Is There a Difference Between Solicited and Unsolicited Bank Ratings and, If So, Why?

This paper analyses the effect of soliciting a rating on the actual outcome of bank ratings. Using two sample banks (one rated by Fitch and one rated by S&P), I find evidence that unsolicited ratings tend to be lower than solicited ones, after accounting for differences in observable bank characteristics. This downward bias does not seem to be explained by the fact that better-quality banks self-select into the solicited group. Rather, unsolicited ratings appear to be lower because they are based on public information and are therefore dependent on the quantity of public information disclosed by the banks. As a result, unsolicited ratings tend to be more conservative than solicited ratings, which incorporate both public and non-public information. While the latter result is also consistent with the fact that credit rating agencies may blackmail low-disclosure firms, the findings suggest that blackmailing—if it is actually used—is ineffective in making these firms start to pay for a rating.     

Credit Ratings and Managerial Voluntary Disclosures

This study investigates whether managers influence credit ratings via voluntary disclosures. I find that firms near a rating change have a higher incidence of a disclosure regarding product and business expansion (PBE) plans. This finding is more evident for firms that are subject to lower proprietary costs of disclosures, which implies that managers do trade off both the benefits and costs of the disclosures. I find no evidence that firms close to a rating change selectively release good news or suppress bad news on PBE. Overall, my results suggest that firms generally exhibit a credible commitment to maintaining disclosure transparency for a desired credit rating.     

Existence of Unsolicited Ratings

Rating agencies provide unsolicited ratings voluntarily without the borrowers’ consent. Therefore, the agencies do not get paid for this service. While, supporters of unsolicited ratings argue that voluntary disclosure is done to build reputation, those opposing this practice argue that this leads to financial blackmail. In this paper, we build a model that addresses these issues. We identify the scenarios where rating agencies will provide unsolicited ratings. Finally, we find the welfare effect of unsolicited ratings and suggest policy implications.      

The Effect of Credit Ratings on Disclosure: Evidence from the Recalibration of Moody's Municipal Ratings

This paper examines how credit rating levels affect municipal debt issuers’ disclosure decisions. Using exogenous upgrades in credit rating levels caused by the recalibration of Moody's municipal ratings scale in 2010, we find that upgraded municipalities significantly reduce their disclosure of required continuing financial information, relative to unaffected municipalities. Consistent with a reduction in debtholders’ demand for information driving these results, the reduction in disclosure is greater when municipal bonds are held by investors who relied more on disclosure ex ante. However, we also find that the reduction in disclosure does not manifest when issuers are monitored by underwriters with greater issuer-specific expertise and when issuers are subject to direct regulatory enforcement through the receipt of federal funding. Overall, our results suggest that higher credit rating levels lower investor demand for disclosure in the municipal market, and highlight the role of underwriters and direct regulatory enforcement in maintaining disclosure levels when investor demand is low.     

Fiscal Transparency,Fiscal Performance and Credit Ratings

Fiscal transparency can provide policymakers with incentives to adopt better policies by enhancing the public debate on the design and sustainability of fiscal policy and establishing accountability for their implementation. Fiscal transparency can also reduce uncertainty about fiscal policy and fiscal outturns by providing more information on the underlying fiscal position and fiscal risks. Both effects suggest that countries should benefit from adopting transparency enhancing policies through better market assessments of their sovereign risk. In this paper, we investigate whether fiscal transparency has an effect on market perceptions of sovereign risk, as measured by sovereign credit ratings, and if so, through which channels. We find that fiscal transparency has a positive and significant effect on ratings – one standard deviation increase in fiscal transparency increases credit ratings by 0.7 and 1 notches (or steps in the credit rating scale) in advanced and developing economies, respectively – but its effect works through different channels in advanced and developing economies. In advanced economies, fiscal transparency is associated with better fiscal outcomes, leading indirectly to higher credit ratings. In developing economies, the direct uncertainty‐reducing effect of fiscal transparency seems to be more important. Indeed, the effect of fiscal transparency on fiscal performance is found to increase with the level of institutional development.     

“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。     

Recognition versus disclosure of finance leases: Evidence from Japan

This study examines whether credit market participants—bond investors and credit rating agencies—treat recognized and disclosed finance leases differently when assessing firms’ credit risk in Japan. I use firms’ credit risk, measured by bond spreads and credit ratings, to investigate the relations between recognized versus disclosed finance lease obligations and firms’ credit risk following the adoption of Statement No. 13, Accounting Standard for Lease Transactions. For a sample of firms issuing new bonds, I find that, unlike recognized finance leases, disclosed finance leases are not associated with bond spreads. Moreover, the associations between recognized versus disclosed finance leases and bond spreads are substantially different. Conversely, recognized and disclosed finance leases are associated with credit ratings and are processed similarly when credit ratings are determined. Taken together, my results suggest that the sophistication of capital market participants influences their credit risk assessments of recognized versus disclosed finance leases.     

Ratings Quality and Borrowing Choice

Past studies document that incentive conflicts may lead issuer‐paid credit rating agencies to provide optimistically biased ratings. In this paper, we present evidence that investors question the quality of issuer‐paid ratings and raise corporate bond yields where the issuer‐paid rating is more positive than benchmark investor‐paid ratings. We also find that some firms with favorable issuer‐paid ratings substitute public bonds with borrowings from informed intermediaries to mitigate the “lemons discount” associated with poor quality ratings. Overall, our results suggest that the quality of issuer‐paid ratings has significant effects on borrowing costs and the choice of debt.     

环境信息透明度与企业信用评级——基于债券评级市场的经验证据

基于2008至2015年期间公司债券发行主体的信用评级数据和手工收集的上市公司环境信息数据,本文研究了环境信息透明度对企业信用评级的影响。研究结果显示,公司获得高信用评级的概率与其环境信息透明度显著正相关;环境信息传递出公司的特质风险、盈余持续性以及盈余质量等信息,从而影响评级决策。进一步研究发现,环境信息透明度与企业信用评级之间的正相关关系在内部控制质量高、具有高质量外部审计的公司中更显著。采用工具变量两阶段回归方法、公司固定效应模型以及倾向得分配对方法控制内生性后,上述结论依然成立。此外,本文发现环境信息透明度可通过影响企业信用评级降低公司的债券融资成本,环境信息透明度对企业信用评级和债券融资成本的影响在污染行业中显著更强。上述研究发现有助于拓展环境信息披露对市场中介行为影响的相关研究,对认识非财务信息在资本市场中的作用和推进节能减排提供了重要参考。     

Do Rating Agencies Benefit from Providing Higher Ratings? Evidence from the Consequences of Municipal Bond Ratings Recalibration

We ask whether credit rating agencies receive higher fees and gain greater market share when they provide more favorable ratings. To investigate this question, we use the 2010 rating scale recalibration by Moody's and Fitch, which increased ratings absent any underlying change in issuer credit quality. Consistent with prior research, we find that the recalibration allowed the clients of Moody's and Fitch to receive better ratings and lower yields. We add to this evidence by showing that the recalibration also led to larger fees and to increases in the market shares of Moody's and Fitch. These results are consistent with critics’ concerns about the effects of the issuer‐pay model on the credit ratings market.     

The impact of narrative disclosure readability on bond ratings and the cost of debt

Prior research on the determinants of credit ratings has focused on rating agencies’ use of quantitative accounting information, but the there is scant evidence on the impact of textual attributes. This study examines the impact of financial disclosure narrative on bond market outcomes. We find that less readable financial disclosures are associated with less favorable ratings, greater bond rating agency disagreement, and a higher cost of debt. We improve causal identification by exploiting the 1998 Plain English Mandate, which required a subset of firms to exogenously improve the readability of their filings. Using a difference-in-differences design, we find that the firms required to improve the readability of their filings experience more favorable ratings, lower bond rating disagreement, and lower cost of debt. Collectively, our evidence suggests that textual financial disclosure attributes appear to not only influence bond market intermediaries’ opinions but also firms’ cost of debt.     

Corporate Governance Ratings and Firm Performance

We examine the corporate governance ratings provided by three premier US rating agencies and find that summary scores are generally poor predictors of primary and secondary measures of future firm performance. However, some component sub-ratings that focus on the eight key dimensions of dynamic governance structures provide more positive and reliable evidence of their information content in predicting the multiple dimensions of firm performance. These results reflect the recent observations by academic researchers and money managers that it is extremely difficult to distill all of the complex governance mechanisms into a single integrated, yet informative overall score.     

Managerial Ownership and Accounting Disclosures: An Empirical Study

This study examines empirically the effect of managerial ownership on firms' disclosures. Agency theory predicts that investors' information requirements increase with the agency costs of the firm. Managerial ownership mitigates agency costs and therefore should reduce investors' information needs. This study tests the hypothesis that firms with lower levels of managerial ownership provide more extensive disclosures by examining analysts' ratings of firms' disclosures. In contrast to the proxies used in prior studies that test this relationship, such as the earnings-return correlation and management earnings forecasts, these ratings provide a more direct measure of firms' overall disclosure practices.I find that the relationship between managerial holdings and disclosures depends on the type of disclosure. Consistent with the hypothesis of this study, firms with lower levels of managerial ownership are more likely to receive higher ratings for the disclosures provided in their annual and quarterly reports, even after controlling for size, performance, volatility of returns, the frequency of securities offerings and proprietary costs. The more informal and flexible aspects of disclosures, however, as measured by the investor relations rating, are not influenced by the level of managerial ownership. These results are consistent with prior research that predicts that firms lower their costs of capital by signaling a commitment to maintain a more open disclosure policy. Because annual and quarterly reports are less flexible, and therefore less likely to change, they may represent a more credible commitment to provide more informative disclosures.     

Ratings assignments: Lessons from international banks

This paper estimates ordered logit models for bank ratings which include a country index to capture country-specific variation. The empirical findings support the hypothesis that the individual international bank ratings assigned by Fitch Ratings are underpinned by fundamental quantitative financial analyses. Also, there is strong evidence of a country effect. Our model is shown to provide accurate predictions of bank ratings for the period prior to the 2007–2008 banking crisis based upon publicly available information. However, our results also suggest that quantitative models are unlikely to predict ratings with complete accuracy. Furthermore, we find that both quantitative models and rating agencies are likely to produce highly inaccurate predictions of ratings during periods of financial instability.     

The Information Value of Bond Ratings

We test whether bond ratings contain pricing-relevant information by examining security price reactions to Moody's refinement of its rating system, which was not accompanied by any fundamental change in issuers' risks, was not preceded by any announcement, and was carried simultaneously for all bonds. We find that rating information does not affect firm value, but that debt value increases (decreases) and equity value falls (rises) when Moody's announces better- (worse-) than-expected ratings. We also find that when Moody's announces better- (worse-) than-expected ratings, the volatilities implied by prices of options on the fine-rated issuers' shares decline (rise).     

The Effect of Business and Financial Market Cycles on Credit Ratings: Evidence from the Last Two Decades

We analyze the effect of business and financial market cycles on credit ratings using a sample of firms from the Russell 3000 index that are rated by Standard and Poor's over the period 1986–2012. We also examine investor reaction to credit rating actions in different stages of business and financial market cycles. We document that credit rating agencies are influenced by business and financial market cycles; they assign lower credit ratings during downturns of business and financial market cycles and higher ratings during upturns. Our study is the first to find strong evidence of pro‐cyclicality in credit ratings using a long window. We also document stronger investor reaction to negative credit rating actions during downturns. Our results confirm theoretical predictions and inform regulators.     

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.     

The Effect of Bond Rating Changes and New Ratings on UK Stock Returns

This is the first study to use daily data from a major capital market outside of the US to examine the role of corporate bond and commercial paper rating changes on common stock returns. Using data published by Standard and Poors' credit rating agency between 1984 and 1992, we examine the impact of new credit ratings, credit rating changes and Credit Watch announcements on UK common stock returns. We find significant negative excess returns around the date of a downgrade and positive returns close to the date of a positive CreditWatch announcement. Hence, the financial markets would appear to place some importance on rating agency pronouncements in the UK. New ratings, whether short or long-term, have no significant impact on returns. We also attempt to quantify the impact of a new credit rating upon firm cost of capital through measures of conditional volatility and systematic risk. However, we find only weak evidence to suggest that a stock's cost of capital is reduced after a long-term credit rating is awarded for the first time.     

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.     

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.