IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iie/pbrief/pb11-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Can and Cannot Be Done about Rating Agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Veron

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

Abstract

The constantly developing global financial system needs better risk assessments than Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) have been collectively able to deliver during recent crises. More comprehensive public disclosure by issuers on their financial risks, which would not require intermediation by CRAs, is the best chance for new and better risk assessment methodologies and practices to emerge. To put it in a simplistic but concise way, what is needed is "a John Moody for the 21st century." CRAs themselves can perhaps be somewhat improved by adequate regulation and supervision, but public policy initiatives that focus only on CRAs are unlikely to adequately address the need for substantially better financial risk assessments. If real progress is to be made towards a better public understanding of financial risks, it will have to involve innovative approaches that even well-regulated CRAs, on the basis of recent experience, may not be the best placed to deliver.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Veron, 2011. "What Can and Cannot Be Done about Rating Agencies," Policy Briefs PB11-21, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb11-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/what-can-and-cannot-be-done-about-rating-agencies
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Katz & Emanuel Salinas & Constantinos Stephanou, 2009. "Credit Rating Agencies," World Bank Publications - Reports 10227, The World Bank Group.
    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. Chiwitt, Ulrich, 2014. "Ratingagenturen - Fluch oder Segen? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme," Arbeitspapiere der FOM 48, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiwitt, Ulrich, 2014. "Ratingagenturen - Fluch oder Segen? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme," Arbeitspapiere der FOM 48, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management.
    2. Kittiphod Charoontham & Thunyarat Amornpetchkul, 2023. "Compensation reform analysis on inflated credit rating attenuation," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 50(3), pages 627-645, September.
    3. Berwart, Erik & Guidolin, Massimo & Milidonis, Andreas, 2019. "An empirical analysis of changes in the relative timeliness of issuer-paid vs. investor-paid ratings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 88-118.
    4. Jakob Korbinian Eberl, 2016. "The Collateral Framework of the Eurosystem and Its Fiscal Implications," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 69.
    5. Imad A Moosa, 2017. "The regulation of credit rating agencies: A realistic view," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 180-200, April.
    6. Jonathan Chiu & Thorsten V. Koeppl, 2014. "Livin' On The Edge With Ratings: Liquidity, Efficiency And Stability," Working Paper 1335, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    7. Aggelos KOTIOS & George GALANOS & Spyros ROUKANAS, 2012. "The Rating Agencies In The International Political Economy," Scientific Bulletin - Economic Sciences, University of Pitesti, vol. 11(1), pages 3-15.
    8. 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.

    More about this item

    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:iie:pbrief:pb11-21. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.html .

    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.