论美国评级机构的垄断地位及对我国的启示

美国三大信用评级机构标准普尔、穆迪、惠誉垄断了全球信用评级业务的90%以上,形成了国际评级市场的寡头垄断,并且把"触角"伸至中国,但却屡次因为评级失败而遭到投资者的诟病。我国面对三大评级机构的垄断势力要时刻保持清醒的认识,大力发展本土信用评级机构,确保在国内信用评级市场的主导地位,并在国际市场上发出自己的"声音"。     

国际信用评级体系改革进程及我国评级业发展展望

信用评级是解决金融市场信息不对称问题的重要途径之一,其在资本市场特别是债券市场运行中起着风险揭示、市场定价、防范信用风险等重要作用。长期以来,国际信用评级领域形成了以美国三大评级机构为主体的寡头垄断格局。本次国际金融危机和欧洲主权债务危机的爆发,凸显出现行国际信用评级体系存在的种种弊端。本文分析了现行国际信用评级体系所存在的缺陷,探讨了国际社会及我国政府为进一步完善国际信用评级体系所采取的措施、信用评级对我国商业银行的重要作用及应对建议。     

美国信用评级机构的“功”与“过”

金融危机爆发后,美国三大信用评级机构成为舆论指责的焦点。毫无疑问,美国信用评级机构对此次金融危机负有失察的责任,然而,信息获得的相对有限性,基于历史、模拟的情景假设也令评级方式存在着客观局限。如何恢复信用评级机构受损的社会公信力,文章从变革评级机构内部治理机制和加强政府对信用评级业的监管两个方面提出建议,指出我国信用评级业应坚持“政府驱动型”的发展模式。     

信用评级监管新动态及对中国的启示

2008年全球金融危机以来,国际三大评级公司的评级行为及结论受到高度关注。在次贷危机中,信用评级机构对与次贷相关的衍生产品评级出现误判;对次贷风险未能及时作出反应,而后又反应过度。在欧洲主权债务危机中,美国三大评级机构一次次的对欧洲国家信用降级带来的是危机的逐步升级。信用评级机构究竟是在警示危机,还是在加剧危机?国际社会要求对信用评级机构加强监管的呼声正在不断高涨。     

信用评级业的收费模式和公信力

信用评级是专业信用评级机构运用科学的评级方法，通过定性、定量分析对受评企业或债项的信用风险进行综合评级，并用信用等级加以反映。信用评级作用的充分发挥，很大程度上取决于信用评级机构自身的“信用”。对此我们可以从评级机构“能力”和“意愿”两方面进行分析。信用评级机构获取信息的能力、科学的评级方法、规范的评级程序以及合格的信用分析师，是其市场公信力逐步树立的基础。但就评级机构“意愿”来讲，有观点认为向被评级者收费这种模式存在制度性缺陷，使得其“意愿”受到影响。     

环球快讯

欧盟抨击三大评级机构有失公允 标普、穆迪和惠誉这三大国际评级机构相继”发难”,频频下调欧元区国家的主权信用评级或银行信用评级。这一举动令欧盟领导人忍无可忍,终于向三大评级机构正式“宣战”,不但激烈抨击其行为有失公允,还宣布将着手建立欧盟自己的评级机构。     

现阶段推进信贷市场信用评级思路探析

以安阳市为例,通过对信贷市场评级现状、需求情况和存在问题的调查与分析,建议从信用评级模式选择、外部信用评级机构体系构建、外部信用评级结果运用的政策推动、推行灵活定价模式和费用减免政策、加强评级机构市场化运作五个方面进一步推进信贷市场信用评级.     

国际三大评级机构主权信用评级模式的经验及启示

发展和完善主权信用评级业是维护我国金融主权和经济安全的重要举措. 以标准普尔、穆迪、惠誉三家评级机构为代表的国际评级机构,均通过综合评估政府偿还债务的能力和意愿来展示主权国家的信用状况. 此评级模式采用定量与定性结合的评估方式,评级指标全面、准确、完整,但具有潜意识下的制度偏好,易受主观影响且透明度不高. 借鉴国际经验,我国应大力扶持主权信用评级机构发展,建立自己的评级标准和模式,并加强主权信用评级市场的规范和监管.     

金融中介机构竞争的市场反应--来自信用评级机构的证据北大核心

目前已有研究认为金融中介机构竞争会带来市场效率的提高,本文利用2012-2017年债券市场的微观数据研究“发行人付费”模式评级机构之间的竞争对评级结果的影响。研究发现,评级机构竞争会导致评级结果膨胀与评级质量下降。进一步研究发现,当评级竞争加剧时,“发行人付费”模式的评级机构会对有较多业务联系的企业放松评级标准,给予更高信用评级。我们的研究也发现评级机构的外资背景、承销商的良好声誉和媒体关注均有助于减小“发行人付费”模式下评级机构竞争的负面影响。同时,债券市场评级竞争还存在对股票市场的溢出效应,评级竞争导致的评级质量下降也降低了股票市场的信息效率。这说明,“发行人付费”模式下的评级机构竞争会降低资本市场的信息效率,“投资者付费”模式的推广和评级行业的对外开放有助于改善国内评级行业的评级质量。本文的研究也为国内债券市场进一步发挥双评级、多评级以及不同模式评级的交叉验证作用提供了一定证据支持。     

中国本土资信评级市场发展新思路

在这次全球范围爆发的金融风暴中,标准普尔、穆迪、惠誉这三大评级机构也一直处于风口浪尖上。相较于这三大评级巨头,我国信用制度建设起步较晚,内外部评级机构的评级标准、评级方法存在较大差异,缺乏权威评级机构和话语权。本文从中国本土资信评级市场发展的必要性出发,结合中国评级市场现有的发展模式及未来趋势进行进一步分析,最后对中国本土化的信用评级制度提出了一定的改良对策,为中国信用评级行业的未来发展献计献策。     

Special Issue on Market Development and Investment Strategies in Asia

Sovereign credit rating actions have attracted considerable attention recently. This study employs a rich and unique data set of ratings from six international agencies to investigate the causes of split sovereign ratings in emerging countries. Three reasons are identified in explaining the relatively high frequency of disagreement across agencies on emerging sovereign ratings. First, rating agencies use different economic factors and different weights on those factors. Second, rating agencies disagree to a greater extent about more opaque issuers. Third, for smaller rating agencies, issuers in their "home region" tend to be more favored. The findings should be of interest to a wide range of participants in global credit markets.     

Understanding credit ratings quality: Evidence from UK debt market participants

This study seeks to identify: (i) the demand for corporate bond ratings provided by credit ratings agencies (CRAs); (ii) how issuers select CRAs; and (iii) to better understand ratings quality, a term widely used by commentators, politicians and regulators, but under-explored in the academic literature. Interviews identify the principal source of demand for rating information is to reduce agency conflicts between issuers and investors. Issuers typically engage between one and three credit ratings agencies to rate their debt, implying a heterogeneous demand for ratings services, and different levels of ratings quality. However, ratings quality extends beyond competence and independence to include factors relating to professional judgment, communication, transparency, and the quality and continuity of analytic staff. Findings were discussed in the light of the ongoing international policy debate concerning CRAs.     

Market Implied Ratings and Financing Constraints: Evidence from US Firms

Financing constraints have been found to play an important role in several aspects of firm behavior, but no attention has been given to their effects on credit ratings. In this paper we analyze a unique and comprehensive data set for US firms rated by Fitch over the period 2001–07. We employ Fitch's market implied ratings derived from bond and equity prices. The analysis finds evidence that financial variables are more important in predicting credit ratings for firms likely to face financing constraints. We conclude that the financing constraint is an important dimension in the market implied ratings process. Our findings are of relevance to managers, investors and rating agencies seeking to understand the mechanism through which financing constraints affect credit ratings.     

Are Unsolicited Credit Ratings Lower? International Evidence From Bank Ratings

Abstract:   In recent years credit rating agencies have started rating firms who have not asked for a rating. Recipients of unsolicited ratings argue that the assigned ratings are too low and reflect a lack of comprehensive knowledge of the rated firms. We set out to examine these claims using a comprehensive and international sample of 1,060 bank ratings. Our results show that there is a significant difference in the distributions of ratings, and the shadow group has lower ratings. The results also indicate that banks that received shadow ratings are smaller and have weaker financial profiles than banks that have other ratings. This explains, in part, the lower ratings. In addition, we develop a model to explain bank ratings. The two‐step treatment effects model shows that bank size, profitability, asset quality, liquidity, and sovereign credit risk are important factors in determining bank ratings.     

Sustainability and sovereign credit risk

The study investigates the impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings on sovereign credit risk. The study measures sovereign credit risk using a market-based, structural and an analyst-based approach, while ESG scores are obtained from three different rating agencies. The contributions of this paper are multifold. First, we discover that higher sustainability performance at the corporate level significantly decreases market-based (CDS spreads) and structural (Distance-to-default) sovereign credit risk but has no consistent impact on analyst-based (Credit ratings) sovereign credit risk measure. Second, by expanding our research to include the concept of financial materiality based on the SASB materiality map, we break down and highlight the sustainability themes that require the most attention at the sovereign level and those that can affect the credit health of countries. Third, we demonstrate that the relationship between sustainability and sovereign credit risk varies across ESG rating providers, supporting the widespread belief that sustainability metrics lack standardization and are difficult to compare across providers.     

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.     

CEO inside debt holdings and credit ratings

In this paper we investigate the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) inside debt holdings (pension benefits and deferred compensation) and long-term credit ratings. We provide evidence that firms with a higher level of inside debt holdings enjoy better credit ratings. Our results are robust to the use of alternative regression estimation and alternative measures of key variables. We employ instrumental variable–based two-stage least squares regression and instrumental variable regression estimation using heteroskedasticity-based instruments to mitigate the endogeneity concern. In addition, we employ propensity-matched sample and entropy balancing estimates to alleviate endogeneity concerns. Our cross-sectional analyses reveal that the relationship between CEO inside debt holdings and credit ratings is more pronounced in firms with a poor information environment, a weak monitoring mechanism, and powerful CEOs. Overall, findings from our study suggest that credit rating agencies evaluate CEO insider debt holdings positively in assessing the creditworthiness of a firm.     

Debt Financing and Voluntary Adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards: Evidence from Korean Unlisted Firms

We investigate the effect of debt financing on the voluntary adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by unlisted firms and such adoption’s effect on bond credit rating. We find that unlisted firms with public debts are more likely to voluntarily adopt IFRS. Subsequent to the voluntary application of IFRS, the unlisted firms exhibit, on average, enhanced credit ratings. These findings suggest that the public debt market’s demand for high-quality financial reporting may drive those unlisted firms to voluntarily adopt IFRS. Furthermore, rating agencies seem to reward such firms by elevating their bond credit ratings.     

“一带一路”下防范主权信用评级风险的法律对策研究

“一带一路”战略的实施,凸显主权信用评级的重要价值。然而,主权评级屡次发生风险并演化为系统性风险和危机,造成重大损失。此风险一方面是由主权评级自身在金融稳定时期潜在的风险要素引起的,另一方面也是美欧当下缺乏有效的风险防范措施所导致的。因此,为推进“一带一路”建设,以尽早防范主权评级风险,我国应采取设定“本土+全球”的双评级规范、强化控制和监管国际评级机构以及减弱对主权评级的依赖等法律对策。     

Keeping up with the Joneses: Changing Rating Standards and the Buildup of Capital by U.S. Property-Liability Insurers

There has been a net propensity over the last decade for the dominant rating agency of the U.S. insurance industry, A.M. Best, to downgrade property-liability insurers. This could reflect a general deteriorating credit worthiness of the industry or an increase in the performance thresholds Best's has deemed necessary to achieve a given rating class. Consistent with a recent study of corporate bond ratings, we find evidence there has been an increase in rating stringency. Specifically, we show pressure for insurers to maintain their existing ratings provides a plausible explanation of the dramatic buildup of capital in the industry during the 1990s. In addition, our analysis suggests Best's raised the bar in terms of the capital required to maintain the highest ratings differentially relative to the increase in standards they required for lower rated categories. The actual pattern of capital buildup across firms in different rating categories is consistent with an attempt by high quality firms to defend these ratings.