The Home Bias in Sovereign Ratings

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes.You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. licence. www.econstor.eu Abstract: Credit rating agencies are frequently criticized for producing sovereign ratings that do not accurately reflect the economic and political fundamentals of rated countries. This article discusses how the home country of rating agencies could affect rating decisions as a result of political economy influences and culture. Using data from nine agencies based in six countries, we investigate empirically if there is systematic evidence for a home bias in sovereign ratings. Specifically, we use dyadic panel data to test whether, all else being equal, agencies assign better ratings to their home countries, as well as to countries economically, politically and culturally aligned with them. While most of the variation in ratings is explained by the fundamentals of rated countries, our results provide empirical support for the existence of a home bias in sovereign ratings. We find that the bias becomes more accentuated following the onset of the Global Financial Crisis and appears to be driven by economic and cultural ties, not geopolitics. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated JEL codes: G24, F34, H63, F65, G15Key words: Sovereign debt ratings, credit rating agencies, home bias, international finance, cultural distance, bank exposure 4 distance between the home country of the agency and the rated country could affect ratings as well. For example, the economic situation of a country that is culturally closer to the home country of the rating agency might appear more positive to analysts than an objective assessment would justify. Thus, our work also contributes to the literature on the effect of cultural biases (Grinblatt and Keloharju 2001;Guiso et al. 2006Guiso et al. , 2009Giannetti and Yafeh 2012).Is there systematic empirical evidence of a home bias in sovereign ratings? We examine whether the home country's economic and geopolitical interests in rated countries as well as cultural distance to rated countries are related to rating outcomes. For this purpose, we use monthly dyadic ...

Stigma or Cushion? IMF Programs and Sovereign Creditworthiness

“…A sovereign's creditworthiness as measured by credit ratings is most strongly influenced by the country's economic and political fundamentals. In the empirical literature on the determinants of credit ratings, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, GDP growth, inflation, and external debt are found to be robust predictors (Afonso 2003;Cantor and Packer 1996;Fuchs and Gehring 2017;Hill, Brooks, and Faff 2010). Several political indicators like the political regime type, partisanship, and the rule of law have also been found to correlate with rating outcomes (Archer, Biglaiser, and DeRouen 2007).…”

“…Sovereign credit ratings, as assessments of a future default probability, are based not only on information about a country's current economic and political performance, but also on expectations of the country's future development (Fuchs and Gehring 2017). As economic indicators, like GDP and inflation are imperfect and noisy measures, it is rational for investors and rating agencies to use other signals to infer information and adapt their assessment.…”

“…The main criteria applied to assess sovereign bonds are to a large degree comparable across agencies, but there are some differences (Fuchs and Gehring 2017 use data at a monthly frequency. Our panel regressions at the yearly level use ratings at the end of the year.…”

National Perspectives and Quantitative Datasets: A Silver Lining?

“…Arguably, democracy is a concept that is unusually difficult to measure. Yet it is essential to many contemporary research questions in IR and security studies, including about the (Fuchs, Gehring, and McDowell 2016;Fuchs and Gehring 2017). Once again, it makes sense for scholars seeking to understand how investors evaluate countries' creditworthiness to rely on the actual credit ratings produced by private agencies that are used by the investors of interest (e.g., Fitch, Moody's, and Standard and Poor's) as well as the more subjective indicators that the investors in question are known to value.…”

The Political Economy of Multilateral Lending to European Regions

“…us from performing such an exercise. Another strategy is used by Fuchs and Gehring (2017). The paper first documents that rating agencies more favorably rate the sovereign bonds of their home countries.…”