Rating opaque borrowers: why are unsolicited ratings lower?*
Author(s) -
Christina E. Bannier,
Patrick Behr,
André Güttler
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
european finance review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1573-692X
pISSN - 1382-6662
DOI - 10.1093/rof/rfp025
Subject(s) - conservatism , issuer , credit rating , actuarial science , business , selection (genetic algorithm) , selection bias , bond credit rating , monetary economics , economics , accounting , credit risk , finance , medicine , law , political science , credit reference , pathology , artificial intelligence , politics , computer science
This paper examines why unsolicited ratings tend to be lower than solicited ratings. Both self-selection among issuers and strategic conservatism of rating agencies may be reasonable explanations. Analyses of default incidences of non-U.S. borrowers between January 1996 and December 2006 show that rating conservatism may play a role for industrial firms, but self-selection cannot be fully rejected. Neither can it for insurance companies, though data restrictions impede further conclusions. For unsolicited bank ratings, however, we find strong evidence that rating conservatism is an important cause. The downward bias also appears to increase along with banks' opaqueness. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom