We examine whether the properties of bond ratings from certified agencies (designated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)) differ from those of non-certified bond-rating agencies. Bond ratings from non-certified agencies are used solely for investment advice. Certified ratings are used by a variety of constituents, many of whom write contracts incorporating these ratings. We find that the properties of the ratings from the two agency types differ in predictable ways. Our results show that the non-certified agency's ratings are consistent with their role of providing information to investors. The certified agency is generally more conservative, consistent with their significant role in contracting.

Accounting rules for valuing retained interest from securitizations require management to make assumptions concerning discount rates, default rates, and prepayment rates. These assumptions provide management with discretion to determine the “gain on sale” of the receivables. We investigate whether CEO compensation is less sensitive to securitization gains than to other earnings components in the presence of proxies for how independent (outsiders, females, fewer CEO-selected directors) and informed (financial expertise) directors are. Overall, our results do not suggest that better “monitoring” reduces earnings management or CEO pay-sensitivity to reported securitization gains. Our results suggest that CEOs are rewarded for the gains they report and boards do not intervene.