Consensus credit ratings: a view from banks

IF 4.8 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Accounting Studies Pub Date : 2024-07-05 DOI:10.1007/s11142-024-09835-7
Ben Lourie, N. Bugra Ozel, Alexander Nekrasov, Chenqi Zhu
{"title":"Consensus credit ratings: a view from banks","authors":"Ben Lourie, N. Bugra Ozel, Alexander Nekrasov, Chenqi Zhu","doi":"10.1007/s11142-024-09835-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While the production of credit ratings has long been limited mainly to rating agencies (CRAs), recent years have seen the growing popularity of consensus credit ratings crowdsourced from banks (i.e., bank ratings). We provide the first comprehensive examination of the properties and informativeness of bank ratings relative to CRA ratings. We find that bank ratings often deviate from CRA ratings, with over 60% of firm-months having different bank and CRA ratings. These deviations contain useful information. Bank ratings improve out-of-sample prediction of defaults and CRA rating revisions and explain the cross-section of credit spreads. However, bank ratings do not improve out-of-sample prediction of credit excess returns, indicating that current prices incorporate bank rating information. Overall our findings suggest that bank ratings are a useful supplement to traditional credit ratings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48120,"journal":{"name":"Review of Accounting Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Accounting Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-024-09835-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While the production of credit ratings has long been limited mainly to rating agencies (CRAs), recent years have seen the growing popularity of consensus credit ratings crowdsourced from banks (i.e., bank ratings). We provide the first comprehensive examination of the properties and informativeness of bank ratings relative to CRA ratings. We find that bank ratings often deviate from CRA ratings, with over 60% of firm-months having different bank and CRA ratings. These deviations contain useful information. Bank ratings improve out-of-sample prediction of defaults and CRA rating revisions and explain the cross-section of credit spreads. However, bank ratings do not improve out-of-sample prediction of credit excess returns, indicating that current prices incorporate bank rating information. Overall our findings suggest that bank ratings are a useful supplement to traditional credit ratings.

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
共识信用评级:银行的观点
长期以来,信用评级的制作主要局限于评级机构(CRA),而近年来,银行众包的共识信用评级(即银行评级)越来越受欢迎。我们首次全面考察了银行评级相对于 CRA 评级的特性和信息量。我们发现,银行评级往往偏离 CRA 评级,超过 60% 的公司月的银行评级与 CRA 评级不同。这些偏差包含有用的信息。银行评级改善了对违约和 CRA 评级修订的样本外预测,并解释了信用利差的横截面。然而,银行评级并没有改善对信用超额收益的样本外预测,这表明当前价格包含了银行评级信息。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,银行评级是对传统信用评级的有益补充。
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
Review of Accounting Studies
Review of Accounting Studies BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Review of Accounting Studies provides an outlet for significant academic research in accounting including theoretical, empirical, and experimental work. The journal is committed to the principle that distinctive scholarship is rigorous. While the editors encourage all forms of research, it must contribute to the discipline of accounting. The Review of Accounting Studies is committed to prompt turnaround on the manuscripts it receives.  For the majority of manuscripts the journal will make an accept-reject decision on the first round.  Authors will be provided the opportunity to revise accepted manuscripts in response to reviewer and editor comments; however, discretion over such manuscripts resides principally with the authors.  An editorial revise and resubmit decision is reserved for new submissions which are not acceptable in their current version, but for which the editor sees a clear path of changes which would make the manuscript publishable. Officially cited as: Rev Account Stud
期刊最新文献
CEO partisan bias and management earnings forecast bias CEO tax burden and debt contracting Voluntary disclosures and monetary policy: evidence from quantitative easing Corporate carbon accounting: balance sheets and flow statements Investor-firm private interactions and informed trading: Evidence from New York City taxi patterns
×
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