Are credit ratings procyclical?

This paper studies the influence of the state of the business cycle on credit ratings. In particular, we assess whether rating agencies are excessively procyclical in their assignment of ratings. Our analysis is based on a model of ratings determination that takes into account factors that measure the business and financial risks of firms, in addition to indicators of macroeconomic conditions. Utilizing annual data on all US firms rated by Standard & Poor’s, we find that ratings do not generally exhibit excess sensitivity to the business cycle. In addition, we document that previously reported findings of a secular tightening of ratings standards are not robust to a more complete accounting of systematic changes to measures of risk.     

Sovereign ceilings “lite”? The impact of sovereign ratings on corporate ratings

Although credit rating agencies have gradually moved away from a policy of never rating a corporation above the sovereign (the ‘sovereign ceiling’), it appears that sovereign credit ratings remain a significant determinant of corporate credit ratings. We examine this link using data for advanced and emerging economies over the period of 1995–2009. Our main result is that a sovereign ceiling continues to affect the rating of corporations. The results also suggest that the influence of a sovereign ceiling on corporate ratings remains particularly significant in countries where capital account restrictions are still in place and with high political risk.     

Did going public impair Moody׳s credit ratings?

We investigate a prominent allegation in congressional hearings that Moody?s loosened its rating standards to chase revenue after it went public in 2000. Consistent with this allegation, Moody?s ratings for both corporate bonds and structured finance products are significantly more favorable to issuers, relative to S&P?s, after Moody?s IPO. Moreover, Moody?s ratings are more favorable for clients subject to greater conflict of interest. There is little evidence that Moody?s higher ratings, post-IPO, are more informative, measured as expected default frequencies (EDFs) or as the probability of default. Our findings inform the debate on whether financial gatekeepers should be publicly traded.     

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.     

Is there cyclical bias in bank holding company risk ratings?

This paper examines whether bank holding company (BHC) risk ratings are asymmetrically assigned or biased over business cycles from 1986 to 2003. In a model of ratings determination which accounts for bank characteristics, financial market conditions, past supervisory information, and aggregate macro-economic factors, we find that bank exam ratings exhibit inter-temporal characteristics. First, exam ratings exhibit some evidence of examiner bias for several periods analyzed. When the business cycle turns, examiners sometime depart from standards that they set during the previous phases of the cycle. However, this bias is not widespread or systematic. Second, exam ratings exhibit some inertia. Our results suggest that examiners rate on the side of not changing (rather than upgrading or downgrading) an institution’s exam rating. Third, we find robust evidence of a secular trend towards more stringent examination BHC ratings standards over time.     

Who benefits from capital account liberalization? Evidence from firm-level credit ratings data

Using a novel panel data set on corporate foreign-currency credit ratings and capital account restrictions in advanced and emerging economies during 1995–2004, we find a strong positive effect of capital account liberalization on firms' credit risk, as measured by corporate credit ratings. As an identification strategy, we exploit within-country variation in firms' ability to obtain foreign currency and, thus, their ability to repay foreign currency debt. We find that liberalizing the capital account benefits significantly more those firms with more limited foreign currency access, namely, those producing nontradables. Our findings demonstrate a novel channel through which capital account restrictions affect economic outcomes, and they are robust to a broad range of alternative specifications.     

A multivariate analysis of the determinants of Moody’s bank financial strength ratings

In 1995 Moody’s Investors Services inaugurated a new rating service, bank financial strength ratings (BFSRs), that assesses the safety and soundness of banks in over 50 countries. Our study sets out to do some preliminary investigations of this new type of credit rating. We develop logistic regression models to help explain or predict BFSRs. Using bank-specific accounting and financial data we are able to correctly classify or predict BFSRs. These fundamental variables cover the dimensions of risk, loan provision ratios, and profitability. Of the three, loan provisions is the most important factor, followed by risk, and then profitability. Country risk ratings do not appear to be significant explanators of BFSRs. We also find that traditional debt ratings accurately classify BFSRs and this raises the question of whether BFSRs add incremental information. The paper also highlights future directions for our research. One such area is to examine how well BFSRs predict banking crises such as the credit problems currently affecting Asia and Latin America.     

Does sovereign risk matter? New evidence from eurozone corporate bond ratings and zero-volatility spreads

In this paper, we empirically examine if sovereign risk matters for corporate bonds in developed economies. Using a unique panel data sample of 897 corporate bonds from eleven countries within the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), we investigate sovereign and corporate ratings as well as zero-volatility spreads (z-spreads). In the time period from March 2006 to June 2012, we find sovereign risk to be a significant driver of corporate risk. The effect is stronger for companies with domestic revenue structure, for companies that are (partly) owned by the government, and companies active in the utility and transportation sector. Interestingly, the impact of sovereign risk on corporate risk during the acute European sovereign debt crisis period decreases if ratings are examined, but increases if z-spreads are utilized. Rating agencies seem to take a more differentiated view on individual company risk during the sovereign debt crisis, while institutional investors might want to reduce their exposure to a country in financial distress as a whole, regardless of whether sovereign or corporate bonds are held.     

The impact of multi-dimensional corporate transparency on us firms’ credit ratings and cost of capital

This study examines corporate transparency in the US market for a sample of 319 S&P 500 firms. We examine whether a number of disparate measures of corporate transparency used by other researchers are distinct, cohere as measures of a single factor of corporate transparency, or capture multiple different dimensions. Next, we begin to examine the impact of corporate transparency, conceived in the broadest sense, and not limited to financial reporting, on US firms. We develop a model of corporate transparency based on a broad definition and framework proposed by Bushman, Piotrowski and Smith, which we extend in several ways, and then study the effect of corporate transparency on cost of debt, credit rating, and cost of equity. First, we find that corporate transparency is neither a unitary concept nor merely an ambiguous term for multiple distinct concepts: factor analysis of ten corporate transparency variables identifies four independent underlying dimensions: public disclosure information, intermediary information, earnings quality information and insider information. Second, we find that corporate transparency has significant power to explain cross-sectional variation in credit rating and cost of capital. More specifically, (i) credit rating, cost of debt, and beta are significantly associated with disclosure information transparency; (ii) credit rating, cost of equity, and beta are significantly associated with intermediary information transparency; and (iii) cost of equity and beta are significantly associated with insider information transparency. Our findings offer a more comprehensive evaluation of corporate transparency than prior studies, and we demonstrate direct economic implications for both US firms and markets.     

Do institutional shareholder services (ISS) corporate governance ratings reflect a company's operating performance?

Little is known about the relation between the actual governance rating received by a firm and the firm's performance. In this study, we examine the relation between the actual corporate governance rating received by a firm and the firm's performance during the years 2002–2004. We use the institutional shareholder services (ISS) corporate governance quotient (CGQ) rating of a firm's corporate governance structure and analyze this rating in relation to the firm's operating performance. We compare the institutional shareholder services’ CGQ rating to two measures of the firm's operating performance, return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). Based upon our results, we do not find statistical evidence suggesting that the firms’ operating performance is related to the firms’ ISS corporate governance rating.     

Investors’ heterogeneous beliefs and the impact of sovereign credit ratings in foreign exchange and equity markets

We propose a model in which sovereign credit news from multiple rating agencies interacts with market heterogeneity. The model illustrates that the first messenger discloses new information while additional messengers play an important role of coordinating heterogeneous beliefs. Empirical investigations based on sovereign credit ratings, foreign exchange and equity markets confirm that rating news coordinates investors’ beliefs. Sovereign credit rating news from both types of messenger induces a significant impact on exchange rates and stock indices. Volatility measures increase in response to news from the first messenger while ex-post volatility reduces following news from an additional messenger.