There are better alternatives, one of which is to force ratings to be quantitative. Letter grades have no objective meaning that can be evaluated or penalized for inaccuracy. Numerical estimates of the probability of default (PD) and loss given default (LGD), in contrast, do have objective, measurable meanings.
The Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) whose ratings are used by regulators should provide specific estimates of the PD and LGD for any rated instrument (they already calculate and publicly report the necessary statistics). Requiring these organizations to express ratings using numbers could alter the rating agencies' incentives dramatically. If they were penalized for systematically underestimating risk over a significant period of time -- say, with a six-month 'sit out' from having their ratings used for regulatory purposes -- they would have a strong self-interest in correctly estimating risk."
-------------------------------------
Comment
The issue is not so much alphabetical versus numerical as it is an issue of further granularity in rankings
See my book chapter VIII:
My recent output on proposals for reform:
Unity of Purpose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70ciLLjpS4U
http://www.authorstream.com/PresentLive/kongtcheu-179123-UnityofPurpose2-Business-Finance-ppt-powerpoint
http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/kongtcheu-179123-UnityofPurpose2-Business-Finance-ppt-powerpoint/
Uploaded on authorSTREAM by kongtcheu
Too Big to Fail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzO6_CusfL8
http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/kongtcheu-179114-TooBigtoFail-Business-Finance-ppt-powerpoint/
http://www.authorstream.com/PresentLive/kongtcheu-179114-TooBigtoFail-Business-Finance-ppt-powerpoint
Uploaded on authorSTREAM by kongtcheu
No comments:
Post a Comment