Management Tenure and the Quality of Corporate Bond Ratings

Author(s):  
Eliza X. Zhang ◽  
Jason D. Schloetzer

We examine the implication of management for credit rating quality by focusing on the relation between management tenure and rating quality. Using a large sample of corporate bond issues in the U.S., we find robust evidence that firms with longer-tenured CEOs have lower rating quality, as reflected in lower rating accuracy, informativeness, and timeliness. Further analyses uncover two channels that underlie this relation. One channel is through learned confidence: as CEO tenure increases, rating agencies learn about how the CEO influences firm value, which leads agencies to reduce their caution and effort in management assessment. The other channel is through developed relationships: as CEO tenure increases, rating agencies develop relationships with the CEO, which leads agencies to reduce scrutiny of or cater to the CEO and her firm. Overall, we show that management tenure has important implications for the external oversight of rating agencies.

Author(s):  
Miles Livingston ◽  
Lei Zhou

Credit rating agencies have developed as an information intermediary in the credit market because there are very large numbers of bonds outstanding with many different features. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association reports over $20 trillion of corporate bonds, mortgaged-backed securities, and asset-backed securities in the United States. The vast size of the bond markets, the number of different bond issues, and the complexity of these securities result in a massive amount of information for potential investors to evaluate. The magnitude of the information creates the need for independent companies to provide objective evaluations of the ability of bond issuers to pay their contractually binding obligations. The result is credit rating agencies (CRAs), private companies that monitor debt securities/issuers and provide information to investors about the potential default risk of individual bond issues and issuing firms. Rating agencies provide ratings for many types of debt instruments including corporate bonds, debt instruments backed by assets such as mortgages (mortgage-backed securities), short-term debt of corporations, municipal government debt, and debt issued by central governments (sovereign bonds). The three largest rating agencies are Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch. These agencies provide ratings that are indicators of the relative probability of default. Bonds with the highest rating of AAA have very low probabilities of default and consequently the yields on these bonds are relatively low. As the ratings decline, the probability of default increases and the bond yields increase. Ratings are important to institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds, and mutual funds. These large investors are often restricted to purchasing exclusively or primarily bonds in the highest rating categories. Consequently, the highest ratings are usually called investment grade. The lower ratings are usually designated as high-yield or “junk bonds.” There is a controversy about the possibility of inflated ratings. Since issuers pay rating agencies for providing ratings, there may be an incentive for the rating agencies to provide inflated ratings in exchange for fees. In the U.S. corporate bond market, at least two and often three agencies provide ratings. Multiple ratings make it difficult for one rating agency to provide inflated ratings. Rating agencies are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure that agencies follow reasonable procedures.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0259759
Author(s):  
Xiangyun Zhou

We developed a dual-reputational rating shopping model to introduce public and institutional reputations. Investor’s and regulator’s penalty rates are described as public and institutional reputations, respectively. We achieved the available conditions of single-rating and dual-rating regulations to prevent rating inflation in this model. To examine the regulatory effects of different types of regulations on Chinese corporate bond ratings, we utilize panel ordered logit models. Theoretical analysis and empirical tests show that, when the reputation effect is low, the single-rating regulation is better at improving rating quality, and when the reputation effect is high, the dual-rating regulation induces rating agencies to provide more accurate ratings. Compared to the regulatory effects of the single-rating and the multi-rating regulations, the dual-rating regulation most effectively improves the rating quality of corporate bonds and prevents rating inflation.


2012 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Biglaiser ◽  
Joseph L. Staats

AbstractMuch scholarship in the political economy literature has investigated the influence of the democratic advantage on sovereign bond ratings by credit rating agencies (CRAs). Missing from earlier work, however, is inquiry into the effects on bond ratings of factors that lower political risk, such as adherence to the rule of law, the presence of a strong and independent judicial system, and protection of property rights. Using panel data for up to thirty-six developing countries from 1996 to 2006, we find that rule of law, strong and independent courts, and protection of property rights have significant positive effects on bond ratings. Policymakers wanting to obtain higher bond ratings and increased revenue from bond sales would do well to heed the message contained in these findings.


Author(s):  
Yoshiki Shimizu ◽  
Junghee Lee ◽  
Hideki Takei

In the previous paper, we confirmed the existence of the split ratings between Japanese and US credit rating agencies (CRAs). Our study did not support early studies suggesting that the split ratings were merely random occurrences. Rather, our findings suggested that the split ratings occurring between Japanese and US CRAs were not random and frequently occurring. The Japanese CRA assigned less conservative ratings than the US CRAs. In this paper, we performed the multivariate regression analysis to find variables which would differentiate the degree of rating conservativeness. Our samples were 192 Japanese companies which were assigned their ratings by Japanese and US credit rating agencies. We used 10-year bond ratings of these companies from 2000 and 2009. Our data sources were Nikkei NEEDS-Financial Quest for Japanese ratings and financial information and Thomson Reuters Datastream for US ratings. All financial data of the 192 firms were collected from Nikkei NEEDS-Financial Quest. According to our findings, Japanese agency seems to put higher weight on ROA than US agencies while all agencies seem to use variables such as asset, liquidity, and leverage to assign ratings. We assume that this is the main variable that has differentiated the degree of rating conservativeness.


Market protection mechanisms work well during calm periods, but some fail miserably during slowdowns, at just the time we need them to work. When the market environment turns inhospitable, the accelerators take over from the brakes. This article frames the issues concerning oversight mechanisms, which enabled the crisis, and structural mechanisms, which in many ways advanced it. We detail the potential for competition for clients to interfere with the objective judgment of three financial markets gatekeepers: the credit rating agencies, auditors, and asset pricing firms. Any perceived bias in the quality of gatekeeping services can undermine market confidence. We then explore regulatory and contractual shortcomings that, in the event of a downturn or crisis in confidence, can exacerbate a narrow complication. In addition to the classic lemons problems in the context of information asymmetries, the tight relationship between ratings and prices perpetuate any re-rating or repricing scenarios—they combine to create an overwhelming downward force. Serious action is required. If unattended, these shortcomings leave our economy needlessly exposed to the same crisis-era systemic risk concerns that present themselves when downturns can spiral, unrestrained, into meltdowns.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 3456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ga-Young Jang ◽  
Hyoung-Goo Kang ◽  
Ju-Yeong Lee ◽  
Kyounghun Bae

This study analyzes the relationship between Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) scores and bond returns using the corporate bond data in Korea during the period of 2010 to 2015. We find that ESG scores include valuable information about the downside risk of firms. This effect is particularly salient for the firms with high information asymmetry such as small firms. Interestingly, of the three ESG criteria, only environmental scores show a significant impact on bond returns when interacted with the firm size, suggesting that high environmental scores lower the cost of debt financing for small firms. Finally, ESG is complementary to credit ratings in assessing credit quality as credit ratings cannot explain away ESG effects in predicting future bond returns. This result suggests that credit rating agencies should either integrate ESG scores into their current rating process or produce separate ESG scores which bond investors integrate with the existing credit ratings by themselves.


2008 ◽  
Vol 193 ◽  
pp. 65-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Kennedy

AbstractAlthough China has had difficulty improving the performance of its banks and stock markets, it has struggled even more to develop a credit rating industry. Credit rating agencies (CRA), which provide bond ratings, are vital to financial markets in advanced capitalist countries, but China's credit rating companies are weak and have had little influence over the behaviour of those who issue or invest in bonds. Some argue that CRAs gain authority through their strong reputation in the eyes of market participants, but the experience of rating agencies in China supports evidence from elsewhere that their private authority is largely dependent on government mandate, a benefit China's CRAs have only recently begun to enjoy. Many private actors, from trade associations to charity groups, are struggling to gain public influence in China, but credit rating agencies may be the best barometer to measure the Chinese government's general stance towards private authority.


2015 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 1779-1810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Bonsall ◽  
Kevin Koharki ◽  
Monica Neamtiu

ABSTRACT This study investigates how differences between the rating agencies' initial (at the date of debt issuance) and subsequent (post-issuance) monitoring incentives affect securitizing banks' rating accuracy. We hypothesize that the agencies have stronger incentives to monitor issuers when providing initial versus post-issuance ratings. We document that initial ratings are positively associated with off-balance sheet securitized assets and incrementally associated with on-balance sheet retained securities. However, subsequent ratings fail to capture current exposure to off-balance sheet securitizations. We also find that subsequent ratings reflect default risk less accurately than initial ratings. The subsequent ratings' responsiveness to default risk is worse when a bank has more off-balance sheet securitized assets. Collectively, our findings are consistent with lax post-issuance monitoring. They raise questions about the effectiveness of using ratings as an ongoing contracting mechanism and suggest that conclusions about rating accuracy could differ depending on whether researchers focus on initial versus post-issuance ratings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document