Is There a "Boom Bias" in Agency Ratings?

Mark Dilly and Thomas Mählmann

Review of Finance, 2016, vol. 20, issue 3, 979-1011

Abstract: Theory predicts rating agencies’ incentive conflicts to be stronger in boom periods, leading to biased ratings and a reduced level of rating quality. We investigate this prediction empirically based on three different approaches. First, we show that initial ratings disagree with bond spread levels during boom periods in the way that rating agencies hold a systematically more optimistic view. Second, we reveal that boom bond ratings tend to be more heavily downgraded from an ex post perspective; and, third, we demonstrate that boom ratings are inflated compared with "conflicts-free" benchmark ratings. In several robustness tests we show that the observed "boom bias" does not result from changes in credit-worthiness, adjustments in rating standards, competitive pressure, or market supply, but rather from rating agencies’ incentive conflicts.

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rof/rfv023 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:revfin:v:20:y:2016:i:3:p:979-1011.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Finance is currently edited by Marcin Kacperczyk

More articles in Review of Finance from European Finance Association Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().