Abstract

The aim of the article. The aim of the article is to study the modern approaches to determination of bank rating, to identify the main problematic issues arising in this process and ways of its improvement. The results of the analysis. The work justifies the urgency use of bank rating as one of the tools for marketing strategy development of financial market participants. The essence of the notion “banking rating” is revealed and on the ground of generalization of different approaches the author’s interpretation of the notion is offered. The modern classification features of bank rating were studied and it was determined, that there was no an exclusive classification of bank rating and methods by which they were made. Different scientists use their broad diversification according to its purpose and means of application. Several known models of integrated assessment were analyzed and their advantages and disadvantages were defined. The research of methodologies of rank assessment on the basis of the indicators analysis used in them proved that there was no the universal system of bank rating. Key criteria features that can be used during the systematization of the banking rating are aim of rating usage and methodology of their structure. The result of the classification explains that each of separate methods covers a limited range of indicators under analysis, and that is why it can be used only for partial assessment or assignment of one of the rank type, according the specificity of the calculation method of each model. The study showed that one of the main problems, which is relevant not only for domestic banks, is incomplete comparability of rating assessments received by banks from different rating agencies. Every rating agency uses its own unique assessment methods, different assessment scales, free terms and frequency of rating. Negative effects of close rating assessment systems of different rating agencies were studied. The main problems of bank rating assessment including international experience of such assessment were defined. The problem of this process was illustrated on practical examples of rating assessment of some Ukrainian banks. Conclusions and direction of further researches. To sum up, there is the limited capacity of rating agencies concerning an objective bank assessment that is evident in conditions of high macroeconomic risks and economic instability. The choice uncertainty of entities of bank institution as a major partner in business doesn’t promote the implementation of their marketing strategies. Current rating indicators cannot be used by entities as a reliable indicator that determines their effect on financial and commodity markets. During analysis of the problem of Ukrainian banks rating it is emphasized the necessity of the creation of the common methodological approaches to the rating making, accounting the best world’s experience in this sphere.  Thus, the further researches should be aimed at development of effective tools for bank rating that should include elements of some existing methods of bank rating and will form the exclusive, unique bank rating system that significantly reduce the uncertainty on the financial market, improve the financial planning and providing the market strategies of entities.

Keywords: bank rating, assessment, rating agency, rating problems, market strategies, financial market

JEL Classification: C42, G10, G21, G28, M30.

Cite as: Zakharkina, L., Zakharkin O. & Karabets, K. (2017). Bank rating as a tool of marketing strategy of financial market participants. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 112-122. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2017.4-10

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Bilyk, O.Yu. (2015). Doslidzhennia suchasnykh metodiv ta modelei reitynhovoho otsiniuvannia komertsiinykh bankiv [Research of modern methods and models of rating evaluation of commercial banks]. Molodyi vchenyi – Young Scientist, 2(17), 941-945 [in Ukrainian].
2. Bobyl, V. (2014). Metodika primeneniia pokazatelei sistemy risk-menedzhmenta [Methodology of the risk-management indexes usage]. Bankauskі vesnіk – Banking Annals, June, 16-21. Retrieved from http://www.nbrb.by/bv/articles/9999.pdf  [in Russian].
3. Dopovid, vidpravlena kolyshnim analitykom Moodys v konhres, mozhe doroho obiitys samomu ahentstvu [Report, sent by the Moody’s ex-analytic to the congress, can cost dear to the agency itself]. (n.d.). finance.ua. Retrieved from http://news.finance.ua/ua/news/-/172206/dopovid-vidpravlena-kolyshnim-analitykom-moodys-v-kongres-mozhe-dorogo-obijtys-samomu-agentstvu [in Ukrainian].
4. Dukhnenko, V.B., & Shapran, V.S. (2016). Reitynhova metodolohiia ta protsedura dlia otsiniuvannia bankiv [Top-rated methodology and procedure of banks’ estimation]. Rejtingovoe agentstvo «Jekspert-Rejting». expert-rating.com. Retrieved from http://www.expert-rating.com/data/upload/methods/20160219/BANKS_2016_02_19.pdf [in Ukrainian].
5. Kornyliuk R. (2016). Reitynh zhyttiezdatnosti ukrainskykh bankiv-2016 [2016 – top-rating of Ukrainian banks’ viability]. Forbes, 2. Retrieved from  http://forbes.net.ua/ua/business/1421401-rejting-zhittezdatnosti-ukrayinskih-bankiv-2016 [in Ukrainian].
6. Lohvynenko, Yu.L. (2009). Sutnist reitynhuvannia pidpryiemstv ta yoho znachennia v rynkovykh umovakh [Nature of enterprises top-rating and its value in the context of market relations]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu «Lvivska politekhnika» – Journal of Lviv Polytechnic National University, 640, 319-327 [in Ukrainian].
7. Liubich, O.O., & Bortnikov, H.P.  (2015) Nadiinist kredytnykh reitynhiv dlia prohnozuvannia defoltiv bankiv [Reliability of credit ratings to predict bank of defaults]. Naukovi pratsi NDFI – RFI Scientific Papers, 1(70), 96-109 [in Ukrainian].
8. Myronov, Yu.B. (2014). Klasyfikatsiia bankivskykh reitynhiv ta yikh praktychne vykorystannia [Bank Ratings Classification and their Practical Use]. Vcheni zapysky universytetu «KROK». Seriia : Ekonomika – Scientific notes of the «KROK» University. Field : Economics, 35, 73-78. Retrieved from  http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Vzuk_2014_35_12 [in Ukrainian].
9. Myronov, Yu.B. (2014). Metodolohichni pidkhody do skladannia reitynhiv komertsiinykh bankiv [Methodological approaches to the definition of commercial banks’ ratings]. Ekonomichnyi forum – Economic forum, 2, 14-221 [in Ukrainian].
10. Mstoian, K.V. (2015). Reitynhuvannia yak instrument otsiniuvannia nadiinosti banku [Rating as a tool to assess the reliability of the bank]. Molodyi vchenyi – Young Scientist, 2(17), 188-191. Retrieved from  http://molodyvcheny.in.ua/files/journal/2015/2/103.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
11. Musiienko, O. M., Maslova, A.Yu., & Savchenko, H.O. (2014). Suchasna praktyka reitynhovoho otsiniuvannia diialnosti bankiv na osnovi taksonometrychnoho metodu [Modern practice of top-rating estimation of the banks’ activity on the basis of taxonomy approach]. Financial space, 1(13), 121-127 [in Ukrainian].
12. Plastun, O.L. (2012). Udoskonalennia diialnosti reitynhovykh ahentstv na osnovi vrakhuvannia birzhovoi kapitalizatsii [Improvement of the top-rating agencies activity, accounting stock market capitalization]. Finansy Ukrainy – Finance of Ukraine, 7, 108-117 [in Ukrainian].
13. Pshyk. B.I. (2014). Aktualni problemy reitynhovoho otsiniuvannia diialnosti bankiv v Ukraini [Current issues of the top-rating estimation of the Ukrainian banks’ activity]. Visnyk Universytetu bankivskoi spravy Natsionalnoho banku Ukrainy – Journal of Banking University, 2 (20), 149-152 [in Ukrainian].
14. Reitynh banku [Rating of banks] (n.d.). – Natsionalnyi bank Ukrainy. Ofitsiine internet-predstavnytstvo. Hlosarii bankivskoi terminolohii. – Retrieved from http://www.bank.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=123595 [in Ukrainian].
15. Reitinh nadezhnosti bankovskih depozitov [Credit rating of banks’ deposits]. Reitynhovoe ahentstvo «Standart-Reitynh» – Top-rating agency «Standart-Reiting». (n.d.). http://standard-rating.biz. Retrieved from http://standard-rating.biz/rus/products_massmedia_rd3q2015/ [in Russian].
16. Reitinh samykh nadezhnyh bankov Ukrainy 2015-2016 [Top-rating of the most creditable Ukrainian banks] (n.d.).  forinsurer.com Retrieved from http://forinsurer.com/rating-banks [in Russian].
17. Reitinh ustoichivosti bankov po itoham 4 kvartala 2015 [Top-rating of the banks’ soundness according to the results of the IV quarter 2015]. (n.d.). minfin.com.ua. Retrieved from http://minfin.com.ua/banks/rating/?date=2016-07-01 [in Russian].
18. Rysin, M.V. (2014). Reitynhova otsinka diialnosti bankiv yak instrument analizu finansovoho stanu [Top-rating estimation of the banks activity as the tool of the financial analysis]. Visnyk Universytetu bankivskoi spravy Natsionalnoho banku Ukrainy – Journal of  Banking University, 2(20), 159-164 [in Ukrainian].
19. Sait reitinhovoho ahentstva «Kredit-Reitinh» [Site of the top-rating agency «Kredit-reiting»]. www.credit-rating.ua. Retrieved from http://www.credit-rating.ua/ua/ [in Ukrainian].
20. Samorodov, B.V. (2012). Rezultaty vyznachennia reitynhiv bankiv z vykorystanniam modyfikovanoho taksonometrychnoho metodu [Results of estimation of banks top-rating, using modified taxonomy method]. Finansy, oblik i audyt – Finance, accounting and audit, 19, 161-169 [in Ukrainian].
21. Tarasevych, N.V. (2013). Vydy ta znachennia kompleksnoi otsinky finansovoho stanu banku [Types and values of complex estimation of the financial state of the bank]. Visnyk sotsialno-ekonomichnykh doslidzhen – Socio-Economic Research Bulletin, 4, 361-365 [in Ukrainian].
22. Krahnen, J., & Weber, M. (2001). Generally Accepted Rating Principles: a Primer. Journal of Banking and Finance, 25, 3-24.
23. Kiff, Jh., Kisser, M., & Schumacher, L. (2013). Rating Through-the-Cycle: What Does the Concept Imply for Rating Stability and Accuracy?: IMF Working Paper WP/13/64. International Monetary Fund.
24. Livingston, M., Naranjo, A., & Zhou, L. (2007). Asset Opaqueness and Split Bond Ratings. Financial Management, 36, 49-62.
25. Morgan, D. (2002). Rating Banks: Risk and Uncertainty in an Opaque Industry. The American Economic Review, 92 (4), 874-888.