This work examines the information value of local Israeli credit rating announcements. This matter is also important to other small markets, in which a debt issuer may take advantage of a “rating shopping” process or choose to avoid a rating procedure altogether, because the agencies do not carry out unsolicited rating. We analyze the bond and equity markets response to various rating announcements at different time periods. We find that except for downgrades in 2008–2009 the rating announcements have no information value. It seems that generally the market internalizes most of the information prior to the rating announcements.

Prior studies indicate that rating agencies have adopted more stringent rating criteria over time. In this paper, we hypothesize that improvements in rating accuracy can explain some of these observed patterns. We present empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis, demonstrating that enhancements in rating methodologies have resulted in better default prediction. Our analysis also reveals that, over time, ratings have become more closely aligned with accounting fundamentals and a market-based measure of default risk (distance-to-default). These findings provide a fresh perspective on the factors influencing changes in credit rating standards and emphasize the significance of methodological advancements in credit risk assessment. This research introduces the novel argument that enhancing rating accuracy is an economic rationale for long-term rating trends. The findings underscore the continued importance of credit ratings despite criticisms, suggesting that ratings remain a valuable tool for investors.