Timeline for Standardized numerical values for ratings
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2019 at 13:04 | comment | added | hannes101 | @RRL actually, I would say this is what I mean. If there's a meaningful way to describe the order of the ratings and keep their cardinal nature, this is the best way to go. But the issue with these is that they are often calculated with a certain time horizon and it's pretty difficult to find them for the time horizon in question. | |
| Feb 18, 2019 at 21:56 | comment | added | RRL | This answer seems to be pointing in the right direction. I'm not sure why one would want to find some arbitrary order-preserving mapping of ratings into numbers (e.g., equally spaced integers) when the agency themselves associate meaningful default frequencies that generally have the some order (see published ratings transition matrices). The default frequencies are generally montonically increasing as the ratings decline. Where this is not the case, it usually points to small sample issues and could be adjusted in some ad hoc fashion. | |
| Feb 17, 2019 at 3:10 | comment | added | alexbougias | A mapping could be: credit rating to distance to default, in a similar way as the KMV model, which maps distance to default to expected default frequency. | |
| Feb 15, 2019 at 17:47 | history | answered | AlRacoon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |