Multiple ratings and credit standards: differences of opinion in the credit rating industry

Richard Cantor () and Frank Packer ()

No 12, Staff Reports from Federal Reserve Bank of New York

Abstract: Rating-dependent financial regulators assume that the same letter ratings from different agencies imply the same levels of default risk. Most \\"third\\" agencies, however, assign significantly higher ratings on average than Moody's and Standard & Poor's. We show that, contrary to the claims of some rating industry professionals, sample selection bias can account for at most half of the observed average difference in ratings. We also investigate the economic rationale for using multiple rating agencies. Among the many variables considered, only size and bond-issuance history are consistently related to the probability of an issuer seeking third ratings. The probability ties to improve their standing under rating-dependent regulations.

Keywords: Corporate bonds; Sampling (Statistics); Credit (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1996
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr12.pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr12.html (text/html)

Related works:
Working Paper: Multiple ratings and credit standards: differences of opinion in the credit rating industry (1995)
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:fip:fednsr:12

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Staff Reports from Federal Reserve Bank of New York Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Gabriella Bucciarelli ().