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.

Prior research on the impact of market power on firms’ willingness to extend trade credit has produced inconsistent results, highlighting a critical gap in understanding firm behavior. This study addresses this issue by analyzing a comprehensive dataset of industrial firms across 26 countries, focusing on how the relationship between market power and trade credit depends on a country’s financial development level. Firms with monopolistic power often restrict credit provision to improve cash flow. However, our findings reveal a U-shaped relationship, where monopolistic firms in countries with either underdeveloped or highly developed financial sectors are more likely to extend trade credit than those in mid-level financial systems. This highlights the moderating role of financial development in shaping the interaction between market power and trade credit behavior.