Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Testtheorie (2) (remove)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (2) (remove)
Rating agencies state that they take a rating action only when it is unlikely to be reversed shortly afterwards. Based on a formal representation of the rating process, I show that such a policy provides a good explanation for the puzzling empirical evidence: Rating changes occur relatively seldom, exhibit serial dependence, and lag changes in the issuers’ default risk. In terms of informational losses, avoiding rating reversals can be more harmful than monitoring credit quality only twice per year.
Evaluating the quality of credit portfolio risk models is an important issue for both banks and regulators. Lopez and Saidenberg (2000) suggest cross-sectional resampling techniques in order to make efficient use of available data. We show that their proposal disregards cross-sectional dependence in resampled portfolios, which renders standard statistical inference invalid. We proceed by suggesting the Berkowitz (1999) procedure, which relies on standard likelihood ratio tests performed on transformed default data. We simulate the power of this approach in various settings including one in which the test is extended to incorporate cross-sectional information. To compare the predictive ability of alternative models, we propose to use either Bonferroni bounds or the likelihood-ratio of the two models. Monte Carlo simulations show that a default history of ten years can be sufficient to resolve uncertainties currently present in credit risk modeling.