Credit rating agencies face a difficult trade-off between delivering both accurate and stable ratings. In particular, its users have consistently expressed a preference for rating stability, driven by the transactions costs induced by trading when ratings change frequently. Rating agencies generally assign ratings on a through-the-cycle basis whereas banks' internal valuations are often based on a point-in-time performance, that is they are related to the current value of the rated entity's or instrument's underlying assets. This paper compares the two approaches and assesses their impact on rating stability and accuracy. We find that while through-the-cycle ratings are initially more stable, they are prone to rating cliff effects and also suffer from inferior performance in predicting future defaults. This is because they are typically smooth and delay rating changes. Using a through-the-crisis methodology that uses a more stringent stress test goes halfway toward mitigating cliff effects, but is still prone to discretionary rating change delays.

We use historical particularities of pension funding law to investigate whether managers of U.S. corporate defined benefit pension plan sponsors strategically use regulatory freedom to lower the reported value of pension liabilities, and hence required cash contributions. For some years, pension plans were required to estimate two liabilities—one with mandated discount rates and mortality assumptions, and another where these could be chosen freely. Using a sample of 11,963 plans, we find that the regulated liability exceeds the unregulated measure by 10% and the difference further increases for underfunded pension plans. Underfunded plans tend to assume substantially higher discount rates and lower life expectancy. The effect persists both in the cross‐section of plans and over time and it serves to reduce cash contributions. We further show that plan sponsor managers use the freed‐up cash for corporate investment and that credit risk is unlikely to explain the finding.

In order to incentivize stronger issuer due diligence effort, European and U.S. authorities are amending securitization-related regulations to force issuers to retain an economic interest in the securitization products they issue. The idea is that if loan originators and securitizers have more skin in the game they will more diligently screen the loans they originate and securitize. This paper uses a simple model to explore the economics of equity and mezzanine tranche retention in the context of systemic risk, accounting frictions and reduced form informational asymmetries. It shows that screening levels are highest when the loan originating bank retains the equity tranche. However, most of the time a profit maximizing bank would favor retention of the less risky mezzanine tranche, thereby implying a suboptimal screening effort from a regulator's point of view. This is mainly due to lower capital charges, loan screening costs and lower retention levels. This distortion gets even more pronounced in case the economic outlook is positive or profitability is high, thereby making the case for dynamic and countercyclical credit risk retention requirements. Finally, the paper also illustrates the importance of loan screening costs for the retention decision and thereby shows that an unanimous imposition of equity tranche retention might run the risk of shutting down securitization markets.

We test whether high-frequency net-debt issuers (HFIs)—public industrial companies with relatively low issuance costs and high debt-financing benefits—manage leverage towards long-run targets. Our answer is they do not: (1) the leverage-profitability correlation is negative even in quarters with leverage rebalancings, (2) the speed-of-adjustment to target leverage deviations is no higher for HFIs than for low-frequency net-debt issuers, and (3) under-leveraged HFIs do not speed up rebalancing activity in significant investment periods. Thus, even in the subset of firms most likely to follow dynamic trade-off theory, the theory does not appear to hold.

No abstract