Hubbry Logo
Credit ratingCredit ratingMain
Open search
Credit rating
Community hub
Credit rating
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Credit rating
Credit rating
Credit rating
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A credit rating is an evaluation of the credit risk of a prospective debtor (an individual, a business, company or a government). It is the practice of predicting or forecasting the ability of a supposed debtor to pay back the debt or default.[1] The credit rating represents an evaluation from a credit rating agency of the qualitative and quantitative information for the prospective debtor, including information provided by the prospective debtor and other non-public information obtained by the credit rating agency's analysts.

Credit reporting (or credit score) is a subset of credit rating. It is a numeric evaluation of an individual's credit worthiness, which is done by a credit bureau or consumer credit reporting agency.

Sovereign credit ratings

[edit]
Country risk rankings (Q4 2019)[2][3] Least risky countries, Score out of 100 Source: Euromoney country risk
Rank Rank Change Country Overall Score
1 ▲1 Switzerland 88.16
2 ▼1 Singapore 87.86
3 - Norway 87.8
4 - Denmark 86.9
5 - Sweden 84.72
6 - Luxembourg 84.52
7 ▲1 Finland 84.08
8 ▼1 Netherlands 83.85
9 ▲1 Australia 81.21
10 ▼1 New Zealand 80.32

A sovereign credit rating is the credit rating of a sovereign entity, such as a national government. The sovereign credit rating indicates the risk level of the investing environment of a country and is used by investors when looking to invest in particular jurisdictions, and also takes into account political risk.

The "country risk rankings" table shows the ten least-risky countries for investment as of January 2018. Ratings are further broken down into components including political risk, economic risk. Euromoney's bi-annual country risk index monitors the political and economic stability of 185 sovereign countries, with Singapore often emerging as the least risky country since 2017 – it is also one of the only few countries in the world as well as the only in Asia to achieve a AAA sovereign credit rankings from all major credit agencies.[4][5]

Results focus foremost on economics, specifically sovereign default risk or payment default risk for exporters (also known as a trade credit risk). A. M. Best defines "country risk" as the risk that country-specific factors could adversely affect an insurer's ability to meet its financial obligations.[6]

Short and long-term ratings

[edit]

A rating expresses the likelihood that the rated party will go into default within a given time horizon. In general, a time horizon of one year or under is considered short term, and anything above that is considered long term. In the past institutional investors preferred to consider long-term ratings. Nowadays, short-term ratings are commonly used.[citation needed]

Corporate credit ratings

[edit]
Main article: Bond credit rating

Credit ratings can address a corporation's financial instruments i.e. debt security such as a bond, but also the corporations itself. Ratings are assigned by credit rating agencies, the largest of which are Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch Ratings. They use letter designations such as A, B, C. Higher grades are intended to represent a lower probability of default.

Agencies do not attach a hard number of probability of default to each grade, preferring descriptive definitions such as: "the obligor's capacity to meet its financial commitment on the obligation is extremely strong," or "less vulnerable to non-payment than other speculative issues…" (Standard and Poors' definition of an AAA-rated and a BB-rated bond respectively).[7] However, some studies have estimated the average risk and reward of bonds by rating. One study by Moody's[8][9] claimed that over a "5-year time horizon" bonds it gave its highest rating (Aaa) to had a "cumulative default rate" of 0.18%, the next highest (Aa2) 0.28%, the next (Baa2) 2.11%, 8.82% for the next (Ba2), and 31.24% for the lowest it studied (B2). (See "Default rate" in "Estimated spreads and default rates by rating grade" table to right.) Over a longer period, it stated "the order is by and large, but not exactly, preserved".[10]

Another study in Journal of Finance calculated the additional interest rate or "spread" corporate bonds pay over that of "riskless" US Treasury bonds, according to the bonds' rating. (See "Basis point spread" in table to right.) Looking at rated bonds for 1973–89, the authors found a AAA-rated bond paid 43 "basis points" (or 43/100 of a percentage point) over a US Treasury bond (so that it would yield 3.43% if the Treasury yielded 3.00%). A CCC-rated "junk" (or speculative) bond, on the other hand, paid over 7% (724 basis points) more than a Treasury bond on average over that period.[11][12]

Different rating agencies may use variations of an alphabetical combination of lowercase and uppercase letters, with either plus or minus signs or numbers added to further fine-tune the rating (see colored chart). The Standard & Poor's rating scale uses uppercase letters and pluses and minuses.[13] The Moody's rating system uses numbers and lowercase letters as well as uppercase.

While Moody's, S&P and Fitch Ratings control approximately 95% of the credit ratings business,[14] they are not the only rating agencies. DBRS's long-term ratings scale is somewhat similar to Standard & Poor's and Fitch Ratings with the words high and low replacing the + and −. It goes as follows, from excellent to poor: AAA, AA (high), AA, AA (low), A (high), A, A (low), BBB (high), BBB, BBB (low), BB (high), BB, BB (low), B (high), B, B (low), CCC (high), CCC, CCC (low), CC (high), CC, CC (low), C (high), C, C (low) and D. The short-term ratings often map to long-term ratings though there is room for exceptions at the high or low side of each equivalent.[15]

S&P, Moody's, Fitch and DBRS are the only four ratings agencies that are recognized by the European Central Bank (ECB) for determining collateral requirements for banks to borrow from the central bank. The ECB uses a first, best rule among the four agencies that have the designated ECAI status,[16] which means that it takes the highest rating among the four agencies – S&P, Moody's, Fitch and DBRS – to determine haircuts and collateral requirements for borrowing. Ratings in Europe have been under close scrutiny, particularly the highest ratings given to countries like Spain, Ireland and Italy, because they affect how much banks can borrow against sovereign debt they hold.[17]

A. M. Best rates from excellent to poor in the following manner: A++, A+, A, A−, B++, B+, B, B−, C++, C+, C, C−, D, E, F, and S. The CTRISKS rating system is as follows: CT3A, CT2A, CT1A, CT3B, CT2B, CT1B, CT3C, CT2C and CT1C. All these CTRISKS grades are mapped to one-year probability of default.

Under the EU Credit Rating Agency Regulation (CRAR), the European Banking Authority has developed a series of mapping tables that map ratings to the "Credit Quality Steps" (CQS) as set out in regulatory capital rules and map the CQS to short run and long run benchmark default rates. These are provided in the table below:

Moody's Standard & Poor's Fitch Ratings Rating description EU Credit Quality Step[18][19][20] Long run benchmark default rates (mid value)[21] Short run benchmark default rates (trigger level)[21]
Long-term Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term Short-term
Aaa P-1 AAA A-1+ AAA F1+ Prime 1 0.1% 1.2%
Aa1 AA+ AA+ High grade
Aa2 AA AA
Aa3 AA− AA−
A1 A+ A-1 A+ F1 Upper medium grade 2 0.25% 1.3%
A2 A A
A3 P-2 A− A-2 A− F2
Baa1 BBB+ BBB+ Lower medium grade 3 1.0% 3.0%
Baa2 P-3 BBB BBB F3
Baa3 BBB− A-3 BBB−
Ba1 Not Prime BB+ B BB+ B Non-investment grade
speculative 		4 7.5% 12.4%
Ba2 BB BB
Ba3 BB− BB−
B1 B+ B+ Highly speculative 5 20% 35%
B2 B B
B3 B− B−
Caa1 CCC+ C CCC+ C Substantial risks 6 34% not applicable
Caa2 CCC CCC
Caa3 CCC− CCC−
Ca CC CC Extremely speculative
C C Default imminent
C RD D RD D In default
/ SD D
/ D /

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Credit rating

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A credit rating is an independent of the creditworthiness of a , such as a , , or , gauging its capacity to meet principal and interest obligations on time. These ratings, expressed on ordinal scales ranging from AAA or Aaa (indicating the highest quality and lowest default risk) to D (signifying default), are assigned by specialized agencies using quantitative models, qualitative analysis, and historical data to quantify relative default probabilities. The global credit rating industry is dominated by the "Big Three" agencies—Moody's Investors Service, S&P Global Ratings, and Fitch Ratings—which collectively control over 95% of the market and provide standardized benchmarks that influence borrowing costs, investment decisions, and regulatory capital requirements in debt markets. Ratings serve as a critical signaling mechanism for investors, enabling risk assessment of bonds, structured finance products, and other fixed-income securities, while also facilitating capital allocation by distilling complex financial data into comparable metrics that lower information asymmetries. Despite their pivotal , ratings have faced substantial for systemic flaws, particularly the "issuer-pays" model where rated entities compensate agencies, incentivizing overly optimistic assessments to secure . This conflict contributed to the , as agencies assigned investment-grade ratings to trillions in subprime mortgage-backed securities that later defaulted en masse, amplifying market losses and prompting widespread downgrades—such as Moody's adjusting 94.2% of its 2006 subprime residential mortgage-backed securities ratings by early 2008. Reforms post-crisis, including the Dodd-Frank Act's push to reduce regulatory over-reliance on ratings, have aimed to mitigate these issues, though the oligopolistic persists, underscoring ongoing debates over accuracy, , and the causal link between flawed ratings and financial .

Definition and Purpose

Core Concept and Objectives

Credit ratings represent forward-looking, independent opinions on the relative creditworthiness of debt issuers, such as corporations, governments, or structured finance vehicles, quantifying the probability of timely repayment of principal and interest obligations. These assessments employ ordinal scales—typically letter grades from AAA (indicating minimal default risk) to D (indicating default)—derived from probabilistic models analyzing empirical data on the issuer's financial metrics, operational viability, industry conditions, and macroeconomic influences over defined horizons, often 1 to 5 years. The core objective of credit ratings is to deliver standardized signals that reduce information asymmetries in debt markets, allowing investors to calibrate risk premiums with greater precision and allocate capital toward issuers exhibiting lower default likelihoods. By synthesizing complex, issuer-specific data into comparable benchmarks, ratings support efficient pricing of bonds and other fixed-income securities without constituting regulatory endorsements or guarantees of performance. This framework originated with John Moody's 1909 manual rating railroad bonds based on their investment quality, establishing a precedent for third-party evaluations independent of issuer disclosures. In contrast to consumer credit scores, which generate numerical values (e.g., scores from to 850) to predict individual repayment behavior for personal loans and credit cards using payment history and utilization patterns, credit ratings target institutional and sovereign debt, emphasizing long-term solvency and recovery prospects for large-scale obligations.

Functions in Debt Markets and Investor Decision-Making

Credit ratings serve as standardized assessments of relative creditworthiness, enabling investors to compare debt issuers efficiently and allocate capital based on risk signals rather than conducting exhaustive individual analyses. By providing a common metric derived from historical default analogs and financial metrics, ratings reduce information asymmetries in debt markets, where issuers' opaque balance sheets and future cash flows otherwise impose high search and verification costs on buyers. This standardization lowers due diligence burdens for institutional investors managing large portfolios, allowing them to diversify across bonds while relying on agency evaluations as proxies for default probability rather than replicating proprietary models for each security. Empirical evidence indicates that ratings facilitate quicker transaction matching, as investors use them to filter opportunities and benchmark performance against peers holding similar-rated assets. In investor decision-making, ratings function as benchmarks within portfolio mandates, particularly for fixed-income funds where constraints often classify assets by rating notches to delineate risk thresholds and mitigate principal-agent issues between managers and beneficiaries. For instance, many mandates limit holdings to investment-grade securities (BBB or higher), enabling scalable diversification across sectors without bespoke credit analysis for every issuer, thus promoting efficient capital flows to higher-rated borrowers. Ratings also inform covenant structures in debt issuances, where triggers tied to downgrades (e.g., falling below BBB) activate protective clauses like accelerated repayments or collateral postings, indirectly guiding investor expectations on recovery prospects and pricing adjustments. This integration into contractual frameworks and mandates causal links ratings to reduced monitoring costs, as investors monitor agency updates rather than granular issuer data, fostering market liquidity for rated debt over unrated alternatives. Ratings exert a direct influence on bond pricing through yield spreads that widen with successive notches, reflecting investor demands for compensation aligned with perceived default risks. Historical data show that BBB-rated corporate bonds typically yield 100-200 basis points less than BB-rated high-yield bonds in stable periods, with spreads expanding during stress to amplify differentiation; for example, pre-2008 averages placed BBB option-adjusted spreads around 150 basis points over Treasuries, versus 400-500 for BB equivalents. This correlation stems from ratings' role in pricing discovery, where lower notches signal elevated loss-given-default probabilities, prompting investors to adjust allocations and bid up premiums accordingly. Agency methodologies emphasize that ratings constitute forward-looking opinions on relative standing, not absolute guarantees of repayment or predictive tools for specific defaults, as stated in standard disclaimers. S&P Global, for instance, clarifies that even high ratings like AA reflect opinions on lower default likelihood relative to BBB, without assuring non-default. Investors thus treat ratings as historical benchmarks for portfolio construction, supplementing them with internal stress tests to account for unmodeled risks like sector-specific shocks, ensuring decisions remain grounded in causal risk factors beyond agency views.

Historical Development

Early Origins and Railroad Bonds (1900s–1930s)

The modern credit rating system originated in the United States during the early 20th century as a private-sector response to the growing complexity of bond markets amid rapid industrialization and railroad expansion. In April 1909, John Moody published Moody's Analyses of Railroad Investments, the first manual providing systematic credit ratings for railroad bonds, assigning letter grades based on assessments of issuers' financial health, including leverage and interest coverage ratios derived from income statements and balance sheets. This innovation addressed the information asymmetries faced by investors in an era of speculative railroad financing, where empirical quantification of default risk through metrics like debt-to-earnings ratios offered a tool for evaluating safety margins without relying on anecdotal banker opinions. Following Moody's lead, competitors entered the market to provide similar analytical services. Poor's Publishing issued its first bond credit ratings in 1916, focusing on standardized forward-looking assessments of creditworthiness for railroad and other securities. The Fitch Publishing Company, founded in 1913, began offering ratings in 1924, introducing the AAA-to-D scale in the 1920s that emphasized qualitative and quantitative evaluations of bond safety. These early agencies operated as subscriber-based services, with ratings disseminated through manuals that investors voluntarily adopted to inform decisions on the burgeoning corporate debt market, which saw railroad bonds dominate issuances exceeding $10 billion by the 1920s. By the late 1920s and into the early 1930s, prior to the Great Depression's full impact, coverage expanded beyond railroads to public utilities and industrial bonds, reflecting the diversification of fixed-income investments. Agencies incorporated broader data on earnings coverage and asset backing, enabling investors to compare risks across sectors without regulatory mandate, though adoption remained market-driven and uneven amid economic optimism. This pre-Depression phase established ratings as empirical tools for pricing credit risk, grounded in verifiable financial ratios rather than speculative narratives.

Expansion and Institutionalization Post-WWII

In the aftermath of World War II, credit rating agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's broadened their scope to encompass international corporate and government bonds, capitalizing on the reconstruction of European economies and the influx of U.S. capital abroad under the Bretton Woods framework established in 1944. This period saw U.S. investors increasingly allocate to foreign securities, with agencies providing assessments to mitigate unfamiliar risks in a system of fixed exchange rates and dollar convertibility into gold. Sovereign credit ratings, which Moody's had initiated sporadically before World War I for allied war loans, remained limited through the 1940s and 1950s due to capital controls and low cross-border issuance; however, informal evaluations gained traction post-1970s oil shocks, as petrodollar recycling spurred lending to oil-importing developing nations facing balance-of-payments strains. By 1978, formalized sovereign ratings appeared for major economies like the United Kingdom amid rising external debt vulnerabilities. Institutional investor demand for rated instruments surged with the postwar expansion of defined-benefit pension funds and mutual funds, whose assets channeled into fixed-income markets grew substantially, from supporting domestic reconstruction bonds to diversified portfolios requiring standardized risk proxies. Fiduciary obligations under the prudent investor rule increasingly referenced agency ratings as benchmarks for credit quality, embedding them in portfolio management practices by the 1950s and 1960s to fulfill duties of care amid rapid asset accumulation. Rating methodologies evolved empirically during the 1960s to integrate macroeconomic correlations, such as GDP growth and per capita levels, into assessments of cross-border exposures, reflecting heightened interdependence in global capital flows and the need to quantify sovereign-like risks in multinational corporate debt. This shift addressed limitations of purely domestic financial metrics, incorporating fiscal balances and external vulnerabilities to better predict default probabilities in an era of emerging Eurobond markets.

Deregulation, Securitization Boom, and Pre-Crisis Growth (1970s–2000s)

In 1975, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced the Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) designation within its net capital rules for broker-dealers (17 CFR 240.15c3-1), initially applying it to Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings to determine capital charges for holding different grades of debt securities, thereby entrenching these agencies as an oligopoly with regulatory imprimatur. This framework limited competition by requiring SEC recognition for ratings to influence capital adequacy, as subsequent designations—such as Duff & Phelps in 1982—remained rare over decades. Concurrently, in the early 1970s, the major agencies shifted from a subscriber-pays model, where investors purchased ratings publications, to an issuer-pays model, with issuers compensating agencies directly for solicited ratings on specific securities. This change, driven by declining subscription revenues amid free-rider issues and rising demand for customized assessments, aligned agency incentives with issuers while expanding ratings to non-investment-grade and novel debt structures. The 1980s deregulation wave, including the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, broadened thrift and bank investment powers into riskier assets, heightening reliance on NRSRO ratings for risk assessment amid the savings and loan crisis, where over 1,000 institutions failed by 1990 with losses exceeding $160 billion. Regulators increasingly incorporated NRSRO ratings into capital rules for depository institutions, treating investment-grade securities as lower-risk for reserve purposes, which amplified agencies' influence on financial stability without direct oversight of their methodologies. This integration, building on the 1975 net capital rule, fostered over-dependence on agency judgments for compliance, as ratings became proxies for credit quality in expanded portfolios of commercial real estate and other loans. The 1990s securitization boom transformed ratings' role, with residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) issuance growing from under $100 billion annually in the early 1990s to over $1 trillion by 2005, as agencies rated tranched pools assuming low default correlations across geographic regions and borrower classes to achieve high yields for senior slices. These Gaussian copula-based models, emphasizing diversification and historical data under benign conditions, projected thin-tailed loss distributions that ignored potential systemic correlations in housing downturns, enabling triple-A ratings on substantial subprime exposures. By the 2000s, issuer-pays dominated entirely, fueling revenue surges—such as structured finance fees rising to 36% of Moody's total by 2000 from negligible in 1989—as agencies evaluated trillions in asset-backed securities (ABS) and RMBS, with U.S. ABS issuance alone hitting $3.455 trillion in 2007. This growth entrenched vulnerabilities through untested model extrapolations and regulatory deference to opaque processes.

Major Agencies and Industry Structure

The Big Three: Moody's, S&P, and Fitch

Moody's Investors Service, S&P Global Ratings, and Fitch Ratings constitute the dominant players in the credit rating industry, collectively commanding approximately 95% of the global market share as of the early 2020s. Their preeminence arises from entrenched reputations built over decades, extensive proprietary datasets accumulated through ongoing issuer interactions, and regulatory designations such as NRSRO status in the U.S., which embed their ratings in financial regulations and investor mandates, erecting formidable barriers to new entrants. This oligopolistic structure enables them to leverage historical data for nuanced assessments, providing a competitive edge in evaluating creditworthiness across diverse sectors and geographies. Moody's Investors Service traces its origins to 1909, when John Moody began publishing manual analyses of railroad bonds, evolving into a full-fledged rating service by 1914. The agency prioritizes probability-of-default metrics, exemplified by its Expected Default Frequency (EDF) models, which draw on proprietary credit data to quantify default risks over specific horizons. Moody's operations span global issuers, with a focus on integrating empirical default studies into its proprietary frameworks for forward-looking evaluations. S&P Global Ratings originates from Henry Varnum Poor's 1860 publication on railroad finances, formalizing as Standard & Poor's through a 1941 merger and expanding into comprehensive credit opinions. As the largest among the trio by market influence, it leads in global scale, issuing ratings for sovereigns, corporates, and structured finance across more than 100 countries, supported by vast proprietary research archives. This breadth underpins its role in benchmarking international debt markets. Fitch Ratings was founded in 1913 by John Knowles Fitch to analyze public utilities and bonds, later broadening to global coverage. It excels in emerging markets, rating over 8,000 entities in these regions and producing specialized research on sectors like APAC bonds and African banks, bolstered by dedicated proprietary monitoring tools. Fitch's operations emphasize prospective credit opinions tailored to high-growth, volatile economies, enhancing its niche dominance. Together, these agencies process the vast majority of investment-grade debt issuances, with their ratings embedded in over 80% of such transactions in the U.S. corporate bond market during the 2020s, reflecting their indispensable role in facilitating investor confidence through data-driven consistency.

Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) and Smaller Players

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced the Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) designation in 1975 as part of its net capital rule amendments, initially to classify debt securities' liquidity for broker-dealer capital requirements, effectively treating NRSRO ratings as a regulatory safe harbor for compliance with investment and risk-based capital standards across federal rules. This status embeds NRSRO ratings into over 100 regulations, including those for banks, insurers, and pension funds, creating issuer demand but also insulating designated agencies from full market competition by tying regulatory utility to NRSRO approval. As of December 31, 2024, the SEC recognizes 10 NRSROs, including niche players beyond the dominant firms: A.M. Best Rating Services (focused on insurance), DBRS Morningstar (structured finance and Canadian issuers), Demotech (U.S. regional insurers), Egan-Jones Ratings (corporate bonds), HR Ratings de México (Latin American sovereigns and corporates), Japan Credit Rating Agency (Asian issuers), Kroll Bond Rating Agency (structured products), and Lianhe Ratings Asia (Chinese and regional entities). Post-2008 financial crisis reforms under Dodd-Frank aimed to foster diversification by reducing mechanistic reliance on ratings and easing NRSRO entry, enabling smaller agencies like DBRS and Kroll to capture up to 26% of outstanding ratings in asset-backed securities by 2022 through specialized methodologies in commercial mortgage-backed securities. However, these gains remain confined to segments, with the three largest NRSROs retaining over 95% of global market share in structured and corporate ratings as of 2020 data. Regulatory hurdles perpetuate high barriers to entry for new or smaller agencies, including opaque SEC designation criteria requiring demonstrated national recognition, proprietary data access limited by issuer-paid models favoring incumbents with historical track records, and fixed costs for compliance and model validation exceeding millions annually. Empirical evidence from SEC examinations shows persistent concentration, as non-NRSROs cannot leverage ratings for regulatory capital relief, stifling innovation in rating methodologies despite post-crisis mandates for competition; for instance, while 10 NRSROs exist, smaller ones issue under 5% of total ratings due to these dynamics. Globally, non-U.S. agencies like Europe's Scope Ratings (ESMA-registered for EU sovereign and corporate assessments) and Asian firms such as China Chengxin International Credit Rating challenge Big Three dominance regionally but hold negligible U.S. influence, as NRSRO status anchors American regulatory deference and investor reliance, limiting their cross-border traction absent equivalent designations. Japan Credit Rating Agency and Lianhe, as NRSROs, provide limited Asian-focused alternatives, yet U.S.-centric rules continue to marginalize broader diversification.

Oligopolistic Market Dynamics and Barriers to Entry

The credit rating industry exhibits oligopolistic characteristics, with the three largest agencies—S&P Global Ratings, Moody's Investors Service, and Fitch Ratings—controlling approximately 95% of the U.S. investment-grade ratings market and around 90% globally as of 2024. This dominance yields a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) exceeding 2,500, a threshold commonly associated with monopoly-like risks under U.S. antitrust guidelines, calculated from approximate market shares of 40-45% for S&P and Moody's each and 15% for Fitch. The issuer-pays fee model, adopted industry-wide since the 1970s, reinforces this structure by aligning agency revenues with issuer preferences for favorable or stable ratings to secure repeat business and lower borrowing costs. This creates incentives for agencies to prioritize client retention over rigorous differentiation, as issuers select raters based on historical leniency rather than predictive accuracy, contributing to persistent market inertia. Network effects further entrench incumbents, as the utility of ratings stems from their universal acceptance by investors, regulators, and market participants, which demands scale and consistency in scale definitions across issuers—deterring new entrants lacking immediate comparability or adoption. Empirical patterns of low issuer switching, with stable agency assignments persisting across deals due to relational lock-in rather than superior performance metrics, underscore this dynamic over competitive merit. Regulatory mechanisms, particularly the SEC's Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) designation, impose significant barriers to entry by mandating NRSRO status for ratings to qualify in federal rules on capital requirements and investment eligibility, limiting effective competitors to just ten NRSROs as of 2024 while favoring established players. This entrenchment supplants free-market selection—where investors could directly reward accurate forecasters— with reliance on a concentrated cadre, fostering complacency, reduced innovation in methodologies, and diminished incentives for relative accuracy, as agencies face less pressure to outperform peers in default prediction.

Methodologies and Rating Processes

Quantitative Models: Financial Metrics and Stress Testing

Quantitative models in credit rating primarily rely on financial metrics derived from issuers' balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow data to assess solvency and default risk. Key leverage ratios, such as debt-to-EBITDA, measure total indebtedness relative to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, with thresholds varying by rating category; for instance, S&P Global Ratings considers debt-to-EBITDA below 2x indicative of strong investment-grade capacity for many corporates. Funds from operations (FFO) to debt complements this by evaluating cash generation against obligations, often targeted above 20% for higher ratings. Interest coverage ratios, like EBIT to interest expense, gauge an issuer's ability to service debt from operating profits, with medians exceeding 5x for A-rated entities based on historical distributions across industries. Liquidity metrics, including current ratio and cash-to-debt, assess short-term resilience, though agencies adjust these for off-balance-sheet exposures and cyclicality. These ratios form the backbone of scorecard-based models, where issuers are benchmarked against peers and historical rating transitions to estimate implied default probabilities. Default probability curves are constructed from long-term empirical data, such as Moody's Default and Recovery Database spanning over a century, which tracks realized defaults by rating notch to derive cumulative default rates—for example, speculative-grade averages around 4.2% annually. Agencies map current metrics to these curves, adjusting for business risk profiles, but outcomes hinge on data quality and period selection biases. Stress testing integrates these metrics into scenario analyses simulating adverse conditions, such as GDP contractions akin to the 2008 crisis (e.g., 4-5% U.S. drops), to project metric deteriorations and default thresholds. Monte Carlo simulations, employed by firms like Fitch for portfolio-level risk, generate thousands of paths incorporating correlated shocks to variables like revenue and asset values, yielding probabilistic loss distributions under tail events. Hybrid approaches blend deterministic stress scenarios with stochastic elements, yet results remain sensitive to input assumptions on correlations and recovery rates, underscoring limitations in capturing unprecedented shocks.

Qualitative Assessments: Governance, Management, and Macro Factors

Credit rating agencies incorporate qualitative assessments to evaluate aspects of issuers that numerical data may overlook, such as institutional structures and external influences, though these elements often rely on subjective analyst judgment rather than verifiable metrics. For corporate ratings, agencies like Moody's, S&P, and Fitch examine governance frameworks, including board independence from executive influence and alignment of management incentives with long-term creditor interests, to gauge the potential for prudent decision-making amid financial stress. Fitch, in particular, places emphasis on governance quality, assessing factors like transparency in reporting and checks against agency problems that could prioritize shareholders over debtholders. Management evaluations focus on executive track records, drawing from historical performance in navigating downturns or strategic shifts, often through case-specific reviews rather than standardized scores. Agencies conduct analyst interviews with leadership and compare entities against peers in similar industries to identify patterns of effective risk management, such as timely deleveraging during sector contractions observed in energy firms post-2014 oil price collapse. However, these assessments remain opaque, with agencies not disclosing precise weightings or scoring rubrics for management quality, which can lead to inconsistencies across ratings. Macroeconomic factors serve as overlays, particularly for corporates exposed to cyclical sectors like manufacturing or commodities, where agencies adjust base financial analyses for vulnerabilities to GDP fluctuations or commodity price swings. S&P Global, for instance, integrates scenario-based macro models to stress-test issuer resilience against economic cycles, recognizing that sector downturns, such as those in retail amid e-commerce shifts since 2010, amplify default risks beyond firm-specific metrics. Empirical studies indicate, however, that these qualitative macro overlays exhibit limited standalone correlation with actual default probabilities compared to quantitative indicators like leverage ratios, as default prediction models relying primarily on financial data outperform those heavily weighted toward subjective economic narratives. The integration of such qualitative elements introduces risks of bias, as unverifiable judgments—derived from non-public discussions or interpretive peer benchmarks—may overweight transient perceptions over causal financial realities, a concern heightened by agencies' proprietary methodologies that resist external validation. Regulatory scrutiny post-2008 financial crisis has prompted some disclosure of qualitative criteria, yet persistent opacity in their application underscores the need for caution, with research showing that pure quantitative approaches better capture default causality through metrics like interest coverage, which directly tie to cash flow sustainability.

Differences Across Agency Approaches and Opacity Concerns

Credit rating agencies adopt varying methodological frameworks that influence rating outcomes. Moody's ratings emphasize expected loss, integrating estimates of both default probability and loss severity upon default, while S&P and Fitch prioritize an issuer's overall capacity to fulfill obligations, placing greater weight on business risk factors such as industry position and competitive dynamics. These distinct approaches lead to systematic divergences; for example, Fitch tends to assign lower ratings to bank credits on average than Moody's or S&P, reflecting a more conservative stance in assessing structural vulnerabilities. Empirical evidence highlights the extent of these discrepancies, with agencies reaching identical broad-category ratings in roughly 70-80% of corporate cases, but splitting on specific notches in about 20% of instances, particularly for lower-rated or complex instruments like subordinated debt. Such inconsistencies reduce the reliability of ratings as standardized risk indicators, as investors face challenges in interpreting divergent signals without clear methodological convergence. Opacity in agency processes exacerbates these issues, stemming from proprietary algorithms and quantitative models that lack full external replicability, despite SEC requirements for NRSROs to disclose high-level procedures. SEC examinations have identified persistent gaps in model transparency, where detailed assumptions and calibration data remain shielded as trade secrets, impeding scrutiny for biases or errors and eroding trust in the ratings' predictive accuracy. This black-box dynamic has drawn criticism for potentially prioritizing commercial secrecy over verifiable rigor, as evidenced in post-crisis regulatory reviews.

Rating Scales and Distinctions

Long-Term vs. Short-Term Rating Frameworks

Long-term credit ratings evaluate an issuer's capacity and willingness to meet financial commitments over horizons typically exceeding one year, with a primary emphasis on solvency and the cumulative probability of default or severe impairment over that extended period. These ratings incorporate assessments of long-run financial health, including leverage, profitability trends, and macroeconomic influences, reflecting the higher uncertainty inherent in prolonged obligations. In contrast, short-term ratings focus on maturities of less than one year (often under 365 days), prioritizing liquidity—such as access to cash reserves, rollover capacity, and immediate funding sources—over deeper solvency evaluations, as near-term defaults are more tied to transient cash flow mismatches than structural weaknesses. Agencies maintain distinct scales for each framework to prevent conflation of these risk dimensions: long-term scales use alphanumeric grades like AAA/Aaa (highest) descending to lower investment or speculative categories, while short-term scales employ notations such as A-1/P-1 (superior capacity) to lower tiers like A-3/P-3 or below. Mappings exist between the scales—for instance, an A-2 short-term rating generally corresponds to a BBB long-term equivalent—allowing investors to infer broader creditworthiness without direct equivalence, as short-term assessments do not fully proxy long-term solvency due to differing analytical weights on liquidity buffers versus asset quality. Short-term ratings are predominantly applied to instruments like commercial paper and money market obligations, where rapid maturity demands acute liquidity scrutiny, whereas long-term ratings underpin bond issuances and extended debt structures requiring solvency projections. Empirically, short-term ratings demonstrate lower volatility and revision frequency compared to long-term counterparts, attributable to the constrained horizon limiting exposure to evolving fundamentals and enabling quicker stabilization post-stress events. This separation enhances precision in risk signaling, though agencies note that severe short-term liquidity strains can foreshadow long-term downgrades if unmitigated.

Investment-Grade vs. Speculative-Grade Categories

Credit rating agencies delineate investment-grade ratings, spanning from AAA/Aaa to BBB-/Baa3, as indicative of sufficient credit quality for purchase by institutions bound by conservative investment mandates, such as banks and pension funds under regulatory frameworks like the U.S. SEC's rules. These ratings encompass 10 distinct notches—AAA, AA+, AA, AA-, A+, A, A-, BBB+, BBB, and BBB—providing granularity through plus/minus modifiers, beyond which lies the speculative-grade spectrum from BB+/Ba1 to D/C. The BBB-/BB+ threshold serves as the empirical demarcation, reflecting a historical default barrier where investment-grade issuers demonstrate markedly lower default probabilities compared to speculative-grade counterparts. Empirical data from long-term studies affirm this divide: investment-grade bonds have recorded average annual default rates below 1%, with 3-year cumulative defaults for BBB-rated corporates at approximately 0.91%, versus 4.17% for BB-rated ones. Speculative-grade ratings, conversely, exhibit annual default rates averaging 4-10% or higher across cycles, escalating with lower notches; for instance, global speculative-grade defaults reached 3.9% in 2024 amid economic pressures. Agencies maintain global consistency in this bifurcation, though they incorporate recovery rate adjustments—typically 40-50% for senior unsecured debt—in assessing expected losses, which tempers raw default metrics but underscores speculative-grade vulnerability to higher loss severity. Regulatory reliance on the investment-grade label as a "safe harbor"—granting preferential treatment for capital requirements and portfolio eligibility—has distorted market dynamics by concentrating demand at the threshold, incentivizing issuers to pursue marginal rating upgrades for access to broader investor bases and lower borrowing costs, potentially compromising analytical rigor at the BBB-/BB+ margin. This binary regulatory endorsement overlooks gradient risks within categories, as evidenced by historical peaks where BBB-tier defaults approached 1.94 basis points annually, yet retained equivalent treatment to pristine AAA issuances. Such distortions highlight the tension between empirical default barriers and policy-driven categorizations, where over-reliance on agency notches amplifies systemic procyclicality without fully mitigating underlying credit risks.

Notches, Outlooks, and Watchlist Mechanisms

Credit rating agencies use notches to provide incremental gradations within major rating categories, enabling nuanced differentiation of credit risk levels. Moody's Investors Service employs numerical modifiers (e.g., Aa1 superior to Aa2 within the Aa category), while S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings apply plus (+) and minus (-) designations to refine letter-grade assessments. These notches reflect subtle variations in expected loss or probability of default, based on forward indicators such as earnings trajectories or leverage trends, without altering the primary category. Outlooks serve as dynamic signals of prospective rating movements over a medium-term horizon, generally 12 to 24 months, drawing on causal factors like macroeconomic shifts or issuer-specific developments. A stable outlook implies minimal expected change, a positive outlook suggests a rating may be raised one notch or more, and a negative outlook indicates potential for a downgrade. S&P Global Ratings explicitly ties outlooks to the intermediate term of up to two years, assessing directional stability. Moody's and Fitch employ analogous frameworks, with outlooks updated periodically to reflect evolving risk profiles. Watchlist mechanisms denote entities under active for imminent rating actions, typically within 90 days, triggered by discrete such as covenant violations, merger announcements, or sharp deteriorations in financial metrics. S&P's CreditWatch specifies the direction (positive, negative, or developing) and underscores heightened vulnerability to change pending resolution of uncertainties. Moody's Rating Watch and Fitch's Rating Watch function similarly, signaling elevated short-term transition probabilities based on unfolding causal drivers. These tools prioritize transparency for market participants during periods of , such as post-earnings surprises. Empirical analyses demonstrate that outlooks and watchlists carry predictive value for rating transitions, with negative signals correlating strongly to subsequent downgrades and defaults over horizons up to five years. Incorporating these modifiers into base ratings enhances overall accuracy measures, as shown in agency-sponsored studies adjusting for outlook status. Nonetheless, such signals often trail market pricing of risks, reflecting agencies' deliberate emphasis on confirmed causal evidence over speculative volatility.

Applications by Entity Type

Sovereign Credit Ratings: Governments and Default Risks

Sovereign credit ratings evaluate a government's capacity and willingness to meet its external and domestic debt obligations, distinguishing them from corporate ratings due to the unique attributes of state entities, such as monetary sovereignty in domestic-currency debt, which mitigates default risk compared to hard-currency liabilities subject to rollover pressures in international markets. Agencies like S&P Global Ratings assess approximately 139 sovereign governments worldwide as of February 2025, incorporating both quantitative metrics and qualitative judgments on institutional frameworks. Key quantitative factors include debt-to-GDP ratios, which signal fiscal sustainability; international reserves relative to external debt, indicating liquidity buffers; and real GDP growth rates, which reflect revenue potential and debt-servicing capacity. Qualitative elements encompass political stability, governance quality, and default history, as persistent instability can erode creditor confidence and amplify rollover risks for short-term obligations. For instance, Argentina's sovereign ratings were downgraded to near-default levels by S&P in October 2001 and by Fitch on December 21, 2001, preceding its default on $81.8 billion in debt later that month, triggered by mounting fiscal imbalances and currency pressures. Empirically, sovereign ratings exhibit a strong correlation with bond yield spreads, where lower ratings align with higher risk premia, yet they often lag market-driven crises by failing to anticipate rapid deteriorations in fundamentals. In Greece's 2010 crisis, bond spreads surged amid revelations of fiscal deficits exceeding 12% of GDP, but rating agencies delayed full downgrades to selective default until mid-2010, after market pricing had already reflected heightened default probabilities. Such lags can exacerbate contagion, as evidenced by spillover effects where a downgrade in one sovereign elevates spreads in regionally linked economies through shared investor sentiment and funding channels.

Corporate Credit Ratings: Firm-Specific Solvency

Corporate credit ratings assess a firm's solvency by evaluating its standalone ability to service debt obligations through operational cash generation and financial resilience, independent of broader sovereign or macroeconomic spillovers. Rating agencies such as Moody's and S&P Global emphasize two primary pillars: business risk, which encompasses industry position and competitive advantages, and financial risk, measured via leverage, coverage, and liquidity metrics adjusted for firm-specific factors like capital intensity and growth profiles. This approach prioritizes predictable free cash flow (FCF) generation, defined as operating cash flow minus capital expenditures, as a core indicator of solvency buffers against downturns; for example, firms with FCF-to-debt ratios exceeding 20% typically receive higher ratings due to enhanced debt repayment flexibility. Competitive moats—sustainable advantages like proprietary technology, scale efficiencies, or brand loyalty—play a critical role in stabilizing cash flows and thus solvency assessments, particularly in volatile sectors. In technology industries, moats from network effects and intangible assets (e.g., patents in semiconductors) mitigate earnings volatility compared to energy firms, where commodity price cycles expose solvency to external shocks like oil price drops below $50 per barrel, as seen in 2014-2016 when leveraged energy producers faced rating downgrades amid FCF erosion. Agencies integrate industry cycles into business risk scores, assigning lower solvency prospects to cyclical sectors (e.g., autos or metals) versus defensive ones (e.g., consumer staples), with quantitative overlays like EBITDA margins adjusted for historical volatility. For multinational corporations, firm-specific solvency incorporates adjustments for foreign exchange (FX) exposure, focusing on mismatches between revenue streams and debt denominations rather than hedging completeness alone. Raters stress-test cash flows under FX depreciation scenarios, penalizing unhedged exposures in emerging markets; for instance, a firm with 60% of revenues in volatile currencies but USD-denominated debt may see solvency metrics like interest coverage ratios compressed by 20-30% in adverse simulations, leading to notched-down ratings. This evaluation draws on granular data such as natural hedges from export-oriented operations, ensuring ratings reflect intrinsic solvency rather than transient currency fluctuations. Empirically, corporate defaults exhibit strong cyclicality tied to firm vulnerabilities, peaking in recessions when solvency metrics deteriorate; U.S. speculative-grade default rates surged to 11.9% in 2009 amid leverage buildup, compared to an average of 4.1% from 1983-2023, underscoring how recessions amplify industry-specific risks like overcapacity in manufacturing. Rating agencies' methodologies enable early detection, with downgrades preceding defaults by an average of 6-12 months across studies of U.S. and European corporates, as deteriorating FCF and coverage ratios signal insolvency trajectories before outright failure. This lead time varies by rating category, shortening for lower-grade issuers where solvency erosion accelerates during stress.

Structured Finance and Alternative Assets: RMBS, CLOs, and Emerging Classes

Structured finance ratings evaluate securities backed by pools of assets, such as residential mortgages in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) or leveraged corporate loans in collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), issued through special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to achieve bankruptcy remoteness from originators. Agencies model tranche performance using cash flow projections under stress scenarios, incorporating assumptions on default probabilities, recovery rates, prepayments, and priority waterfalls where senior tranches receive payments first, protected by subordination and excess spread. For RMBS, methodologies adjust default assumptions over time to reflect economic conditions, often assuming loan liquidations upon default with credits applied to probability of default estimates. CLO ratings similarly stress-test collateral portfolios, emphasizing loan diversity, covenant protections, and manager reinvestment strategies, with models accounting for base case macroeconomic correlations to defaults. Unlike corporate ratings, which assess issuer solvency directly, structured ratings isolate risks to the SPV's asset pool via true sale transfers, evaluating originator underwriting quality and servicer capabilities but not relying on the originator's balance sheet for credit enhancement. This separation demands bespoke modeling of tranche-specific losses, contributing to higher fees for structured products compared to corporate issuances, as agencies incur greater analytical complexity from pooling and tranching dynamics. Quantitative models for these instruments often presume default distributions akin to Gaussian processes, with low inter-asset correlations under normal conditions, enabling high ratings for senior tranches based on historical data. The 2008 crisis revealed flaws in such assumptions, as RMBS models underestimated systemic correlations among mortgage defaults triggered by shared housing market exposures, leading to widespread tranche degradations despite diversification claims. Post-crisis refinements, including dynamic correlation estimates tied to ratings-based loss measures, aim to better capture tail risks, though reliance on parametric assumptions persists. Emerging asset classes, such as green bonds and cryptocurrency-backed debt, introduce nascent rating frameworks amid data scarcity and novel risks. Green bonds, often structured as asset-backed securities tied to environmental projects, incorporate sustainability metrics alongside traditional cash flow analysis, but emerging market issuances frequently lack international ratings, limiting investor access and heightening opacity. Crypto debt instruments, securitizing digital assets or loans, face volatile collateral values and unproven recovery mechanisms, prompting agencies to apply conservative stress tests with elevated uncertainty adjustments, as historical default patterns remain underdeveloped. These classes demand hybrid models blending conventional metrics with asset-specific factors like blockchain transparency or ESG verification, yet empirical track records are limited, often resulting in wider rating notches to reflect causal ambiguities in performance drivers.

Regulatory Oversight and Reforms

U.S. SEC Designation and Dodd-Frank Provisions

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) first introduced the designation of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) in as part of amendments to its net capital rule (17 CFR 240.15c3-1), which governs capital requirements. This rule permitted broker-dealers to lower capital haircuts to securities rated by designated NRSROs, such as , Standard & Poor's, and , which were initially recognized by SEC staff based on their established methodologies and market . By incorporating NRSRO ratings directly into regulatory calculations for risk-weighted assets, the framework created an implicit endorsement of agency assessments, fostering widespread market reliance on these ratings for decisions and capital adequacy. This regulatory embedding extended beyond broker-dealers to influence bank capital standards, where NRSRO ratings determined lower reserve requirements for highly rated securities, enabling financial institutions to expand leverage significantly in the years before the 2008 financial crisis. For example, under rules tied to NRSRO designations, banks held minimal capital against AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities, which comprised a substantial portion of balance sheets despite underlying subprime risks; when mass downgrades occurred in 2007-2008, this triggered acute capital shortfalls and fire sales, amplifying systemic liquidity strains. Such dependence is cited by analysts as generating moral hazard, wherein the perceived regulatory guarantee diminished incentives for independent credit analysis by investors and institutions, effectively outsourcing due diligence to agencies whose ratings carried quasi-official weight. In response to these failures, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, enacted on July 21, 2010, mandated via Section 939A that federal agencies review and excise NRSRO references from regulations, substituting them with internal standards of creditworthiness to mitigate over-reliance. The SEC, for instance, has implemented this by amending rules such as Regulation M in 2023, replacing rating-based exceptions with issuer-specific evaluations of default risk. Dodd-Frank's Title IX, Subtitle C further empowered the SEC to oversee NRSRO methodologies, conduct examinations, and enforce disclosures on rating processes, though subsequent actions have emphasized procedural compliance over aggressive intervention, with limited fines imposed on major agencies since 2010.

International Frameworks: IOSCO Principles and EU Regulations

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a Statement of Principles Regarding the Activities of Credit Rating Agencies in September 2003, articulating objectives to promote high-quality, independent credit ratings that reduce information asymmetry for investors. This was followed by the Code of Conduct Fundamentals for Credit Rating Agencies in December 2004, which provided practical guidance on implementation, emphasizing independence from issuers, avoidance of conflicts of interest, transparency in methodologies and assumptions, and timely disclosure of rating rationales and changes. The code was revised in 2008 to strengthen provisions on internal controls and management of conflicts, particularly in response to early critiques of rating accuracy, and further updated in 2012 to address post-financial crisis concerns over rating surveillance and competition. These IOSCO principles, while non-binding, serve as a global benchmark for regulators, with endorsements focusing on enhancing transparency to foster competition among agencies beyond the dominant U.S.-based providers. In the , (EC) No 1060/, adopted on 16 September 2009 and entering into force on 7 December 2009, established mandatory registration and oversight of credit rating agencies by the (), requiring robust , conflict-of-interest policies, and disclosure of rating methodologies. Amendments under CRA2 ( () No 109/) and CRA3 ( () No 462/2013) introduced mandatory rotation of rating agencies for issuers of certain instruments to mitigate issuer-pays conflicts, civil liability for faulty ratings, and measures to reduce mechanical reliance on ratings in financial . For sovereign ratings, EU regulations imposed targeted restrictions during the 2011 Eurozone debt crisis via Regulation (EU) No 513/2011, mandating that agencies notify ESMA and relevant authorities at least one hour before publishing unsolicited or solicited sovereign downgrades, and prohibiting publications between the end of the business day in the EU and 3:00 a.m. Brussels time to curb overnight market panic. ESMA gained powers to temporarily prohibit or restrict rating publications in exceptional circumstances threatening financial stability, though such interventions remained rare. Enforcement of IOSCO principles and EU rules exhibits gaps internationally, with emerging markets often demonstrating weaker implementation due to limited regulatory capacity and resources, perpetuating reliance on globally recognized U.S. agencies whose methodologies align with IOSCO standards but face for inconsistent application in non-Western contexts. This uneven underscores challenges in achieving uniform global standards, as voluntary IOSCO guidelines lack coercive mechanisms, allowing dominant agencies to maintain through established credibility rather than localized oversight.

Effectiveness of Reforms in Addressing Conflicts and Systemic Risks

Post-financial crisis reforms, including the Dodd-Frank Act's establishment of the SEC's Office of Credit Ratings and mandates for enhanced oversight, internal controls, and reduced regulatory reliance on ratings, aimed to mitigate conflicts of interest and curb systemic risks by improving accountability and fostering competition among credit rating agencies (CRAs). These measures sought to address issuer-pays incentives that encouraged rating inflation and pro-cyclical behaviors amplifying market downturns, while IOSCO principles and EU regulations under ESMA emphasized transparency and unsolicited ratings to dilute oligopolistic power. However, empirical outcomes indicate limited mitigation of core issues, as reforms primarily imposed ex-post penalties like fines rather than altering fundamental revenue incentives tied to issuer payments. Market concentration among the "Big Three" CRAs—S&P Global, Moody's, and Fitch—remains entrenched, with their collective share exceeding 95% globally and showing negligible erosion post-reform. A 2016 European Commission study found that new entrants had minimal impact on competition, as barriers to scale and regulatory endorsements preserved dominance, undermining goals of diversified rating provision to reduce systemic reliance on few agencies. CRA revenues, which dipped during the 2008-2009 crisis, rebounded robustly by 2012-2013, driven by structured finance recovery and sustained issuer demand, signaling that heightened scrutiny did not materially deter business model viability. Downgrade patterns post-Dodd-Frank reveal persistent systemic vulnerabilities, with volumes and timing comparable to pre-crisis eras but diminished informational content; for instance, stock reactions to downgrades fell from 2.46% pre-reform to less than half post-reform, indicating muted market and slower signaling. Studies attribute this to CRAs issuing more conservative yet less predictive ratings—higher overall levels with fewer changes—potentially reflecting reputation hedging over assessment, rather than resolved conflicts. While some analyses note increased quantitative inputs in models, yielding marginally better accuracy for periods, these gains evaporate in stress events, where issuer-pays pressures still incentivize delayed or softened actions, perpetuating amplification of volatility without addressing causal drivers like payment dependency. Broader critiques highlight that reforms' symptom-focused approach—via disclosure mandates and liability tweaks—fails to dismantle oligopoly utility trade-offs, as reduced reliance efforts (e.g., SEC's partial dereferencing of ratings) coexist with entrenched NRSRO designations, maintaining systemic embeddedness without competitive dilution. Empirical reviews confirm no substantial uptick in alternative signals or CRA accountability during subsequent shocks like the 2020 pandemic, where reactive downgrades echoed pre-reform lags, underscoring incomplete resolution of incentives that prioritize revenue over prescience.

Controversies and Empirical Critiques

Issuer-Pays Model: Incentives for Rating Inflation

The issuer-pays model, under which entities seeking to issue debt or structured securities compensate rating agencies for assessments, emerged as the dominant fee structure for major agencies like Moody's and S&P in the 1970s. This replaced the earlier subscriber-pays approach, where investors funded ratings via subscriptions, as photocopying and information dissemination rendered subscription enforcement impractical. By 1970, Moody's had adopted issuer fees, followed by S&P in 1974, driven by the need for sustainable revenue amid growing bond markets. Under this model, approximately 90% of rating agencies' revenues derive from issuer payments, creating strong incentives for agencies to maintain favorable relationships with clients. Issuers, facing competition to secure low borrowing costs, can engage in rating shopping—soliciting multiple agencies and selecting the most lenient—or threaten to withhold future business, pressuring agencies toward optimistic assessments to secure repeat engagements. This dynamic fosters leniency, as agencies prioritize market share over stringent scrutiny, particularly for high-volume products like asset-backed securities (ABS), where issuers repeatedly structure and rate new tranches. Empirical analyses confirm this leads to rating inflation, with issuer-paid ratings systematically higher than fundamentals justify. One study of corporate bonds found issuer-paid ratings exceed warranted levels by 0.5 to 1 notch on average, with greater optimism for riskier issuers, based on comparisons to ex-post default outcomes and private loan data. Similar patterns appear in pre-crisis ABS ratings, where initial investment-grade assignments for subprime mortgage-backed securities proved overly generous relative to subsequent performance, attributable to fee-driven conflicts rather than isolated errors. These findings hold after controlling for selection effects, indicating inherent bias from the payment structure. Proposals to revert to a subscriber-pays model face practical barriers, especially for global ratings. In a subscriber system, non-paying investors could free-ride on disclosed ratings, undermining revenue collection—a problem exacerbated in the 1970s by technology and persisting today with instant digital dissemination. For worldwide issuers and investors, enforcing subscriptions across jurisdictions proves inefficient, as agencies struggle to capture value from diverse, fragmented user bases without universal participation. While mitigating issuer influence, this alternative risks underproduction of ratings due to chronic underfunding, as evidenced by the model's pre-1970s limitations in scaling to complex, international markets.

Failures in Predicting Crises: Subprime and Sovereign Downgrades

During the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis, major credit rating agencies such as Moody's, S&P, and Fitch maintained investment-grade ratings, including AAA, on vast volumes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) backed by subprime loans despite early signs of rising delinquencies and housing price declines beginning in 2006. These ratings persisted into mid-2007, even as subprime lender New Century Financial filed for bankruptcy in April 2007 and initial downgrades emerged for specific tranches. Only after widespread defaults materialized did agencies issue mass downgrades: Moody's, for example, downgraded 83% of the $869 billion in mortgage securities it had rated AAA in 2006 by the end of 2007. By March 2008, S&P had downgraded 44.3% of subprime tranches it rated from the first quarter of 2005 through the third quarter of 2007, including 87.2% of the 2006 vintage, shifting many from AAA to junk status. Agencies defended their initial models, which assumed geographically diversified risks and stable historical default rates, but subsequent analyses revealed overreliance on issuer-provided data and failure to stress-test for correlated nationwide downturns, leading to acknowledged modeling shortcomings post-crisis. In the sovereign starting in late , rating agencies similarly lagged behind mounting fiscal imbalances, issuing downgrades only after market turmoil and requests exposed underlying vulnerabilities. Greece's sovereign rating, for instance, was held at investment-grade levels until revelations of hidden deficits in prompted initial cuts; S&P downgraded it to junk (BB) on , , coinciding with the first EU-IMF announcement. , previously rated AAA by Fitch until , faced successive downgrades in following its banking sector , with Fitch cutting to A- on August 18, , and Moody's and S&P following suit by amid escalating rescue costs exceeding 30% of GDP. These actions reflected reactive assessments tied to realized events rather than preemptive signals, with agencies citing insufficient transparency in government data; however, European officials accused them of undue influence, highlighting tensions where political considerations may have delayed independent scrutiny. Empirical evidence underscores the agencies' tendency to herd during these episodes, where initial downgrades by one prompted followers from rivals, exacerbating volatility instead of providing early warnings. In subprime RMBS, agencies were more likely to adjust ratings in response to competitors' actions than to proprietary analysis, converging on downgrades amid panic. Sovereign cases showed similar patterns, as seen in clustered downgrades across Greece and Ireland following lead actions, amplifying contagion without anticipating the interconnected banking-sovereign risks evident in bond spreads months earlier. This behavior stemmed from shared modeling assumptions and market pressures, rendering ratings procyclical amplifiers of crises rather than countervailing predictors.

Pro-Cyclical Amplification of Market Volatility

Credit rating agencies' downgrades often amplify economic downturns through contractual triggers embedded in investment mandates, compelling institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds to divest holdings upon crossing rating thresholds, thereby inducing fire sales that depress asset prices and elevate borrowing costs. This mechanism manifests as a feedback loop: initial market stress prompts rating revisions, which then enforce widespread selling, further eroding liquidity and investor confidence. Empirical analyses indicate that such triggers can precipitate yield spikes of 200 to 500 basis points in affected sovereign and corporate bonds, as sellers flood markets without corresponding buyers, exacerbating contractions rather than reflecting isolated credit deterioration. During the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, rating agencies initially upgraded several economies in the mid-1990s amid capital inflows, fostering vulnerability to reversals; subsequent downgrades lagged the onset of currency depreciations but triggered mandatory sales by foreign investors bound by investment-grade covenants, accelerating capital outflows and deepening recessions in countries like Indonesia and South Korea. For instance, post-downgrade spreads on Indonesian bonds surged beyond 1,000 basis points, far exceeding pre-crisis levels, as forced liquidations overwhelmed local markets. Studies confirm this procyclical dynamic, where agencies' delayed but clustered downgrades amplified the crisis's severity, contributing to GDP contractions averaging 10-15% in affected nations. In the 2008 global financial crisis, similar patterns emerged with mass downgrades of structured finance products and corporate debt, activating triggers in leveraged funds and insurance portfolios, which unleashed selling pressure that widened credit spreads by hundreds of basis points and intensified the liquidity crunch. Sovereign downgrades, such as those for Iceland and certain Eastern European issuers, compounded this by prompting cross-border contagion, where rating-dependent capital flight raised funding costs amid already strained banking systems. This amplification ignored endogenous market feedbacks, as agencies' reactive methodologies—prioritizing observable distress over forward-looking fundamentals—perpetuated volatility rather than stabilizing expectations. Empirical research, including work by Reinhart and others, demonstrates that credit ratings predominantly follow rather than anticipate crises, with downgrades materializing after defaults or sharp economic declines in the majority of historical episodes, thus reinforcing procyclicality. Analyses of over 80 sovereign and corporate events reveal procyclical rating changes in approximately 80% of cases, where expansions see upgrades sustaining booms and contractions trigger downgrades that prolong slumps, often disregarding countercyclical buffers like fiscal reserves. This pattern underscores a systemic bias toward herding with market sentiment, favoring short-term conformity over rigorous, independent assessments of solvency, which perpetuates avoidable volatility.

Accuracy Debates: Empirical Studies on Predictive Failures and Herding

Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that credit rating agencies' predictions of corporate defaults underperform simpler statistical models over longer horizons. For instance, comparisons of agency ratings with naive bankruptcy prediction models, such as those based on basic financial ratios, reveal that the latter achieve superior accuracy in forecasting insolvency, particularly for non-financial firms. Edward Altman's Z-score model, a multivariate discriminant analysis incorporating liquidity, profitability, leverage, solvency, and activity ratios, has been shown in retrospective analyses to outperform agency ratings in predicting financial distress across decades of data, with accuracy rates exceeding 70-80% in out-of-sample tests for U.S. firms. These findings suggest that agencies' qualitative overlays and issuer interactions introduce noise that dilutes predictive power relative to data-driven alternatives. Herding behavior among rating agencies further undermines the informational value of ratings, as evidenced by lead-lag analyses of rating changes. In sovereign debt markets, agencies exhibit significant herding, with a one-notch downgrade by a leading agency prompting followers to adjust by an average of 0.4 notches, reducing cross-agency dispersion without corresponding improvements in default prediction. Similar patterns emerge in structured finance, where post-subprime crisis data on commercial mortgage-backed securities show agencies converging ratings in response to rivals' actions, with herding intensity increasing during periods of uncertainty and leading to clustered errors rather than independent assessments. This convergence, quantified through measures like the cross-sectional standard deviation of ratings, indicates that agencies prioritize reputational alignment over proprietary analysis, resulting in ratings that amplify rather than mitigate informational asymmetries. Sovereign ratings display empirical biases against developing economies, with UNCTAD analyses of rating distributions from 2000 onward revealing that poorer nations receive systematically lower scores than warranted by comparable macroeconomic fundamentals, such as debt-to-GDP ratios and growth rates. For example, sub-Saharan African countries face downgrade frequencies 20-30% higher than advanced economies with similar vulnerability indicators, correlating with higher borrowing premia unrelated to objective risk metrics. These patterns persist even after controlling for variables like institutional quality, suggesting methodological preferences for developed-market benchmarks that disadvantage nations with volatile commodity exports or limited reserve currencies. Critics of agency accuracy, drawing on these studies, argue that herding and model underperformance stem from incentive structures favoring consensus over empirical rigor, as ratings serve more as reputational signals than probabilistic forecasts. Defenders counter that agencies' long track records and ordinal scaling provide value in relative risk assessment, though meta-analyses affirm that simple quantitative benchmarks often yield better absolute predictions without the lag inherent in agency revisions. Overall, these empirical critiques highlight a reliance on reputation over data, prompting calls for greater transparency in agency methodologies to align outputs with verifiable default outcomes.

Economic Impact and Evidence

Influence on Borrowing Costs and Capital Flows

Credit ratings significantly shape borrowing costs by providing standardized signals of creditworthiness that investors incorporate into pricing decisions for bonds and loans. For corporate issuers, a downgrade typically widens yield spreads as lenders demand higher compensation for perceived increased default risk; empirical analysis of U.S. corporate bonds shows that rating changes explain substantial variance in spreads, with downgrades correlating to immediate yield increases mediated by liquidity effects. Sovereign rating adjustments similarly elevate spreads on , with a New York study of 79 events finding highly significant impacts on dollar-denominated sovereign bond spreads following announcements. In emerging markets, sovereign ratings critically influence capital inflows and outflows, thereby amplifying borrowing cost dynamics. Higher ratings attract portfolio investments, explaining up to 39.7% of foreign inflows according to panel data analysis across multiple economies, while downgrades trigger reversals that raise external funding costs. From 2023 to 2025, amid persistent high global interest rates, rating agencies' stable-to-negative outlooks for many emerging sovereigns—linked to fiscal strains and policy uncertainty—correlated with widened spreads and constrained access to international capital, as evidenced in Scope Ratings' assessments of prolonged elevated borrowing rates. Long-term local currency ratings, however, have been observed to foster domestic market deepening while sometimes reducing reliance on volatile foreign flows. Corporate debt covenants further transmit rating influences to borrowing costs, as many contracts include triggers that restrict dividends, additional borrowing, or mandate repayments upon rating thresholds being breached. Such provisions heighten effective costs by limiting flexibility and signaling distress, with studies showing covenant intensity rises in tandem with credit supply shifts that reflect rating-driven risk perceptions. Empirical sensitivities indicate that spread responses to rating notches vary by economic conditions, often in the 20-60 basis points range for investment-grade corporates, though less pronounced for speculative grades due to already elevated baselines. These effects are not purely causal, as bond markets frequently anticipate rating agency decisions through forward-looking indicators like credit default swaps, rendering announcements confirmatory rather than initiatory. Consequently, while ratings exert material influence, endogenous pricing by sophisticated investors tempers their standalone role in driving costs or flows, with pre-event drifts capturing much of the adjustment.

Systemic Role: Bailouts, Contagion, and Policy Responses

Credit rating downgrades have historically amplified contagion risks in interconnected financial systems by triggering correlated sell-offs across assets and borders. During the 2011 European sovereign debt crisis, announcements from agencies like Standard & Poor's—such as the July 2011 downgrade of U.S. debt alongside eurozone peripherals—exacerbated spillovers from Greece, Ireland, and Portugal to other member states, widening bond yield spreads and straining bank funding. This feedback dynamic, where sovereign ratings influenced bank ratings and vice versa, intensified liquidity shortages and cross-border transmission, as evidenced by heightened correlations in sovereign spreads and equity volatilities. Empirical analyses of rating news during this period confirm bidirectional spillovers, with downgrades accounting for abrupt increases in market interdependence beyond fundamentals alone. Such contagion effects have directly shaped bailout mechanisms and policy interventions, often serving as de facto triggers for official support. In the eurozone crisis, rating deteriorations justified escalations in bailout packages, including the activation of the European Financial Stability Facility for Ireland and Portugal in late 2010 and Greece's second program in 2012, where agencies' assessments framed sovereign viability and collateral eligibility for ECB lending. Anticipation of further downgrades pressured policymakers to preemptively announce rescues, as seen in rushed implementations to avert rating cliffs that could disqualify collateral or spike funding costs. However, this reliance has drawn scrutiny for embedding agency judgments into regulatory frameworks like Basel III's credit risk weights, potentially substituting private signals for independent risk evaluation and fostering moral hazard in future crises. Policy responses to rating-induced systemic stress, including unconventional measures, illustrate causal amplification chains. The ECB's long-term refinancing operations (LTROs) in late 2011 and outright monetary transactions (OMT) announcement in 2012 were calibrated partly to counteract contagion from downgrades, restoring market access by signaling commitment against self-fulfilling panics. In the Global Financial Crisis, similar dynamics emerged, with mass downgrades of structured securities prompting Federal Reserve facilities like the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to backstop markets frozen by rating triggers in investment mandates. Studies of these episodes quantify ratings' volatility contribution, showing announcement effects drove 15-25% spikes in short-term bond and equity variances through herding and contractual mechanisms, underscoring how embedded ratings procyclically magnified shocks absent countervailing buffers. Over-reliance on such signals has prompted debates on diversifying policy tools toward direct liquidity provision decoupled from external ratings to mitigate amplification.

Alternatives and Market-Based Signals vs. Agency Reliance

Credit default swap (CDS) spreads serve as forward-looking market-based indicators of credit risk, often leading agency rating changes by several months due to the aggregation of diverse participant information and rapid price discovery. Empirical analysis shows that CDS spread widening anticipates negative rating events, such as downgrades, with statistically significant predictability for adverse outcomes. For instance, studies confirm that CDS markets incorporate credit condition changes more quickly than rating agencies, reflecting expected default probabilities ahead of formal announcements. This lead time, averaging months in documented cases, stems from CDS trading's continuous nature versus agencies' periodic, conservative reviews. Equity implied volatility provides another complementary signal, linking firm-specific risk to creditworthiness through structural models where higher volatility signals elevated default probabilities via asset value fluctuations. Research demonstrates that equity volatility correlates with credit spreads, offering real-time insights into leverage and distress risks that ratings often lag. Market-based measures like CDS and equity volatility outperform ratings in short-term default prediction, with evidence of superior accuracy in up to one-year horizons across multiple datasets. However, ratings can add incremental value in very short windows or when market signals are noisy, though agencies' conservatism—rooted in methodological inertia and infrequent updates—contributes to persistent lags in 70-80% of directional credit deteriorations observed in empirical bank and corporate samples. Regulatory deference to agency ratings, embedded in capital rules and investment mandates, distorts incentives by subordinating dynamic market signals to static assessments, amplifying pro-cyclical effects and reducing overall discipline. Post-crisis reforms, including IOSCO principles and FSB guidelines, advocate diminishing this reliance to foster internal risk models and direct use of CDS or volatility metrics, thereby aligning regulation with causal credit dynamics over institutionalized outputs. While ratings retain utility for illiquid or non-traded assets lacking robust market pricing—providing a baseline comparability absent in sparse data—over-privileging them undermines the informational efficiency of traded signals, warranting calibrated reduction in mandates to prioritize empirical leading indicators.

Recent Developments and Future Challenges

Post-2008 Methodological Adjustments and Transparency Efforts

Following the 2008 financial crisis, credit rating agencies (CRAs) implemented methodological refinements, particularly for structured finance products like asset-backed securities (ABS), incorporating enhanced stress testing scenarios to better capture correlation risks and liquidity shortfalls under adverse conditions. These adjustments included more rigorous modeling of default dependencies and recovery rates, driven by regulatory mandates such as those from the U.S. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which required CRAs to disclose rating methodologies and assumptions more comprehensively. The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) further supported these changes through its 2008-amended Code of Conduct for CRAs, emphasizing internal controls to ensure methodological integrity and the segregation of rating processes from sales activities to mitigate conflicts. Post-crisis, agencies like Moody's and S&P Global introduced updated criteria for ABS ratings, featuring scenario-based analyses that simulate extreme economic downturns, including higher deferment rates and forbearance projections to test cash flow resilience. Dodd-Frank's establishment of the Office of Credit Ratings in 2012 within the SEC intensified oversight, mandating annual examinations of CRA compliance with methodological standards and prompting iterative refinements based on identified weaknesses. Transparency efforts accelerated with IOSCO-endorsed principles requiring public disclosure of historic rating performance data and the rationale behind unsolicited ratings, aiming to enable investor scrutiny of model accuracy over time. U.S. regulations under Dodd-Frank compelled CRAs to furnish detailed explanations for rating changes, including sensitivity analyses, which facilitated external validation of adjustments like improved Gaussian copula models for correlation in securitized products. Empirically, these reforms correlated with fewer catastrophic AAA-rated failures in structured finance post-2010, as evidenced by stabilized default rates in rated tranches compared to the pre-crisis surge, where over 87% of certain subprime ABS were downgraded by mid-2008. Studies indicate enhanced predictive stability, with post-crisis models showing better alignment between assigned ratings and observed defaults, though critics argue residual optimism in high-grade assignments persists due to issuer-paid incentives. In the 2020s, during the , CRAs exhibited slower sovereign downgrades relative to economic deterioration, with documenting delayed despite sharp fiscal strains, prompting questions about whether heightened —bolstered by post-2008 buffers—or lingering responsiveness gaps undermined signaling. This hesitancy, observed across 61 downgraded sovereigns from 2020-2022, contrasted with rapid corporate rating actions and fueled ongoing regarding between methodological and market dynamism.

Incorporation of ESG and Climate Risks: Evidence and Critiques

Major credit rating agencies have integrated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their methodologies, evaluating them for potential materiality to issuers' creditworthiness alongside financial metrics. Moody's incorporates ESG risks across all ratings using a cross-sector framework that assesses exposure and , with principles outlined in its 2021 methodology update. S&P Global Ratings similarly factors in ESG elements when they demonstrably affect debt-servicing capacity, though it ceased publishing standalone numerical ESG scores in 2023 following concerns over their distinctiveness from core ratings. Climate-related risks, including transition risks from decarbonization policies and physical risks from extreme weather, are framed as forward-looking stressors on revenues, costs, and asset values. Agencies like S&P have emphasized transition pathways in analyses, with updates reflecting evolving regulatory scenarios as of 2025. Empirical data, however, reveals modest rating impacts; physical climate risks accounted for under 1% of S&P's global actions since April 2020, while transition factors influenced a small fraction of ESG-related adjustments in Q3 2025. Proponents argue ESG enhances ratings by capturing holistic, long-term vulnerabilities beyond balance sheets, such as reputational or regulatory exposures that could precipitate defaults. Yet empirical studies yield mixed evidence on predictive power: a meta-analysis of ESG-financial performance links found 58% of papers reporting positive correlations, 13% none, and 8% negative, suggesting no uniform causal tie to lower default probabilities. Higher ESG scores often proxy for firm size, profitability, or sector traits rather than independent drivers of credit resilience, per analyses questioning causation. Critiques highlight ESG's dilution of financial rigor, with social and governance metrics incorporating non-pecuniary elements—like diversity mandates or stakeholder activism—that correlate weakly with solvency and may embed ideological priors from ESG data providers, many rooted in academia's documented left-leaning orientations. Wide divergence across ESG raters, driven by subjective weighting (e.g., governance at 30-50% variance), erodes reliability for credit decisions, akin to herding without empirical anchoring to defaults. Such integration risks prioritizing signaling over causation, as evidenced by limited default-differentiating effects in bond portfolios.

Innovations: AI, Crypto Ratings, and Sovereign Debt in a High-Interest Era (2020s)

In the 2020s, credit rating agencies have accelerated the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) for real-time data analysis and risk surveillance, aiming to improve predictive accuracy beyond traditional models, while simultaneously pioneering rating methodologies for cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols. This period has coincided with a high-interest-rate environment, where central bank policies elevated yields above 5% for many sovereign bonds, exacerbating debt servicing costs for emerging markets (EMs) and prompting divergent rating actions—such as relative stability in advanced economies until mid-decade pressures mounted. Agencies emphasize empirical, data-driven approaches over narrative assessments, though challenges like geopolitical tensions and persistent inflation have tested these innovations. AI applications in credit ratings focus on automating surveillance of vast datasets, including non-traditional sources like transaction behaviors, to enhance accuracy; studies indicate AI-driven systems achieve up to 85% improvement in risk assessment over legacy methods. Major agencies, including FICO, have developed auditable AI models to support credit decisions while addressing fraud and compliance needs. However, caution prevails regarding "black-box" AI risks, where opaque algorithms hinder explainability and regulatory scrutiny, potentially amplifying biases or non-compliance in high-stakes ratings. Regulators and agencies mitigate this through standards for model transparency, prioritizing interpretable AI to avoid systemic vulnerabilities in financial decisioning. For cryptocurrencies and DeFi, agencies have introduced specialized scales to evaluate on-chain risks, bridging traditional with for protocols lacking centralized . issued its first DeFi issuer rating in 2025, assigning a B- (stable outlook) to Sky Protocol (formerly Maker), assessing factors like collateral stability and smart contract vulnerabilities. Partnerships, such as collaboration with Chainlink for stablecoin assessments, enable oracle-fed to ratings, while frameworks like Galaxy's SeC FiT PrO provide institutional-grade scoring for DeFi investors, focusing on and protocol maturity. Moody's and Fitch have expanded digital asset coverage, though critics note challenges in applying legacy models to volatile, pseudonymous assets, prompting hybrid empirical approaches. Sovereign debt ratings in this high-interest era reflect strains from post-2022 rate hikes, with U.S. 10-year yields surpassing 5% in May 2025 following Moody's downgrade of the U.S. rating from Aaa to Aa1, attributed to a $36 trillion debt load and fiscal deterioration outpacing revenue growth. This contrasted with earlier stability under S&P's AA+ outlook, highlighting divergent trends where advanced sovereigns absorbed higher servicing costs via deep markets, while EMs faced more frequent downgrades amid inflation and geopolitical risks, elevating tail GDP risks by nearly 3 percentage points per event. Agencies increasingly incorporate forward-looking metrics like debt-to-GDP trajectories under sustained 4-5% yields, favoring granular fiscal data to counter narrative biases in volatile conditions.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditrating.asp
  2. https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ib_creditratings.pdf
  3. https://www.fitchratings.com/products/rating-definitions
  4. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/fixed-income/rating-agency/
  5. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/credit-ratings/about/understanding-credit-ratings
  6. https://www.fsb.org/work-of-the-fsb/market-and-institutional-resilience/post-2008-financial-crisis-reforms/reducing-reliance-on-credit-ratings/
  7. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/credit-rating-controversy
  8. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=faculty_articles
  9. https://www.nber.org/digest/aug18/evaluating-role-credit-ratings-2008-crisis
  10. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/solutions/ratings/understanding-ratings.html
  11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/financial-history-review/article/on-the-information-content-of-ratings-an-analysis-of-the-origin-of-moodys-stock-and-bond-ratings/EE99C0E6DABEA1EE983D101CE240CDCA
  12. https://education.savvymoney.com/credit/credit-score-vs-credit-rating/
  13. https://www.tatacapital.com/blog/personal-use-loan/credit-rating-vs-credit-score-whats-the-difference/
  14. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/cato/0025816/f_0025816_21109.pdf
  15. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ioscopd270.pdf
  16. https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/credratingreport0103.pdf
  17. https://www.ecgi.global/sites/default/files/working_papers/documents/ratingsfinal.pdf
  18. https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2018/09/credit-ratings-what-are-they-good
  19. https://www.longtermtrends.net/bond-yield-credit-spreads/
  20. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A4CBBB
  21. https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ratings.html
  22. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/content/legal-disclaimer
  23. https://www.burlington.org/DocumentCenter/View/7306/S-and-P-Guide-to-Credit-Ratings
  24. https://www.hoover.org/research/impact-ratings-bond-markets-evidence-introduction-ratings-1909
  25. https://www.spglobal.com/en/our-history
  26. https://time.com/archive/6687994/a-brief-history-of-ratings-agencies/
  27. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/fixed-income/fitch-ratings/
  28. https://books.google.com/books/about/Moody_s_Analyses_of_Railroad_Investments.html?id=ET3yBt2p0HQC
  29. http://lamfin.arizona.edu/fixi/542/mrt.pdf
  30. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2002/170/article-A001-en.xml
  31. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/bonds/09/history-credit-rating-agencies.asp
  32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ehr.12095
  33. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4614-0523-8.pdf
  34. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/281279/1/Oxford-University-Press_9780191982545.pdf
  35. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/96v02n2/9610cant.pdf
  36. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/33-8570.pdf
  37. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7776&context=ypfs-documents
  38. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/savings-and-loan-crisis
  39. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr318.pdf
  40. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr449.pdf
  41. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4764&context=smulr
  42. https://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/moody-s-corporation-history/
  43. https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/ProductAttachments/Default%2520Risk%2520Service%2520brochure.pdf
  44. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sp.asp
  45. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/about
  46. https://www.fitchratings.com/topics/emerging-markets
  47. https://www.sifma.org/resources/research/statistics/us-corporate-bonds-statistics/
  48. https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cra-oversight-roundtable/briefing-paper.htm
  49. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/brief-history-credit-rating-agencies-how-financial-regulation-entrenched
  50. https://structuredfinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SFA_Briefing_NRSROs_FINAL_July-2021.pdf
  51. https://www.sec.gov/files/feb-2024-ocr-staff-report.pdf
  52. https://www.sec.gov/files/jan-2025-ocr-staff-report.pdf
  53. https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/office-credit-ratings/current-nrsros
  54. https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2157306/credit-rating-agencies-kroll-dbrs-increase-market-share-in-asset-backed-securities
  55. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/09/15/2014-20890/nationally-recognized-statistical-rating-organizations
  56. https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/miles-livingston/files/2021/03/CREDIT-RATINGS-OXFORD-ENCYCLOPEDIA.pdf
  57. https://www.arenaco.com/dans-views/rating-agencies-are-playing-new-versions-of-the-same-old-games/
  58. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2003/06/rating-agencies-use-credit-ratings-under-federal-securities-laws
  59. https://fintechmagazine.com/articles/top-10-credit-rating-companies
  60. https://www.thegoldensource.com/the-many-credit-ratings-providers-you-can-use/
  61. https://www.forbes.com/sites/annrutledge/2024/12/31/how-credit-rating-agencies-overplayed-the-sovereign-credit-rating-card/
  62. https://www.justice.gov/atr/herfindahl-hirschman-index
  63. https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2bsxdd4wuaql862tj5ekg/portfolio/how-to-break-up-a-credit-ratings-oligopoly
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165410121000896
  65. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1292667
  66. https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/99.pdf
  67. https://www.mercatus.org/research/working-papers/economic-analysis-secs-nationally-recognized-statistical-rating
  68. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/end-the-government-sponsored-cartel-in-credit-ratings/
  69. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/ratings/en/documents/pdfs/041019_howweratenonfinancialcorporateentities.pdf
  70. https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/defaultresearch/2005700000436062.pdf
  71. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/commercial-lending/credit-analysis-ratios/
  72. https://www.treasurers.org/ACTmedia/ITCCMFcorpcreditguide.pdf
  73. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/datahub/data-sets.html
  74. https://www.scribd.com/document/815573198/2024-Moody-prob-default-recovery
  75. https://analystprep.com/study-notes/frm/estimating-default-probabilities/
  76. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/resources/11-15-06-The-role-of-stress-testing-in-credit-risk-management.pdf
  77. https://www.fitchratings.com/fitch-portfolio-credit-model
  78. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/resources/overview-of-modeling-credit-portfolios.pdf
  79. https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/ProductAttachments/Exhibit2.pdf
  80. https://www.businesssoftwarehelp.com/articles/key-differences-between-s-amp-p-moody%25E2%2580%2599s-and-fitch-ratings
  81. https://www.highradius.com/resources/Blog/how-company-credit-rating-works/
  82. https://www.hec.edu/en/how-market-power-credit-rating-agencies-influences-ratings-they-publish
  83. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/mi/en/documents/general/MI-Research-Macro-Scenario-Model--December-2017.pdf
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276267854_Quantitative_vs_Qualitative_Criteria_for_Credit_Risk_Assessment
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1042443123001063
  86. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/79580/1/733866158.pdf
  87. https://www.bis.org/publ/work163.pdf
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572308924000573
  89. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr12.pdf
  90. https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2007/34-55857fr.pdf
  91. https://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2012/939h_credit_rating_standardization.pdf
  92. https://ratings.moodys.com/api/rmc-documents/53954
  93. https://www.maalot.co.il/Publications/GMT20160823145849.pdf
  94. https://dbrs.morningstar.com/research/236758/short-term-and-long-term-rating-relationships
  95. https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/consultations/2016/02/esma_vr_cra_ratingagenturexpertra_annex1.pdf
  96. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/4765458?kw=%25252525257bkeyword%25252525257d
  97. https://www.bondsavvy.com/bonds/bond-ratings-scale
  98. https://maalot.co.il/Publications/FTS20250331162126.pdf
  99. https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/defaultresearch/2002300000424883.pdf
  100. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/us-first-lien-ultimate-recoveries-decline-in-1h25-11-09-2025
  101. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/05/31/whats-still-wrong-with-credit-ratings/
  102. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/5202490.pdf?abstractid=5202490&mirid=1
  103. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15331/w15331.pdf
  104. https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/investment-products/fixed-income-bonds/bond-ratings
  105. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/504352
  106. https://cbonds.com/glossary/rating-outlook/
  107. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/outlooks-watches-show-relative-likelihood-of-rating-changes-19-09-2025
  108. https://www.taiwanratings.com/portal/front/customArticle/8a2720b373c3355f0173d7f291f90004
  109. https://www.morganstanley.com/disclosures/creditratings
  110. https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/DefaultResearch/2004700000425139.pdf
  111. https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/defaultresearch/tradeoff.pdf
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057521911000986
  113. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/~/media/assets/events/economic-research-conferences/sovereign-vs-corporate-debt-and-default-more-similar-than-you-think.pdf
  114. https://debtcon6.princeton.edu/document/186
  115. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/13441142
  116. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/epr/96v02n2/9610cant.html
  117. https://ratings.moodys.com/api/rmc-documents/395819
  118. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1512h.pdf
  119. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-oct-31-fi-63631-story.html
  120. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/argentina-fitch-downgrades-debt-ratings-21-12-2001
  121. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2010/03/31/default-settings
  122. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1781.en.pdf
  123. https://www.esm.europa.eu/system/files/document/wp45final.pdf
  124. https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/documents/areas/fac/finance/longstaff%2520Systemic.pdf
  125. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1654.pdf
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105905602300388X
  127. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/12913251
  128. https://ratings.moodys.com/api/rmc-documents/65543
  129. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/es/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/10906146
  130. https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/research/research-a-systematic-approach-for-identifying-companies-with-economic-moats.pdf
  131. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/4765458
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560621000838
  133. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15848/w15848.pdf
  134. https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/adm/web/paper1.pdf
  135. https://www.scoperatings.com/ScopeRatingsApi/api/downloadmethodology?id=8f6dc4fe-71e6-4946-bc27-3e84585c0a38
  136. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/pt/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/10808991
  137. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/fitch-ratings-finalizes-us-rmbs-rating-criteria-01-10-2025
  138. https://gcrratings.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GCR-Master-SF-Criteria-update-2018.pdf
  139. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_doublybound_creditratings_april11_publish.pdf
  140. https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-testimony/2010-0602-exhibit-finance-default.pdf
  141. https://www.investmentcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AIC-Cover-Letter-to-the-NAIC-on-FTI-Report-on-Proposed-CLO-Methodology.pdf
  142. https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2023/emerging-market-green-bonds-report
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062940824000676
  144. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2023/ifc-amundi-emerging-market-green-bonds-july2023.pdf
  145. https://www.econlib.org/cee/2008FinancialCrisis/
  146. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/other-reports/credit-ratings-report-201107.htm
  147. https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2023/06/34-97657
  148. https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/2011/ts072711jr.htm
  149. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD153.pdf
  150. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ioscopd180.pdf
  151. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ioscopd437.pdf
  152. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ioscopd346.pdf
  153. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:32009R1060
  154. https://www.bis.org/fsi/fsisummaries/iosco_principles.htm
  155. https://business.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/documents/center-rutgers-financial-institutions-research-DoddFrankCreditRatings.pdf
  156. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/credit-rating-agency-reform-is-incomplete/
  157. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hblr//wp-content/uploads/sites/87/2014/09/Ratings-Reform.pdf
  158. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/big-three-credit-rating-agencies-maintain-dominance-europe-2023-12-20/
  159. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-10/state-of-credit-rating-market-study-01012016_en.pdf
  160. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X14002347
  161. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/10/09/impact-of-the-dodd-frank-act-on-credit-ratings/
  162. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jbfa.12695
  163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929119920300390
  164. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12140-024-09444-w
  165. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/crenshaw-statement-credit-ratings-060723
  166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165410114000020
  167. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2002186
  168. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2994&context=utk_chanhonoproj
  169. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/subprime-mortgage-crisis
  170. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/greeces-debt-crisis-timeline
  171. https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/518-2015-04-15-TIMELINE%2520OCT%25202009%2520MAYO%25202013_ampliado.pdf
  172. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/timeline-euro-zone-debt-crisis-idUSTRE6674K8/
  173. https://academic.oup.com/rof/article-abstract/19/4/1703/1567892
  174. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2011/html/sp111010.en.html
  175. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272226551_Herding_Behavior_and_Rating_Convergence_among_Credit_Rating_Agencies_Evidence_from_the_Subprime_Crisis
  176. https://www.bis.org/publ/work129.pdf
  177. https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/esrb.letter201001_impact_of_downgrades_of_corporate_bonds~d15087499d.en.pdf
  178. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Procyclical-Role-of-Rating-Agencies%253A-Evidence-Ferri-Liu/a7e74f745ac070287dff4768f491a1f72877a3b3
  179. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osgdp20081_en.pdf
  180. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148619517301297
  181. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2581738
  182. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5217575_Default_Currency_Crises_and_Sovereign_Credit_Ratings
  183. https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8877522/file/8877523.pdf
  184. https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/4623266/a-fifty-year-retrospective-on-credit-risk-models.pdf
  185. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242304681_Default_Recovery_Rates_in_Credit_Risk_Modeling_A_Review_of_the_Literature_and_Empirical_Evidence
  186. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/203580/1/VfS-2019-pid-27710.pdf
  187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S105752191830807X
  188. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/gds2024d3_en.pdf
  189. https://unctad.org/publication/credit-rating-agencies-developing-countries-and-bias
  190. https://africatalyst.com/the-continent-that-pays-more-to-borrow-inside-africas-fight-against-biased-credit-ratings/
  191. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/wlr/article/5005/&path_info=wha.pdf
  192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003801212400017X
  193. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612324009632
  194. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949894
  195. https://www.scoperatings.com/ScopeRatingsApi/api/downloadstudy?id=0f720aba-0377-4a2f-be25-6be545e11598
  196. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222663472_Sovereign_Credit_Ratings_Capital_Flows_and_Financial_Sector_Development_in_Emerging_Markets
  197. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929119921002790
  198. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2344122_code425643.pdf?abstractid=2344122&mirid=1
  199. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/conferences/shared/pdf/20241001_expectation_surveys/Wang_paper.pdf
  200. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612324013941
  201. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261560617300566
  202. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp1168.pdf
  203. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2011/html/sp111104_1.en.html
  204. https://som.yale.edu/story/2025/ratings-agencies-forgotten-constituency-financial-crisis-interventions
  205. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0275531912000074
  206. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290484450_Recent_Financial_Crises_and_Regulations_on_the_Credit_Rating_Agencies
  207. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X18301879
  208. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4867578
  209. https://www.financialresearch.gov/working-papers/files/OFRwp-24-04_do-credit-default-swaps-still-lead-the-effects-of-regulation-on-price-discovery.pdf
  210. https://www.wellington.com/en/insights/equity-volatility-credit-spreads-harmony
  211. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362365108_On_the_information_content_of_credit_ratings_and_market-based_measures_of_default_risk
  212. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4989509_Do_Market-Based_Indicators_Anticipate_Rating_Agencies_Evidence_for_International_Banks
  213. https://ideas.repec.org/p/bdi/wptemi/td_593_06.html
  214. https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ioscopd442.pdf
  215. https://www.fsb.org/uploads/c_140429v.pdf
  216. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572308922000274
  217. https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/5768/1/2094-3054-1-SM.pdf
  218. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/7735928
  219. https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/dodd-frank/creditratingagencies.shtml
  220. https://www.chapman.com/insights-sfi-19
  221. https://www.iosco.org/library/briefing_notes/pdf/ioscobn01-13.pdf
  222. https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/after-high-profile-failures-can-investors-still-trust-credit-ratings
  223. https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/credit-ratings-covid19/
  224. https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Credit%2520Rating%2520Agencies_paper_1.pdf
  225. https://ma.moodys.com/rs/961-KCJ-308/images/Rating%2520Methodologies%2520-%2520General-Principles-for-Assessing-Environmental-Social-and-Governance-Ri...%2520-%252028Jun21.pdf
  226. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/esg-in-credit-ratings
  227. https://ballotpedia.org/S%2526P_eliminates_ESG_scores_from_credit_ratings_%282023%29
  228. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/esg-in-credit-ratings-q3-2025-highest-quarter-for-positive-actions-in-two-years-s101652429
  229. https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/sustainability-insights-the-credit-materiality-of-physical-climate-risks-is-uneven-across-asset-classes-s101647110
  230. https://www.unpri.org/credit-risk-and-ratings/esg-in-credit-ratings-and-esg-ratings/11071.article
  231. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221484502200103X
  232. https://academic.oup.com/rof/article/26/6/1315/6590670
  233. https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3578&context=utk_chanhonoproj
  234. https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/19248715/Foundations-of-ESG-Investing-in-Corporate-Bonds-How-ESG-Affects-Corporate-Credit-Risk-and-Performance%2B%28002%29.pdf
  235. https://www.netguru.com/blog/ai-credit-scoring
  236. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/moodys-downgrades-us-aa1-rating-2025-05-16/
  237. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396657842_Credit_Rating_in_the_Age_of_Artificial_Intelligence
  238. https://www.cardrates.com/news/ficos-new-ai-models-can-boost-issuer-fraud-detection/
  239. https://www.orrick.com/en/Insights/2024/08/Limiting-Risk-of-Black-Box-AI-for-Financial-Institutions
  240. https://riskseal.io/glossary/blackbox-ai
  241. https://www.marketsmedia.com/sp-assigns-first-credit-rating-on-defi-protocol/
  242. https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/31069831931561
  243. https://www.galaxy.com/insights/research/risk-rating-defi-crypto
  244. https://www.valuewalk.com/cryptocurrency/credit-ratings-crypto-guide/
  245. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2j03w10gno
  246. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104244312500085X
  247. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rating
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.