Developing Ranking Products and Services Towards Creating Stable and Transparent Revenue Sources


industry, risk of substitute products, and growth trends within the industry). Typically, if a company operates in different industries, CRAs will attempt to identify the primary industry and/or use a weighted average of the industry risk assessments (depending on materiality) to determine the industry risk assessment.

+ Competitive position risk: Competitive position includes a combination of company-specific business risk assessments and operating attributes that increase or decrease the assessment of industry and country risk. The methodology groups these features into four components: Competitive advantage; Size, scope and diversity; Operating efficiency and Profitability of the company. The company's strengths and weaknesses in relation to these factors form an assessment of its competitiveness in the market, the sustainability and volatility of its revenues and profits. A company with a strong competitive position will generate superior profits compared to its industry peers, while companies with a weaker competitive position will show worse profit figures than their industry peers.

Financial Risk Profile mainly considers the assessment of the business's cash flow/leverage.

+ Models that assess a firm's ability to generate current and future cash flows relative to its payment obligations are often used to analyze a firm's financial risk. The criteria guide analysts to evaluate a series of credit ratios, primarily cash flow-based, that complement each other by focusing attention on the different levels of a firm's cash flows relative to its obligations (e.g., before and after changes in working capital, before and after capital expenditures, before and after dividends). Furthermore, the criteria guide analysts to the ratios that are most relevant in measuring a firm's credit risk relative to individual characteristics and the business cycle. For firms operating in particularly low-risk industries and countries, the criteria guide analysts to the ratios that are most relevant in measuring a firm's credit risk relative to individual characteristics and business cycles.


For companies that we consider to be more risky or volatile, CRAs may use less stringent thresholds to assess their financial risk. Conversely, for companies that we consider to be more risky or volatile, CRAs may adjust their cash flow/leverage assessment to a lower rating. For each company, CRAs calculate two core credit ratios, net cash flow from operations (FFO) and EBITDA to debt service. These two return ratios are used as initial ratios to determine the relative financial risk rating of the companies. This initial assessment can then be adjusted through additional ratio analysis appropriate to each industry.

+ A typical CRA like S&P looks at three standard supplementary ratios, CFO to debt, FOCF to debt, and DCF to debt, as debt service ratios, and two additional ratios, (FFO + interest) to interest coverage and EBITDA to interest expense, as coverage ratios. If the supplementary ratios differ significantly from the initial assessment, CRA analysts may adjust their assessment of the company's financial risk.

Stand-Alone Credit Profile (SACP)


+ Diversification/portfolio effect: This analysis is applied to companies and corporations to capture the benefits of diversification or portfolio efficiency for companies with many business lines. The benefits of diversification in each business line are assessed in the competitive position of that organization. From there, it can help change the conclusions of CRA for the analysis content that has been performed.

+ Capital structure: Assessing a company's capital structure captures risks that may not arise during the analysis of cash flows and leverage. These risks may exist due to mismatched debt or payable maturity dates between the company's financial sources.


company, assets or cash of the company. CRAs may consider the following four factors in this category: Liquidity risk of debt; Debt maturity; Interest rate risk of debt; Investments. Of which, S&P (2019) suggests that liquidity risk and debt maturity factors can have a significant impact on the assessment of capital structure because they carry the greatest risks.

+ Financial policy: The unique feature of cash flow/leverage is that it is often based on factors in operations and cash flow data observed in the past two years to provide forecast trends for the current year and the next two years. However, those assumptions do not always fully reflect the risks from short-term to medium-term or long-term events when it comes to the financial policy of the issuer. Financial policy serves to refine the view of a company's risk beyond the conclusions drawn from previous analysis and evaluation sections. Assumptions and predictable financial policy factors will be included in the analysis, such as regular dividend payments or recurring purchases. At the same time, CRA is also interested in the manager's view of financial risk that will increase leverage or vice versa. Therefore, the fiscal policy adjustment is a measure of the impact (negative, positive or neutral) on the CRA's financial assessments.

+ Liquidity: Liquidity is an important component in the assessment of credit risk. Unlike most rating factors that do not have a direct/immediate impact, a lack of liquidity can lead to the risk of default of an institution that is rated at a healthy level. Accordingly, liquidity is an independent characteristic of a company, measured on an absolute basis and usually assessed independently, without regard to other companies in the same industry or other companies in the same rating category. Quantitative analysis of liquidity focuses on cash flow - the sources and uses of cash. The analysis also assesses the potential


the likelihood of a company breaching covenant tests related to a decline in EBITDA. This approach incorporates a qualitative analysis that addresses factors such as the ability to absorb high-impact, low-probability events, changes in the nature of banking relationships, the stability of credit markets, and the company's degree of prudence in its debt relationships.

+ Management and governance assessment: Management and governance assessment covers a wide range of monitoring, involving: business owners, board representatives, executives and managers within the business. The assessment includes an analysis of their strategic planning capabilities, actual performance and risk management capabilities as reflected in the business’s competitiveness in the market and past credit records. If a business has good strategic and operational risk management capabilities, management will play a positive role in that success. Conversely, weak management with a flawed operational strategy or an inability to effectively execute its business plan will likely significantly weaken a business’s credit profile. Therefore, qualitative analysis is often based on evidence, which can be the results achieved in the past up to the present and the forecasts made in the future for the management and administration activities of the entire enterprise.

+ Comparable ratings analysis: CRA analysts will perform an overall assessment of the company's independent credit risk profile from the results of the five analyzed contents. The application of comparative ratings analysis reflects the need to "refine" the rating results so that the results are reasonable, accurate and connect the analysis results together. A company receives a positive assessment if its relative rating in each component rating is usually at the high end of the range. Conversely, the company


receives a negative assessment if its relative ratings in each component rating are typically at the lower end of the range. Finally, it receives a neutral assessment if its component ratings are in the middle of the range.

Group or government influence analysis: This analysis considers the possibility of unusual support from a group or government to a business that is part of the group or is a government-related entity. Specialized methods such as S&P's GRM GRE will be used in these cases with various criteria. CRAs will attempt to identify the group members, determine the group's credit profile, assess the financial health of the group's entities and their ability to support and combine with the rated business, for example, when the business is in crisis, will it receive support from the government to help improve its ability to meet its financial obligations when due, etc.

In rating an individual debt obligation, such as a corporate bond, CRAs typically use information from the issuer and other sources to assess the issue’s credit quality and likelihood of default. In the case of corporate bonds, CRAs typically begin by assessing the issuer’s reputation before assessing the credit quality of the specific debt issue. After assessing the issuer as described above, factors related to the debt instrument are considered in more detail, such as the terms and conditions of the debt, the collateral for the debt and other guarantees, other related obligations, the maturity of the debt obligation, the value of the issuer’s assets, etc.

5.2.4.2. Develop ranking products and services to create stable and transparent revenue sources

First, the current DCRA needs to actively engage with the media. Due to the lack of CRA's rating activities, businesses and investors do not have the necessary information and signals to directly form experience and knowledge.


In terms of practical knowledge of the organization, cognitive assessment is appropriate. Professional rating services need to be fully communicated in many different forms and media. That will help these services to be known and accessed by many potential customers. At the same time, information that has a strong impact on the awareness of businesses and investors such as strict rating methods, quality staff as well as all the ratings results that have been implemented need to be fully communicated on the CRA website, reputable magazines, financial and economic information sites with many people, organizations that regularly use rating results such as securities companies, banks, etc.

Corporate CRA in Vietnam should diversify its business model more than the current one which is STILL mainly focused on providing services under the fee-based issuer model. With the development trends after the financial crisis, the market has welcomed other business models of CRA more. The subscription-based information model allows individual investors, non-professional investors and other entities that need to access XHTN reports at an appropriate fee. The results and reports need to be clearly classified and charged appropriately. The results need to be widely publicized, the overview and summary reports need to be provided free of charge to subscribers and the detailed, complete reports will need to be paid for full access. Providing rating information based on electronic management, security and identifying registered users requires a good, secure and modern information technology management platform. Therefore, CRAs need to continue to increase investment in technology and information disclosure websites so that this business model can operate effectively. At the same time, CRAs can research and add new services to promote the diversity of business rating services such as:

- XHTN services for corporations and groups


In the process of innovating economic groups, the Corporations have made strong progress, with large capital scale, high technology level, management and holding key positions in the economy. The activities of these organizations have achieved many achievements, high economic efficiency, playing a leading role in contributing to the development of the country's economy. However, the corporations and groups have the following characteristics:


completely different from normal enterprises such as (i) Very large scale compared to other economic organizations in society; (ii) Organization consists of many subsidiaries and member units; (iii) Complex credit relations with the banking system; (iv) Financial and non-financial characteristics have different rules; (v) Have a large interactive relationship with the general economic environment and industry economy; (vi) Complexity in quantifying indicators.

Council of experts

Suggested scoring system

Client Profile: Consolidated Financial Statements Legal Profile

Profile characteristics, history of the enterprise

Profile of subsidiaries

Save profile

Non-financial scoring:



Business operating hours

career

Years of leadership experience Qualification General Director (Director)

Leadership capacity Impact of economic sector Government policy impact on enterprises Organizational structure

Level 2 financial indicator scoring:

Capital efficiency Revenue growth Profit growth


Announcement

Group classification:

Industry

Scale

Impact on industry, economy and vice versa...

Adjust points:

Corporate branding

Awards received by the business

Solve employment for workers

Contribute to social security activities

Leading in advanced technology

General assessment of the group's operations and debt

Adjustment of deduction points:

Business violations

Types of risks

Pre-adjusted rating score


Scoring level 1 financial indicators:

Liquidity indicators group

Group of performance indicators

Debt balance indicator group

Income indicator group

Group of debt and interest payment indicators

Therefore, it is necessary to provide separate rating services as well as research and issue separate scoring methods and systems for corporations and general companies. Therefore, this thesis researches, develops and systematizes the evaluation criteria of the Credit Information Center such as the basic rating method of the criteria and the implementation process with initial orientation.




Customer analysis:


Legal analysis

Development history

Key projects

Economic sectors of subsidiaries


Operational status

Business leadership

Credit relations with banks

Financial analysis of the group

Maybe you are interested!

Developing Ranking Products and Services Towards Creating Stable and Transparent Revenue Sources


Source: Author's proposal based on S&P (2018b), MIS (2016)


Figure 5.1. Proposed method for ranking corporations and groups


- Service of ranking newly established enterprises:


Every year, Vietnam has many businesses registered for establishment, the demand for capital mobilization for credit to implement investment projects of this subject is very large, showing that this is a potential customer group. The newly established business subject of this system is understood as a business that has not been in operation for a full year, has no financial report or a newly established business that has a financial report but on


The report has no opening balance or is in the project implementation phase and has no revenue. Meanwhile, the corporate credit rating systems in Vietnam do not have criteria to score newly established enterprises and it is very difficult for investors to evaluate them when they have no experience with it. Building a set of criteria and methods to evaluate this customer segment helps CRA become an innovative organization. At the same time, it will support investment funds or banks to have reference information, save appraisal time, have a basis to apply appropriate and equitable credit policies, improve service quality, ensure consistency in debt classification and credit monitoring.

The basic method of rating this organization can be referenced from S&P, MIS or FR and RCRA in the region. The study proposes the idea of ​​the method that should include a group of basic indicators such as project operation efficiency, re-evaluation of investment projects and business situation, business operating environment, and risks from financial factors.


Expert

Save profile

Suggested scoring system

Customer Profile

Project Evaluation and Appraisal Financial and Non-Financial Scoring

of business and project

Project performance evaluation:

Project implementation organization

Experience and competence of project management

Project construction progress

with plan

Project implementation quality Ability to balance suitability with investment projects

Financial Risk Assessment


Ratio of customer's equity at the time of assessment to total investment capital


Announcement

Review investment projects and business situation:

Review business performance

project in the face of input market fluctuations at the time of assessment

Re-evaluate NPV at the present time

in

Re-evaluate IRR at the current time

Re-evaluate the project's payback period at the present time

Assessment of the business operating environment:

The likelihood that the product will be replaced by other products at the time of evaluation

Trend of project output fluctuations

on the market in the last 12 months

Trend of price fluctuations of raw materials and input products of the project in the last 12 months

Supply and demand status of the labor market

Exchange rate fluctuations

Interest rate fluctuations

General assessment of the business and project


Source: Author's proposal based on S&P (2018a), MIS (2016)

Figure 5.2. Process and scoring system for ranking newly established enterprises in the investment phase

Comment


Agree Privacy Policy *