中国债券信用评级付费模式的比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-24 18:30

本文选题：信用评级 + 付费模式　；参考：《新金融》2017年06期

【摘要】：现行的信用评级发行人付费模式由于存在利益冲突,其客观性、独立性和评级水平饱受市场质疑。我国信用评级行业发展时间不长,评级市场声誉机制还未形成,评级机构之间过度竞争,这些因素加重了发行人付费模式导致的评级虚高、信用评级质量的下降等问题。本文考察了2014年至2016年的公司债发债样本,构建量化指标对比投资者付费模式与发行人付费模式的信用评级。实证表明:发行人付费模式下的信用评级分布过于集中,投资者付费模式下的评级分布形态更为合理;在发行人付费模式下,同一信用评级发债主体的实际信用状况差别很大,表明评级的区分能力不够;在信用评级为AA的情况下,两种付费模式下的差别最大。为此,我们对未来信用评级业的发展和改革提出了相应的建议。
[Abstract]:The current credit rating issuer payment mode has been questioned by the market due to the existence of interest conflicts, its objectivity, independence and rating level. The development time of the credit rating industry in China is not long, the reputation mechanism of the rating market has not been formed and the rating agencies are over competitive, which aggravate the rating of the issuer pay model, The quality of credit rating decline, such as the quality of the credit rating problems. This paper examines the corporate debt issuance samples from 2014 to 2016, constructs a quantitative index to compare the credit rating of the investor pay model and the issuer payment model. The empirical results show that the distribution of credit rating is too concentrated under the issuer's payment mode, and the distribution pattern of the investor's payment mode is more form. Under the issuer payment model, the actual credit status of the same credit rating agent is very different, indicating that the classification ability is not enough; in the case of the credit rating of AA, the difference of the two payment modes is the greatest. Therefore, we put forward the corresponding suggestions for the development and reform of the future credit rating industry.

【作者单位】：山东大学经济研究院;山东大学博士后工作站;
【基金】：中国博士后科学基金(2014M560539) 国家自科基金重大项目(71573159) 山东大学基本科研业务费专项资金的资助
【分类号】：F832.51

【相似文献】