IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/lus/reveco/v61y2010i1p45-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Zur Reform des Rating-(Un)Wesens: Bestandsaufnahme und eine Reform-Option

Author

Listed:
  • Beck Hanno

    (Hochschule Pforzheim, Fakultät für Wirtschaft und Recht, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, D-75175 Pforzheim)

  • Wienert Helmut

    (Hochschule Pforzheim, Fakultät für Wirtschaft und Recht, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, D-75175 Pforzheim)

Abstract

The market for ratings suffers from several inefficiencies: asymmetric information and moral hazard lead to conflicts of interest and principal-agent-problems. Moreover, network externalities and economies of scale lead to a lack of competition in the market for ratings. There is empirical evidence for market inefficiencies as ratingshopping, herding or slow adjustment of wrong ratings to a changed environment. As a remedy for these problems, we suggest a fund where rating-orders are pooled and rated by means of a double-blind-approach. Each issuer of a security gives his product into a pool and rating agencies which meet the standards of the pool are free to tender for the mandate to rate the product. Several aspects how to set up such a pool and possible problems are being addressed in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Beck Hanno & Wienert Helmut, 2010. "Zur Reform des Rating-(Un)Wesens: Bestandsaufnahme und eine Reform-Option," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 61(1), pages 45-67, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:lus:reveco:v:61:y:2010:i:1:p:45-67
    DOI: 10.1515/roe-2010-0103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/roe-2010-0103
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/roe-2010-0103?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    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:lus:reveco:v:61:y:2010:i:1:p:45-67. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.