The impact of reasons for credit rating announcements in equity and CDS markets

Over the last four decades the literature on bond rating changes and its effects on security prices increased significantly with almost all studies not controlling for the respective reason for those. We therefore investigate the impact of rating events on the stock and the credit default swap (CDS) market incorporating rating reviews and rating changes together with the reason mentioned by the rating agency. Our results for the general effects are in line with prior findings but conditioning on the respective reason shows that the markets’ anticipation of rating actions is largely driven by events due to changes in firms’ operating performance. Furthermore, we provide empirical evidence for the hypothesis in prior literature that a surprise downgrade does not necessarily have to be bad news for stockholders when wealth is transferred from bondholders, but negative rating actions are always bad news for bondholders. The results additionally reveal increasing rating announcement effects by declining credit quality of firms for both rating reviews and changes. JEL Classification: D82, G14, G20. Keywords: Credit Default Swaps, Credit Ratings, Credit Rating Reasons, Event Study

Do changes in sovereign credit ratings contribute to financial contagion in emerging market crises?

Credit rating changes for long-term foreign currency debt may act as a wake-up call with upgrades and downgrades in one country affecting other financial markets within and across national borders. Such a potential (contagious) rating effect is likely to be stronger in emerging market economies, where institutional investors' problems of asymmetric information are more present. This empirical study complements earlier research by explicitly examining cross-security and cross-country contagious rating effects of credit rating agencies' sovereign risk assessments. In particular, the specific impact of sovereign rating changes during the financial turmoil in emerging markets in the latter half of the 1990s has been examined. The results indicate that sovereign rating changes in a ground-zero country have a (statistically) significant impact on the financial markets of other emerging market economies although the spillover effects tend to be regional

Rating the Raters: Evaluating how ESG Rating Agencies Integrate Sustainability Principles

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating agencies, acting as relevant financial market actors, should take a stand on working towards achieving a more sustainable development. In this context, the objective of this paper is, on the one hand, to understand how criteria used by ESG rating agencies in their assessment processes have evolved over the last ten years and, on the other hand, to analyze whether ESG rating agencies are contributing to fostering sustainable development by the inclusion of sustainability principles into their assessment processes and practices according to the ESG criteria. This research is based on a comparative descriptive analysis of the public information provided by the most representative ESG rating and information provider agencies in the financial market in two periods: 2008 and 2018. The findings show that ESG rating agencies have integrated new criteria into their assessment models to measure corporate performance more accurately and robustly in order to respond to new global challenges. However, a deep analysis of the criteria also shows that ESG rating agencies do not fully integrate sustainability principles into the corporate sustainability assessment process

The economics of rating watchlists: evidence from rating changes

Generally, information provision and certification have been identified as the major economic functions of rating agencies. This paper analyzes whether the watchlist (rating review) instrument has extended the agencies' role towards a monitoring position, as proposed by Boot, Milbourn, and Schmeits (2006). Using a data set of Moody's ratings between 1982 and 2004, we find that the overall information content of rating action has indeed increased due to the introduction of the watchlist procedure. Our findings suggest that rating reviews help to establish implicit monitoring contracts between agencies and borrowers and as such enable a finer partition of rating information, thereby contributing to a higher information quality. --Credit rating agencies,watchlist,market reactions,event study

Act 35, New School Performance Ratings, and School Choice

Act 35 was a product of the Lakeview v Huckabee case and the related Extraordinary Legislative Session. The law § 6-15-2101 of the Arkansas code required the establishment of three school ratings: a rating of the school’s current academic performance (or status), a rating of the school’s academic improvement (see the OEP policy brief on the new improvement rating) 1 , and a rating based on the school’s fiscal practices. The first set of improvement scores were reported based on the standardized tests administered in spring of 2007 and 2008. The first ratings based on current academic performance are to be based on the 2009-2010 school year, but these ratings have not yet been released to the schools or public as of this writing. In this policy brief, we describe the guidelines shaping this new school rating

The adjustment of credit ratings of defaulted issuers

We provide insights into determinants of the rating level of 371 issuers which defaulted in the years 1999 to 2003, and into the leader-follower relationship between Moody’s and S&P. The evidence for the rating level suggests that Moody’s assigns lower ratings than S&P for all observed periods before the default event. Furthermore, we observe two-way Granger causal-ity, which signifies information flow between the two rating agencies. Since lagged rating changes influence the magnitude of the agencies’ own rating changes it would appear that the two rating agencies apply a policy of taking a severe downgrade through several mild down-grades. Further, our analysis of rating changes shows that issuers with headquarters in the US are less sharply downgraded than non-US issuers. For rating changes by Moody’s we also find that larger issuers seem to be downgraded less severely than smaller issuers