The role and performance of credit-rating agencies are currently under debate.
Several surveys conducted in the United States reveal that most investors
believe rating agencies are too slow in adjusting their ratings to changes in
corporate creditworthiness. It is well known that agencies achieve rating
stability by their through-the-cycle methodology. This study provides
quantitative insight into this methodology from an investor's point-in-time
perspective and quantifies the effects of the methodology on three, somewhat
conflicting, objectives: rating stability, rating timeliness, and performance in
predicting defaults. The results can guide the search for an optimal balance
among these three objectives.