CREDIT RATING

A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PART COMPLETION OF

Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration

(PGDBA)

BY

MR. DEVAL GUPTA

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

PROF. RAVI KAMATH

THAKUR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

STUDIES & RESEARCH KANDIVILI (E),
MUMBAI

MARCH 2007

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the study presented by MR. DEVAL GUPTA to Thakur Institute
Of Management Studies & Research in part completion of Post Graduate Diploma in
Business Administration (PGDBA) course under the title CREDIT RATING has been
done under my guidance.

The project is in the nature of original work that has not so far been submitted for any
course of this Institute or any other Institute. References of work and relative sources of
information have been given at the end of the project.

Signature of the Candidate

(MR. DEVAL GUPTA)
Forwarded through the Research Guide

Signature of the Guide

(PROF. RAVI KAMATH)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
With a deep sense of pride, satisfaction and gratitude, I present my project report on:
"CREDIT RATING"
At this juncture, I feel deeply obliged to the most respected, Dr Uday Lajmi, Director of
our Institute who provided me the required Infrastructure & guidance.

This project could not have seen the light of the day without the inspiring of Prof. Ravi
Kamath who guided me like a beacon in the dark. I would like to thank him for giving
me his valuable time, suggestions and practical views throughout my project work,
without which the completion of the project would have been a difficult journey.

Finally, I would like to end this acknowledgement by emphasizing on something that I

have learned from my interaction with people throughout my project.

"No effort or Knowledge ever gained is wasted"

INDEX
SR
NO.
1

TITLE
Executive summary ,Introduction, Meaning

PAGE
NO.
1-4

Origin, Determinant

5-6

Utility & Growth,

7-8

Types & Kinds

9-11

Symbol , Sebi Regulation Registration

11-15

Steps ,Time Frame

16-18

Principal & Mechanisim

18-20

Accounting Ratio & Its Practicle Implication

20-25

Illustration & Case Study

26-30

10

Major Players & Their Research Methodology

31-47

11

SMEs Rating (A New Concept)

48-50

12

Limitation & Code Of Ethics

51-52

13

Faq

53-59

14

Conclusion

60

15

Biblography

61

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Credit rating is slowly being recognized in India as a significant measure towards investor protection
and self check for the corporate enterprises of their financial and operational strength. Credit rating
provide s indicative guidance to the prospective investor in the fixed income securities or fixed
deposit programs on the degree of risk involved in the timely repayment of principal and interest .
A rated company is placed higher in the estimation of the investor than a an unrated company
irrespective of better financial standing of the latter or the reputation attached as a familiar group
company of a big business houses. This makes a transition in the corporate culture in this country.
So far, the finding show that company are shy enough to opt for credit rating unless it is made
mandatory under the government directives.
With the commencement of CRISIL (1998) and ICRA in (1991) about 400 companies have under
compulsion or voluntary gone for the rating for different debt instrument or fixed deposit programs
issued by them.
It is the need of an hour to create a deeper understanding of the rating process, procedure, practices
& information requirements particularly in the minds of the persons managing the corporate
enterprises. A lot of efforts are needed to educate the people in general and the corporate executive
in particular on the systems, methodology and practices followed by them in rating the credit
instrument and debt obligations.

INTRODUCTION TO CREDIT RATING

The Ratings industry in India has been built up to its present position over a period of fifteen years.
Over the years, credit ratings have evolved into a 90-crore market, with four agencies providing
rating services, and significant pull from investors for the product. The ratings business in India has
seen three phases. During the first of these phases, as described above, there was no experience of
credit ratings, and virtually no awareness, on the part of investors and issuers.
The second phase saw the advent of regulatory support for credit ratings, with the
introduction and Increasing rigor of regulations covering primarily the markets for public issue of
debt and for fixed deposits. Aimed at protecting smaller investors, these measures also amounted to
regulatory recognition of the role of credit ratings and the quality of the effort put in till then, in
estimating credit quality. With these measures, credit ratings rapidly passed out of the arcane realm
of high finance, and into the lexicon of the individual market participant. This phase also saw the
arrival of competition, in the form of other domestic agencies entering the market.
Recent years have seen a third phase of the markets development with public issues of debt
reducing in volume; the focus has shifted to the market for private placements. Almost all the
privately placed debt issued in the Indian market is rated, even though this is not a regulatory
requirement. This shift is entirely driven by investors in these securities, who typically tend to be
highly sophisticated financial sector entities. We are looking therefore at a qualitative maturing of
the market, where a rating is required not as a compliance issue or a mandatory requirement, but as
an opinion on credit quality demanded by discerning buyers.
Going forward, following trends are expected to intensify in the Indian market:
- More intensive use of ratings by investors.
- Increasing sophistication in use of ratings.
These two trends will result in credit ratings not being used only as a go- no-go input, as is
currently often the case. We expect the major use of credit ratings to be in the pricing of debt
instruments. The correlation of yields and ratings, already strong, will deepen as the bond market
evolves further. Measures increasing the sophistication of the market, such as the introduction of
credit derivatives, will add a further dimension to the use of ratings.
Credit rating is also known as SECURITY RATING in India. It is mandatory for the issuance
of debt instruments, debentures, commercial paper issued by corporate and public deposits of all
NBFCs (Non Banking Financial Companies).

DEFINITION OF CREDIT RATING

Credit ratings are judgments about firms financial and business prospects. Credit
rating is defined as a process by which a statistical service prepares various ratings identified by
symbols which are indicators of the investment quality of the credit rated. The credit may be a debt
instrument or equity. In case of debt, ratings are given while in the case of shares grading is done.
It is an independent assessment of the creditworthiness of a bond (note or any
security of any indebt ness) by a credit rating agency. It measures the probability of the timely
repayment of principal and interest of a bond. Generally, a higher credit rating would lead to a more
favorable effect on the marketability of a bond. The credit rating symbols (long term) are generally
assigned with triple A as the highest and triple B as the lowest in investment grade. Anything
below triple B is commonly known as a junk bond.
Credit rating is the process of assigning standard scores which summarize the
probability of the issuer being able to meet its repayment obligations for a particular debt instrument
in a timely manner. Credit rating is integral to debt markets as it helps market participants to arrive
at quick estimates and opinions about various instruments. In this manner it facilitates trading in debt
and money market instruments especially in instruments other than Government of India Securities.
Credit rating is not a recommendation to buy, hold or sell.
Rating is usually assigned to a specific instrument rather than the company as a
whole. In the Indian context, the rating is done at the instance of the issuer, which pays rating fees
for this service. If it is unsatisfied with the rating assigned to its proposed instrument, it is at liberty
not to disclose the rating given to it. There are 4 rating agencies in India. These are as follows:
Credit rating is a dynamic concept and all the rating companies are constantly
reviewing the companies rated by them with a view to changing (either upgrading or downgrading)
the rating. They also have a system whereby they keep ratings for particular companies on "rating
watch" in case of major events, which may lead to change in rating in the near future. Ratings are
made public through periodic newsletters issued by rating companies, which also elucidate briefly
the rationale for particular ratings. In addition, they issue press releases to all major newspapers and
wire services about rating events on a regular basis.

Indian credit rating agencies define credit rating as follows:

According to CARE: Credit ratings is essentially, the opinion of the rating agency on the relative
ability and willingness of the issuer of a debt instrument to meet the debt service obligation as and
when they arise.
7

According to CRISL: Credit rating is an unbiased, objective and independent opinion to an issuers
capacity to meet financial obligation, it is the current opinion as to the relative safety of timely
payment of interest and principal on a particular debt instruments. Thus, rating applies to a particular
debt obligation of the company and is not a rating for the company as a whole

According to ICRA: credit rating is a simple and easy to understand symbolic indicator of the
opinion of the credit rating agency about the risk involved in a borrowing program of an issuer with
reverence to the capability of the issuer to repay the debt as per terms of issues. This is neither a
general purpose evaluation of the company nor the recommendation to buy, hold or sell a debt
instrument.

Thus, precisely, rating is a measure of credit risks and is only element in the investment decision
making.
Credit rating does not indicate market risks or predict prices or yield of credits instrument. It
evaluates only a specific instrument and indicates risk associated with such instrument only. It is
general purpose evaluation of the issuer business or operations.

ORIGIN OF CREDIT RATINGS

The concept of Credit Rating originated in the United States. The first Credit
Ratings were published by John Moody during 1909 in his analysis or rail road investments. This
evolved into the rating company, Moodys Investors Services Inc, a division of Dun and Bradstreet
Inc.
Moody was followed by Poors publishing Company in 1916 and the Standard
Statistics Company in 1922, which merged, into Poor to become the largest bond rating concern,
Standard and Poors corporation, a subsidiary of Mc Graw Hill, Inc. The third is Fitch publishing
company of New York, which was established in 1924. The fourth agency is Duff & Phelps of
Chicago, which was recognized by Securities and Exchange Commission in 1982. It acquired
Crisanti and Maffei Inc. of New York in 1991. These four security raring agencies are the only ones
with Securities and Exchange Commission recognition as national bond rating agencies. There are
other services that rate securities especially stock, like Value Line Investment Survey.
The recognition of rating agency by Securities and Exchange Commission in U.S.A does
not constitute approval. Actually, such recognition is not necessary to enter the security rating
business. SEC uses the ratings of recognized agencies for evaluation of bong assets of brokers and
dealers registered with it.
In India there are 5 credit rating agencies. First, Credit Rating Information
Services Of India Limited (CRISIL) set up by ICICI AND UTI in 1988. Secondly Investment
Information and Credit Rating Agency of India limited (ICRA) set up by IFCI in 1991. Thirdly,
Credit Analysis and Research Limited (CARE) promoted by IDBI in 1993 in association with
financial institutions. Fourthly, Duff and Phelps Credit Rating India Private Limited (DCR India) for
rating non-banking financial companies for fixed deposits.

DETERMINANTS OF CREDIT RATINGS

Credit rating is a symbolic indicator of the current opinion of a rating agency of
the willingness and relative of an issuer debt instrument to pay interest and repay principal as per the
terms of the contract. A rating agency assigns quality ratings that measures the default risk of a
security and sells rating to their subscribers. The default risks primarily determined by the amount of
work available to the issuer relative to the amount of funds to be paid to the security holders. The
ability to pay is evaluated by financial ratios. Ratio analysis is done to analyze the present and future
earning power of the company issuing the security. Ratio analysis of the issuers financial statements
yields insights about the strength and weaknesses of the company. The credit rating agencies have
written guidelines about what values particular ratios should have in order to earn each different
quality ratings.

Credit rating appraises the default risk which is a combination of business risk and
financial risk.
Business Risk: Business risk relates to the market position of the company, operating efficiency and
management quality. The key factor taken into consideration are: the nature of the industry the
company is in, the demand-supply position, cyclical/ seasonal factors and government policies vis-vis the industry; and the competition its facing within the industry.
Market Position: The market share the company enjoys, it is competitive advantages and selling
and distribution arrangements.
Operating Efficiency: Locational advantages, labor relationships, cost structure, technological and
manufacturing efficiency as compared to its competitors.
Legal Position: Terms of prospectus, systems for timely payment, and for protection against fraud.
Financial Risk: Financial risk is a function of the profitability, debt leverage flexibility and
adequate cash flow. The assessment of financial risk is done on the basis of:
a)
Financial analysis, including accounting quality: accuracy of statement of profit, auditors
comments, valuation and depreciation policies.
b)
Earnings protection: Sources of future earning growth, profitability ratios and earnings in
relation to fixed income charges.
c)
Adequacy of cash flow: Sustainability of cash flows and working capital management.
d)
Financial flexibility: Ability to raise funds.
Management: An evaluation of the management, which is qualitative in nature and imparts certain
amount of subjective element, is done on the basis of track record of the management; planning and
control system, depth of managerial talent, succession plans. Evaluation of capacity to meet adverse
situations, goals, philosophy and strategies.
Environment: An analysis of environment covering regulatory and operating environment, national
economic outlook, pending litigation and unpaid taxes are also attempted.
Rating thus is not based on a predetermined formula which specifies the relevant variables
and as well as weights attached to each one of them. Further the emphasis on different aspects varies
from agency to agency. Broadly the rating agencies assures itself that there is good congruence
between assets and liabilities of a company and downgrades the rating if the quality of the assets
depreciates.
The rating agencies employ qualified professionals to ensure consistency and
reliability. The agencies also ensure the integrity of rating by insulating rating from conflicts of
interest.
The rating agencies employ nearly identical symbols. They examine the above
factors before assigning a grade. The symbols are A, B, C and D and each symbol is graded with
associated risk by adding two or one of the same symbol, like AAA, AA and A; BBB, BB and b; and
so on

10

UTILITY OF RATINGS
Investors have always received credit ratings with enthusiasm. But issuers do not share the
enthusiasm since they have to share their securities at higher yields if their issue gets inferior rating.
Credit rating gives an investor a simple and easy indicator to the credit quality of the debt
instrument, the risks and likely returns, thus providing a yardstick against which the risk inherent in
an instrument can be measured. An investor uses the rating to assess the risk level and compares the
offered rate of return, which is expected rate of return (for the given level of risk) to optimize his risk
return trade- off. Ratings also provide a comparative framework, which allows the investor to
compare investment opportunities.
Credit rating also benefits the issuer. If a public offer is contemplated, the financial manager
must bear in mind the rating while determining the appropriate leverage. Additional debt may lower
the rating from an investment to a speculative grade category, thus rendering the security ineligible
for investment by many institutional investors. It may well be that the advantages of debt outweigh
the disadvantages of the lower credit rating.
Junk bonds, for instance, are a high risk and a high yield (16 to 25% in USA) instruments.
Investment may be limited in such instrument to what an investor can afford to loose.
Ratings will also effect the pricing of the issue. Actually pricing should reflect the rating. The
marketability of a relatively unknown issuer who is competent is enhanced and the role of name
recognition in an investment decision is minimized.
In actual practice ratings are reflected in prices. There is no difference between the
interest rates that are paid on the fixed deposits of two companies even if they are rated differently.
Same is true of long dated debentures. But in commercial paper market where banks are major
players differentials in ratings are reflected in pricing. A reliance CP would be cheaper than of a
company, which is not rated well.
Ratings are used by brokers for opinions and as a service for their customers. Insurance
companies and mutual funds use them in the purchase of securities even though their own staff
prepares investment analysis. Portfolio managers also use them in security management. Banks
depend on them for their investment in commercial paper. Individual investors depend on them for
their decisions to place fixed deposits. Ratings are bound to assume greater importance with the
institutionalization of investors in the form of unit trusts, mutual funds, pension and provident funds.
The debt has shown considerable buoyancy in 1996 not only at the wholesale level (institutional
investors) but also at retail level in view of poor offerings of equity in the primary market. This has
come about largely on account of the availability of ratings on debt instruments, which boosted
investor confidence.

11

THE GROWTH OF CREDIT RATING INDUSTRY IN INDIA

The prominent rating agencies in India are: i) CRISIL: - Credit Rating Information Services of India Limited.
ii)
ICRA: - Investment Information and Credit Rating Agency of India Limited.
iii) CARE: - Credit analysis and Research Limited.
iv) Fitch Ratings India Private Limited.
Fitch Rating India Limited was formally known as DCR India- Duff and Phelps Credit Rating
Co. USA and DCR India merged to form a new entity called Fitch India. Fitch India is a 100%
subsidiary of Fitch IBCA, and is the only wholly owned foreign operator in India. Fitch is the only
international rating agency with a presence on the ground in India.
The Indian credit rating industry is next to US in terms of number of ratings issued and
in the number of agencies. Between the four rating agencies in India, over 5,000 ratings have been
issued for around 1,400 issuers. CRISIL is the market leader in credit rating agency with a 65%
market share.
The regulators support played an important role in the development of the credit rating industry.
In 1992, for the first time, the Reserve Bank introduced the requirement of rating for commercial
papers. SEBI followed up by introducing mandatory ratings of bonds. The other growth drivers of
the credit rating industry were declining interest rates, a shift towards market borrowings from bank
loans and a steep increase in the state government borrowings through special purpose vehicles.
Besides these factors the growth in the private placement market of debt increased business volume
in the credit rating industry. For private placements, rating is not mandatory but mutual funds and
banks ask for a rating. In 1997, the penetration of rating, that is, the number of rated issues, out of
the total number of issues was 35%. In the year 2002, it was 97%. This means that the credit rating
industry has transited from a regulatory driven market to an investor driven market in the growing
debt markets. Between fiscal 1997 and 2001, rated debt volumes increased from Rs. 13,743 crore to
Rs. 52,746 crore, which is 84% of the total issuance.

12

TYPES OF CREDIT RATINGS

Two type of credit rating has been noticed :

1)

Traditional debt rating (TDR)

2) Private placement rating (PPR)
Traditional debt ratings (TDR): Traditional debt ratings are a symbolic prediction about the debt
security probability resulting in a default in timely payment of interest and principal. In other words,
traditional debt rating reflects the current opinion of a credit rating agency of the relative capability
and willingness of an issuer of a debt instrument to service the debt obligation as per the term of
contract .Traditional debt rating is specific to specific to to a debt instrument in term of credit risk
associated with such instrument .Traditional debt rating enable an investor to establish a link
between risk and return and provide a symbolic yardstick to identify the risk level associated with
the instrument and the return it offers to match with his preferences with expectations
Private placement rating (PPR): Privately rating is newly introduced credit rating system finding
in the literature generated by standard & poor on credit rating , private placement rating is not much
different to traditional debt rating but it goes one step ahead to traditional debt rating ,ie. Apart from
evaluating a risk of default in timely payment it also evaluates the likelihood of loss to an investor
in the vent of default according on the investment .
Never the less, either or both of the two types of rating can be used for new issues of debt securities
or structured obligations.

13

KINDS OF INSTRUMENT RATED

Followings are the bodys or organization which can be rated :
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Manufacturing Companies
Banks
Non Banking Financial Institution
Financial Institutions
Housing Finance Companies
Municipal Bodies
Companies In Infrastructure Sector
To keep the pace with the changing credit requirements of new instruments the rating agencies have
been upgrading the technology and bringing in analytical innovation. The instrument being rated by
such agencies include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Mortgage & Asset Backed Securities

Letter Of Credit Backed Bonds, Commercial Paper and Structure Finance For Global Market;
Project Finance
Municipal and Corporate Bond Insurance;
Bonds and Money Market Funds;
Syndicated Banks Loans:
In Indian context

With reference to India the rating agencies have been rating the following types of debts & debt
obligations:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
a)
b)
c)
d)

Debenture Bonds
Fixed Deposits
Commercial Paper
Structured Obligations
other ratings :
Utilities Rating
State Government Ratings
Asset Backed Securieties
Mutual Funds Rating

14

e)
f)
g)

Equity Grading/Assessment
Bank Lines Of Credit
Others

DUAL RATINGS s
Dual Rating would mean rating opinion on one or more instrument s from two different rating
agencies. Such dual rating leaves several question unanswered in the minds of the investor ,viz.
firstly, which of the two CRAS rating opinion relied upon ;secondly ,why the difference in two
rating should occur when both follow alike methodology, and thirdly, if such difference is
unavoidable why should not the rating s be rendered unreliable etc

RATING SYMBOLS
Rating agencies use symbols such as AAA, AA, BBB, B, C, D, to convey the safety
grade to the investor. Ratings are classified into three grades: High investment grades, investment
grades and speculative grades. In all ratings is classified into 14 or 15 categories. Signs + or -
are used to show the certainty of timely payment. The suffix + or may be used to indicate the
comparative position of the instrument within the group covered by the symbol. Thus FAA- lies one
notch above FA+. To provide finer gradations, rating industry attach + or to their ratings. The
rating symbols for different instruments of the same company need not necessarily be the same.
High Investment Grades AAA: - Triple A denotes highest safety in terms of timely payment of
interest and principal. The issuer is fundamentally strong and any adverse changes are not going to
affect it.
AA: - Double A denotes high safety in terms of timely payment of interest and principal. The
issuer differs in safety from AAA issue only marginally.
Investment Grades A : - denotes adequate safety in terms of timely payment of interest and
principal. Changes in circumstances can adversely affect such issues.
BB: - Triple B denotes moderate safety in terms of timely payment of interest and principal
speculative grades.

15

Speculative Grades BB: - Double B denotes inadequate safety terms of timely payment of interest
and principal. Uncertain changes can lead to inadequate financial capacity to make timely payments
in the immediate future.
B: - denotes high risk. Adverse changes could lead to inability or unwillingness to pay timely
payment.
C: - denotes substantial risk. Issue rated is vulnerable to default.
D: - denoted default in terms of timely payment of interest and principal.
These symbols are just a current opinion of an agency and they are not recommendations to
invest or not to invest. The rating assigned applies to a particular instrument of the company and is
not a general evaluation of the company.
Rating Fees: -In the credit rating business, the users of rating service, such as investors, financial
intermediaries and other end- users, do not pay for it. The issuer of the financial instrument pays fees
to the credit rating industry and this is the major source of revenue to the rating agency. Today
issuers fees constitute 95% of the total revenues of the rating agencies. In India rating agencies
charge 0.1 % of the instrument size as rating fees. They also charge an annual surveillance fees at a
rate of 0.03% to monitor the instrument during his life.

16

SEBI REGULATIONS FOR CREDIT RATING AGENCIES

SEBI issued regulations for credit rating agencies in 1999. These regulations are called as
Securities and Exchange board of India. (Credit Rating Agencies) Regulations, 1999.
1)
Only commercial banks, public financial institutions, foreign banks operating in
India, foreign credit rating agencies, and companies with a minimum net worth of Rs 100 crore as
per its audited annual accounts for the previous five years are eligible to promote rating agencies in
India.
2)

Rating agencies are required to have a minimum net worth of Rs 5 crore.

3)
them.

Rating agencies cannot assess financial instruments of their promoters who have 10 % stake in

4)
Rating agencies cannot rate a security issued by an entity, which is (a) a borrower of its
promoter. (b) a subsidiary of its promoter. (c) an associate of its promoter, if (i) there are common chairman,
directors between credit rating agency and these entities (ii) there are common employees (iii) there are
common chairman, directors, employees on the rating committee.
5)
Rating agencies cannot rate a security issued by its associated or subsidiary, if the credit rating
agency or its rating committee has a chairman, director or employee, who is also a chairman, director or
employee of any such entity.
6)
A penalty of suspension of the certificate of registration or a penalty of cancellation of
registration may be imposed on the rating agency if it fails to comply with the condition or contravenes any of
the provisions of the Act.

REGISTRATION OF CREDIT RATING AGENCIES

1)

Grant of Certificate
i)
Any person proposing to commence any activity as a credit rating agency on or
after the date of commencement of these regulations shall make an application to the Board for the
grant of a certificate of registration for the purpose.
ii) A non- refundable application fee shall accompany an application for the grant of a certificate.
2) Promoter of Credit Rating Agency
The Board shall not consider an application under unless a person belonging to any of the
following categories promotes the applicant:

c)

a) A Public Financial Institution.

b) A Scheduled Commercial Bank.
A Foreign Bank operating in India.
17

d)
A foreign credit rating agency having at least five years experience in rating securities.
e)
Any company or a body corporate, having continuous net worth of minimum rupees of one
hundred crores for the previous five years prior to filling of the application with the board for the grant of
certificate under these regulations.
3) Eligibility Criteria
The Board shall not consider an application for the grant of a certificate unless the
applicant satisfies the following condition: a)
The applicant is set up and registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956;
b)
The applicant has, in its memorandum of Association, specified rating activity as one of its main
objects;
c)
The applicant has a minimum net worth of rupees five crores.
d)
The applicant has adequate infrastructure, to enable it to provide rating service.
e)
The applicant and the promoters of the applicant have professional competence, financial
soundness and general reputation of fairness and integrity in business transactions, to the satisfaction of the
Board.
f)
Neither the applicant, nor its promoter, nor any director of the applicant or its promoter, s
involved in any legal proceeding connected with the securities market, which may have an adverse effect on
the interest of the investors;
g)
Neither the applicant, nor its promoters, nor any director, or its promoter has at any time in the
past been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude or any economic offence.
h)
The applicant has, in its employment, persons having adequate professional and other relevant
experience to the satisfaction of the Board.
i)
The applicant in all other respects is a fit and a proper person for the grant of a certificate.
j)
The grant of certificate to the applicant is in the interest of the investors and the securities
market.

4) Application to Conform to the Requirements

The Board shall reject any application for a certificate, which is not complete in all
aspects or does not confirm to the requirements of regulation or instructions. Providing that, before
rejecting any such application, the applicant shall be given an opportunity to remove. Within thirty
days of the date of receipt of relevant communication, from the Board such objections as may be
indicated by the Board.
Provided further, that the Board may, on sufficient reason being shown, extend the time
for removal of objections by such further time, not exceeding thirty days, as the Board may consider
fit to enable the applicant to remove such objections.

5) Furnishing of Information, Clarification and Personal Representation

18

The Board may require the applicant to furnish such further information or clarification, as the Board may
consider necessary, for the purpose of processing of the application.
ii) The Board, if it so desires, may ask the applicant or its authorized representative to appear
before the Board, for personal representation in connection with the grant of a certificate.
6) Grant of certificate
i) The Board. On being satisfied that the applicant is eligible for the grant of a certificate of
registration, shall grant a certificate.
ii)
The grant of certificate of registration shall be subject to the payment of the registration
fee specified.
7) Conditions of Certificate and Validity Period
The certificate shall be granted subject to the following conditions, namely;
a)
The credit rating agency shall comply with the provisions of the Act, the regulations made there
under and the guidelines, directives, circulars and instructions issued by the Board from time to time on the
subject of credit rating.
b)
Where any information furnished to the Board by a credit rating agency:
i)

c)

is found to be false or misleading in any material particular; or

ii) has undergone change subsequently to its furnishing at the time of the application for the
certificate; the credit rating agency shall forthwith inform the Board in writing;
The period of validity of the certificate of registration shall be three years.
8) Renewal of certificate
A credit rating agency, if it desires renewal of the certificate granted to it, shall make to the
Board an application for the renewal of the certificate or registration within 3 months before expiry
of the period of the validity of the certificate.
The application for the renewal shall be accompanied by a renewal fee.

STEPS IN CREDIT RATING PROCESS

19

Rating may differ with respect to different instrument of same organization . Also , different rating
assigned to different instrument of two different organizations does not indicate the superiority or
inferiority of the organizations . the steps involved in credit rating activity are given below :

PROCESS FLOW CHART OF CREDIT RATING

MANDATE
INITIAL STAGE
ASSIGN RATING TEAM
RECEVE INITIAL INFORMATION,
CONDUCT BAIC RESEARCH
MEETING & VISIT
ANALYSIS & PREPARTION OF REPORT

FACTS FINDING & ANALYSIS

STAGE

PREVIEW MEETING
RATING
FINALISATION STAGE

RATING MEETNG

FRESH INPUT CLARIFICATION

ASIGN RATING
COMMUNICATE THE RATING & RATIONALE
ACCEPTNCE
SURVEILLANCE

20

REQUEST FOR REVIEW

NON ACCEPTANCE

The entire rating process is normally completed in three stage in practical scenario1) Primary Or Initial Stages.
2) Facts Finding & Analysis Stage.
3) Rating Finalization Stage.
1)

The rating process begins at the request of the company.

2)
The tem consisting of professionally qualified analyst well versed with the workings of the
industry in which the company operates, first visits the company plants and inspect the operations first hand .
3)
Meeting with different levels of management follow culminating with the meeting with chief
executive officer.
4)
Generally, middle & top level management meeting cover the field of operations , finance ,
marketing , project, etc.
5)
In completion of the assignment , the tem interacts with the back up tem that has separately
collected the additional industry information and prepares a report
6)
The report is then placed before n internal committee consisting of senior executives of credit
rating agency who themselves have hands on experience in rating assignments.
7)
The internal committee then has an open discussion with the tem member and amongst themselves
arrives at rating.
8)
To avoid any type ort of bias, the ratings proposed are placed before an external committee
consisting of eminent people unconnected with credit rating agency .
9)

The external committee then takes the final decision which is communicated to the company .

10)
The company may volunteer ny further information at this point which could effect the ratings, it is
passed ion to the external committee again for affirmation/change.
11)

The company has the option to request the agency for review of the rating.

TIME FRAME FOR FOR RATING PROCESS

21

From

To

Initial request
Meeting with management
Initial rating indication

Meeting with management

Initial rating indication
Publication of rating

Time frame
4-6 weeks
4-6weeks
Time depends
Upon completion of formalities

FUNDAMNETAL PRINCIPLE OF RATING & GRADING

The basic requirement in risk grading is that it should reflect a clear and fine distinction
between credit grades covering default risks and safe risks in the short run. While there is
no ideal number of grades covering default raks in the short run . while there uis no ideal
number of grades that would facilitate achieving this objective, it is expected that more
granularity may serve the following purpose :

1) Objective analysis of portfolio risks.

2) Appropriate pricing of various risks grade borrowers, with a focus on low risk
borrower in term of lower pricing
3) Allocation of risk capital for high risk graded exposures
4) Achieving accuracy and consistency.
According to the RBI, there should be an ideal balance (in numbers) between acceptable
credit risk and unacceptable credit risk in a grading system. It is suggested that:
1) A rating scale may consisit of 8 9 levels.
2) Of the above, the first levels may represent acceptable credit risks
3) The remaining four levels may represent unacceptable credit risks.

MECHANISIM OF CREDIT RATING

22

The quantitative & qualitative factors in the case of whole sale exposure and four type
factors in the case of retail sector needed to be accorded weight or scores. The
aggregate outcome will reflect the rating /grade of an exposure against a benchmark.
Hence the mechanism must lay down the following:
1) For wholesale exposure :
The marks for each parameter , with a randge of marks for various ranges of a parameter
have to be fixed .
If the growth in the last completed year compared with the previous year is :
20% & above
15% to less than 20%
5% to less than 15%
0% to less than 5%
Negative growth:

4 marks
3 marks
2 marks
1 marks
0 marks

For qualitative factors, also, there can be suitable scoring based on excellent (maximum
marks) and the lowest one non satisfactory (zero marks) may be fixed.
2) Aggregate marks for all the applicable parameters for each category may then be
mapped into various grades taking the maximum marks as 100, as shown below.
3) Wherever a particular parameter is not applicable for an exposure , it may be
ignored and the aggregate marks be readjusted / graded accordingly
Sl. No.

Total score for an exposure

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

86-100
71-85
61-70
51-60
41-50
36-35
31-35
0-30

23

Grade
accorded
AA+
AA
A
BB+
BB
B
C
D

Implication of grade
accorded
Excellent safety
Very good safety
Good safety
Ordinary safety
Less ordinary safety
Low safety
Unsafe safety
Loss category

For retail exposure (consumer lending):

1) As with the wholesale exposure, maximum marks for each parameter can be
fixed. for example, age, months, income etc.
2) Similarly, aggregate marks for each parameter can be determined the overall
grading of the account. While there may be eight grades in wholesale exposure
because of the risk related issue in pricing involved, in the case of retail exposure,
four/five grades are considered sufficient.
3) The scoring /grading system in various banks / financial institution may vary
substantially depending on inter alia, risk perceptions, thrust area and other allied
factors.

ACCOUNTING RATIOS FOR RISK EVALUTION

A ratio conveys a quantitative interrelationship between two attribute/variable for

eventual comparison against the bench mar and for trend analysis. in business ,
accounting ratios facilitate meaningful and purpose oriented decision ma,ing . Its
utility I determined according to the purpose for which the ratio is computed.
From the age of credit risk valuation , accounting ratios plays significant role for a
lending/investment banks, since the overall computation of type credit rating of their
account /exposure I aided/ supported by ratio analysis also. Hence, not , not only is it
necessary to identify the relevant ratios depending upon the purpose, quantum, tenure of
exposure etc but also in marketable securities ( rated by approved external rating
agency ) , one may focus more on current ratio/net profit/sales ratio than an long-term
solvency ratios.
Internationally, there are no prescribed accounting ratios for risk evaluation. In India, too,
the banking regulatory authorities have left such matter to the the judgments and
discretion of the banks/financial institution to go by established financial practices and
frame an accounting ratio policy that is relevant to the purpose of its credit risk
evaluation .

24

RATIOS FOR CREDIT EVALUATION

For identification criteria for example, items of current asset , current liabilities, etcone is to be guided by standard accounting practices
1) short term solvency angle :
a) Current ratio: Current asset
Current liabilities
Minimum expected level: 1.3:1
For financing working capital requirement based on the turnover method for
small & medium enterprise (sme) and others, the mininmum expected level may
be 1.10:1.
b) Acid test ratios: Quick assets
Quick liabilities
Minimum expected level : 1:1
For SMEs the minimum expected level may be 0.8:1
c) Cash ratio: Cash +Bank Balance+Marketable Securities
Current liabilities
Minimum expected level: 0.5:1
For SME the minimum may be lower
2) Long term solvency angle:
d) Debt eqity ratio : Total external liabilities
Equity (owned funds)
Maximum allowable level: 2:1

e) Debt servicing coverage ratio:

25

Earning available for debt service

One year debt installment payment + interest thereon
Earning includes:

Net Profit :

****

(+) depreciation on fixed asset ,

(-) loss on the sale of fixed assets
Interest on debt for one year

**
**
**
****

Minimum expected level: 1.5:1

For the priority sector. SME etc, the minimum may be allowed at 1:30:1
3) Profitability angle:
a) Operating profit ratio :
Profit before deduction of depreciation ,tax & finance charges
Sales/income
the expected level will depend upon the nature of the industry/business, operational area,
size of the unit, the duration of the business being carried on, trend analysis and other
relevant factors. However, a good unit is likely to show at least a margin of 25-30 %
b) Return on capital employed ratio (ROCE) :
Operating profit
Owned funds+long term loan funds
The expected level will depend upon the nature of the industry /business, operational
area, size of the unit, the duration of the business being carried on, trend analysis and
other relevant factors, however, a good unit is likely to show at least a margin of 15-20%

26

c) Interest coverage ratio :

Operating profit
Interest liability
Subjected to the factor as stated above:
d) Profit asset ratio :
Operating profit
Total tangible asset
Subjected to the factor as stated
e) Indirect overhead ratios
finance charges+ depreciation + selling and administrative cost
Sales/income
The maximum allowable unit as stated above , however , it might be 10-15% .
From the asset movement angle
a) Inventory holding *300 days**
sales

b) Trade debtors*300 days**

(Preferably average outstanding in a year )
Sales/income

27

c) Trade creditors*300 days**

(preferably average outstanding in a year )
Credit purchase of current assets
(preferably average level in a year)
** computation based on 300 days in a year is advisable in Indian context keeping in the
view the usual 52 weekly offs, national holidays,etc
The expected level varies from case to case as stated above , however ,generally , the
maximum level in terms of days may be between 90 and 120 .
From the stress angle:
(the Basel committee states : stress testing has been adopted as a generic term describing
various technique used by banks to gauge their potential vulnerability to exceptional ,
but plausible, events.)
Stress tested cash flow
Debt payment +preference dividend+interest

For this purpose, cash flow would include only operating cash flow (ignoring investing
cash flow @ financing cash flow). As a point of the stress testing scale, a reduction of a
certain percentage in incomes/sales with the simultaneous increase in the expenses (for
example. Direct costs etc ) may result in charge ( reduction) in cash flow . There is no
minimum or maximum. The stress percentage depends upon the industry, operating
envoirment and also the overall business envoirment at the time of analysis.
The above cluster is only indicative of the ratios that a commercial bank/financial
institution may find usefull from the credit risks evaluation angle. There, may be other
important ratios as well, such as :
1)
2)
3)
4)

Finished Good Holding

Cash Flow Interest Coverage
Capital Gearing Ratio
Proprietary Ratio.

28

PRACTICAL IMPLICATION OF ACCOUNTING RATIO IN

CREDIT RISKS EVALUATION
Accounting ratios are usually computed on the year end position of asset , liabilities,
profit/loss account competent ( over a position of generally 12 months) as reflected in the
financial statements . This is based on a going concern concept approach. However , one
limitation here is that the static view of the asset liability at the end of the year may not
reflect the true and correct position .the alternative is to collect the figures from the party
concerned say , on a monthly basis( or as frequently as may be possible) and average the
same on a 12 months basis . This may then, for credit risks evaluation process, be a more
effective and dynamic tool . Irrespective of whether a bank financial institution follows
the year end or average method of computation, the implication from the credit risks
evaluation angle will depend upon:
Adopting an appropriate credit rating system with generally a large number of grades ,
where one of the inputs would be accounting ratios.
The bank/financial institution will have to decide as a matter of corporate finance
policy the nature of the accounting ratio to be used for credit risk evaluation/( for
example , there may be different focus in assessing working capital for loans for fixed
asset or for non funded facilities/investment in securities, etc.
Specific weight has to be allocated for accounting ratios (from the credit rating angle).
Say,20 out of the total of 100 points for the entire credit rating structure .
The benchmarking for each ratio should be consistent with the bank/financial institutions
corporate finance policy.
The maximum weight age for each component of the ratio should be fixed- say.4 out of
20 points (20 being the total for all accounting ratios put together)
Ratios conforming to the benchmark should be awarded the highest points .those below
the benchmark should be ranked with the varying points. Down to even zero.
Total marks awarded for all adopted ratios should then be carried forward to the overall
credit rating structure so as to arrive at final grade for each account /exposure.
In sum, accounting ratios is inseparable arm of the credit risks evaluation and its actual
implication will depends upon the purpose, quantum and tenure of the exposure on a case
by case basiss

29

ILLUSTRATION
Sunrise ltd, a company incorporated under the company act, is enjoying credit facilities
from mega bank. The banks want to have the account rated using its credit rating model.
the rating model comprises subjective and objective parameter . The banks has dedicated
, well trained officer in its centralized credit analysis cell.
The company manufactures seamless pipes/tubes used in industrial applications. It has a
substantial export business in Europe and some African countries. The export business
account for a major portion of its total turnover and contributes significantly to its
bottom-line.
The top management comprises technocrat with very rich and varied experience of at
least 20 yrs in manufacturing and project implementation. The company is controlled by
the miller group, which has 26% sharing in it , including the portion held by their close
relatives. Reliable sources say there are some disputes regarding the sharing of property
in the miller family. its most likely that the dispute has emerged due to the failer of a
venture capital plan initiated by one of the brother of the family this involve substantial
sums and could not take up due to the exact of strategic partner from the venture at the
crucial time also sunrise limited has no secession plan .
The financing banks (the company enjoys substantial credit facilities from the
consortium) have objected to the deployment of funds without their prior permission for
the expansion in to an unrelated area- a mini cement plant, which is incurring huge cash
losses due to its uneconomic size. The group is keeping its fingure crosses as to whether
it should continue with this business or dispose it off , even at the discounted price.
Sunrise ltd. Has been constantly upgrading its system with the latest technology
available across the world to cut costs and improve efficiency . The business is banking
on getting huge orders so that the there is optimal utilization of facilities. Thus way they
can keep margin at the minimum and make competitive price.
But there are problems. Competitors are quite aggressive. Another major area of concern
is its urgent need for backward integration into solids rods. The company is facing a
problem getting clearance ( such as pollution due to certain chemical waste discharged
during the process) and certain control mechanism have also to be put in place before
seeking the necessary permission from the government for the expansion..
The company is ISO certified and was given the best corporate governance practice
award last year by the manufacturer association. The operating result of last two years
were as :

30

Operating results
sales
Cost of sales
Selling and admin. cost
OPBDIT
Interest cost
depriciation
Operating profit before tax
Net non operating income
Profit before tax
Profit for tax
Net profit
ratio
Growth in sales
Growth in OPBDIT
ROCE
Total debt equity ratio
Current ratio
Debtor collection period
( days)
Inventory holding
period(days)
Finished goods holding
period(days)
Creditors payment period
(days)
Cash flow DSCR
Stress test cash flow DSCR
Stress test flow interest
coverage
Level of contingent liability
(cont liab/TNW)

31.03.03
355.42
314.91
7.04
33.47
16.47
1.62
15.38
3.66
19.04
1.28
17.76

31.03.04
388.53
351.24
5.83
31.46
15.25
1.56
14.65
1.59
16.24
1.45
14.79

14.14%
2.04
1.42
95

9.31%
-6.01%
11.71%
1.83
1.49
72

63

62

50

63

60

55

2
1.8
2.78

2.2
1.92
3

0.5

0.49

31

Objective parameters

Marks awarded based on

Marks
obtained

s
s1
2
3
4
5
6

Rating parameter
Growth in sales

4
20%

Growth in operating
profit (OPBDIT)
Return on capital
employed (ROCE)
Total debt-equity
ratio
Current ratio

5%

Level of contingent
liabilities
(coverage)
Debtors collection

Inventory holding

Finished goods
holding
Creditors payment
period
Cash flow DSCR
Cash flow intersest
coverage
Stress tested CF
DSCR
Stress tested CF
interest coverage

10
11
12
13
14

3
1520%
4-5%

2
5-15%

1
0-5%

2-4%

0-2%

5-10%

0-5%

2.52.75%
1-1.17

2.75-3%

3 times

0.75-1

1 times

0.5
times

1115%
2.252.5
1.171.33
0.51.70

0
Negative
growth
Negative
growth
=0%

0.7-0.85

0.85-1

45
days
45

45-75
days
45-60

75-100
days
60-75

100-120
days
75-100

30days 30-45

45-60

60-90

30-50
days
1.75-2.0
2.5-2.75

50-75
days
1.5-1.75
1.75-2.5

120
days
100
days
90
days
75
days
1.5
1.75

1.25-1.5

1-1.25

1.75-2

1.5-1.75

1.5

15%
2.25%
1.33%

20
days
2.25
3.5
1.75
2.25

20-30
days
2-2.25
2.753.5
1.51.75
2-2.25

2
0
3

2
1
1
3
3

38

32

B subjective
parameter

marks awarded based on

Rating parameter 4
1
Laid down
If
regulatory
complied
framework,
fully
standard
2
Experience of
Very
top management
good
yrs
Succession plan
for top
management
Initiatives of
management in
new business
areas
Corporate
governance
Honoring
financial
commitments
End use of funds

mar
ks
obta
ined

1
partially

Goo
d
(1015)

Moderate
(5-10)

Littl
e
(0.5)

0
Litigation
/proceeding/n
oncompliance
Nil

Well
planned

adhoc

No plan

Success
in
initiative
s
Well
devised
&
executed
timely

Certain
problems/delay
s but executed

No initiative

moderate

No corporate
governance

Delayed but
honored

Not honored

proper

Unauthorized
diversion

npa

Affiliate concern
performance

good

Certain
diversion with
permission
average

Cyclical/seasona
l factors
Characteristis of
products of the
comapny
Threat of
substitute m

low

moderate

high

superior

Same as other

inferior

Very
low/no
threat

moderate

high

33

Module
A
B

A
B

No Of
Parameter
14
11
25

Max Marks

Total
Marks
56
44
100

Weight
Assigned
60
40
100

Marks
Obtained
38
26

Max. Marks

Weight

Net Marks

56
44

60
40

40.71
23.64

4
4

A
RATED
ACCOUNT

34

MAJOR PLAYER IN CREDIT RATING & THEIR RESEARCH

METHODOLOGY

CRISIL
INTRODUCTION:
The rating industry in India was ushered in 1988 with the setting up of Credit Rating
and Information Services of India Limited (CRISIL) followed by three more, the latest entirely
devoted to rating NBFCs. The industry is sustained by mandatory requirement for rating debt
instruments. Crisil was set up by ICICI and UTI in 1988.
Standard and Poor rating service (S&P) has formed a strategic alliance in 1996 with
CRISIL for providing analytical and business development co-operation. S&P will share with
CRISIL its advanced rating methodologies and analytical criteria and assist on other aspects of credit
rating agency operations. CRISIL would in turn offer business development assistance in India and
insight into local debt market and issuers.
The purchase by S&P of 6 lakhs shares in 1997 of CRISIL from Asian development
Bank to acquire a stake of 9.6 % in CRISIL is a logical culmination of the strategic alliance into
earlier. Asian Development Bank invested in 1988 in CRISIL as an effort to play a catalystic role in
its establishment.

CRISIL RTAING METHODLOGY:

The rating methodology followed by CRISIL involves an analysis of the following
factors: i) BUSINESS ANALYSIS
a) Industry risk, including analysis of the structure of the structure, the demandsupply position, a study of the success factors, the nature and basis of competition,
the impact of government policies, cyclicity and seasonality of the industry.
b) Market position of the company within the industry including market shares,
product and customer diversity, competitive advantages, selling and distribution
arrangements.
35

c) Operating efficiency of the company like locational advantages, labour

relationships, technology, manufacturing efficiency as compared to competitors.
d) Legal position including the terms of the prospectus, trustees and their
responsibilities as systems for timely payments.
ii) FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
a) Accounting quality like any overstatement or understatement of profits, auditors
qualification in their reports, methods of valuation of inventory, depreciation
policy.
b) Earnings protection in terms of future earning growth for the company and future
profitability.
c) Adequacy of cash flows to meet debt servicing requirements in addition to fixed
and working capital needs. An opinion would be formed on the sustainability of the
cash flows in the future and working capital management of the company.
d) Financial flexibility including the companies ability to source funds from other
sources like group companies, ability to defer capital expenditure and alternative
financing plans in times of stress.
iii) MANAGEMENT EVALUATION
a) The quality and ability of the management would be judged on the basis of past
track record, their goals , philosophies and strategies their ability to overcome
difficult situations, etc. In addition to ability to repay, an assessment would be
made of the managements willingness to pay debt. This would involve an opinion
of the integrity of the management.
Iv) FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS
a) Capital adequacy, that is the true net worth as compared to the volume of business
and risk profile of assets.
b) Asset quality including the companies credit risk management, systems for
monitoring credit, exposure to individual borrowers and management of problem
credits.
c) Liquidity management, Capital structure, term matching of assets and liabilities
and policies on liquid assets in relation to financial commitments would be some
of the areas examined.
d) Profitability and financial position in terms of past historical profits, the spread on
funds deployed and accretion to reserves.
36

e) Exposure to interest rate changes and tax law changes.

RATING PROCESS

CRISIL's rating process and rating committee are designed to ensure that all
assigned ratings are based on the highest standards of independence and analytical rigor.
The rating committee comprises members who have the professional
competence to meaningfully assess the credit analysis that underlies the rating, and have
no interest in the entity being rated. A team of analysts carries out the credit analysis .
Each team has at least two members. CRISIL's analysis is based on issuer meetings and
an understanding of the business environment. The analysis is carried out within the
framework of clearly spelt-out rating criteria.

Rating Process
Management Meeting
Rating Committee and assignment of rating
Confidentiality
Advice to Issuer
Publication
Surveillance and Annual Review

CRISIL ensures confidentiality of the information obtained for the rating exercise by
putting in place appropriate process safeguards. All CRISIL employees are required to
sign a confidentiality agreement. CRISIL does not disclose confidential information that
it has obtained for the purpose of credit rating to anyone (other than market regulators or
law enforcement authorities, if required).

37

A detailed flow chart of CRISIL's rating process is as under :

38

CRISIL RATING SYMBOLS

Long Term Rating Scale:

1) High Investment Grades
AAA
Debentures rated `AAA' are judged to offer highest safety of
(Triple A) Highest timely payment of interest and principal. Though the
Safety
circumstances providing this degree of safety are likely to
change, such changes as can be envisaged are most unlikely to
affect adversely the fundamentally strong position of such
issues.
AA
(Double A) High Debentures rated 'AA' are judged to offer high safety of timely
Safety
payment of interest and principal. They differ in safety from
`AAA' issues only marginally.

2) Investment Grades
Debentures rated `A' are judged to offer adequate safety of
timely payment of interest and principal; however, changes in
circumstances can adversely affect such issues more than those
in the higher rated categories.

A
Adequate Safety
BBB
(Triple B) Moderate Debentures rated `BBB' are judged to offer sufficient safety of
Safety
timely payment of interest and principal for the present;
however, changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a
weakened capacity to pay interest and repay principal than for
debentures in higher rated categories.

39

3) Speculative Grades
Debentures rated `BB' are judged to carry inadequate safety of
BB
timely payment of interest and principal; while they are less
(Double
B) susceptible to default than other speculative grade debentures in
Inadequate Safety
the immediate future, the uncertainties that the issuer faces
could lead to inadequate capacity to make timely interest and
principal payments.
B
High Risk
Debentures rated `B' are judged to have greater susceptibility to
default; while currently interest and principal payments are met,
adverse business or economic conditions would lead to lack of
ability or willingness to pay interest or principal
Substanti C Substantial Risk

D In Default

Debentures rated `C' are judged to have factors present that make them
vulnerable to default; timely payment of interest and principal is possible
only if favourable circumstances continue.
Debentures rated `D' are in default and in arrears of interest or
principal payments or are expected to default on maturity. Such
debentures are extremely speculative and returns from these
debentures may be realized only on reorganisation or
liquidation.

As mentioned above CRISIL have ratings for the following:

1) Fixed Deposit Rating (Start From FAAA To FD)
2) Short Term Instruments Rating (Start From P-1 To P-5)
3) Structured Obligations Rating ( Strat From AAA To D(So) )
4) Non Credit Risk Rating Scale ( Start From AAA To Dr)
5) Real Estate Developers/Projects Rating (Start From DA1 To DA5)
6) Rating Scales For Real Estate Projects ( Start From PA1 To PA5)

40

LIMITATIONS OF CRISIL RATINGS

A Credit Rating from CRISIL is NOT

1) A general-purpose credit or performance evaluation of the rated entity: CRISIL Credit Ratings
are always issue-specific
2) A recommendation to invest in, or not to invest in, any shares, debentures or other instruments
issued by the rated entity, or derivatives thereof.
3) An opinion on associate, affiliate or group companies of the rated entity, or on promoters,
directors or officers of the rated entity

4) A statutory or non-statutory audit of the rated entity

5) An indication of compliance or otherwise with legal or statutory requirements

CARE

41

Credit Analysis & Research Ltd. (CARE), incorporated in April 1993,

is a credit rating, information and advisory services company promoted by Industrial
Development Bank of India (IDBI), Canara Bank, Unit Trust of India (UTI) and other
leading banks and financial services companies. In all CARE has 14 shareholders.
CARE assigned its first rating in November 1993, and upto March 31,
2005, had completed 2875 rating assignments for an aggregate value of about Rs 4438
billion. CARE's ratings are recognised by the Government of India and all regulatory
authorities including the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the Securities and Exchange
Board of India (SEBI). CARE has been granted registration by SEBI under the Securities
& Exchange Board of India (Credit Rating Agencies) Regulations,1999.
The rating coverage has extended beyond industrial companies, to
include public utilities, financial institutions, infrastructure projects, special purpose
vehicles, state governments and municipal bodies. CARE's clients include some of the
largest private sector manufacturing and financial services companies as well financial
institutions of India. CARE is well equipped to rate all types of debt instruments like
Commercial Paper, Fixed Deposit, Bonds, Debentures and Structured Obligations.
CARE's Information and Advisory services group prepares credit reports on
specific requests from banks or business partners, conducts sector studies and provides advisory
services in the areas of financial restructuring, valuation and credit appraisal systems. CARE was
retained by the Disinvestment Commission, Government of India, for assistance in equity valuation
of a number of state owned companies and for suggesting divestment strategies for these companies.
CREDIT RATING : RATING METHODOLOGY
CARE undertakes rating exercise based on information provided by the company, inhouse database and data from other sources that CARE considers reliable. CARE does not undertake
unsolicited ratings. The primary focus of the rating exercise is to assess future cash generation
capability and their adequacy to meet debt obligations in adverse conditions. The analysis therefore
attempts to determine the long-term fundamentals and the probabilities of change in these
fundamentals, which could affect the credit-worthiness of the borrower. The analytical framework of
CARE's rating methodology is divided into two interdependent segments. The first deals with the
operational characteristics and the second with the financial characteristics. Besides quantitative
factors, qualitative aspects like assessment of management capabilities play a very important role in
arriving at the rating for an instrument. The relative importance of qualitative and quantitative
components of the analysis vary with the type of issuer. Rating determination is a matter of
experienced and holistic judgement, based on the relevant quantitative and qualitative factors
affecting the credit quality of the issuer.
Key parameters considered in the rating exercise for industrial companies include the following :
Economy and Industry Risks

42

CARE's rating analysis begins by assessing the characteristics of the industry/industries in which the
borrower operates. Some important factors are:
1) Effect of economic cycles on the industry.
2) Business cycles in the industry and their severity.
3) Tariff structure, threat from imports, price competitiveness of the domestic industry, and pace of
technological change.
4)

Basis of competition and key success factors.

5) Structure of the industry; entry and exit barriers.

6)

Environmental and political factors.

Business Risks
Against the backdrop of the issuer's industry, CARE then assesses the issuer's strengths and
weaknesses vis-a-vis its competitors. Factors considered include:
1)

Size of the company and market share.

2)

Locational advantages and disadvantages.

3)

Supply of raw materials and marketing arrangements.

4)

Bargaining power of the issuer's suppliers and customers

5)

Diversification of income sources.

6)

Technology.

Financial Risk
1)
Financial management philosophy and track record (capital structure, profitability, liquidity
position, financial flexibility and cash flow adequacy).
2)
Financial projections (with particular emphasis on achievability of sales targets, the
components of cash flow and ability to meet debt obligations as and when they fall due).
3)
Free cash flows and their sensitivity to various economic, industrial and business risks over
the term of the instrument.
4)

Inter-firm comparison of the financial structure and profitability margins.

5)

Accounting policies and practices.

43

Management Assessment
1)

Background and history of the issuer.

2)

Corporate strategy and philosophy.

3)

Quality of management and management capabilities under stress.

4)

Organizational structure, personnel policies including succession planning .

Instrument Terms
Rating may vary according to such factors as:
1)

Maturity of instrument.

2)
Nature of security - secured or unsecured, senior or subordinated, covenants and other
provisions that may reduce the amount of recovery in case of default.
3)

Repayment terms - moratorium period, repayment in instalments or bullet repayment etc.

4)

Coupon rates - floating, fixed, zero coupon etc.

5)

Options - conversion into equity, put and call options etc.

6)

Credit Reinforcements through guarantees or the backing of financial assets

.
The criteria discussed above are specific to industrial companies. Credit rating
methodology for banks, financial institutions and non-banking finance companies, in addition to
some factors discussed above, focuses on the CRAMEL model:

Capital adequacy

Resource raising ability

Asset quality

Management quality

Earnings quality

Liquidity

CREDIT RATING : RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITION

44

CARE'S

RATING

DEFINITIONS

A. Long Term & Medium Term Instruments

Symbols

Definition

Instruments carrying this rating are considered to be of the best

CARE
AAA quality, carrying negligible investment risk. Debt service payments
CARE
AAA are protected by stable cash flows with good margin. While the
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/ underlying assumptions may change, such changes as can be
(CPS)/(RPS)
visualized are most unlikely to impair the strong position of such
instruments.
Instruments carrying this rating are judged to be of high quality by all
CARE
AA standards. They are also classified as high investment grade. They are
CARE
AA rated lower than CARE AAA securities because of somewhat lower
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/ margins of protection. Changes in assumptions may have a greater
(CPS)/(RPS)
impact or the long-term risks may be somewhat larger. Overall, the
difference with CARE AAA rated securities is marginal.
Instruments with this rating are considered upper medium grade
CARE
A
instruments and have many favorable investment attributes. Safety for
CARE
A
principal and interest are considered adequate. Assumptions that do
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/
not materialise may have a greater impact as compared to the
(CPS)/(RPS)
instruments rated higher.
Such instruments are considered to be of investment grade. They
CARE
BBB
indicate sufficient safety for payment of interest and principal, at the
CARE
BBB
time of rating. However, adverse changes in assumptions are more
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/
likely to weaken the debt servicing capability compared to the higher
(CPS)/(RPS)
rated instruments.
CARE
BB Such instruments are considered to be speculative, with inadequate
CARE
BB protection for interest and principal payments.
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/
CARE
B Instruments with such rating are generally classified susceptible to
CARE
B default. While interest and principal payments are being met, adverse
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/ changes in business conditions are likely to lead to default.
(CPS)/(RPS)
CARE
C Such instruments carry high investment risk with likelihood of default
CARE
C in the payment of interest and principal.
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/
(CPS)/(RPS)
CARE
D Such instruments are of the lowest category. They are either in default
CARE
D or are likely to be in default soon.
(FD)/(CD)/(SO)/
(CPS)/(RPS)
FD
Fixed
Deposit

45

CD
SO
CPS
RPS

Certificate
of
Structured
Convertible
Preference
Redeemable Preference Shares

Deposit
Obligations
Shares

B. Short Term Instruments

Symbols
PR 1

PR 2

PR 3

PR 4
PR 5

Definition
Instruments would have superior capacity for repayment of short-term
promissory obligations. Issuers of such instruments will normally be
characterized by leading market positions in established industries,
high rates of return on funds employed etc.
Instruments would have strong capacity for repayment of short- term
promissory obligations. Issuers would have most of the characteristics
as for those with PR-1 instruments but to a lesser degree.
Instruments have an adequate capacity for repayment of short- term
promissory obligations. The effect of industry characteristics and
market composition may be more pronounced. Variability in earnings
and profitability may result in changes in the level of debt protection.
Instruments have minimal degree of safety regarding timely payment
of short-term promissory obligations and the safety is likely to be
adversely affected by short-term adversity or less favorable
conditions.
The instrument is in default or is likely to be in default on maturity.

C. Credit Analysis Rating

Symbols
CARE 1
CARE 2

CARE 3

CARE 4
CARE 5

Definition
Excellent debt management capability. Such companies will normally
be characterized as leaders in the respective industries.
Very good debt management capability. Such companies would be
regarded as close to those rated CARE-1, but with a lower capability
to withstand changes in assumptions.
Good capability for debt management. Such companies are considered
medium grade; assumptions that do not materialize may impair debt
management capability in future.
Barely satisfactory capability for debt management. The capacity to
meet obligations is likely to be adversely affected by short- term
adversity or less favorable conditions.
Poor capability for debt management. Such companies are in default
or are likely to default in meeting their debt obligations.

46

D. Long Term Loans

Symbols

Definition

Loans carrying this rating are considered to be of the best quality,

carrying negligible investment risk. Debt service payments are
protected by stable cash flows with good margin. While the
CARE AAA (L)
underlying assumptions may change, such changes as can be
visualised are most unlikely to impair the strong position of such
loans.
Loans carrying this rating are judged to be of high quality by all
standards. They are also classified as high investment grade. They are
rated lower than CARE AAA loans because of somewhat lower
CARE AA (L)
margins of protection. Changes in assumptions may have a greater
impact or the long-term risks may be somewhat larger. Overall, the
difference with CARE AAA rated loans is marginal.
Loans with this rating are considered upper medium grade and have
many favourable investment attributes. Safety for principal and
CARE A (L)
interest are considered adequate. Assumptions that do not materialise
may have a greater impact as compared to the loans rated higher.
Such loans are considered to be of investment grade. They indicate
sufficient safety for payment of interest and principal, at the time of
CARE BBB (L) rating. However, adverse changes in assumptions are more likely to
weaken the debt servicing capability compared to the higher rated
loans.
Such loans are considered to be speculative, with inadequate
CARE BB (L)
protection for interest and principal payments.
CARE B (L)
Loans with such rating are generally classified susceptible to default.
While interest and principal payments are being met, adverse changes
in business conditions are likely to lead to default.
Such loans carry high investment risk with likelihood of default in the
CARE C (L)
payment of interest and principal.
Such loans are of the lowest category. They are either in default or are
CARE D (L)
likely to be in default soon.

E. Short Term Loans

Symbols
PL 1
PL 2

Definition
Superior capacity for repayment of interest and principal on the loan.
Strong capacity for repayment of interest and principal on the loan.
They are rated lower than PL-1 because of somewhat lower margins
of protection. Changes in assumptions may have a greater impact.

47

PL 3

PL 4
PL 5

Adequate capacity for repayment of interest and principal on the loan.

Variability in earnings and profitability may result in significant
changes in the level of debt servicing capability. The effect of industry
characteristics may be more pronounced.
Minimal degree of safety regarding timely payment of interest &
principal and the safety is likely to be adversely affected by short-term
adversity or less favourable conditions.
The loan is in default or is likely to be in default on maturity.

As instruments characteristics/loan characteristics or debt management capability could cover a

wide range of possible attributes whereas rating is expressed only in limited number of symbols,
CARE assigns '+' or '-' signs to be shown after the assigned rating (wherever necessary) to
indicate the relative position within the band covered by the rating symbol.
F : Performance Rating of Parallel Marketers
These ratings are on a scale of 1 to 4
1-Good 2-Satisfactory 3-Low Risk 4-High Risk

as

notified

by

Govt.

of

India.

G : Collective Investment Schemes

Symbols
CARE 1 (CIS)

CARE 2 (CIS)

CARE 3 (CIS)

CARE 4 (CIS)

CARE 5 (CIS)

Definition
Schemes carrying this rating are considered to be very strong, with high
likelihood of achieving their objectives and meeting the obligations to
investors.
Schemes carrying this rating are considered to be strong, with adequate
likelihood of achieving their objectives and meeting the obligations to
investors. They are rated lower than CARE 1 (CIS) rated schemes because of
relativesly higher risk.
Such schemes are considered to have adequate strengths for achieving their
objectives and meeting the obligations to investors. They are considered to be
investment grade.
Schemes carrying this rating are considered to have inadequate capability to
achieve their objectives and meet the obligations to investors. They are
considered to be speculative grade.
Such schemes are considered weak and are unlikely to achieve their
objectives and meet their obligations to investors. They have either failed or
are likely to do so in the near future.

CREDIT RATING : RATING PROCESS

48

The rating process takes about three to four weeks, depending on the complexity
of the assignment and the flow of information from the client. Rating decisions are made
by the Rating Committee.
Client

Care

Requests for rating

1. Assigns rating team

Submits information and detailed schedules

2. The team analyses the information.

Interacts with the team, responds to queries 3. The team interacts with clients,
raised and provides any additional data undertakes site visits, and analyses data
necessary for the analysis
submitted by the client
4. Internal committee previews analysis.
5. RATING COMMITTEE awards rating
to client
Accepts rating * , **
6. Notification in press
7. Periodic Surveillance
* : Client may ask for a review of the rating assigned and furnish
additional
information
for
the
purpose.
** : Client has option not to accept the final rating in which case, CARE
will not publish the rating or monitor it.

NEW CONCEPT AND OVERVIEW OF INDIAN CREDIT RATING

AGENCY ( SMEs RATING)

SMERA

49

SMERA is the country's first rating agency that focuses primarily on the Indian SME
segment. SMERA's primary objective is to provide ratings that are comprehensive,
transparent and reliable. This would facilitate greater and easier flow of credit from the
banking sector to SMEs.
SME Rating Agency of India Limited (SMERA) is a joint initiative by SIDBI
(www.sidbi.in), Dun & Bradstreet Information Services India Private Limited (D&B)
(www.dnb.co.in), Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) (www.cibil.com)
MEANING :
1)

2)

3)
4)
5)

SMERA Rating is an independent third-party comprehensive

assessment of the overall condition of the SME,
conducted by SME Rating Agency of India Limited
It takes into account the financial condition and several
qualitative factors that have bearing on credit
worthiness of the SME
SMERA Rating consists of 2 parts,a Composite
Appraisal/Condition indicator and a size indicator
SMERA Rating categorises SMEs based on size, so as to enable
fair evaluation of each SME amongst its peers
An SME unit having SMERA Rating would enhance its market
standing amongst trading partners and prospective customers

SMERA FEATURES :
SMERA is the only rating agency dedicated to SMEs and its rating model takes into
consideration financial and non-financial factors for assigning rating to a SME unit.
SMERA ratings will also factor-in payment score obtained from CIBIL indicating the
payment track record of the SME unit being rated. Dun & Bradstreets expertise on rating
SME units is also an important factor that distinguishes SMERA rating from any other
ratings

ELIGIBILITY OF SMEs
All types of SMEs including manufacturing, service sector, trading etc can approach
SMERA directly or through the banks for a rating from SMERA. However,
NBFCs/finance companies/Nidhis/chit funds etc., are not rated by SMERA.

TIME VALIDITY OF RATING

50

The rating certificate issued by SMERA is based on the latest financial statement
available, the site visit report and management interview carried out as on a recent date.
Thus, the validity of SMERA rating of an SME unit is as on a given date and based on
the assumption of a going concern.

SMERA RATING METHODOLOGY & RATING SCALE

51

LIMITATIONS OF CREDIT RATING - RATING DOWNGRADES

Rating agencies all across the world have often been accused of not
being able to predict future problems. In part, the problem lies in the rating process itself,
52

which relies heavily on past numerical data and standard ratios with relatively lower
usage of judgment and understanding of the underlying business or the country
economics. Data does not always capture all aspects of the situation especially in the
complex financial world of today. An excellent example of the meaningless over reliance
on numbers is the poor country rating given to India. Major rating agencies site one of the
reasons for this as the low ratio Indias exports to foreign currency indebtedness. This
completely ignores two issues firstly, India gets a very high quantum of foreign
currency earnings through remittances from Indians working abroad and also services
exports in the form of software exports which are not counted as "merchandise" exports.
These two flows along with other "invisible" earnings accounted for almost US$11bn in
FY 99. Secondly, since India has tight control on foreign currency transactions, there is
very little error possible in the foreign currency borrowing figure. As against this, for a
country like Korea, the figure for foreign currency borrowing increased by US$50bn after
the exchange crisis began. This was on account of hidden forward liabilities through
swaps and other derivative products.
In general, Indian rating agencies have lost some amount of their
credibility in the last two years due to their inability to predict defaults in many
companies, which they had rated quite highly. Sometimes, some of the agencies had an
investment grade rating in place when the company in question had already defaulted to
some of the fixed deposit holders. Further, rating agencies resorted to mass downgrading
of 50-100 companies as a reaction to public criticism, which further eroded their
credibility. The major reasons for these downgrades are as follows :
1) Biased raiting and misrepresentation:
In the absence of quality ratings , credit rating is a curse for capital market industry. To
avoid biased rating ,the expert in rating agency ,carrying out detaild analysisi of the
company , should have no links with the company or the persons intersete din the
company so that they can make their report impartial and judicious recommendation for
rating committee.
2) Static study :
Rating is done on the present and the past historical data of the company and this is only
a sttsic study . prediction of the company health through rating is momentary and
anything can happen after assignment of rating sybols to the company .dependence for
the future result on the rating,therefore defeat the vary purpose of the risk indicative of
the rating.
3) Concealment of material information :
Rating company might conceal material information from the investigating team of the
credit rating company, in such cases quality of rating suffer and renders the rating
reliable.

53

4) Rating is no guarantee for soundness of the company :

Rating is done for a particular instrument to assess the credit risk but it should not be
considered as a certificate for matching quality of the company or its management.
5)

Human bias :

Finding of the investigation team at times may suffer from with the human bias for
unavoidable personal weakness of the staff and might effect the rating .
6)

Down grade:

Once the company has been rated and if it is not able to maintain its working result and
performance ,credit rating agency would review the grade or downgrade the rating
resulting into impairing the image of the company .
7)

Validity of rating

Validity of the rating ends with the maturity of a debt instrument and its no longer
subsequently benefits the issuer company becsuse the rating is valid for the life time
of the debt instrument being rated .

8)

Difference in rating of two agencies:

Rating done by two different credit rating agencies for the same instrument of the same
issuer company in many cases would not be identical. Such difference is likely to occur
because of the because of the value judgment differences on qualitative aspect of the
analysis in two different rating agencies whereas quantitative analysis might be the same
and identical .

Limitations cont
Corporate earnings fell very sharply due to persistent recessionary conditions prevailing
in the economy. Many of the corporate are in commodity sectors where fluctuations in
selling prices of products can be very sharp - leading to complete erosion of profitability.
54

This problem was compounded by the Asian crisis, which led to increased competition
from cheap imports in many product categories.
Rating agencies substantially overestimated financial flexibility of
corporate especially from traditional corporate houses. Much of the financial flexibility
was implicit on raising money from new issues from the capital market, which has been
impossible in the last 3 years.
In the case of finance companies, widespread defaults like CRB and tightening of
regulations made it virtually impossible for them to raise money in any form. These
finance companies had been in the habit of investing in longer term, illiquid assets by
borrowing shorter term fixed deposits. When the flow of credit stopped, they faced
liquidity problems. These were further compounded by defaults by some of the
companies to which they had on lent money.
The experience is no different from the international scenario where
reputed and highly experienced rating agencies like Standard & Poor (S&P) and Moodys
were unable to predict the Asian crisis and had to face the embarrassment of seeing the
credit rating of South Korea as a country go from A+ to BB+ in a short span of 3 months.
By and large, the rating is a very good estimate of the actual creditworthiness of the
company; however, it is not able to predict extreme situations such as the ones described
above, which are unlikely to have been predicted by most investors in any case. Investors
should realize that a credit rating is not sacrosanct and that one has to do ones own due
diligence and investigation before investing in any instrument. They should use the rating
as a reference and a base point for their own effort.
One good way of doing this is examining the behavior of the stock
price in case the stock is listed. As a collective, the market is far smarter at predicting
problems than any credit rating agency. Witness the sharp erosion in stock prices of
companies much before their credit ratings were downgraded. Witness also the fact that
foreign currency bonds from Indian issuers trade at yields lower than countries which
have been rated higher by rating agencies.

Code of Ethics
to be followed by Rating Agencies

55

Member Credit Rating Agencies shall put in place systems and procedures to ensure the
following :
1) The proceedings of a credit rating board / rating committee, are kept confidential
at all times, and not revealed to any external parties or agencies. If any records of
the proceedings are made, credit rating agencies must take steps to keep such
records properly safeguarded, except where required to be disclosed by the
provisions of laws or regulations.
2) When the credit rating board decides on a rating, it shall be announced as a joint
decision and the individual votes shall be kept confidential, even if recorded. This
requirement of confidentiality shall apply to rating board members for their own
votes as well.

Member Credit Rating Agencies shall put in place systems and procedures to ensure the
following :
1) When and after a credit rating board / rating committee member or credit rating
agency employee terminates his/her employment or work association with the
rating agency, the requirement of confidentiality with respect to the information
received during the period of work association shall continue as information held
in trust.
2) A credit rating board / rating committee member does not take undue material
advantage of any confidential information received through his or her
participation in a credit rating process. Persons involved in the ratings process
should also be made vigilant to prevent abuse of prior knowledge of ratings
changes.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

56

1) What is credit rating?

Credit rating is, essentially, the opinion of the rating agency on the relative ability and
willingness of the issuer of a debt instrument to meet the debt service obligations as and
when they arise.

2) Why do rating agencies use symbols like AAA, AA, rather than give marks or
descriptive credit opinion?
The great advantage of rating symbols is their simplicity, which facilitates universal
understanding. Rating companies also publish explanations for their symbols used as well
as the rationale for the ratings assigned by them, to facilitate deeper understanding.

3) Why is credit rating necessary at all?

Credit rating is an opinion expressed by an independent professional organisation, after
making a detailed study of all relevant factors. Such an opinion will be of great assistance
to investors in making investment decisions. It also helps the issuers of debt instruments
to price their issues correctly and to reach out to new investors. Regulators like Reserve
Bank of India (RBI) and Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) often use credit
rating to determine eligibility criteria for some instruments. For example, the RBI has
stipulated a minimum credit rating by an approved agency for issue of Commerce Paper.
In general, credit rating is expected to improve quality consciousness in the market and
establish, over a period of time, a more meaningful relationship between the quality of
debt and the yield from it. Credit Rating is also a valuable input in establishing business
relationships of various types.

4) Does credit rating constitute an advice to the investors to buy?

It does not. The reason is that some factors, which are of significance to an investor in
arriving at an investment decision, are not taken into account by rating agencies. These

57

include reasonableness of the issue price or the coupon rate, secondary market liquidity
and pre-payment risk. Further, different investors have different views regarding the level
of risk to be taken and rating agencies can only express their views on the relative risk.

5) What kind of responsibility or accountability will attach to a rating agency if an

investor, who makes his investment decision on the basis of its rating, incurs a loss on the
investment?
A credit rating is a professional opinion given after studying all available information at a
particular point of time. Nevertheless, such opinions may prove wrong in the context of
subsequent events. Further, there is no privity of contract between an investor and a
rating agency and the investor is free to accept or reject the opinion of the agency.
Nevertheless, rating is essentially an investor service and a rating agency is expected to
maintain the highest possible level of analytical competence and integrity. In the long
run, the credibility of a rating agency has to be built, brick by brick, on the quality of its
services.

6) Do rating companies undertake unsolicited ratings?

Not in India, at least not yet. There is however, a good case for undertaking unsolicited
ratings. It will be relevant to mention here that any rating based entirely on published
information has serious limitations and the success of a rating agency will depend, to a
great extent, on its ability to access privileged information. Co-operation from the issuers
as well as their willingness to share even confidential information are important prerequisites. On its part, the rating agency has a great responsibility to ensure
confidentiality of the sensitive information that comes into its possession during the
rating process.

7) How reliable and consistent is the rating process? How do rating agencies eliminate
the subjective element in rating?
To answer the second question first, it is neither possible nor even desirable, to totally
eliminate the subjective element. Rating does not come out of a pre-determined

58

mathematical formula, which fixes the relevant variables as well as the weights attached
to each one of them. Rating agencies do a great amount of number crunching, but the
final outcome also takes into account factors like quality of management, corporate
strategy, economic outlook and international environment. To ensure consistency and
reliability, a number of qualified professionals are involved in the rating process. The
Rating Committee, which assigns the final rating, consists of professionals with
impeccable credentials. Rating agencies also ensure that the rating process is insulated
from any possible conflicts of interest.

8) Is it customary to have the same issue rated by more than one rating agency? Do the
ratings for the same instrument vary from agency to agency?
The answer to both the questions is yes. In the well-developed capital markets, debt
issues are, more often than not, rated by more than one agency. And, it is only natural
that the opinions given by two or more agencies will vary, in some cases. But it will be
very unusual if such differences are very wide. For example, a debt issue may be rated
DOUBLE A PLUS by one agency and DOUBLE A or DOUBLE A MINUS by another.
It will indeed be unusual if one agency assigns a rating of DOUBLE A while another
gives a TRIPLE B.

9) Why do rating agencies monitor the issues already rated?

A rating is an opinion given on the basis of information available at a particular point of
time. As time goes by, many things change, affecting the debt servicing capabilities of
the issuer, one way or the other. It is, therefore, essential that as a part of their investor
service, rating agencies monitor all outstanding debt issues rated by them. In the context
of emerging developments, the rating agencies often put issues under creditwatch and
upgrade or downgrade the ratings as and when necessary. Normally, such action is taken
after intensive interaction with the issuers.

10) Are all ratings published?

In India, ratings are undertaken only at the request of the issuers and only those ratings,
which are accepted by the issuers, are published. But there is a view that the rating
agencies should publish all ratings, even those found unacceptable by the issuers. This is

59

a matter for further discussion, so that a generally acceptable industry practice emerges.
Once a rating is accepted, it will be 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.

11) Do issuers have a right of appeal against a rating assigned?

Yes. In a situation where an issuer is unhappy with the rating assigned, he may request
for a review, furnishing additional information, if any, considered relevant. The rating
agency will, then, undertake a review and thereafter indicate its final decision. Unless the
rating agency had overlooked critical information at the first stage, (which is unlikely),
chances of the rating being changed on appeal are rare.

12) How much time does rating take?

The rating process is a fairly detailed exercise. It involves, among other things, analysis
of published financial information, visits to the issuers offices and works, intensive
discussion with the senior executives of issuers, discussions with auditors, bankers,
creditors, etc. It also involves an in-depth study of the industry itself and a degree of
environment scanning. All this takes time and a rating agency may take six to eight
weeks or more to arrive at a decision. The time taken may be somewhat less say, three or
four weeks, for rating short term instruments like commercial paper, as the focus will be
more on short term liquidity rather than on long term fundamentals. It is of paramount
importance to rating companies to ensure that they do not, in any way, compromise on
the quality of their analysis, under pressure from issuers for quick results. Issuers would
also be well advised to approach the rating agencies sufficiently in advance so that issue
schedules can be adhered to.

13) Is it possible that not satisfied with the rating assigned by one rating agency, an issuer
approaches another, in the hope of getting a better result?
It is possible, but rating companies do not and should not indulge in competitive
generosity. Any attempt by issuers to play one agency against another will have to be

60

discouraged by all the rating companies. It may, however, be pointed out here that two
rating companies may, and often do, arrive at different conclusions on the same issue.
This is only natural, as perceptions differ.

14) Who rates the rating companies?

Informed public opinion will be the touchstone on which the rating companies have to be
assessed and the success of a rating agency should be measured by the quality of the
services offered, consistency and integrity.

15) Is the rating assigned for an instrument or for the Issuer Company?
The rating is for a particular issue and not for a company. It is, therefore, quite possible
that two instruments issued by the same company carry different ratings, particularly if
maturities are substantially different or one of the instruments is backed by additional
credit reinforcements like guarantees. In many cases, short term obligations, like
commercial paper carry the highest rating even as the long term debt of the same issuer
may be assigned a rating several levels below the highest rating. This is only natural, as
the risk profile changes very dramatically for longer maturities. It is, however, not
unusual for lenders and business counterparties to consider the long term bond rating as a
rating of the issuer.

16) Why are equity shares not rated?

By definition, credit rating is an opinion on the issuers capacity to service debt. In the
case of equity, there is no pre-determined servicing obligation, as equity is in the nature
of venture capital. So, credit rating in the conventional sense does not apply to equity
shares.

17) In what way is a credit rating different from an analysis by any financial analyst?
Credit rating is essentially, business analysis, which has a much broader connotation than
financial analysis. One significant factor, which adds value to the analysis of a rating

61

agency, is that the rating is normally done at the request of and with the active cooperation of the issuer. So, the rating agency has access to unpublished information and
the discussions with the senior management of issuers give meaningful insights into
corporate plans and strategies. The rating agencies also make necessary adjustments to
published accounts for the purpose of their analysis and juxtapose the issuer against the
backdrop of the industry in question and the general economic environment. And, at the
culmination of this detailed process, the rating emerges as the well considered view of a
dozen or more highly qualified and experienced professionals. The rating agencies
zealously safeguard their independence and scrupulously avoid any conflict of interest
with the various players in the capital market. If any analyst or group of analysts is able
to ensure all these, we probably have another rating agency in the making.

18) Are rating standards specific for each country? If CARE gives AAA and if S&P
assigns AAA, are they at the same level?
CARE rates only Rupee denominated debt while S&P rates debt of any currency. A
CARE AAA rating indicates that the companys rupee debt stands in good comparison to
debt issued by the Government of India (considered safest relatively) and is considered to
be of the best quality. The sovereign ceiling, if any, does not apply. However, all S&P
ratings will have a cap in the form of the rating ceiling for a particular currency
denominated debt.

19) If a rating is downgraded, how would it "benefit" (or compensate ) the investor?
A credit rating is a professional opinion on the ability and willingness of an issuer to meet
debt-servicing obligations. It is an opinion on future debt servicing capabilities given on
the basis, inter-alia, of past performance and all available information (from audited
financial statements, company management, banks and financial institutions, statutory
auditors, etc.) at a particular time. While rating agencies make all possible efforts to
project corporate business prospects, industry trends and management capabilities, many
events are unpredictable. Hence, such opinions may prove wrong in the context of
subsequent events. On the occurrence of such an event, a rating agency can only review
and make appropriate changes in the rating. Moreover, when there are recessionary trends
in certain segments of the economy, companies in such segments or with large exposures
to such segments are adversely affected and their credit ratings get downgraded. Such
downgradations are a natural consequence of the recessionary trends. In other words,
credit quality (and credit rating) is dynamic, not static and all rating agencies review their
ratings periodically and make changes, wherever considered appropriate. Such changes
are reported widely through the media. It is the experience of all rating agencies that

62

some instruments initially rated as investment grade fall below investment grade or go
into default, over a period of time.
Further, it must be noted that there is no privity of contract between an investor or a
lender and a rating agency and the investor is free to accept or reject the opinion of the
agency. A credit rating is not an advice to buy, sell or hold securities or investments and
investors are expected to take their investment decisions after considering all relevant
factors and their own policies and priorities. A credit rating is not a guarantee against
future losses. Please also note that credit ratings do not take into account many aspects
which influence investment decisions. They do not, for example, evaluate the
reasonableness of the issue price, possibilities for capital gains or take into account the
liquidity in the secondary market. Ratings also do not take into account the risk of
prepayment by issuer, or interest or exchange risks. Although these are often related to
the credit risk, the rating essentially is an opinion on the relative quality of the credit risk,
based on the information available at a given point of time.

63

CONCLUSION
A credit rating is a useful tool not only for the investor, but also for the entities looking
for investors. An investment grade rating can put a security, company or country on the
global radar, attracting foreign money and boosting a nation's economy. Indeed, for
emerging market economies, the credit rating is key to showing their worthiness of
money from foreign investors, And because the credit rating acts to facilitate investments,
many countries and companies will strive to maintain and improve their ratings, hence
ensuring a stable political environment and a more transparent .
They can best serve markets when they operate independently, adopt and enforce internal
guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest and protect confidential information received
from issuers. Credit rating agencies cannot afford to commit too many mistakes as it the
investors who pays the price for their mistakes. Credit rating agencies should be made
accountable for any faulty rating by panelizing them or even de-recognizing them, if
needed.

64

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS 1) CREDIT RATING DR. JC VERMA.

WEBSITES
1) www.crisil.com
2) www.icra.com
3) www.careratings.com

NEWS PAPER1) ECOMICTIMES

2) BUSINESS STANDARD

65