企业信用数据库和担保体系的开发-英文+中文

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 国籍： Malaysia出处：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.企业信用数据库和担保体系的开发作者：Sharifah Mariam Alhabshi 博士Abdullah Azmi Abd. Khalid 先生Barjoyai Bardai 教授（博士）国籍：马来西亚出处：马来亚大学中文译文：一、总结首先、政府在提高中小企业的能力作为国家经济增长的引擎方面的努力已经变得十分明显。持续多样的援助已经被引入各种水平的中小企业。广泛的成功是显著的，但并不是所有领域都是这样。首先，不只中小企业，金融机构在理解各项计划和确定实施这些计划的政策的体制问题方面混淆不清。其次，中小企业以微型企业为主。微型企业的需求可能不同于小企业，无疑更不同于中型企业。因此，尽管在提高中小企业方面付出了各种努力，但针对中小企业的投诉却比比皆是。因为中小企业的需求没有能被理解，所以其需求就不会被满足。例如，以家庭手工业形式发起的微型企业很少有财务文件支持它们呢的财务运用，它们很少或者几乎不知道由政府或者金融机构提供的各种金融计划。第三，在不断变化的全球环境下，马来西亚的中小型企业如雨后春笋般出现。政府也一直致力于发展和提高中小企业，但结果有好有坏，部分原因是政策制定者在区分微型企业、小型企业和中型企业的不同需求和特点方面滞后。发展中小企业的多样化和全球竞争性是去的可持续经济发展的中心点。中小企业在更广泛的发展议程，特别是在马来西亚各民族人民之间消除贫困和公平发展方面，扮演者重要角色。二、信贷担保公司：问题和困难1、作为一个公共的信用担保机构，信贷担保公司在中小企业金融市场上已经具有垄断地位。在股本和持续资金方面，国家银行和金融机构一直支持着它。由于没有竞争，它能够完全控制信贷担保市场。这种状态是不健康的，特别是在有效制衡方面。2、通常，来自参与信贷担保的银行的控诉主要是信贷担保公司处理信贷担保事件的速度太慢，并且就整体而言，其收取的担保费过高。银行和信贷担保公司收取的处理费和利息支付已经达到其上限。3、信贷担保公司对银行的控诉的反应是其收取的担保费并不是一种负担。并且考虑到事实，与银行承担的20%风险相比，信贷担保公司覆盖了80%的风险。担保费是信贷担保公司的收入来源之一。信贷担保公司表明这个问题需要通过协商政策决定来纠正和解决。4、许多中小企业都对长期由信贷担保公司决定担保范围的官僚体制很是不满。并且已经出现了许多担保公司错放或者丢失已经提交的文件的案例。在处理问题迟缓这个问题上，信贷担保公司则表明这主要是因为申请人提交的文件不完整或提交信息和文件误期等等。5、从信用担保公司的角度看，这种信息不对称主要是由于中小企业在贷款文件过程中缺乏经验和理解不完全引起的。信贷担保公司还强调中小企业的商业计划必须是可行的，并且是基于其内部5C（信用、性格、能力、抵押品和条件）标准的。6、此外，信贷担保公司表示，可以通过扩大咨询服务和手控服务的方法改善应用过程中的信息交流。中小企业信贷局提供共的一站式服务将会成为有效利用的途径之一。但由信贷担保公司成立的中小企业管理局从2008年才开始运作，因此这需要很长一段时间才能实现。7、此外，也有参与信贷担保的银行已经批准了一些中小企业的贷款（非DAGS）的情况下最终被担保公司拒绝的案例。并且担保公司并没有给出拒绝担保的具体理由。8、信贷担保公司及其员工的公众形象并不好。这可能是由于其作为一个垄断性的公共担保提供商的自满。它很少于公众进行沟通。对于这种批评，信贷担保公司表示它有一个打包良好的且正在进行的沟通方案，包括路演和媒体的报道，但除了电视。三、政策讨论、中小企业和信贷担保合作的未来发展。本调研广泛地调查了马来西亚信贷登记机构和信贷局的现状和它们的未来发展前景；在充分调查制度框架的基础上，为企业尤其是中小企业建立一个信贷信息数据库；考虑一个合适的区域合作机制，以创造一个协调信息共享系统；回顾了信贷担保系统的现状并确定信用担保体系发展面临的挑战。因此，我们调查了652 家中小企业并采访了信贷担保公司、中小企业信贷局、被选择的商业银行、发展金融机构和政府机构。这些调查和采访可能面临各种限制，包括时间限制和金融约束。但是，政策建议我们提出关于信贷登记处（或信贷局）未来发展方面的考虑用以提高和加强马来西亚中小企业的水平和实力。符合东盟鼓励私人和公共部门之间协同促进中小企业的发展，马来西亚的商业银行、DIFs和政府机构严格协同、指导中小企业，并为其融资以促进中小企业发展。这份蓝图确认了中小企业在少于五年内得到的改善。然而，由于本片报道中提及到的种种原因，很多中小企业人就对为他们提供的各种服务表示不满。这种不满来自两种看法。一方面，政府机构和金融机构已经成功的教育和揭示了中小企业在这方面的机会。事实上，部分已经迈出了关键的挑战，甚至在一定程度上索进入国际市场的可能性。另一方面，由于技术和社会原因，部分不能与中小企业的快速发展保持同步。正如最后总结里提到的，这些差距在不断弥补。