“投资人付费”vs.“发行人付费”:谁的信用评级质量更高？

本文选择2011-2015年被中债资信覆盖的发债A股上市公司作为主要研究对象,比较了“投资人付费”与“发行人付费”模式下的评级质量高低。研究发现:(1)与“发行人付费”评级相比,采用“投资人付费”模式的中债资信所作评级显著更低。(2)与“发行人付费”评级相比,当采用“投资人付费”模式的中债资信所作评级越低时,发行人未来盈利能力越差、预期违约风险越高,投资者要求的风险补偿也越高,这表明“投资人付费”模式下的信用评级质量更高。(3)“发行人付费”模式的评级结果可以在一定程度上反映公司的内部私有信息,但由于同时存在独立性缺失问题,“发行人付费”模式的信用评级质量仍然不如“投资人付费”模式的信用评级质量,这说明独立性对于评级机构尤其重要。     

结构性违约、信用分层与评级机构的策略性反应——来自中国信用债市场的证据

2014年以来，以主要集中于民企的"结构性违约"宣告了中国信用债市场刚性兑付的"结构性打破"，债券市场进入了新的发展阶段。利用2013-2017年债券数据，本文深入分析了结构性违约对评级机构行为和效率的影响，主要有如下发现：首先，信用评级的市场公信力会因政府隐性担保导致的"刚性兑付"而削弱；其次，结构性违约爆发之后，信用评级的整体效率有所提升，但在不同发行主体呈现分化，对于非城投类企业，信用评级对发行利差的影响显著增大，意味着评级公信力的显著提升，而对于城投类企业，评级效率并未明显改善；进一步研究表明，出现这种情况的原因在于评级机构在违约后采取了差异化的评级策略，对于违约风险较大的非城投类债券，评级机构倾向采取"收紧评级"的策略；对于违约风险较低的城投债，评级机构倾向于采取"放宽评级"的策略。这种策略性行为是导致市场"信用分层"的重要原因，并有可能推升民营企业的融资成本。     

THE ECONOMIC AND BEHAVIORAL CONSEQUENCES OF ONLINE USER REVIEWS

Online user reviews have become an increasingly relevant informational tool during product search and adoption. Recent surveys have shown that consumers trust and rely on online reviews more than they do on website recommendations and experts opinions. As a new way of driving consumer purchasing intentions, online user reviews have therefore come under scrutiny by researchers. The objective of this paper is to offer an overview of the literature regarding the impact of online user reviews on economic indicators (e.g., sales, marketing strategies) and on consumer behavior. Furthermore, following the growing interest of academics and professionals alike on the topic, the present work provides an exploratory analysis of the consequences of online reviews on individual rating behavior – empirical regularities showed that online rating distributions tend to be concentrated on extreme values, possibly because of rating biases. As consumers and firms incorporate the heuristic cues from such distributions into their decision-making processes, biased ratings might lead to suboptimal choices. This overview presents established results (e.g., the impact of volume on product sales) and insights as issues for future research.     

Testing loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity in review sentiment

This article analyzes the relationship between ratings and review sentiment by introducing, for the first time, the tenets of prospect theory. Specifically, we test loss aversion and diminishing sensitivity on a sample of 132,486 reviews and find that: first, negative deviations in ratings (receiving a service with worse performance than expected) bring about a higher impact on review sentiment than positive deviations of equal magnitude (receiving a service with better performance than expected), thus, confirming loss aversion; and second, regardless of whether the service received is better or worse than expected, variations in ratings closer to the reference point result in higher marginal impacts on sentiment than equivalent variations further away from the reference point, thus, proving diminishing sensitivity. These results have relevant theoretical implications related to the use of relative vs absolute measures and the cognitive bias involved, and managerial implications linked to meeting expectations and service recovery.     

HOW DO RATING AGENCIES’ DECISIONS IMPACT STOCK MARKETS? A META‐ANALYSIS

The purpose of this study is to examine how credit rating agencies’ decisions impact the stock market using a systematic and quantitative review of existing empirical studies. Specifically, we employ a meta‐regression analysis (MRA) to investigate the extent and nature of the effect of rating agencies’ decisions on the stock market. We survey 62 studies published between 1978 and 2015. Our first finding is that the cumulative average abnormal returns calculated from this empirical literature are affected by publication bias. After controlling for publication bias, the main findings of our meta‐analysis indicate that negative rating decisions cause statistically significant negative abnormal returns. This evidence suggests an informational effect. Our results also indicate that positive rating decisions do not have a significant effect. Finally, the MRA results reveal the importance of several factors related to primary study design, as well as to the nature of the data.     

Market structure and rating strategies in credit rating markets – A dynamic model with matching of heterogeneous bond issuers and rating agencies

This paper investigates the impact of rating agencies in a market with asymmetric information. In particular, the role of credit rating agencies as an intermediary between investors and bond issuers is discussed. We model this setting in a dynamic framework in which both rating agencies and bond issuers are of heterogeneous quality. Rating agencies can apply costly research technology to reveal the fundamental nature of bond issuers and engage in rating smoothing. We show that rating smoothing can compensate for low research quality, even though it is accompanied by a quality deterioration in the rating market and market clustering. Moreover, low-quality bond issuers have a general tendency to match with low-quality rating agencies. If investors place a strong emphasis on the reputation of rating agencies, rating markets also tend to be strongly clustered.     

Corporate social responsibility and Eurozone corporate bonds: The moderating role of country sustainability

In this paper, we empirically examine whether superior performance in corporate social responsibility (CSR) results in lower credit risk, measured by credit ratings and zero-volatility spreads (z-spreads). We are especially interested in how the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) related performance of the corresponding countries moderates this relationship. We find only weak evidence that superior corporate social performance (CSP) results in systematically reduced credit risk. However, we do find strong support for our hypothesis that a country’s ESG performance moderates the CSP–credit risk relationship. Superior CSP is regarded as risk-reducing and rewarded with better ratings and lower z-spreads only if it is recognized by the environment. In addition, we find a reduction of corporate bonds’ z-spreads by approx. 9.64 basis points if the CSP of a company mirrors the ESG performance of the country it is located in.     

DETERMINANTS OF SOVEREIGN BONDS RATINGS: A ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

Several studies have attempted to deduce the determinants of sovereign bond ratings. In this study, Extreme Bounds Analysis is applied to approximately 30 factors proposed by the literature in order to assess their robustness with a focus on the relative importance that economic and political variables receive in the shaping of the ratings. We find that policies that constrain the public sector are among the most robust. Variables such as rule of law, openness to economic flows, central bank independence, and market friendly policies are found to be more robustly correlated with the ratings than foreign reserves, fiscal deficit, sovereign bond yields, and economic growth.     

证券分析师利益冲突行为的“前因”与“后果”——来自上证A股的经验证据

本文选用我国上证A股的证券分析师投资评级和股票收益率相关数据(2010.04.30-2011.04.30),对我国证券分析师利益冲突行为的影响因素以及证券分析师投资评级的绩效进行实证研究。结果表明:承销商分析师相对于非承销商分析师的投资建议更为乐观,且券商的承销和经纪业务对证券分析师利益冲突行为有显著性影响;券商声誉和分析师上年声誉对证券分析师的股票投资评级存在明显的抑制效应;积极性的投资评级和分析师本年的声誉与分析师所荐股票的短期超额收益率呈正相关关系。     

后金融危机时代信用评级机构的改革出路

美国次贷危机再次暴露信用评级机构的法律监管困境,即现行信用评级机构发行人付费收入模式存在根深蒂固的利益冲突问题。信用评级机构以声誉机制辩解,但存在重大理论缺陷和失败的经验事实证据。现行评级机构法律监管体制没能从根本上解决收入模式利益冲突的矛盾。信用评级机构未来的改革出路亟需解决利益冲突之困,可能的方案包括设立公共评级机构、恢复订购人付费模式、评级机构承担法律责任、政府付费购买评级服务等。