定性指标在银行评级系统中的应用

Martin Svítil
{"title":"定性指标在银行评级系统中的应用","authors":"Martin Svítil","doi":"10.5817/fai2018-2-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article compares internal rating systems of three banks from the German-speaking region, continuing with last year's research. In this paper a detailed analysis of qualitative indicators (soft - facts) is made. These qualitative indicators, as one of the two main components of banking rating systems have the wage of between 30% and 50% of the overall rating score. This makes this part of rating certainly important enough to be further researched.  The research is focused on the rating of business entities, more precisely the corporate, (especially limited liability companies or joint-stock companies). It does not deal with the rating of natural persons or non-profit organizations, municipalities etc. The procedure of collecting empirical data as well as data from relevant literature, their assessment according to the criteria of verifiability and relevance and the application of the induction method was used and a generalization of conclusions was subsequently made. The goal of this research was to find out if the structure of used qualitative factors (soft- facts) is similar or even the same across the rating systems included in the comparison and what weights of individual factors are used. The result of the research shows that two categories of qualitative indicators (soft - facts) are present in all considered rating systems: (i) quality of company’s management and / or strategy and (ii) market on which the bank client operates. (iii) Accounting or related indicators like information system or audit quality also play a significant role in rating systems. On the other hand, the use of the factor (iv) relationship with the bank (or similar) is quite different across the rating systems included in the research. The number and structure of guidance questions that help risk-management analysts determine indicator values also differ. In one case, there is an extensive catalog of questions with a standardized set of responses. In other cases, the number of questions is lower and each one has its specific variation of the predefined answers the analyst selects from.","PeriodicalId":30338,"journal":{"name":"Financial Assets and Investing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of Qualitative Indicators in Banking Rating Systems\",\"authors\":\"Martin Svítil\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/fai2018-2-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article compares internal rating systems of three banks from the German-speaking region, continuing with last year's research. In this paper a detailed analysis of qualitative indicators (soft - facts) is made. These qualitative indicators, as one of the two main components of banking rating systems have the wage of between 30% and 50% of the overall rating score. This makes this part of rating certainly important enough to be further researched.  The research is focused on the rating of business entities, more precisely the corporate, (especially limited liability companies or joint-stock companies). It does not deal with the rating of natural persons or non-profit organizations, municipalities etc. The procedure of collecting empirical data as well as data from relevant literature, their assessment according to the criteria of verifiability and relevance and the application of the induction method was used and a generalization of conclusions was subsequently made. The goal of this research was to find out if the structure of used qualitative factors (soft- facts) is similar or even the same across the rating systems included in the comparison and what weights of individual factors are used. The result of the research shows that two categories of qualitative indicators (soft - facts) are present in all considered rating systems: (i) quality of company’s management and / or strategy and (ii) market on which the bank client operates. (iii) Accounting or related indicators like information system or audit quality also play a significant role in rating systems. On the other hand, the use of the factor (iv) relationship with the bank (or similar) is quite different across the rating systems included in the research. The number and structure of guidance questions that help risk-management analysts determine indicator values also differ. In one case, there is an extensive catalog of questions with a standardized set of responses. In other cases, the number of questions is lower and each one has its specific variation of the predefined answers the analyst selects from.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Assets and Investing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Assets and Investing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5817/fai2018-2-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Assets and Investing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/fai2018-2-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章比较了来自德语区的三家银行的内部评级系统,并延续了去年的研究。本文对定性指标(软事实)进行了详细的分析。这些定性指标作为银行评级系统的两个主要组成部分之一,其工资在整体评级得分的30%至50%之间。这使得评级的这一部分当然足够重要,需要进一步研究。研究的重点是对商业实体的评级,更准确地说是对公司的评级(尤其是有限责任公司或股份制公司)。它不涉及对自然人或非营利组织、市政当局等的评级。使用了收集经验数据以及相关文献数据的程序,根据可验证性和相关性标准对其进行评估,并应用了归纳法,随后对结论进行了概括。这项研究的目的是找出所使用的定性因素(软事实)的结构在包括在比较中的评级系统中是否相似甚至相同,以及使用了哪些单独因素的权重。研究结果表明,在所有考虑的评级系统中都存在两类定性指标(软事实):(i)公司管理和/或战略的质量;(ii)银行客户经营的市场。(iii)会计或信息系统或审计质量等相关指标在评级系统中也发挥着重要作用。另一方面,因子(iv)与银行(或类似)关系的使用在研究中包括的评级系统中有很大不同。帮助风险管理分析师确定指标值的指导问题的数量和结构也有所不同。在一个案例中,有一个广泛的问题目录和一组标准化的回答。在其他情况下,问题的数量较低,并且每个问题都有分析师从中选择的预定义答案的特定变体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Use of Qualitative Indicators in Banking Rating Systems
The article compares internal rating systems of three banks from the German-speaking region, continuing with last year's research. In this paper a detailed analysis of qualitative indicators (soft - facts) is made. These qualitative indicators, as one of the two main components of banking rating systems have the wage of between 30% and 50% of the overall rating score. This makes this part of rating certainly important enough to be further researched.  The research is focused on the rating of business entities, more precisely the corporate, (especially limited liability companies or joint-stock companies). It does not deal with the rating of natural persons or non-profit organizations, municipalities etc. The procedure of collecting empirical data as well as data from relevant literature, their assessment according to the criteria of verifiability and relevance and the application of the induction method was used and a generalization of conclusions was subsequently made. The goal of this research was to find out if the structure of used qualitative factors (soft- facts) is similar or even the same across the rating systems included in the comparison and what weights of individual factors are used. The result of the research shows that two categories of qualitative indicators (soft - facts) are present in all considered rating systems: (i) quality of company’s management and / or strategy and (ii) market on which the bank client operates. (iii) Accounting or related indicators like information system or audit quality also play a significant role in rating systems. On the other hand, the use of the factor (iv) relationship with the bank (or similar) is quite different across the rating systems included in the research. The number and structure of guidance questions that help risk-management analysts determine indicator values also differ. In one case, there is an extensive catalog of questions with a standardized set of responses. In other cases, the number of questions is lower and each one has its specific variation of the predefined answers the analyst selects from.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Herding on the Risk Pricing in the Egyptian Stock Exchange Empirical Test of Fama and French Three-Factor Model in the Egyptian Stock Exchange Determination and Verification of the Key Assessment Indicators for the Insurance Market by Applying the Decomposition Multi-attribute Methods and Regression Analysis Analyzing the Emotional Bondage of Serial Fans and Business Decisions on Series Extension in the Context of Impact on the Stock Price of the Providers Oil Prices and Stock Markets in Europe: Detection of Extreme Risk Spillover
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1