IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbb/reswpp/200603-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is there a difference between solicited and unsolicited bank ratings and if so, why ?

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Van Roy

    () (National Bank of Belgium, Department of International Cooperation and Financial Stability)

Abstract

This paper analyses the effect of soliciting a rating on the rating outcome of banks. Using a sample of Asian banks rated by Fitch Ratings ("Fitch"), I find evidence that unsolicited ratings tend to be lower than solicited ones, after accounting for differences in observed bank characteristics. This downward bias does not seem to be explained by the fact that betterquality banks selfselect into the solicited group. Rather, unsolicited ratings appear to be lower because they are based on public information. As a result, they tend to be more conservative than solicited ratings, which incorporate both public and nonpublic information.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Van Roy, 2006. "Is there a difference between solicited and unsolicited bank ratings and if so, why ?," Working Paper Research 79, National Bank of Belgium.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbb:reswpp:200603-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nbb.be/doc/oc/repec/reswpp/wp79.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berger, Allen N & Davies, Sally M & Flannery, Mark J, 2000. "Comparing Market and Supervisory Assessments of Bank Performance: Who Knows What When?," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32(3), pages 641-667, August.
    2. Winnie P. H. Poon & Michael Firth, 2005. "Are Unsolicited Credit Ratings Lower? International Evidence From Bank Ratings," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(9-10), pages 1741-1771.
    3. Jorion, Philippe & Liu, Zhu & Shi, Charles, 2005. "Informational effects of regulation FD: evidence from rating agencies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 309-330, May.
    4. H. Kent Baker & Sattar A. Mansi, 2002. "Assessing Credit Rating Agencies by Bond Issuers and Institutional Investors," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(9&10), pages 1367-1398.
    5. Warren Bailey & Haitao Li & Connie X. Mao & Rui Zhong, 2003. "Regulation Fair Disclosure and Earnings Information: Market, Analyst, and Corporate Responses," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(6), pages 2487-2514, December.
    6. Boyd, John, 2000. "Comment on Comparing Market and Supervisory Assessments of Bank Performance: Who Knows What, When?," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 32(3), pages 668-670, August.
    7. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    8. repec:adr:anecst:y:1999:i:55-56:p:09 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Naoto Shimoda & Yuko Kawai, 2007. "Credit Rating Gaps in Japan: Differences between Solicited and Unsolicited Ratings, and "Rating Splits"," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 07-E-11, Bank of Japan.
    10. Fotios Pasiouras & Chrysovalantis Gaganis & Michael Doumpos, 2007. "A multicriteria discrimination approach for the credit rating of Asian banks," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 351-367, July.
    11. Winnie P. H. Poon & Junsoo Lee & Benton E. Gup, 2009. "Do Solicitations Matter in Bank Credit Ratings? Results from a Study of 72 Countries," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(2-3), pages 285-314, March.
    12. Yu, Fan, 2005. "Accounting transparency and the term structure of credit spreads," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 53-84, January.
    13. Fotios Pasiouras & Chrysovalantis Gaganis & Constantin Zopounidis, 2006. "The impact of bank regulations, supervision, market structure, and bank characteristics on individual bank ratings: A cross-country analysis," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 403-438, December.
    14. Giuliano Iannotta, 2006. "Testing for Opaqueness in the European Banking Industry: Evidence from Bond Credit Ratings," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 30(3), pages 287-309, December.
    15. Cantor, Richard & Packer, Frank, 1997. "Differences of opinion and selection bias in the credit rating industry," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(10), pages 1395-1417, October.
    16. Jason Abrevaya & Jerry A. Hausman, 1999. "Semiparametric Estimation with Mismeasured Dependent Variables: An Application to Duration Models for Unemployment Spells," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 55-56, pages 243-275.
    17. Baek, Jae-Seung & Kang, Jun-Koo & Suh Park, Kyung, 2004. "Corporate governance and firm value: evidence from the Korean financial crisis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 265-313, February.
    18. DeYoung, Robert, et al, 2001. "The Information Content of Bank Exam Ratings and Subordinated Debt Prices," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(4), pages 900-925, November.
    19. repec:adr:anecst:y:1999:i:55-56 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander Karminsky & Richard Hainsworth & Vasily Solodkov, 2013. "Arm’s Length Method for Comparing Rating Scales," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(2), pages 114-135, December.
    2. repec:eee:ecmode:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:34-44 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Naoto Shimoda & Yuko Kawai, 2007. "Credit Rating Gaps in Japan: Differences between Solicited and Unsolicited Ratings, and "Rating Splits"," Bank of Japan Working Paper Series 07-E-11, Bank of Japan.
    4. Winnie P. H. Poon & Kam C. Chan, 2010. "Solicited and Unsolicited Credit Ratings: A Global Perspective," Working Papers id:3112, eSocialSciences.
    5. Luitel, Prabesh & Vanpée, Rosanne & De Moor, Lieven, 2016. "Pernicious effects: How the credit rating agencies disadvantage emerging markets," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 286-298.
    6. Bernal, Oscar & Girard, Alexandre & Gnabo, Jean-Yves, 2016. "The importance of conflicts of interest in attributing sovereign credit ratings," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 48-66.
    7. Volkova, Olga & Lvova, Irina, 2016. "Effect of financial indicators on international ratings of russian banks," Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 177-195, February.
    8. Byoun, Soku, 2014. "Information content of unsolicited credit ratings and incentives of rating agencies: A theory," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 338-349.
    9. Bonsall, Samuel B., 2014. "The impact of issuer-pay on corporate bond rating properties: Evidence from Moody׳s and S&P׳s initial adoptions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 89-109.
    10. Byoun, Soku & Fulkerson, Jon A. & Han, Seung Hun & Shin, Yoon S., 2014. "Are unsolicited ratings biased? Evidence from long-run stock performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 326-338.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Credit rating agencies; Unsolicited ratings; Selfselection; Public disclosure; Accounting transparency;

    JEL classification:

    • G15 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - International Financial Markets
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbb:reswpp:200603-1. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/bnbgvbe.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.