This can be confirmed by the introduction of relevant policies and regulations on bond credit rating in China in the past two years. In 2003, the China Insurance Regulatory Commission issued the Interim Measures for the Administration of Corporate Bonds Invested by Insurance Companies, which successively approved five rating companies, stipulating that insurance companies can buy and sell corporate bonds rated above AA by these five rating agencies. The Securities Industry Association issued a notice requiring employees of credit rating agencies to pass the qualification examination for securities practitioners and promulgated the Interim Measures for the Administration of Bonds of Securities Companies. The National Development and Reform Commission requires that corporate bonds must be evaluated by a credit rating agency that has undertaken special corporate bond rating business in the State Council since 2000. In 2004, the People's Bank of China and the China Banking Regulatory Commission jointly issued the Measures for the Administration of Subordinated Bond Issuance of Commercial Banks. The CIRC issued the Interim Measures for the Administration of Subordinated Term Debt of Insurance Companies; The People's Bank of China promulgated the Measures for the Administration of Short-term Financing Bonds of Securities Companies. In 2005, the People's Bank of China, the Ministry of Finance, the National Development and Reform Commission and the China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly issued Announcement No.5; China People's Bank and China Banking Regulatory Commission jointly issued Announcement No.7; The People's Bank of China issued two supporting documents: Measures for the Administration of Financial Bond Issuance in the National Inter-bank Bond Market, Measures for the Administration of Short-term Financing Bonds, Rules for Underwriting Short-term Financing Bonds and Rules for Information Disclosure of Short-term Financing Bonds. It is not conducive to standardized management, and it is difficult to avoid uncoordinated and inconsistent situations.
2. The independence of bond credit rating agencies is not guaranteed enough, and the number of agencies is large, which leads to a greater degree of vicious competition.
The first principles of rating agencies should be objective, independent and fair, and maintain a high degree of neutrality according to their business characteristics and nature of work. However, many domestic rating agencies have not been completely restructured and separated from the original competent departments. They lack independence in personnel, funds, management and business sources, which is not conducive to reflecting the credibility and authority of bond credit rating. In developed countries, there are only a few rating agencies in a country. For example, there are three companies in the United States, namely Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, three in Japan, three in Japan, three in Canada, two in Canada, and Britain 1. The scale of China's bond market is far from that of developed countries, but there are actually nine bond credit rating agencies. Too many rating agencies will inevitably lead to excessive competition in the field of corporate bond rating, which will make rating agencies have to give higher credit ratings under the pressure of bond issuers, thus causing the rating results to be distorted.
3. The bond rating technology is not very mature.
Credit rating is a relatively new industry in China, and the talent team of bond credit rating is still immature. The professional knowledge, comprehensive analysis ability and moral quality of employees are uneven, which affects the technical level of bond rating to a considerable extent. At present, China's credit rating is still mainly based on the financial ratio analysis of economic statements. When learning from foreign experience, it basically imitates the practices of developed countries, and there are many problems in the rating method and index system:
(1) The evaluation methods of China's bond credit rating are as follows: First, give each index weight according to its importance; Secondly, compare the actual situation of bond issuing enterprises with various indicators and get the actual score; Finally, according to the actual score, determine the credit rating. There is a problem here: the weight of the index is fixed, and it cannot show the relative importance of different types of bonds in different periods. For example, for bonds with different maturities issued by the same enterprise, the focus of assessment indicators should be different. If the bonds with different maturities are rated according to the same standard, the scientific rating results will be affected.
(2) From the mature experience of foreign countries, the rating method should be based on quantitative analysis, supplemented by qualitative analysis. The reliability of rating depends more on the comprehensive and balanced opinions of experienced and well-informed analysts. In China, the judges in bond rating agencies can only give scores according to the actual values calculated by preset indicators, but can't make their own comprehensive judgments, so they can't make a comprehensive evaluation of corporate bond credit. Moreover, for the implementation of advanced measurement, there is also a lack of excellent talent reserves in China; Even abroad, excellent modeling analysts are hard to find.
(3) The rating index system is not comprehensive enough. In the method of bond credit rating, according to the different nature of industries and bonds, the credit rating standards of industrial enterprises (technical transformation projects) and commercial enterprises (technical transformation projects) are designed respectively, but there are no credit rating standards for real estate development, urban public transportation and rural township enterprises.