IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Stabilität versus Aktualität – Wann sind stabile Agency-Ratings marktbasierten Bewertungen vorzuziehen?

  • Christina E. Bannier

    (Frankfurt School of Finance and Management, Commerzbank Professur für Mittelstandsfinanzierung, Sonnemannstraße 9-11, D-60314 Frankfurt/M)

This article analyses in theoretical terms on the basis of strategic portfolio decisions the pros and cons of an information basis that is stable in the long term versus one that is topical, but more volatile. The effects of an evaluation method depend on the characteristics of the assets evaluated, notably their specificity and lifetime. Stable agency ratings mitigate the volatility of unspecific asset prices. On the other hand, the trade in short-term assets is more efficient when marked-based ratings are applied. For long-term assets, the degree of specificity, the upside/ downside risk and the rating level are decisive. For specific assets, in particular, agency ratings are dominant where rating levels are sufficiently high and where transaction costs are low. Downgrading of ratings may result in trading inefficiencies increasing by leaps and bounds.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Article provided by Credit and Capital Markets in its journal Kredit und Kapital.

Volume (Year): 43 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 349–374

in new window

Handle: RePEc:kuk:journl:v:43:y:2010:i:3:p:349-374
Contact details of provider: Web page:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kuk:journl:v:43:y:2010:i:3:p:349-374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Credit and Capital Markets)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.