美国人民币抵押贷款市场的债权人保护和信用评级

Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1111/fmii.12194
Vivian M. van Breemen, Frank J. Fabozzi, Mike Nawas, Dennis Vink
{"title":"美国人民币抵押贷款市场的债权人保护和信用评级","authors":"Vivian M. van Breemen,&nbsp;Frank J. Fabozzi,&nbsp;Mike Nawas,&nbsp;Dennis Vink","doi":"10.1111/fmii.12194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>More than a dozen years after the Dodd-Frank Act was introduced, we investigate whether credit ratings for the US residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market differ given the different levels of creditor protection across the US states. Our paper provides three results. First, for the period 2017–2020, we provide evidence that there is inconsistency between credit rating agencies (CRAs): only for Dominion Bond Rating Service Morningstar (DBRS) and Moody's, we observe that the credit ratings for securitization tranches differ given different creditor protection levels across states. Second, in states with higher creditor protection, the relatively new CRAs, DBRS and Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA), are more likely to provide more optimistic ratings than CRAs historically present in the rating market (Moody's, S&amp;P, and Fitch). Third, issuers appear to issue larger deals in US states that are more creditor friendly.</p>","PeriodicalId":39670,"journal":{"name":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","volume":"33 3","pages":"267-292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creditor protection and credit ratings in the US RMBS market\",\"authors\":\"Vivian M. van Breemen,&nbsp;Frank J. Fabozzi,&nbsp;Mike Nawas,&nbsp;Dennis Vink\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fmii.12194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>More than a dozen years after the Dodd-Frank Act was introduced, we investigate whether credit ratings for the US residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market differ given the different levels of creditor protection across the US states. Our paper provides three results. First, for the period 2017–2020, we provide evidence that there is inconsistency between credit rating agencies (CRAs): only for Dominion Bond Rating Service Morningstar (DBRS) and Moody's, we observe that the credit ratings for securitization tranches differ given different creditor protection levels across states. Second, in states with higher creditor protection, the relatively new CRAs, DBRS and Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA), are more likely to provide more optimistic ratings than CRAs historically present in the rating market (Moody's, S&amp;P, and Fitch). Third, issuers appear to issue larger deals in US states that are more creditor friendly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments\",\"volume\":\"33 3\",\"pages\":\"267-292\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"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.12194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Markets, Institutions and Instruments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fmii.12194","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

摘要

多德-弗兰克法案》出台十几年后,我们研究了美国住宅抵押贷款支持证券(RMBS)市场的信用评级在美国各州债权人保护水平不同的情况下是否存在差异。我们的论文提供了三个结果。首先,在 2017-2020 年期间,我们提供了信用评级机构(CRAs)之间存在不一致的证据:只有 Dominion Bond Rating Service Morningstar(DBRS)和穆迪(Moody's)观察到,在各州债权人保护水平不同的情况下,证券化批次的信用评级存在差异。其次,在债权人保护程度较高的州,相对较新的 CRA--DBRS 和 Kroll 债券评级机构(KBRA)--更有可能提供比历史上评级市场上的 CRA(穆迪、标普和惠誉)更乐观的评级。第三,发行人似乎倾向于在对债权人更友好的美国各州发行规模更大的债券。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Creditor protection and credit ratings in the US RMBS market

More than a dozen years after the Dodd-Frank Act was introduced, we investigate whether credit ratings for the US residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) market differ given the different levels of creditor protection across the US states. Our paper provides three results. First, for the period 2017–2020, we provide evidence that there is inconsistency between credit rating agencies (CRAs): only for Dominion Bond Rating Service Morningstar (DBRS) and Moody's, we observe that the credit ratings for securitization tranches differ given different creditor protection levels across states. Second, in states with higher creditor protection, the relatively new CRAs, DBRS and Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA), are more likely to provide more optimistic ratings than CRAs historically present in the rating market (Moody's, S&P, and Fitch). Third, issuers appear to issue larger deals in US states that are more creditor friendly.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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