IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/refreg/v7y2021i2p319-324..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Rise and Fall of Dagong Global Credit Rating Agency: A Geopolitical Challenge for the Rating Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Chunping Bush

Abstract

Dagong Global Credit Rating Agency (Dagong) was originally branded as a Chinese national representative credit rating agency. Its international expansion in the US and the EU, in order to challenge the biggest international credit rating agencies, was unsuccessful and achieved little of significance. Dagong’s business suffered a complete halt because of a one-year suspension by the Chinese financial regulators. Its ratings heeded China’s geopolitical interest and China’s strategic plans of economic development rather than signalling the credit risks of debt instruments. Dagong’s ratings had a significant political bias towards countries which were China’s economic and political allies or supplied raw materials to China. Dagong officially became a state-owned credit rating agency following a reconstruction by the Chinese state in 2019. This article concludes that this new ownership may exacerbate the geopolitical characteristics of Dagong and poses a challenge to the international financial market.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunping Bush, 2021. "The Rise and Fall of Dagong Global Credit Rating Agency: A Geopolitical Challenge for the Rating Industry," Journal of Financial Regulation, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 319-324.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:7:y:2021:i:2:p:319-324.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jfr/fjab007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    rating agencies; geopolitical bias;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:7:y:2021:i:2:p:319-324.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jfr .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.