(13)It is, however, important that the implementation of a rotation mechanism is designed in such a way that the benefits of the mechanism more than outweigh its possible negative consequences. For example, frequent rotation could result in increased costs for issuers and credit rating agencies because the cost associated with rating a new entity or financial instrument is typically higher than the cost of monitoring a credit rating that has already been issued. It also takes a considerable amount of time and resources to get established as a credit rating agency, whether as a niche player or covering all asset classes. Further, ongoing rotation of credit rating agencies could have a significant impact on the quality and continuity of credit ratings. Equally important, a rotation mechanism should be implemented with sufficient safeguards to allow the market to adapt gradually before possibly enhancing the mechanism in the future. This could be achieved by limiting the scope of the mechanism to re-securitisations, which is a limited source of bank funding, while allowing credit ratings that are already issued to continue to be monitored upon request even after rotation becomes mandatory. Thus, as a general rule, rotation should only affect new re-securitisations with underlying assets from the same originator. The Commission should review whether it is appropriate to maintain a limited rotation mechanism or to apply it to other asset classes as well and, if so, whether other classes warrant different treatment with respect to, for example, the length of the maximum duration of the contractual relationship. If the rotation mechanism is established for other asset classes, the Commission should evaluate whether it is necessary to introduce an obligation on the credit rating agency to provide, at the end of the maximum duration period of the contractual relationship, information on the issuer and on the rated financial instruments (a handover file), to the incoming credit rating agency.