Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2021, Vol. 488 Issue (2): 94-113    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
多重信用评级与债券融资成本——来自中国债券市场的经验证据
陈关亭, 连立帅, 朱松
清华大学经济管理学院, 北京 100084;
华东师范大学经济与管理学部, 上海 200241
Multiple Credit Rating and Bond Financing Cost: Evidence from Chinese Bond Market
CHEN Guanting, LIAN Lishuai, ZHU Song
School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University;
Faculty of Economics and Management, East China Normal University
下载:  PDF (537KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 本文揭示了多重信用评级的信息生产机制和信用认证机制,排除了“信用评级购买”假说对于多重评级动机的解释,研究发现:多重信用评级有利于降低债券融资成本;相对于不一致的多重信用评级,一致的多重信用评级更有利于降低债券融资成本。在多重信用评级中,相对于评级机构均为“发行人付费”模式,兼有“投资者付费”模式的信用评级更有利于降低债券融资成本。此外,当多重信用评级的评级意见不一致时,平均评级的信息含量最高,即综合不同信用评级所包含的多种信息比任何单一信用评级更加具有信息含量。本研究为我国债券市场双评级制度提供了理论和经验证据的支持,有助于完善多元化信用评级制度和债券市场监管制度,并提示发债企业可以通过多重信用评级向市场传递更多和更具效度的评级信息,以弥补单一信用评级的信息不足和评级结果失准,减少投资者决策的不确定性,从而降低债券融资成本。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
陈关亭
连立帅
朱松
关键词:  多重信用评级  债券融资成本  信息不对称  付费模式    
Summary:  Since China resumed treasury bond issuance in 1981, there has been a rapid growth in both the market size and the variety of bond types. At the November of 2020, the Chinese bond market had a capitalization of about 115.7 trillion RMB and has become the world second largest bond market. The bond market plays an increasingly important role in the reform and opening-up of the finance system. A sound and healthy bond market requires active investors, while the moral hazard problem of the issuers and the information asymmetry between issuers and investors stand in the way.
Bond rating is an important mechanism in mitigating the information asymmetry between issuers and investors and protecting the rights of investors, and therefore plays an important role in investors' decision making. While most issuers in the Chinese bond market disclose rating from only one rating agency nowadays, some issuers choose to have multiple ratings (MR) from more than one rating agency, and publicly disclose these ratings in the statement of bond issuance.
There are three explanations for the existence of MR,such as informational production, rating shopping, and certification. Kronlund (2019) suggests that compared to single rating, MR is less likely to be the results of rating shopping, and the evidence shows that rating shopping is more likely to exist when issuers disclose single rating. This paper tries to provide evidence for the other two explanations, informational production and certification, while excluding the rating shopping explanation.
Using a sample of ratings from 2004 to 2018 in the Chinese bond market, this paper finds that MR is associated with lower financing cost, indicating that MR provides incremental information, and reduces the information asymmetry between investors and bond issuers, and this effect is more pronounced for issuers with consistent ratings or using investor-paid mode. In addition, when multiple ratings are inconsistent to each other, the average rating is more informative than the single rating. Further analyses show that the effect of MR in reducing financing cost is more pronounced for private issuers or those obtaining ratings from agencies with better reputation.
We conduct several robustness checks for our results by using PSM method, two-stage Heckman model, alternative samples and variables, and we use the exogenous event of double rating system implemented by Chinese regulatory authorities in 2012 to test the causal relationship between multiple ratings and bond financing cost. All test results support our major conclusions.
We make three distinctive contributions in this paper. First, the existing studies on China's bond market mainly focus on single credit rating. We contribute to this line of literature by examining the relationship between multiple credit ratings and bond financing cost, which allows us to explore the implications of credit rating from a quantitative perspective. Second, the available mechanisms of multiple ratings in the literature are inconsistent with the empirical evidence, and most of these studies focus on the United States or other developed economies. Our focal point is on Chinese bond market system, and we reveal how the investors in the emerging market interpret the multiple ratings and the key mechanism of multiple ratings. Moreover, we provide a better theoretical explanation for the phenomenon of multiple ratings. Third, we evaluate the effect of different payment modes under multiple ratings on the cost of bond financing, which enable us to provide verification results under multiple rating system on the controversial question that whether “issuer payment” mode is better than “investor payment” mode.
Our findings have several implications for regulators, issuers and bond rating agencies. For regulatory institutions, our paper suggests that it is necessary to gradually implement the mandatory multiple rating system and promote the multiple rating model embedded in the investor-paid rating agencies. For bond issuers, our findings imply that the market can extract more accurate information through multiple credit ratings when confronting with different ratings from multiple rating agencies, which helps reduce their cost of bond financing. For credit rating agencies, we provide evidence that reputation is a valuable asset.
Keywords:  Multiple Credit Rating    Cost of Bond Financing    Information Asymmetry    Fee Model
JEL分类号:  G24   L14   M21  
基金资助: * 本文感谢国家自然科学基金项目(71372047)、北京市自然科学基金项目(9192017)、教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(18YJC790093)、教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目(18YJA630156)与中国博士后科学基金面上项目(2020M671065)资助。感谢匿名审稿人的宝贵意见,文责自负。
通讯作者:  连立帅,管理学博士,副教授,华东师范大学经济与管理学部,E-mail:lslian@dbm.ecnu.edu.cn.   
作者简介:  陈关亭,经济学博士,副教授,清华大学经济管理学院,E-mail:chengtg@sem.tsinghua.edu.cn.朱 松,管理学博士,教授,华东师范大学经济与管理学部,E-mail:szhu@dbm.ecnu.edu.cn.
引用本文:    
陈关亭, 连立帅, 朱松. 多重信用评级与债券融资成本——来自中国债券市场的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 488(2): 94-113.
CHEN Guanting, LIAN Lishuai, ZHU Song. Multiple Credit Rating and Bond Financing Cost: Evidence from Chinese Bond Market. Journal of Financial Research, 2021, 488(2): 94-113.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2021/V488/I2/94
[1] 何平和金梦,2010,《信用评级在中国债券市场的影响力》,《金融研究》第4期,第15~28页。
[2] 黄国平,2012,《评级功能视角下的利益冲突和付费模式》,《证券市场导报》第10期,第67~72页。
[3] 黄小琳、朱松和陈关亭,2017,《债券违约对涉事信用评级机构的影响:基于中国信用债市场违约事件的分析》,《金融研究》第3期,第130~144页。
[4] 林晚发、何剑波、周畅和张忠诚,2017,《“投资者付费”模式对“发行人付费”模式评级的影响:基于中债资信评级的实验证据》,《会计研究》第9期,第62~68页。
[5] 林晚发、刘颖斐和赵仲匡,2019,《承销商评级与债券信用利差——来自〈证券分公司分类监管规定〉》的经验证据》,《中国工业经济》第1期,第174~192页。
[6] 寇宗来、盘宇章和刘学悦,2015,《中国的信用评级真的影响发债成本吗?》,《金融研究》第10期,第81~98页。
[7] 王雄元和张春强,2013,《声誉机制、信用评级与中期票据融资成本》,《金融研究》第8期,第150~164页。
[8] 周宏、温笑天、夏剑超和方宇,2013,《评级机构数量选择对企业债券信用风险监管的影响——基于评级机构与发债企业串谋行为的博弈分析》,《会计研究》第8期,第76~80页。
[9] Baker, H. K., and S. A. Mansi. 2002. “Assessing Credit Rating Agencies by Bond Issuers and Institutional Investors”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 29(9-10): 1367~1398.
[10] Billingsley, R. S., R. E. Lamy, M. W. Marr, and G. R. Thompson. 1985. “Split Ratings and Bond Reoffering Yields”, Financial Management, 14(2):59~65.
[11] Brister, B. M., R. E. Kennedy, and P. Liu. 1994. “The Regulation Effect of Credit Ratings on Bond Interest Yield”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 21(4):511~531.
[12] Bongaerts, D., M. Cremers, and W. Goetzmann. 2012. “Tiebreaker: Certification and Multiple Credit Ratings”, Journal of Finance, 67(1): 113~152.
[13] Fulghieri, P., G. Strobl, and H., Xia. 2013. “The Economics of Solicited and Unsolicited Credit Ratings”, Review of Financial Studies, 27(2): 484~518.
[14] Guembel, A., and S. Rossetto. 2009. “Reputational Cheap Talk with Misunderstanding”, Games and Economic Behavior, 67(2): 736~744.
[15] Guntay, L., and D. Hackbarth. 2010. “Corporate Bond Credit Spreads and Forecast Dispersion”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 34(10):2328~2345.
[16] Hand, J., R. Holthausen, and R. Leftwich. 1992. “The Effect of Bond Rating Agency Announcements on Bond and Stock Prices”, Journal of Finance, 47(2): 733~752.
[17] He, J., J. Qian, and P. E. Strahan. 2016. “Does the Market Understand Rating Shopping? Predicting MBS Losses with Initial Yields”, Review of Financial Studies, 29(2): 457~485.
[18] Hsueh, L. P., and D. S. Kidwell. 1988. “Bond Ratings: Are Two Better Than One?”, Financial Management, 17(1):46~53.
[19] Jiang, J., M. H. Stanford, and Y. Xie. 2012. “Does It Matter Who Pays for Bond Ratings? Historical Evidence”, Journal of Financial Economics, 105(3): 607~621.
[20] Kisgen, D. J. 2006. “Credit Ratings and Capital Structure”, Journal of Finance, 61(3): 1035~1072.
[21] Kisgen, D. J., and P. E. Strahan. 2010. “Do Regulations Based on Credit Ratings Affect a Firm's Cost of Capital?”, Review of Financial Studies, 23(12): 4324~4347.
[22] Kronlund, M. 2019. “Do Bond Issuers Shop for Favorable Credit Ratings?”, Management Science, Forthcoming.
[23] Mariano, B. 2012. “Market Power and Reputational Concerns in the Rating Industry”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 36(6): 1616~1626.
[24] Poon, W., and M. Firth. 2005. “Are Unsolicited Credit Ratings Lower? International Evidence from Bank Ratings”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 32(9-10): 1741~1771.
[25] Skreta, V., and L. Veldkamp. 2009. “Ratings Shopping and Asset Complexity: A theory of Ratings Inflation”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 56(5): 678~695.
[26] Xia, H. 2014. “Can Investor-paid Credit Rating Agencies Improve the Information Quality of Issuer-paid Rating Agencies?”, Journal of Financial Economics, 111(2): 450~468.
[1] 杜立, 屈伸, 钱雪松, 金芳吉. 地理距离、契约设计与企业内部资本市场借贷风险防控——来自中国企业集团内部借贷交易的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 482(8): 130-148.
[2] 苏冬蔚, 彭松林. 卖空者与内幕交易——来自中国证券市场的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 471(9): 188-207.
[3] 常莹莹, 曾泉. 环境信息透明度与企业信用评级——基于债券评级市场的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 467(5): 132-151.
[4] 杨青, 吉赟, 王亚男. 高铁能提升分析师盈余预测的准确度吗?——来自上市公司的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 465(3): 168-188.
[5] 杨国超, 盘宇章. 信任被定价了吗? ——来自债券市场的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 463(1): 35-53.
[6] 魏志华, 曾爱民, 吴育辉, 李常青. IPO补税影响IPO抑价吗?——基于信息不对称理论视角[J]. 金融研究, 2018, 451(1): 191-206.
[7] 郭桂霞, 赵岳, 巫和懋. 我国“走出去”企业的最优融资模式选择——基于信息经济学的视角[J]. 金融研究, 2016, 434(8): 111-126.
[8] 徐巍, 陈冬华. 自媒体披露的信息作用——来自新浪微博的实证证据[J]. 金融研究, 2016, 429(3): 157-173.
[9] 张晓玫, 宋卓霖. 保证担保、抵押担保与贷款风险缓释机制探究——来自非上市中小微企业的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2016, 427(1): 83-98.
[10] 谢平, 邹传伟, 刘海二. 互联网金融的基础理论[J]. 金融研究, 2015, 422(8): 1-12.
[11] 寇宗来, 盘宇章, 刘学悦. 中国的信用评级真的影响发债成本吗?[J]. 金融研究, 2015, 424(10): 81-98.
[1] 王曦, 朱立挺, 王凯立. 我国货币政策是否关注资产价格?——基于马尔科夫区制转换BEKK多元GARCH模型[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 1 -17 .
[2] 刘勇政, 李岩. 中国的高速铁路建设与城市经济增长[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 18 -33 .
[3] 况伟大, 王琪琳. 房价波动、房贷规模与银行资本充足率[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 34 -48 .
[4] 祝树金, 赵玉龙. 资源错配与企业的出口行为——基于中国工业企业数据的经验研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 49 -64 .
[5] 陈德球, 陈运森, 董志勇. 政策不确定性、市场竞争与资本配置[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 65 -80 .
[6] 牟敦果, 王沛英. 中国能源价格内生性研究及货币政策选择分析[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 81 -95 .
[7] 高铭, 江嘉骏, 陈佳, 刘玉珍. 谁说女子不如儿郎?——P2P投资行为与过度自信[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 96 -111 .
[8] 吕若思, 刘青, 黄灿, 胡海燕, 卢进勇. 外资在华并购是否改善目标企业经营绩效?——基于企业层面的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 112 -127 .
[9] 姜军, 申丹琳, 江轩宇, 伊志宏. 债权人保护与企业创新[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 128 -142 .
[10] 刘莎莎, 孔高文. 信息搜寻、个人投资者交易与股价联动异象——基于股票送转的研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 143 -157 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1