First-mover disadvantage: the sovereign ratings mousetrap

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Pub Date : 2022-01-18 DOI:10.1111/fmii.12155
Patrycja Klusak, Moritz Kraemer, Huong Vu
{"title":"First-mover disadvantage: the sovereign ratings mousetrap","authors":"Patrycja Klusak,&nbsp;Moritz Kraemer,&nbsp;Huong Vu","doi":"10.1111/fmii.12155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Using 102 sovereigns rated by the three largest credit rating agencies (CRA), S&amp;P, Moody's and Fitch between January 2000 and January 2019, we document that the first-mover CRA (S&amp;P) in downgrades falls into a commercial trap. Namely, each sovereign downgrade by one notch by the first-mover CRA (S&amp;P) results in 2.4% increase in the probability of a rating contract being cancelled by the sovereign client. The more downgrades S&amp;P makes in a given month, the more their sovereign rating coverage falls relative to its rivals. Our results are more pronounced for downgrades on small sovereign borrowers than on large sovereign borrowers. This paper explores the interaction between three themes of the literature: herding behaviour amongst CRAs, issues of conflict of interest and ratings quality. Our empirical evidence gives credence to, and underscores the need for sovereign ratings to be made in an impartial way and independent of their commercial ramifications elsewhere in the CRA.</p>","PeriodicalId":39670,"journal":{"name":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","volume":"31 1","pages":"3-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fmii.12155","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fmii.12155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using 102 sovereigns rated by the three largest credit rating agencies (CRA), S&P, Moody's and Fitch between January 2000 and January 2019, we document that the first-mover CRA (S&P) in downgrades falls into a commercial trap. Namely, each sovereign downgrade by one notch by the first-mover CRA (S&P) results in 2.4% increase in the probability of a rating contract being cancelled by the sovereign client. The more downgrades S&P makes in a given month, the more their sovereign rating coverage falls relative to its rivals. Our results are more pronounced for downgrades on small sovereign borrowers than on large sovereign borrowers. This paper explores the interaction between three themes of the literature: herding behaviour amongst CRAs, issues of conflict of interest and ratings quality. Our empirical evidence gives credence to, and underscores the need for sovereign ratings to be made in an impartial way and independent of their commercial ramifications elsewhere in the CRA.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
先发劣势:主权评级的捕鼠器
利用2000年1月至2019年1月期间由三大信用评级机构(CRA)、标准普尔(s&p;P)、穆迪(Moody’s)和惠誉(Fitch)评级的102个主权国家的数据,我们发现,在评级下调中先发的CRA (s&p;P)陷入了一个商业陷阱。也就是说,先发评级机构(s&p;P)每将主权信用评级下调一级,主权客户取消评级合同的可能性就会增加2.4%。标普在一个月内下调的评级越多,其主权评级覆盖范围相对于竞争对手的下降幅度就越大。我们对小型主权借款人的评级下调比对大型主权借款人的评级下调更为明显。本文探讨了文献的三个主题之间的相互作用:评级机构之间的羊群行为,利益冲突问题和评级质量。我们的经验证据证明,并强调需要以公正的方式进行主权评级,并独立于评级机构在其他地方的商业影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments
Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments bridges the gap between the academic and professional finance communities. With contributions from leading academics, as well as practitioners from organizations such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, the journal is equally relevant to both groups. Each issue is devoted to a single topic, which is examined in depth, and a special fifth issue is published annually highlighting the most significant developments in money and banking, derivative securities, corporate finance, and fixed-income securities.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information Do banks adjust their capital when they face liquidity shortages? Evidence from U.S. commercial banks Piercing through the haze: Did PPP increase versus decrease bank efficiency? Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1