Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PROJECT REPORT ON
CREDIT RATING
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (SMECCC ZONAL OFFICE)
SECUNDERABAD
SUBMITTED BY
Kumar Anubhav Deep
(14MBMA63)
INTRODUCTION
State Bank of Hyderabad was constituted as State Bank on
08th August 1941 under Hyderabad State Bank Act, 1941.
The Bank started with the unique distinction of being the
central bank of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, covering
present-day Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh (A.P),
Hyderabad -Karnataka of Karnataka state and Marathwada
of Maharashtra state, to manage its currency - Osmania
Sikka and public debt apart from the functions of commercial
banking. The first branch of the bank was opened at
Gunfoundry, Hyderabad on 5thApril, 1942.
In 1953, the Bank took over the assets and liabilities of the
Hyderabad Mercantile Bank Ltd. In the same year the Bank
started conducting Government and Treasury business as
agent of Reserve Bank of India. In 1956, the Bank was taken
over by Reserve Bank of India as its first subsidiary and its
name was changed from Hyderabad State Bank to State
Bank of Hyderabad. The Bank became a subsidiary of State
Bank of India on the 1stOctober 1959 and is now the largest
Associate Bank of State Bank of India.
All the branches of the Bank are totally networked under
Core Banking Solutions, offering a wide range of products to
its customers. All the customers of the Bank have access to
the latest technologies like Internet Banking, ATMs etc. The
Bank has pan India presence and operates through more
than 1600 Bank branches.
PAGE 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Simply put, I could not have done this work without the help
and support I received from the STATE BANK OF
HYDERABAD. Everybody is very friendly and cheerful and
no one could never feel stressed out or burned out in such a
wonderful work culture. First of all I would like to thank my
guide Miss.MONIKA, Chief Manager, SMECCC Zonal Office,
Secundrabad. She supported me throughout the project with
utmost co-operation. I am very much thankful to you madam,
for sparing your precious and valuable time for me and for
helping me in doing this project. I express my gratitude to my
faculty guide Dr. K. Ramalu Sir, Assistant Professor, School
of Management Studies, for his valuable guidance, which
helped me in preparing this project report. I place a deep
sense of gratitude to my family members and my friends who
have been constant source of inspiration during the
preparation of this project work.
(14MBMA63)
University Of Hyderabad
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
DECLARATION
This is to certify that the project titled CREDIT RATING OF
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (SMECCC ZONAL
OFFICE)has been done and is a bonafide work completed by
Kumar Anubhav Deep(Enrolment Number 14MBMA63), in
partial fulfilment of the requirement of the Masters of
Business Administration (MBA).
I hereby declare that this project work is the result of my own
efforts which I made in doing work in the bank and has not
copied from any other source. I have taken help from various
sources to gather necessary information to continue my
project and the research on the above topic. Some of the
references from which information is taken are given in the
reference section of this report.
This work has not been submitted earlier at any other
university or institute for the award of the degree.
PAGE 4
CONTENTS
Introduction.. 1
Acknowledgement 2
Declaration
Credit rating
Introduction, definition and importance. 7
Factors affecting credit rating. 11
Nature of credit rating.. 13
Instruments of credit rating. 15
Advantages of rating.. 18
Disadvantages of rating 21
Scoring system in SBH.. 23
Credit risk assessment
(Model of SBH) 26
Types of risk covered.. 29
Qualitative parameter 38
Risk score and rating transition mix..
41
Hurdle scores. 42
PAGE 5
Summary... 47
Suggestion 48
Conclusion .. 49
Bibliography. 50
PAGE 6
CREDIT RATING
Introduction
With the increasing market orientation of the Indian economy
investors value a systematic assessment of two types of risks, namely
business risk arising out of the open economy and linkages between
money, capital and foreign exchange markets and payments risk.
With a view to protect small investors, who are the main target for
unlisted corporate debt in the form of fixed deposits with companies,
credit rating has been made mandatory. India was perhaps the first
amongst developing countries to set up a credit rating agency in 1988.
The function of credit rating was institutionalized when RBI made it
mandatory for the issue of Commercial Paper (CP) and subsequently
by SEBI. when it made credit rating compulsory for certain categories
of debentures and debt instruments. In June 1994, RBI made it
mandatory for Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) to be rated.
Credit rating is optional for Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) bonds
and privately placed non-conve11ible debentures up to Rs. 50 million.
Fixed deposits of manufacturing companies also come under the
purview of optional credit rating.
Credit rating 1s concerned with an act of assigning values (In terms of
symbols) to fund raising Instrument by estimating worth, reputation,
solvency and honesty of the borrowing person so as to repose trust in
person's ability and intension to repay. The credit rating is an
assessment by an independent agency of the capacity of an issuer of
debt security to service the debt and repay the principal as per the
terms of Issue of debt. The rating given is based on an objective
judgement of a team of experts from the rating agency involved in the
credit rating. Credit rating 1s a process by which risk associated with a
PAGE 7
PAGE 8
PAGE 10
On the basis of above lines we can conclude that the increasing levels
of default resulting from easy availability of finance, has led to the
growing importance of the credit rating. The other factors are given
below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
5. Publication of ratings
In India, ratings are undertaken only at the request of the issuers and
only those ratings which are accepted by the issuers are published.
Thus, once a rating is accepted it is published and subsequent changes
emerging out of the monitoring by the agency will be published even if
such changes are not found acceptable by the issuers.
PAGE 13
thereafter give its final decision. Unless the rating agency had over
looked critical information at the first stage chances of the rating being
changed on appeal are rare.
10.
11.
PAGE 15
1. Country Rating
A country may be rated whenever a loan is to be extended or some
major investment is to be made in it by international investors to
determine the safety and security of their investments. A number of
factors such as growth rate, industrial and agricultural production,
government policies, inflation, fiscal deficit etc. are taken into
consideration to arrive at such rating. Any upgrade movement in such
ratings has a positive impact on the stock markets.
3. Chit Fund
Chit funds registered as a company are sometimes rated on their
ability to make timely payment of prize money to subscribers. The
rating helps the chit funds in better marketing of their fund and in
widening of the subscribers base. This service is provided by CRISIL.
4. Ratings of States
States of India have also approached rating agencies for rating. Rating
helps the State to attract investors both from India and abroad to make
investments. Investors find safety of their funds while investing in a
state with good rating. Foreign companies also come forward and set
up projects in such states with positive rating. Rating agencies take
into account various economic parameters such as industrial and
agricultural growth of the State, availability of raw material, labor etc.
and political parties agenda with respect to industry, labor etc.,
relation between Centre and State and freedom enjoyed by the states
in taking decisions while assigning final rating to the states. States like
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and
Kerala have already been rated by CRISIL.
1. Benefits to Investors
Safety of investments. Credit rating gives an idea in advance to
the investors about the degree of financial strength of the issuer
PAGE 17
PAGE 18
PAGE 19
3. Benefits to Intermediaries
Stock brokers have to make less efforts in persuading their clients to
select an investment proposal of making investment in highly rated
instruments. Thus rating enables brokers and other financial
intermediaries to save time, energy costs and manpower in convincing
their clients.
DISADVANTAGES
RATING
OF
CREDIT
PAGE 20
2. Static study
Rating is a static study of present and past historic data of the
company at one particular point of time. Number of factors including
economic, political, environment, and government policies have direct
bearing on the working of a company. Any changes after the
assignment of rating symbols may defeat the very purpose of risk
indicativeness of rating.
PAGE 21
PAGE 22
1. Rating lifetime
PAGE 23
PAGE 24
4. Split ratings
The spectacular growth in the number of credit rating agencies causes
many debtors or debt instruments to be rated multiple times. A split
rating arises when different agencies assign different ratings to the
same debtor or instrument. The impact of these differences is now
bigger than ever. Since ratings provide the key input for the regulatory
capital calculation, split ratings will lead to different levels of safety
capital. Banks can then cherry-pick the rating agencies with a view to
minimizing their safety capital, which is of course an undesirable
practice. Furthermore, investors will react differently based on
whether a debt instrument is characterized by multiple equivalent
ratings or when split ratings are present.
Split ratings may also directly impact regulations, since regulators may
put restrictions on the number of speculative investments and a debt
instrument may be considered speculative by one agency and nonspeculative by another. Reasons for split ratings are, e.g. different
rating methodologies, access to different information, use of different
rating scales, and sample selectionbias.
PAGE 26
PAGE 27
PAGE 28
Type of Models
S.No.
Exposure
Level(FB+NFB Limits)
Non-Trading
Sector
Trading Sector
1.
Over Rs 5 crore
Regular Model
Regular Model
2.
b.
Simplified Model
Type of Ratings
S.No. Model
1.
Regular Model
2.
Simplified Model
Type of Rating
(a)
(b)
Borrower Rating
Facility Rating
Borrower Rating
PAGE 29
Regular
Model
1.
Financial Risk(FR)
Regular
Model
Simplified Simplified
Model
Model
Existing New
Existing
Company Company Company
New
Company
65
35
25
70
(65*O.39)
2.
Qualitative
Factor(-ve)
3.
4.
5.
(-10)
(70/2)
(-10)
(-10)
(-10)
Business
& 20
Industry
Risk
(BR
&
IR)
/Business Risk
(for
Trading
Sector)
30
20
40(20*2)
Management
Risk (MR)
15
45
10
25
Qualitative
Parameter
(External
Rating)
(+5)
(20*1.5)
(15*3)
(+5)
(10*2.5)
(+5)
(+5)
PAGE 30
Total
100
100
100
100
6.
Borrower Rating
based on the above
Score
7.
8.
Final
Borrower
Rating after CR
9.
Financial
Statement Quality
Excellent/Good/Satisfactory/Poor
10.
Risk Score/Rating
Transition Matrix
S.No. Parameter
Maximum Score
II.
III.
IV.
Geography
V.
Macro-Economic Conditions
60
Nature
of
Commitment 1
(Revolving/Non-Revolving)
Credit Quality of Borrower
Tenor of Facility
Total Score
100
S.No. Borrower
Rating
Range
of
Scores
Risk Level
Comfort
Level
1.
SB1
94-100
2.
SB2
90-93
Lowest Risk
Highest safety
3.
SB3
86-89
Lower Risk
Higher safety
PAGE 32
4.
SB4
81-85
Low Risk
High safety
5.
SB5
76-80
Moderate
Adequate
Risk
with safety
Adequate
Cushion
6.
SB6
70-75
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Safety
7.
SB7
64-69
Moderate
Risk
Moderate
Safety
8.
SB8
57-63
Average Risk
Average
Safety
Threshold
9.
SB9
50-56
Average Risk
Average
Safety
Threshold
10.
SB10
45-49
Acceptable Safety
Risk
(Risk Threshold
Tolerance
Threshold)
11.
SB11
40-44
Borderline
risk
Inadequate
safety
12.
SB12
35-39
High Risk
Low safety
13.
SB13
30-34
Higher Risk
Lower safety
14.
SB14
25-29
Substantial
risk
Lowest safety
PAGE 33
15.
16.
SB15
< 24
Pre-Default
NIL
Risk
(extremely
vulnerable to
default)
SB16
---
S.n
o
Comfort
Level
FR1
Virtually
Absolute
Safety
94100
Zero LGD
Virtually
Zero Risk
PAGE 34
FR2
87-93
Lowest
LGD
(Highest
Recovery
Lowest
Risk
Highest
Safety
FR3
80-86
Highest
Safety
FR4
73-79
High
Safety
FR5
66-72
FR6
59-65
Moderate
LGD
(Moderate
Recovery)
FR7
52-58
Moderate Moderate
LGD
Risk
(Moderate
Recovery)
FR8
45-51
Average Average
LGD Risk
(Average
recovery)
FR9
38-44
Average
LGD
(Average
Moderate
Risk
Average
Risk
Moderate
Safety
Moderate
Safety
Above
Safety
Threshol
d
Above
Safety
Threshol
PAGE 35
recovery)
10
FR10
31-37
LGD
Tolerance
Threshold
(Recovery
Tolerance
Threshold
11
FR11
24-30
12
FR12
17-23
Higher
LGD
(Lower
Recovery)
Acceptable Safety
Risk (Risk Threshol
Tolerance d
Threshold)
Higher
RISK
Low
Safety
Lower
Safety
13
FR13
11-16
14
FR14
5-10
Highest
Substantia Lowest
LGD
l Risk
Safety
(Minimal /
Zero
recovery)
15
FR15
1-4
Highest
Highest
LGD
Risk
(Minimal /
Zero
recovery)
NIL
PAGE 36
Existing
CRA
Model
Score
94-100
SB1
SBH1
>=90
90-93
SB2
SBH1
>=75
86-89
SB3
SBH2
>=75
81-85
SB4
SBH2
>=75
76-80
SB5
SBH2
>=65
70-75
SB6
SBH3
>=65
64-69
SB7
SBH3
>=50
57-63
SB8
SBH4
>=50
50-56
SB9
SBH4
>=45
10
45-49
SB10
SBH5
>=35
11
40-44
SB11
SBH6
>=35
12
35-39
SB12
SBH6
>=35
13
30-34
SB13
SBH7
>=25
14
25-29
SB14
SBH7
>=25
15
< 24
SB15
SBH8
< 25
16
S16
PAGE 37
S.No
Type
ECRA
Domestic
International
(a) FITCH;
(b) Moodys;
(c)Standard
& Poors
Long
Short
Short
Short
Short
Standardized Additional
PAGE 38
Term
Rating
term
rating
CARE
term
rating
CRISIL
term
rating
FITCH
term
rating
ICRA
Approach
Risk weight
Score
Under
New CRA
Models
AAA
PR1+
P1+
F1+
A1+
20%
AA
PR1
P1
F1
A1
30%
305
PR2
P2
F2
A2
50%
BBB
PR3
P3
F3
A3
100%
BB &
Below
PR4
PR5
P4
P5
B,c,d
A4
A5
150%
Multiple Ratings:
In case of borrowers having multiple ratings from recognized
ECRAs, following procedure is to be followed:
(i) If there is only one ECRA rating for a particular claim, that
rating would be used to determine scoring;
(ii) If there are two ratings accorded by ECRAs which map into
different risk weights, the rating corresponding to the higher risk
weight would be taken cognizance of for scoring ;
(iii) If there are three or more ratings accorded by ECRAs, with
different risk weights, the ratings corresponding to the two lowest risk
weights should be referred to and the rating corresponding to the
higher of the two risk weights should be taken cognizance of for
scoring.
PAGE 39
PAGE 40
Country risk is the risk that a borrower will not be able to service
its obligations to pay because of cross-border restrictions on the
convertibility or availability of a given currency. It is also an
assessment of the political and economic risk of a country. Country
Risk is assumed to exist when 25% or more of the borrowers cash flow
or assets are located outside India. Country Risk Ratings are circulated
by Foreign Department (FD) of SBI. Last FD Circular No. 070/2007-08
dated 27th July, 2007 indicates Risk category-wise list of countries as
on 31/03/2007. Our International Banking Department (IBD) will issue
guidelines from time to time on Country Risk based on SBI guidelines.
Hurdle Scores
Regular
Model
existing
company
Regular
Model
new
company
Simplified
Model
existing
company
Simplified
Model new
company
10/25
30/70
15/35
Business
16/30
10/20
20/40
& 12/20
PAGE 41
Industry Risk
(B&IR)
[Business Risk
(BR)
for
trade]
Management
Risk (MR)
8/15
22/45
5/10
13/25
Aggregate
hurdle Score
45/100
48/100
45/100
48/100
Hurdle Grade
SB10
SB10
SB10
SB10
Score Range 45-49 corresponds to SB10. Hence as per New CRA Models
SB10 is the new Hurdle Grade. Under Facility Rating, if the score goes
below the hurdle rate of FR10, the reasons for low score are to be given.
Activity Status
Newly incorporated unit where
the production/commercial
PAGE 42
Projected Financials
Audited Financials
General
(i) For units engaged in both industrial & trading activities, the Risk
Rating will be done based on the predominant activity financed by the
Bank and the relevant model used.
(ii) If data on a certain industry for industry comparison in CRISINFAC or CMIE or any other published source is not available, the
score would be normalized. In a Multi Division Company, the thrust of
scoring under Industry Outlook would be limited to the industry
being financed by the Bank.
(iii) Wherever a parameter is not applicable, the score would be
normalized.
(iv) For a new unit, where value statements for some of the parameters
appear to be out of place for scoring, the Credit Analyst would assess
PAGE 43
whether the unit has any plans to measure up to the levels indicated
under those value statements and then score accordingly.
(v) While Borrower rating of a unit will remain unchanged for a period
up to one year, the different facilities would be rated simultaneously
with Borrower Rating or as and when the facility is
sanctioned/reappraised. A unit would carry several different Facility
Ratings e.g. if a unit is enjoying one Working Capital facility & two
(say) Term Loan facilities, it will have one Borrower Rating & 3 Facility
Ratings.
(vi) Borrower rating would not be assessed each time a new facility is
sanctioned to the unit within the year.
(vii) While working out the Facility Rating, the share of total security
against that facility.
Facility Rating
(i)
PAGE 44
All facilities are expected to meet the Facility Hurdle Rate of FR10.
Reasons for not crossing this Hurdle Rate would need to be
commented upon by the Credit Analyst.
PAGE 45
PAGE 46
SUMMARY
The credit rating is an assessment, by an Independent agency, of the
capacity of an Issuer of debt security to service the debt and repay the
principal as per the terms of Issue of debt The role of credit rating has
become most important in the modem financial market The
international market is witnessing a larger number of credit rating
agencies These rating agencies rate the Instrument internationally and
within their provinces. Thearea of ra3ngs has been wide spread from
short term rating to long term rating The ratings are given by these
agencies for the securities, entities and sovereigns Some of the active
and well known international rating agencies are (I) Japan Credit
rating Agency Ltd (JCR), (11) Fitch, (111) Moody's Investors Service, (N)
Standard & Poor's, (v) AM Best Company, and (VI) Duff and Phelps
Credit Rating Company (DCR).
In India so far market shows very clearly that there is no danger of
competitive generosity, which can eventually destroy the credibility of
the rating service itself The experience of the Indian rating agencies so
far is that about 25-30 percent of their ratings are not accepted or used
Increasing Risk averse on by lenders and Investors and restricted
avenue for raising capital will lead to a greater demand for structured
finance ratings The newer forms of securitization such as trade
receivables and credit card receivables are also expected to contribute
to growth in rating business In coming years The Insurance sector
privatization and opening up of pension funds would go further long
way to ensure whatever they invested is rated. The health Insurance
Industry is opening up new vistas of growth for rating agencies There
will be a strong demand for rating services on the back of debt market
Upswing due to reducing interest rates and almost stagnation In equity
initialpublic offering and rights Issues market The Interest rate belong
remaining soft would be again a good demand for re-financing and
hence ratings.
PAGE 47
SUGGESTION
Current rating system is good.
The loan processing time should be reduced.
Bank provide loan only on the basis of the repayment capacity of
the borrower and hence it is suggested to adopt some modern
methods to appraise the loan to the business to check the
feasibility of the project for appraising such high amount of loan
The bank should focus more on advertising to increase
awareness among the public about the service it offers.
Need for improvised methods that are on par with international
standards.
The bank must bring more transparency in rating of the project
there should be explanation for rating of the project that was
sanctioned by higher authority.
PAGE 48
CONCLUSION
As per the analysis done the result that has been got its good enough
to justify that this proposal has all the required criterias and qualities
required by the bank. And it is also expected to give a very good
return and value to the company. The financial tools used for
assessing is more appropriate to this project and the values are also
favorable to the company to be considered by the bank for
sanctioning the loan. I like to conclude by saying that this Project
Proposal should be good and looks more feasible by satisfying the
criteria of the bank. It also enlightened me with the working of SME
loan center.
Finally would like to stretch sincere gratitude towards STATE BANK
OF HYDERABAD and School of Management Studies, Hyderabad
for providing this learning opportunity.
PAGE 49
BIBILIOGRAPHY
Books
M R Agarwal, Financial Management
(Garima Publications)
Websites
http://www.sbhyd.com
www.rbi.org.in
Others
Bank manuals
PAGE 50