequent downgrades (upgrades) by the second rating agency are of greater magnitude in the short term. Fourth, harsher rating changes by one agency are followed by harsher rating changes in the same direction by the second agency. Fifth, rating changes by the second rating agency are significantly more likely after downgrades than after upgrades by the first rating agency. Additionally, we find evidence for serial correlation in rating changes up to 90 days subsequent to the rating change of interest after controlling for rating changes by the second rating agency.     

Does the Dodd-Frank Act reduce the conflict of interests of credit rating agencies?

I compare issuer-paid ratings, represented by Standard & Poor's (S&P) to investor-paid ratings, represented by Egan-Jones Ratings Company (EJR), after the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. My results show that S&P ratings are lower than EJR ratings in the post-Dodd-Frank period, especially for firms able to generate revenue to credit rating agencies (CRAs); i.e., firms with a large bond issuance, larger firms, and low-performing firms. Further, I find evidence of a greater accuracy of S&P ratings relative to EJR ratings in the post-Act period as shown by the lower probability of large credit rating changes and rating reversals. Finally, I show that issuer-paid ratings are more concerned about providing timely ratings in the post-Dodd-Frank period, thus protecting their reputation as leading information providers, than investor-paid ratings. My results are robust to a wide battery of robustness tests.     

A comparative analysis of ex ante credit spreads: Structured finance versus straight debt finance

This paper examines the pricing of structured finance (SF) – asset-backed securities (ABS), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) – and straight debt finance transactions. Using a cross-section of 24,525 European bonds issued by financial and nonfinancial firms in the 2000–2016 period, we show that although ratings are the most important pricing determinant for SF and corporate bonds (CB) at issuance, investors rely on other contractual, macroeconomic, and firms’ characteristics beyond these ratings. We find that CDO tranches have, on average, higher credit spreads than similarly rated CB, while investors are not compensated for facing higher systematic risk components in relation to investment-grade ABS and MBS. Our results also support the hypothesis of SF transactions as mechanisms of reducing funding costs: SF transactions’ weighted average spread is lower than that of comparable CB and originating firms’ creditworthiness does not deteriorate when compared to a sample of matched firms.     

A Comparison of Bond Ratings from Moody's S&P and Fitch IBCA

Previous research has found that the bond market values the ratings of Moody's and Standard & Poor's. This paper extends earlier research by comparing the ratings of Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and Fitch IBCA. The authors examine a very large database with monthly observations of bonds and bond ratings over a five‐year time period. The analysis focuses on comparing rating levels, rating changes, and the impact of ratings on bond yields. The results show that firms with publicly available Fitch IBCA ratings have higher ratings from Moody's and S&P than firms without Fitch IBCA ratings. The typical firm releasing a Fitch IBCA rating has a lower yield (controlling for Moody's and S&P rating), a more stable rating, and is more likely to receive an upgrade. For split‐rated bonds (Moody's vs. S&P), Fitch IBCA serves as a tiebreaker. This evidence is consistent with the bond market valuing the ratings of all three raters—Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch IBCA.     

Sovereign credit ratings and financial markets linkages: Application to European data

We use EU sovereign bond yield and CDS spreads daily data to carry out an event study analysis on the reaction of government yield spreads before and after announcements from rating agencies (Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, Fitch). Our results show significant responses of government bond yield spreads to changes in rating notations and outlook, particularly in the case of negative announcements. Announcements are not anticipated at 1–2 months horizon but there is bi-directional causality between ratings and spreads within 1–2 weeks; spillover effects especially among EMU countries and from lower rated countries to higher rated countries; and persistence effects for recently downgraded countries.     

私有信息、评级偏差和中国评级机构的市场声誉

考虑到评级机构拥有市场声誉的本质在于其可以通过扭曲评级从而对市场产生影响,本文分两步研究中国发行人付费评级机构的市场声誉:第一步,将信用评级对各种基本面因素进行回归,并以实际评级与回归预测值的差值作为评级偏差的量度。与既有文献相比,本文的重要改进是在基本面因素中引入了发债企业与各评级机构(分支机构)最短距离的均值和方差,这能较好地控制因发债企业私有信息可能造成的选择偏误。第二步,考察评级偏差和机构特征如何影响企业的发债成本。研究表明,中国评级机构作为一个整体具有显著的市场声誉,但各评级机构之间存在很大的差异性。最后,考虑到评级机构与发债企业在选址上可能会有集聚效应,我们基于高铁开通事件进行双重差分检验,研究表明本文结论是稳健的。     

Variations in sovereign credit quality assessments across rating agencies

We investigate agency variation in credit quality assessment (Standard and Poor’s vs. Moody’s vs. Fitch) employing sovereign ratings data for 129 countries, spanning the period 1990–2006. While we find that the credit rating agencies often disagree about credit quality, it is usually confined to one or two notches on the finer scale. We find that several variables have varying importance in explaining ratings across agencies which leads us to conclude that material heterogeneity exists between them. Also, while watch and outlook procedures are generally strong predictors of rating changes relative to other public data, additional significant variables suggest that it might be possible to augment these agency data to provide better forecasts of future rating changes.     

Assessing Credit Rating Agencies by Bond Issuers and Institutional Investors

We examine how a sample of publicly traded corporate bond issuers and institutional investors assess the four major nationally recognized rating agencies and their role in capital markets. The results show that issuers and investors differ dramatically in their assessments about rating agencies. Specifically, the majority of institutional investors require only one rating when they buy rated corporate bonds, but most issuers obtain two or more ratings. Issuers and investors also differ in their assessments about whether ratings accurately reflect creditworthiness and timeliness. The results suggest that differences reflect the different roles that rating agencies provide in the market place.