企業(yè)信用數(shù)據(jù)庫和擔(dān)保體系的開發(fā)-英文+中文

《企業(yè)信用數(shù)據(jù)庫和擔(dān)保體系的開發(fā)-英文+中文》由會(huì)員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關(guān)《企業(yè)信用數(shù)據(jù)庫和擔(dān)保體系的開發(fā)-英文+中文（7頁珍藏版）》請(qǐng)?jiān)谘b配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE CREDIT INFORMATION DATABASE AND CREDIT GUARANTEE SYSTEM FINAL DRAFT REPORT 作者： Dr. Sharifah Mariam Alhabshi，Mr. Abdullah Azmi Abd. KhalidProf. Dr. Barjoyai Bardai 國籍： Malaysia出處：University of Malaya 原文正文：1、conclusionFirstly, government efforts toward enhancing the capability and capacity of SMEs as the country growth engine has been remarkable. Continuous multi-types assistance has been introduced for all levels of SMEs. Broadly success has been evident but not in all areas. Firstly, institutional issues relating to comprehending the various schemes and identifying implementing agencies that run the schemes have confused not only SMEs but also financial institutions. Secondly, SME is dominated by micro enterprises. Demands and needs of micro enterprises may differ from small and definitely with medium enterprises. Therefore despite various efforts being introduced to enhance SMEs complaints are abound because the needs of micro enterprises have not been understood and therefore not met. For example, micro enterprises which started as cottage industries seldom have financial documentation to support their financial application and some have limited or no knowledge of the various financial schemes provided by government or financial institutions. Thirdly, the changing global environment has seen a mushrooming of of SMEs in Malaysia. The government has been developing and promoting SMEs but the results have been mixed, partly because policymakers were late in classifying the different needs and characteristics of micro, small and medium enterprises. The developments of diverse and internationally competitive SMEs are central towards achieving sustainable economic growth. SMEs have a key role to play in the wider development agenda, especially in relation to poverty eradication and equitabledevelopment among the various ethnic groups in Malaysia.2、CGC: Issues and Problems 1. Being a public credit guarantee institution, CGC has capitalized its monopolistic position in the SME financial market. In terms of capitalization and continuous funding, BNM and the financial institutions have always backed it. Without competition, it is able to completely control the credit guarantee market. This is unhealthy, particularly in terms of an effective check and balance. 2. The usual complaints from the participating banks is that the CGC is slow to process its guarantee covers and that the guarantee fees that it charges are, on the whole, too high. This is on top of the processing fees charged by the banks and CGC (in the case of the DAGS) and the interest payments. 3. CGCs response to the above is that the guarantee fee it charges is not a burden, considering the fact that it is covering 80% of the risk as compared to the 20% risk carried by the banks. The guarantee fee is one of the sources of income for CGC. CGC states that this issue needs to be corrected and resolved immediately through a negotiated policy decision. 4. Many SMEs have voiced their grievances on the long bureaucratic time for CGC to arrive at its decisions for the guarantee covers. There have been cases where documents already submitted have either been misplaced or lost. On the issue of delays in processing the loans and guarantees, the CGC states that this is often due to the submission of incomplete documents and late submission of documents or information by the applicants. 5. From the CGCs perspective, this asymmetrical information is mainly due to the inexperience and an inadequate understanding by the SMEs in preparing loan documentation process. The CGC also stress that the business proposal from SMEs must be viable and based on its internal 5Cs criteria - Credit, Character, Capacity, Collateral and Condition. 6. Additionally, to improve the information flow in the application process, CGC suggests that this could be done by expanding advisory and hand-holding services. One avenue would be leveraging on the services of the SME Credit Bureau, which serves as a one-stop centre of information on SMEs. But this would take some time since the SME Credit Bureau which is owned by CGC only started operations in 2008. 7. There have also been cases where the participating banks have approved the loans (non-DAGS) of some SMEs but were finally rejected by the CGC. No concrete reasons were given for the rejections. 8. The public image of the CGC and its employees is not that good. This could be due to its complacency as a monopolistic public guarantee provider. It has rarely communicated well with the public. To this criticism, CGC mentions that it has a well-packaged on-going corporate communication programme including road shows and media coverage, except television. 3、 Policy Discussion, Future Development of SMEs and CreditGuarantee Cooperation Broadly this study examines the current situation of the credit registries and bureaus in Malaysia, and the future prospects for their development; to scrutinise adequate institutional frameworks of credit information database for firms, especially SMEs; to consider a suitable regional cooperation mechanism to create a harmonised information sharing system; to review the current situation of the credit guarantee system, and identify the challenges for developing the credit guarantee system. Accordingly, we have surveyed 652 SMEs and interviewed the Credit Guarantee Corporation (CGC), the SME Credit Bureau, selected commercial banks, development financial institutions and government agencies. These surveys and interviews may be subject to various limitations, bearing in mind the time and financial constraints. Nevertheless, the policy suggestions that we put forward for consideration regarding the future development of the credit registry/ bureau and the credit guarantee system in Malaysia are aimed at enhancing and strengthening the SMEs in Malaysia. In line with the ASEAN blueprint which encourages synergy between private and public sectors in enhancing SMEs development, commercial banks, DFIs and government agencies in Malaysia are rigorously collaborating with, guiding and financing for SMEs development. The blueprint is confirming the improvement that has been made by SMEs within a period of less than five years (this is based on DOS survey of 2003 and Bank Negara Report 2007). Nevertheless for reasons explained in this report, (Table 5.1) many SMEs are still dissatisfied with services provided to them. One can look at this discontent from two perspectives. On the one hand government agencies, financial institutions have succeeded in educating and exposing the SME of available opportunities. Indeed some have taken the challenge even to the extent of exploring the possibility of entering the international market. On the other hand, some, due to technical and social reasons, simply cannot keep pace rapid development of SMEs. The gap is incrementally been bridged as discussed in this concluding chapter. 4、Possible Routes of Developing the CGC in Malaysia in Meeting SMEs Financing Needs It would be possible to have another credit guarantee provider to cater for the large number of SMEs which require financing. This could be a financially sound and stable private entity with a well-established credit bureau. The rationale for this is to generate competition so that the credit guarantee companies, both public and private, can provide better products and services. The goal is to strive for greater effectiveness and efficiency in the critical areas of operations, delivery systems and customer service levels. If that is not possible, then another way is to eventually turn CGC into a fully independent private entity. A hint of this is already evident in CGCs transformation plan. However, this would have some major policy implications, particularly regarding ownership and control. The question is to what extent would BNM reduce its dominance in CGC, bearing in mind the political and social dimensions in the larger SME framework and the total financial sector in Malaysia. The intellectual challenge would be to strike a right balance between government intervention and free enterprise. Being a partner and supporter of the SMEs and an important link between the SMEs and financial institutions, GCGs role and functions would definitely become more complex and multi-faceted. As it makes forays into new and exciting areas like securitization and equity financing and possibly other sophisticated financial instruments in the future in line with its aim to become financially sustainable, it must not lose sight on the increasing significance of micro-financing of SMEs. In the context of CGC, the range of loan size guaranteed between RM1,000 -100,000 could indicate the micro-financing. However, it is interesting to note that although the number of loans guaranteed in this bracket was the highest (2007), reported as 5,693 or 43.8% of the total, but in terms of value, it was the lowest, recording only RM282.2 million or 7.1% of the total facility. Since BNM has indicated a trend towards an expansion in micro-financing in the near future, the challenge for CGC is to improve and strengthen its micro-financing component and to find creative and innovative ways to smoothen the risk management aspect of micro-financing. One possible solution would be to establish a subsidiary which could focus on providing an array of less cumbersome guarantee schemes to really assist the SMEs that actually need micro- financing. Currently, the policies pertaining to the CGCs functions and roles are well in place. But in the larger SME framework in Malaysia, the CGC is also classified as a Development Financial Institution (DFI). There is no clarity about CGCs functions and responsibilities as a DFI. Can a public credit guarantee company at the same time be a DFI? Do they have the same roles, functions and responsibilities? Logically, it means complexity and haziness. If the CGC is mandated to be a DFI, then it should publicly explain and clarify this issue, to avoid confusion.企業(yè)信用數(shù)據(jù)庫和擔(dān)保體系的開發(fā)作者：Sharifah Mariam Alhabshi 博士Abdullah Azmi Abd. Khalid 先生Barjoyai Bardai 教授（博士）國籍：馬來西亞出處：馬來亞大學(xué)中文譯文：一、總結(jié)首先、政府在提高中小企業(yè)的能力作為國家經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的引擎方面的努力已經(jīng)變得十分明顯。持續(xù)多樣的援助已經(jīng)被引入各種水平的中小企業(yè)。廣泛的成功是顯著的，但并不是所有領(lǐng)域都是這樣。首先，不只中小企業(yè)，金融機(jī)構(gòu)在理解各項(xiàng)計(jì)劃和確定實(shí)施這些計(jì)劃的政策的體制問題方面混淆不清。其次，中小企業(yè)以微型企業(yè)為主。微型企業(yè)的需求可能不同于小企業(yè)，無疑更不同于中型企業(yè)。因此，盡管在提高中小企業(yè)方面付出了各種努力，但針對(duì)中小企業(yè)的投訴卻比比皆是。因?yàn)橹行∑髽I(yè)的需求沒有能被理解，所以其需求就不會(huì)被滿足。例如，以家庭手工業(yè)形式發(fā)起的微型企業(yè)很少有財(cái)務(wù)文件支持它們呢的財(cái)務(wù)運(yùn)用，它們很少或者幾乎不知道由政府或者金融機(jī)構(gòu)提供的各種金融計(jì)劃。第三，在不斷變化的全球環(huán)境下，馬來西亞的中小型企業(yè)如雨后春筍般出現(xiàn)。政府也一直致力于發(fā)展和提高中小企業(yè)，但結(jié)果有好有壞，部分原因是政策制定者在區(qū)分微型企業(yè)、小型企業(yè)和中型企業(yè)的不同需求和特點(diǎn)方面滯后。發(fā)展中小企業(yè)的多樣化和全球競爭性是去的可持續(xù)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的中心點(diǎn)。中小企業(yè)在更廣泛的發(fā)展議程，特別是在馬來西亞各民族人民之間消除貧困和公平發(fā)展方面，扮演者重要角色。二、信貸擔(dān)保公司：問題和困難1、作為一個(gè)公共的信用擔(dān)保機(jī)構(gòu)，信貸擔(dān)保公司在中小企業(yè)金融市場上已經(jīng)具有壟斷地位。在股本和持續(xù)資金方面，國家銀行和金融機(jī)構(gòu)一直支持著它。由于沒有競爭，它能夠完全控制信貸擔(dān)保市場。這種狀態(tài)是不健康的，特別是在有效制衡方面。2、通常，來自參與信貸擔(dān)保的銀行的控訴主要是信貸擔(dān)保公司處理信貸擔(dān)保事件的速度太慢，并且就整體而言，其收取的擔(dān)保費(fèi)過高。銀行和信貸擔(dān)保公司收取的處理費(fèi)和利息支付已經(jīng)達(dá)到其上限。3、信貸擔(dān)保公司對(duì)銀行的控訴的反應(yīng)是其收取的擔(dān)保費(fèi)并不是一種負(fù)擔(dān)。并且考慮到事實(shí)，與銀行承擔(dān)的20%風(fēng)險(xiǎn)相比，信貸擔(dān)保公司覆蓋了80%的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。擔(dān)保費(fèi)是信貸擔(dān)保公司的收入來源之一。信貸擔(dān)保公司表明這個(gè)問題需要通過協(xié)商政策決定來糾正和解決。4、許多中小企業(yè)都對(duì)長期由信貸擔(dān)保公司決定擔(dān)保范圍的官僚體制很是不滿。并且已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了許多擔(dān)保公司錯(cuò)放或者丟失已經(jīng)提交的文件的案例。在處理問題遲緩這個(gè)問題上，信貸擔(dān)保公司則表明這主要是因?yàn)樯暾?qǐng)人提交的文件不完整或提交信息和文件誤期等等。5、從信用擔(dān)保公司的角度看，這種信息不對(duì)稱主要是由于中小企業(yè)在貸款文件過程中缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)和理解不完全引起的。信貸擔(dān)保公司還強(qiáng)調(diào)中小企業(yè)的商業(yè)計(jì)劃必須是可行的，并且是基于其內(nèi)部5C（信用、性格、能力、抵押品和條件）標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的。6、此外，信貸擔(dān)保公司表示，可以通過擴(kuò)大咨詢服務(wù)和手控服務(wù)的方法改善應(yīng)用過程中的信息交流。中小企業(yè)信貸局提供共的一站式服務(wù)將會(huì)成為有效利用的途徑之一。但由信貸擔(dān)保公司成立的中小企業(yè)管理局從2008年才開始運(yùn)作，因此這需要很長一段時(shí)間才能實(shí)現(xiàn)。7、此外，也有參與信貸擔(dān)保的銀行已經(jīng)批準(zhǔn)了一些中小企業(yè)的貸款（非DAGS）的情況下最終被擔(dān)保公司拒絕的案例。并且擔(dān)保公司并沒有給出拒絕擔(dān)保的具體理由。8、信貸擔(dān)保公司及其員工的公眾形象并不好。這可能是由于其作為一個(gè)壟斷性的公共擔(dān)保提供商的自滿。它很少于公眾進(jìn)行溝通。對(duì)于這種批評(píng)，信貸擔(dān)保公司表示它有一個(gè)打包良好的且正在進(jìn)行的溝通方案，包括路演和媒體的報(bào)道，但除了電視。三、政策討論、中小企業(yè)和信貸擔(dān)保合作的未來發(fā)展。本調(diào)研廣泛地調(diào)查了馬來西亞信貸登記機(jī)構(gòu)和信貸局的現(xiàn)狀和它們的未來發(fā)展前景；在充分調(diào)查制度框架的基礎(chǔ)上，為企業(yè)尤其是中小企業(yè)建立一個(gè)信貸信息數(shù)據(jù)庫；考慮一個(gè)合適的區(qū)域合作機(jī)制，以創(chuàng)造一個(gè)協(xié)調(diào)信息共享系統(tǒng)；回顧了信貸擔(dān)保系統(tǒng)的現(xiàn)狀并確定信用擔(dān)保體系發(fā)展面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。因此，我們調(diào)查了652 家中小企業(yè)并采訪了信貸擔(dān)保公司、中小企業(yè)信貸局、被選擇的商業(yè)銀行、發(fā)展金融機(jī)構(gòu)和政府機(jī)構(gòu)。這些調(diào)查和采訪可能面臨各種限制，包括時(shí)間限制和金融約束。但是，政策建議我們提出關(guān)于信貸登記處（或信貸局）未來發(fā)展方面的考慮用以提高和加強(qiáng)馬來西亞中小企業(yè)的水平和實(shí)力。符合東盟鼓勵(lì)私人和公共部門之間協(xié)同促進(jìn)中小企業(yè)的發(fā)展，馬來西亞的商業(yè)銀行、DIFs和政府機(jī)構(gòu)嚴(yán)格協(xié)同、指導(dǎo)中小企業(yè)，并為其融資以促進(jìn)中小企業(yè)發(fā)展。這份藍(lán)圖確認(rèn)了中小企業(yè)在少于五年內(nèi)得到的改善。然而，由于本片報(bào)道中提及到的種種原因，很多中小企業(yè)人就對(duì)為他們提供的各種服務(wù)表示不滿。這種不滿來自兩種看法。一方面，政府機(jī)構(gòu)和金融機(jī)構(gòu)已經(jīng)成功的教育和揭示了中小企業(yè)在這方面的機(jī)會(huì)。事實(shí)上，部分已經(jīng)邁出了關(guān)鍵的挑戰(zhàn)，甚至在一定程度上索進(jìn)入國際市場的可能性。另一方面，由于技術(shù)和社會(huì)原因，部分不能與中小企業(yè)的快速發(fā)展保持同步。正如最后總結(jié)里提到的，這些差距在不斷彌補(bǔ)。