Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
We propose a theory for rating financial securities in the presence of structural maximization by the issuer in a market with investors who rely on credit rating. Two types of investors, simple investors who price tranches solely based on the ratings and model-based investors who use the rating information to calibrate models, are considered. Concepts of self-consistency and information gap are proposed to study different rating criteria. In particular, the expected loss criterion used by Moody’s satisfies self-consistency, but the probability of default criterion used by Standard & Poor’s does not. Moreover, the probability of default criterion typically has a higher information gap than the expected loss criterion. Empirical evidence in the post–Dodd–Frank period is consistent with our theoretical implications. We show that a set of axioms based on self-consistency leads to a tractable representation for all self-consistent rating criteria, which can also be extended to incorporate economic scenarios. New examples of self-consistent and scenario-based rating criteria are suggested. This paper was accepted by Agostino Capponi, finance. Funding: This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China Grant 2020YFA0712700, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grants RGPIN-2018-03823, RGPAS-2018-522590, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 12371476. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.01075 .
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Nan Guo
Nankai University
Steven Kou
Boston University
Bin Wang
Beijing Institute of Technology
Management Science
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Boston University
University of Waterloo
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Guo et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5c760b6db64358755e259 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.01075
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: