Welcome to the CRA REGULAR (NON-TRADING) Model PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY Latest updated CRA models

can be downloaded from ftp://10.31.0.37/CRA REVISED folder 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

This Model is applicable for Total Exposure above Rs.5.00 Cr in Non-Trading sector Select the appropriate 'ACTIVITY STATUS' CODE & 'TYPE OF UNIT' status and QUARTERS (for growth in sales You need to feed the required ratios/value (IN NUMBERS ONLY) manually in the INPUT sheet as this programm Feed the TNW of the unit in the appropriate cell Yor are also required to feed DSCR, D/E RATIO in case the term loan is proposed If any particular parameter is not applicable OR available, leave the related cell blank; pls DO NOT feed '0.00/NA DO NOT put (%) sign with input data Security details are to be filled in in the INPUT sheet for Facility Rating Select appropriate Value Statements through Drop Downs in the 'V STMT' sheet Scoring for FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY, GROUP / FOREX RISK, QUALITATIVE PARAMETERS, EXTERNAL RATING etc. has been given through VALUE STATEMENT sheet Facility Rating for up to 8 Facilities can be done at a time for which you are required to input the required Facili First select the FACILITY TO BE RATED, INDUSTRY, GEOGRAPHY and NATURE OF LOAN before selecting app Please select the TENOR OF FACILITY in the Facility Rating sheet wherever applicable This model is updated as per CRMD Circular No CRMD/BS/249 dated 09/01/2010 Disclaimer: Please refer to Bank's latest CRA circular instructions in case of any discrepancy. This is strictly for Internal Circulation, should NOT be parted with any outsider

For any Query / Suggestion, please contactVIKRAM PRIYAVRAT Manager & Credit Analyst, CPC, LHO, Bhopal Call at: 9406904853 / 0755-2575708 Date: 01/12/2011 OR email at : vikram.p@sbi.co.in

0.37/CRA REVISED folder

NIT' status and QUARTERS (for growth in sales) through DROP-DOWNS in the INPUT sheet manually in the INPUT sheet as this programme is kept independent of CMA

he related cell blank; pls DO NOT feed '0.00/NA' wherever the parameter is not applicable

ALITATIVE PARAMETERS, EXTERNAL RATING, FINANCIAL STATEMENT QUALITY

ch you are required to input the required Facility in the INPUT sheet HY and NATURE OF LOAN before selecting appropriate drop down in the facility rating sheet et wherever applicable

ns in case of any discrepancy. e parted with any outsider

Name of the Unit: Model Based on Activity Status

INPUT FORM ABC LTD REGULAR (NON-TRADING) Audited 31-Mar-11 It is an Unit where Audited financial statements reflect minimum 12 months of working (NOT for Takeover and New Connection)

Type of Unit Parameters

Existing

Financials reflects => 3 years working

Projections Previous Years data for made during last Averaging purpose sanction
Prv-to-Prv Yr

Data for Estimates which the for Current CRA is to be / Next Year carried out 31-Mar-11 Next Year

Prev. Yr

31-Mar-11

TOL/TNW Current Ratio ROCE (%) Retained Profit/TA (%) PBDIT/Interest PAT/Net Sale (%) Net Cash Accrual/Total Debt (%) Net Sales in last 2 qtrs PY & CY (Chronological order) G.Avg.DSCR (Inventory/N.Sales)+ (Receivable/G.sales) in days Debt / Equity TNW

Previous year Mar Qtr June Qtr

Current year Mar Qtr June Qtr

VALUE STATEMENTS: NON-TRADING SECTOR: REGULAR MODEL ABC LTD Year 31-Mar-11 Score BUSINESS & INDUSTRY RISK i) On the whole, the combination of the relevant listed factors makes the industry Competition somewhat competitive 2 & Market UNIT
Risk ii) Industry The industry outlook (CRMD Industry approach) is "MODERATELY POSITIVE") Outlook iii) Industry High Degree of cyclicality Cyclicality
iv) Regulatory Risks (for C&I)

1.5

0.25

NA NA

iv) Regulatory Risks (for SSI & AGL)

v) Environment

The industry enjoys a favorable regulatory environment. / Effect of regulatory risks can be contained. / Regulatory & legislative issues creates some vulnerability but potential impact on the company not significant as the issues can be tackled appropriately. / There have been no stoppages of work on account of labour unrest Business The business environment in which the company operates, is excellent

0.5

vi) Technology & Vulnerability to technological change vii) Vulnerability to Macroeconomic environment

The existing technology is proven and sufficient. / The industry is vulnerable to technological change to some extent but its impact is contained 1.25

The effect can be contained to the large extent 0.75

viii) Access to resources / Input profile

Raw material generally available at more or less steady price. / Raw Material has few other usage but supply is adequate 1.5

ix) User Product profile

Product is distinctive and of wide acceptance/uses. / No complaints about their rejection from the market. / The delivery schedules of products adhered to without fail 2

x) Capacity utilization & Flexibility in operation

Optimum capacity utilization; it propels to achieve high growth targets. / Flexibility built up in the manufacturing facilities to shift between he products to maintain optimum capacity utilization

xi) Consistence in quality

Record of the unit in maintaining the quality of its products is good. / Only a few cases of sales rejection on account of poor quality. / There is no ISO certification 0.5

xii) Research & Development / Innovation

The R&D efforts are average and product innovation observed sometimes 0.25

xiii) Distribution Network

xiv) Compliance of Environment al Regulations

Wide distribution network for the company's products traded in. / It has affective policy in place to withdraw defective products, if any, from the market. / Although the company does not have a wide distribution network, the sales are increasing year after year. / The new unit proposes wide distribution network for its products. / The new company proposes adequate distribution network for marketing and sale of its products. / The management of the company is optimistic about the gradual increase in sales year later year on account of uniqueness of its products and its quality even without a wide distribution network At present partial compliance but firm steps initiated for full compliance

0.5

Management Risk i) Integrity The integrity and character of the Management is beyond reproach. / No fraudulent (Unlisted deals/transactions. / No unsatisfactory feature of the unit has come to light. /No Company) adverse features revealed in any audit report i) Integrity NA (Listed Company)

NA

Maintains financial discipline, is regular in submission of financial statements and there are very few occasions of irregularity in the account. / Hardly any instance of cheque return or invocation of guarantee. / The record of meeting commitments to lenders and creditors is excellent. / The unit has rarely defaulted on this score The management is competent. / The unit has professionals in the key areas, under Managerial the overall control of the management, who function independently. / The projects competenc undertaken are executed in time (ii) Track Record / Conduct of account iii) / Payment
e/Commitm ent/Expertis

1.5

Although budgeting, costing, MIS are in place, proper implementation efforts are iv) Structure lacking & Systems v) The management has a very good experience in the trade (> =5 years) and /or it is a Experience family business
in Industry (vi) Strategic Initiatives

0.5

The management has visions and is also capable of taking initiatives but the necessary thrust is lacking 0.25

vii) Length of Relationshi p with the Bank (viii) Credibility: Ability to achieve sales/profit projections (ix) Ability to manage change

Dealing with the Bank for more than 2 years and conduct is satisfactory. / New unit but belonging to a Group which has dealings with the Bank for more than 2 years, and a Group Company has offered its guarantee Achieves both sales and profit projections within negative variance of 10%

The potential to manage change is put in into action to a great extent 0.5

Succession plan is in place/the number of key persons are just adequate to run the x) Successio operations of the Company but in the event of one or two leaving the company would materially affect its operations to some extent n Plan Full compliance after the expiry of the stipulated period and after follow up xi) Adherence to the covenants of sanction ABC LTD Year 31-Mar-11 UNIT Country Risk
Cash Flow or asset ( %) outside India

0.75

Score NA NA

NA NA

Change in rating due to country risk

Group Risk

NA NA NA

Forex Risk NA

Financial Flexibility

Excellent (Success record) >=90%

10

Financial Satisfactory statement quality ABC LTD

Satisfactory

For the year

31-Mar-11 Amount assessed to be at default 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Qualitative Factors ( -ve)

A Contingent Liabilities Amt. as per Balance Sheet 0.00 0.00 c d e f B C Pending legal issues like suit filed against the Company and the financial impact on the borrowing company. Notices issued by Regulatory authorities like Income Tax & Lock out/strike/unrest in the factory in the last two years and Corporate guarantees given with or without Banks Auditors qualifying remarks having impact on Accounting policies (i) valuation of inventory (ii) capitalization, (iii) depreciation and (iv) revaluation Any other factor Aggregate amount assessed to be at default TNW of the Unit as per latest balance sheet Impact on TNW of the Unit Negative Score Name of Rating Agency Long Term Rating Additional Score under New CRA Model 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Probability of invocation (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

a b

Claims against disputed tax liabilities/Excise Duties Claims against the Company not acknowledged as debts.

0.00 0.00

0.0 0.0

0 0 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! NA NA

Non- Trading Sector: Regular Model: Financial Risk: CRA of Mark Weight A ABC LTD s Sl.No.Parameters(maximum Marks in brackets) For the Year (I) (a) TOL/TNW-Latest Ratio 6 10 3 (b) TOL/TNW-Average of last 3 years 2 (c) Industry Comparison NA (ii) (a) Current Ratio-Latest Ratio 0 0 1.5 (b) Current Ration-Average of last 3 years NA (c) Industry Comparison NA (iii) (a) ROCE %-latest Ratio 0 0 2 (b) ROCE %- Average of last 3 years NA (iv) a) Retained Profit / Total Assets (%) 0 0 1 b) Retained Profit / Total Assets (Moving Avg) NA (v) (a) PBDIT/Intt.-Latest Ratio 0 0 2 (b) PBDIT/Intt-Average of last 3 years NA (vi) (a) PAT/Net Sales-Latest Ratio 0 0 2 (b) PAT/Net Sales-Avg. of last 3 years NA (vii) (a) Net Cash Accrrual / Total Debt (%) 0 0 1.5 (b) Net Cash Accrrual / Total Debt (Moving Avg) NA (viii) Average YoY Growth in Net Sales in last 2 qtrs (%) 0 NA 1 (ix) Financial Flexibility 5 10 0.5 (xi) (A) Gross Avg.DSCR for all TLs NA (B-1) Inventory/N. Sales)+(Rec./G.sales) in days NA NA 2 (B-2) (Inv/NS)+(Rec.+GS) average of last 3 years NA Mark under sub-parameter (B) NA (xi) Group Risk 0 NA 0.5 (xii) Forex Risk 0 NA 0.5 (xiii) Future Prospects(FP) Projected ratios 20 6 2 Total Score out of 175 Total score normalised 195 Total Score normalised to 65(Existing) / 25(New) 65 Qualitative factors (-ve mark) / (+ve mark) Total financial score B Business Risk 1 Competetion & Market Risk 2.00 2.50 2 Industry Outlook 1.50 2.50 3 Industry Cyclicality 0.25 1.00 4 Regulatory Risks (for C&I) NA 4 Regulatory Risks (for SSI & AGL) 1.00 1.50 5 Business Environment 0.50 0.50 6 Technology & Vulnerability to technological change 1.25 1.50 7 Vulnerability to Macro-economic environment 0.75 1.00 8 Access to resources / Input profile 1.50 2.00 9 User / Product profile 2.00 2.00 10 Capacity utilization & Flexibility in operation 1.00 1.00 11 Consistance in quality 0.50 1.00 12 Research & Development / Innovation 0.25 1.00 13 Distribution Network 0.50 0.50 14 Compliance of Environmental Regulations 1.00 2.00 Total Score (BR) 14.00 20.00 Normalized score (20 for Existing & 30 for New) C Management Risk(MR) 1 Integrity (for Unlisted Companies) 2.00 2.00 1 Integrity (for Listed Companies) NA 2 Track Record / Conduct of account / Payment record 2.00 2.00 3 Managerial competence/ Commitment/ Expertise 1.50 2.00 4 Structure & Systems 0.50 1.00 5 Experience in Industry 1.00 1.00 6 Strategic Initiatives 0.25 0.50 7 Length of Relationship with the Bank 1.00 1.50 8 Credibility: Ability to achieve sales/profit projections 1.00 1.00 9 Ability to manage change 0.50 1.00 10 Succession Plan 0.75 1.00 11 Adherence to the covenants of sanction 1.00 2.00 Total Score 11.50 15.00

Max. Mark 30

weighed score 31-Mar-11 30

15 20 10 20 20 15 10 5 20 5 5 20 195 65 65 2.50 2.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 0.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 2.00 20.00 20.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 15.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 5.00 #VALUE! NA NA 12 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0! #VALUE!

14.00 14.00

11.50

D E F G

Normalized score (15 for Existing & 45 for New) Qualitative Parameter-External Rating Aggregate Risk Score Aggregate Risk Score (rounded off) CRA Rating based on the above score Country Risk NA Final Borrower Rating after CR #VALUE!

15.00 5 100 SB

11.50 0 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

SB

#VALUE!

H I

Financial Statement Quality

Satisfactory

#VALUE! #VALUE!

BORROWER RATING SUMMARY [A]

SECTOR

NON-TRADING

MODEL As on

REGULAR 31-Mar-2011

ABC LTD
FINANCIAL RISK [FR] Parameters [i]
Max Company' Weight Marks s ratios Company's Score

Company' Max. s total Company's weighted normalize weighted score score d score

[ii]

[iii]

[iv]

[v]

[vi]

[vii]

[viii] [ix] [x]

TOL / TNW [a] Latest Ratio [b] Average of last 3 years [c] Industry Average Current Ratio [a] Latest Ratio [b] Average of last 3 years [c] Industry Average ROCE [a] Latest Ratio [b] Average of last 3 years Retained Profit / Total Assets (%) [a] Latest Ratio [b] Average of last 3 years PBDIT / Interest [a] Latest Ratio [b] Average of last 3 years PAT / NET SALES [a] Latest Ratio [b] Average of last 3 years Net Cash Accrual / Total Debt [a] Latest Ratio [b] Average of last 3 years Average YoY Growth in Net Sales in last 2 qtrs (%) Financial Flexibility
[a] Gross Average DSCR[all loans]
[b] Inventory/NS+Rec./Gross Salesx365

10 6 2 2 10 6 2 2 10 8 2 10 8 2 10 8 2 10 8 2 10 8 2 10 10 10 10 10 10

0.00 NA NA 0.00 NA NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6

6.00 2.00 Normalised 0.00 Normalised Normalised 0.00 Normalised 0.00 Normalised 0.00 Normalised 0.00 Normalised 0.00 Normalised Normalised 10.00 NA NA NA Normalised Normalised 6.00

10.00

30

30.00

1.5

0.00

15

0.00

0.00

20

0.00

0.00

10

0.00

0.00

20

0.00

0.00

20

0.00

1.5 1 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 2

0.00 NA 10.00 NA

15 10 5 20 5 5 20 195 65 -10 65

0.00 Narmalised 5.00 #VALUE! Narmalised Narmalised 12.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0! #VALUE!

[xi] [xii] [xiii]

[c] Average of last 3 years GROUP RISK FOREX RISK

FUTURE PROSPECTS [Projected Ratios]

6.00

TOTAL SCORE [FINANCIAL RISK] Total Score normalized to Qualitative Factors [-ve] (-10) FINAL SCORE [FINANCIAL RISK]

#DIV/0!

BORROWER RATING SUMMARY [B]

SECTOR

NON-TRADING

MODEL As on

REGULAR 31-Mar-2011
Maximu Company's Score

ABC LTD
BUSINESS RISK [BR]

m Score Parameters i) Competition On the whole, the combination of the relevant listed factors makes the industry & Market Risk somewhat competitive 2.50

2.00 1.50 0.25 NA

ii) Industry The industry outlook (CRMD Industry approach) is "MODERATELY POSITIVE") Outlook iii) Industry Cyclicality iv) Regulatory Risks (for C&I) iv) Regulatory Risks (for SSI / AGL) High Degree of cyclicality NA

2.50 1.00 1.50

The industry enjoys a favorable regulatory environment. / Effect of regulatory risks can be contained. / Regulatory & legislative issues creates some vulnerability but potential impact on the company not significant as the issues 1.50 can be tackled appropriately. / There have been no stoppages of work on account of labour unrest v) Business The business environment in which the company operates, is excellent 0.50 Environment vi) Technology The existing technology is proven and sufficient. / The industry is vulnerable to & Vulnerability technological change to some extent but its impact is contained 1.50 to technological change vii) Vulnerability The effect can be contained to the large extent to Macro1.00 economic environment viii) Access to resources / Input profile ix) User / Product profile Raw material generally available at more or less steady price. / Raw Material has few other usage but supply is adequate

1.00

0.50

1.25

0.75

2.00

1.50

Product is distinctive and of wide acceptance/uses. / No complaints about their rejection from the market. / The delivery schedules of products adhered to without fail x) Capacity Optimum capacity utilization; it propels to achieve high growth targets. / utilization & Flexibility built up in the manufacturing facilities to shift between he products to Flexibility in maintain optimum capacity utilization operation xi) Consistence Record of the unit in maintaining the quality of its products is good. / Only a few in quality cases of sales rejection on account of poor quality. / There is no ISO certification xii) Research & The R&D efforts are average and product innovation observed sometimes Development / Innovation xiii) Distribution Wide distribution network for the company's products traded in. / It has affective Network policy in place to withdraw defective products, if any, from the market. / Although the company does not have a wide distribution network, the sales are increasing year after year. / The new unit proposes wide distribution network for its products. / The new company proposes adequate distribution network for marketing and sale of its products. / The management of the company is optimistic about the gradual increase in sales year later year on account of uniqueness of its products and its quality even without a wide distribution network xiv) At present partial compliance but firm steps initiated for full compliance Compliance of Environmental Regulations

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.50

1.00

0.25

0.50

0.50

2.00

1.00

Total Score - Business Risk Business Risk Score - Normalized

20.00 20.00

14.00 14.00

ABC LTD [C] MANAGEMENT RISK [MR] Parameters

Maximu m Score

Company's Score

Integrity (for The integrity and character of the Management is beyond reproach. / No Unlisted fraudulent deals/transactions. / No unsatisfactory feature of the unit has come Companies) to light. /No adverse features revealed in any audit report Integrity (for NA Listed Companies)

2.00

2.00

2.00

NA

Track Record / Conduct of account / Payment record Managerial competence/ Commitment/ Expertise Structure & Systems Experience Industry Strategic Initiatives

Maintains financial discipline, is regular in submission of financial statements and there are very few occasions of irregularity in the account. / Hardly any instance of cheque return or invocation of guarantee. / The record of meeting 2.00 commitments to lenders and creditors is excellent. / The unit has rarely defaulted on this score The management is competent. / The unit has professionals in the key areas, under the overall control of the management, who function independently. / The 2.00 projects undertaken are executed in time Although budgeting, costing, MIS are in place, proper implementation efforts are lacking

2.00

1.50

1.00 1.00

0.50 1.00

in The management has a very good experience in the trade (> =5 years) and /or it is a family business The management has visions and is also capable of taking initiatives but the necessary thrust is lacking

0.50

0.25

Length of Relationship with the Bank Credibility: Ability to achieve sales/profit projections Ability to manage change Succession Plan

Dealing with the Bank for more than 2 years and conduct is satisfactory. / New unit but belonging to a Group which has dealings with the Bank for more than 2 years, and a Group Company has offered its guarantee Achieves both sales and profit projections within negative variance of 10%

1.50

1.00

1.00

1.00

The potential to manage change is put in into action to a great extent 1.00 Succession plan is in place/the number of key persons are just adequate to run the operations of the Company but in the event of one or two leaving the company would materially affect its operations to some extent 0.50

1.00

0.75

Adherence to Full compliance after the expiry of the stipulated period and after follow up the covenants of sanction Total Score [MR] M R Score Normalized Qualitative Parameter [External Rating] [D] Aggregate Score [ FR + BR + MR + QP] out of 100 ~ [ A+B+C+D ] Score rounded off CRA Rating based on the above Score Country Risk [CR]

2.00 15.00 15.00 5 100 SB

1.00 11.50 11.50 0.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

NA

FINAL BORROWER RATING AFTER CR.

Financial Statement Quality

SB #VALUE! Satisfactory

Risk Score / Rating Transition Matrix #VALUE! #VALUE!

Annexed

NON- TRADING SECTOR: FACILITY RATING A) RISK DRIVERS FOR LGD ABC LTD (I) Trade (a) Trade Characteristics & Distance to Default (b) Trade Recovery Score (II) Geography (iii) Unit Characteristics

Facility rated Industry Geography Nature of loan

Description Moderate Risk with Adequate Cushion / Moderate Risk (CRMD: Moderately Positive) Textiles Central

CC Textiles Central Working Capital Max Co's Marks Score 3 3 2 2.50 0.63 0.40

(a) Leverage / Enforcement Lowest leverage (sole claimant for Assets in the event of default) /Enforcement of claim not affected by any other party. of Collateral (b) Safety, Value & The useful life, quality & upkeep good/satisfactory Existence of assets (IV) Macroeconomic Conditions Small GDP Growth rate over last 3 years. Mild recessionary phase. A few cases of defaults. Moderate recovery reported (a) GDP Growth Rate (b) Insolvency Legislation in Position Neutral. No significant assistance in recovery. the Jurisdiction Systemic Factors in the Government/Semi Government by and large Impact of systemic / Legal favour recovery. Legal System also favours recovery. Govt. Machinery is neutral. Factors on Recovery (d) Time Period of Recovery Expected Recovery time >1 year upto 7 years

4 4

4.00 3.00

1 1 1 1

0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50

(V) Total Security CC B) RISK DRIVERS FOR EAD

Effective Coll Cover FALSE

EAD FALSE

Coll / EAD ratio FALSE

Max. Marks 70

Score 70.00 Company 's Score (e) = (dxb) #VALUE! Co's Score -5 Co's Score NA Co's Score NA Co's Score NA #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

Credit Quality of Borrower

Max marks under Borrower rating (a) 100

Weight (b) 0.1

Max marks under Credit Quality of Borrower (c) = (axb) 10

Company's Borrower Rating score (d) #VALUE!

Borrower Rating Parameter

Current Ratio 0.00

Max Negative Score (-5)

Value Statement <1.00

Borrower Rating Parameter

Debt / Equity ratio NA

Max Negative Score (-2)

Value Statement NA

Borrower Rating Parameter

Gross Avg DSCR NA

Max Negative Score (-2)

Value Statement NA

Borrower Rating Parameter Tenor of term loan TOTAL SCORE OUT OF TOTAL SCORE NORMALISED OUT OF 100 (ROUNDED OFF) FACILITY RATING Type of Guarantee NA Rating of Corporate Guarantor by External Agencies

Max Negative Score (-1)

Value Statement NA 100 100 FR NA

NA #VALUE!

FINAL FACILITY RATING FR a) If Country Risk is not applicable, the assessment would be as per the the table above b) If Country Risk is applicable, upper range of the score corresponding to Final Borrower Rating arrived at -

after Country Risk Assessment to be reckoned for scoring.

NON TRADING: REGULAR MODEL ABC LTD Financial Ratios : Financial ratios
Prev-to-Prev Yr

TOL/TNW Current Ratio ROCE Retained Profit/TA% PBDIT/Interest PAT/Net Sales(%) Net Cash Accrual/Total Debt(%) Net Sales in last 2 qtrs (Chronological order G.Avg.DSCR (Inventory/N.Sales)+ (Receivable/G.sales) in days Debt / Equity TNW

NA NA NA NA NA NA

Prev. Yr NA NA NA NA NA NA

31-Mar-11 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Average of last 3 years NA NA NA NA NA NA

Industry Ratio NA NA

NA NA Previous year NA NA

NA NA Current year NA NA NA

NA

NA

NA NA NA

NA

Future prospects (FP) / (Projected ratios) (A) Non-achievement of projected performance

Parameters Latest year (projected) Latest year (actual) -ve var. (%) Scoring pattern (0-5)%=0 (6-10)%=0.5 (11-20)%=1 (21-30)%=1.5 >30%=3 -ve Score

Current Ratio ROCE PBDIT/INT PAT/NS TOL/TNW

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(B) Projections for the next year

Future prospects (P) Positive Score (Q) Markes for -ve variance (R) Net Marks (Q-R) (S) Wtd score (SxT)

Parameters

Latest year (actual)

Next year (projected)

Scoring pattern $

Weight (T)

Current Ratio NA NA At Par 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 "Better"=2 ROCE NA NA At Par 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 "At par"=1 PBDIT/INT NA NA At Par 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 PAT/NS NA NA At Par 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 "Worse"=0 TOL/TNW NA NA Better 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 Total Score 0.00 12.00 Note: $ The Methodology for scoring under "Better", "At par", or "Worse" scenarios would be the same as indicated for scoring under respective ratios under Financial Risks For a new Company/firm which is yet to complete a year of commercial production/ operation, as well as in Take-over cases, there would be no scoring on Future Prospects parameter as a whole and the score would be normalized Effective Collateral distribution (ECD): EFC EM Total Coll #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 100% 30% ECD 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

S-R #DIV/0! 20% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

FA #DIV/0! 15% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

O-CA #DIV/0! 8% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

R #DIV/0! 20% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Total #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! FINANCIAL RISK PARAMETERS [i] TOL / TNW [Max. weighted scored : 30] [a] Latest Ratio
Ratio Band Marks Weight

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

page: 1 Working Sheet

TABLE - I
Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] <=0.50 <=1.00 <=1.50 <=2.50 <=3.00 >3.00

[b] 6 5 4 3 2 0

[c] 3

[d] 0.00

[e] 6

[f] 18.00

[b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' TOL/TNW

Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average

TABLE-II
Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

[d] [e] [f] [g] 2 3 2 6.00 [b]=[a] or {[a]+[0.25]} 1 [b]>{[a]+[0.25]} 0 Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 3.00 would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1.
[b] < [a]

[a] NA

[b] 0.00

[c]

[c] Industry Comparison [TOL / TNW]

Co.'s latest ratio from Table-I Company's latest ratio as compared to industry average.

TABLE-III
Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

Industry Ratio

Marks

Weight

Industry Ratio 0.00 [d] 2 1 0 TABLE - IV Weighted Score 18.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 [e] 3

[a] 0.00

[b] 0.00

[c]
[b] < [a]
[b]=[a] or {[a]+[0.25]}

[f] NA

[g]
Normalised

[b]>{[a]+[0.25]}

[d] Summary of Total Score "TOL / TNW" Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Industry Comparison from Table III Company's Total Weighted Score [ii] CURRENT RATIO [Max. weighted scored : 15] [a] Latest Ratio TABLE - I
Ratio Band Marks Weight Company's Ratio

Company's Score from [b]

Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] >=1.50 >=1.33 >=1.20 >=1.10

[b] 6 5 4 3

[c] 1.5

[d] 0.00

[e] 0

[f] 0.00

>=1.00 2 < 1.00 0 [b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' - CURRENT RATIO
Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average

page: 2 TABLE-II
Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

Industry Ratio 0.00

[d] [e] [f] [g] 2 1.5 NA Normalised [b]=[a] or {[a]-[0.05]} 1 [b]<{[a]-[0.05]} 0 Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 1.10 would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1.
[b] > [a]

[a] NA

[b] 0.00

[c]

[c] Industry Comparison [CURRENT RATIO]

Industry Ratio Co.'s latest ratio from Table-I Company's latest ratio as compared to industry

TABLE-III
Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

Marks

Weight

[a] 0.00

[b] 0.00

[c]

[b] > [a]

[b]=[a] or {[a]-[0.03]}

[b]<{[a]-[0.03]}

[d] 2 1 0 TABLE - IV Weighted Score

[e] 1.5

[f] NA

[g]

Normalised

[d] Summary of Total Score "CURRENT RATIO" Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Industry Comparison from Table III Company's Total Weighted Score

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[iii] Return on Capital Employed [ROCE] (%) [PBDIT/Total Assets] [Max.Weighted Score-20] [a] Latest Ratio
Ratio Band [%] Marks Weight

TABLE - I
Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score =

[a] >=20.00 >=15.00 >=10.00 >= 5.00 >= 3.00 >= 2.00 <2.00

[b] 8 6 5 4 3 2 0

[c] 2

[d] 0.00

[e] 0

[f] 0.00

[b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' - ROCE

Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average

TABLE-II
Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

[a] NA

[b] 0.00

[c]
[b] > [a]
[b]=[a] or {[a]-[1%]}

[b]<{[a]-[1%]}

[d] 2 1 0

[e] 2

[f] NA

[g]
#VALUE!

Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 3.00 would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1. page: 3 [c] Summary of Total Score under ROCE Ratio TABLE - III Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Company's Total Weighted Score Weighted Score 0.00 0.00 0.00

[iv] Retained Profit / Total Assets (%) [Max.Weighted Score-10] [a] Latest Ratio
Ratio Band [%] Marks Weight

TABLE - I
Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] >=7.50 >=5.00 >=3.00 >=2.00 >=1.00 < 1.00

[b] 8 6 4 2 1 0

[c] 1

[d] 0.00

[e] 0

[f] 0.00

[b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' - Retained Profit / Total Assets Ratio
Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average

TABLE-II

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

[d] [e] [f] [g] 2 1 NA Normalised [b]=[a] or {[a]-[0.25%]} 1 [b]<{[a]-[0.25%]} 0 Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 2.00% would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1.
[b] > [a]

[a] NA

[b] 0.00

[c]

[c] Summary of Total Score under Retained Profit / Total Assets Ratio Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Company's Total Weighted Score Weighted Score 0.00 0.00 0.00

TABLE - III

[v] PBDIT / INTT. [Max.Weighted Score-20] [a] Latest Ratio

Ratio Band Marks Weight

TABLE - I
Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] >=8.00

[b] 8

[c] 2

[d] 0.00

[e] 0

[f] 0.00

>=5.00 6 >=3.00 4 >=2.00 3 >=1.00 2 < 1.00 0 [b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' - PBDIT / INTT.
Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

page: 4 TABLE-II

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

[d] [e] [f] [g] 2 2 NA Normalised [b]=[a] or {[a]-[0.25%]} 1 [b]<{[a]-[0.25%]} 0 Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 2.00 would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1.
[b] > [a]

[a] NA

[b] 0.00

[c]

[c] Summary of Total Score under PBDIT / INTT. Ratio Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Company's Total Weighted Score

TABLE - III

Weighted Score 0.00 0.00 0.00

[vi] PAT / Net Sales [%] [Max.Weighted Score-20] [a] Latest Ratio
Ratio Band [%] Marks Weight

TABLE - I
Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] >=8.00 >=6.00 >=4.00 >=3.00 >=2.00 < 2.00

[b] 8 6 4 3 2 0

[c] 2

[d] 0.00

[e] 0

[f] 0.00

[b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' - PAT / Net Sales.

Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

TABLE-II

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

[d] [e] [f] [g] 2 2 NA Normalised [b]=[a] or {[a]-[0.25%]} 1 [b]<{[a]-[0.25%]} 0 Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 3.00% would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1.
[b] > [a]

[a] NA

[b] 0.00

[c]

[c] Summary of Total Score under the ratio PAT / Net Sales.

TABLE - III

Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Company's Total Weighted Score

Weighted Score 0.00 0.00 0.00 page: 5

[vii] Net Cash Accruals / Total Debt [%] [Total Weighted Score-15]
[NCA = PAT-Dividend+Depreciation] / [Total Debt = Total Outside Liabilities]

[a] Latest Ratio

Ratio Band [%] Marks Weight

TABLE - I
Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] >=20% >=18% >=15% >=10% >=8% >= 7% >=5% >= 4% < 4%

[b] 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

[c] 1.5

[d] 0.00

[e] 0

[f] 0.00

[b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' - Net Cash Accruals / Total Debt.
Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

TABLE-II

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

[d] [e] [f] [g] 2 1.5 NA Normalised [b]=[a] or {[a]-[0.25%]} 1 [b]<{[a]-[0.25%]} 0 Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 5.00% would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1.
[b] > [a]

[a] NA

[b] 0.00

[c]

[c] Summary of Total Score under the ratio Net Cash Accruals / Total Debt. TABLE - III Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Company's Total Weighted Score Weighted Score 0.00 0.00 0.00

[viii] Average Year to Year Growth in Net Sales in Last Two Quarters [%] [a] Latest Ratio
Ratio Band [%] Marks Weight Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] >=15.00% >=7.50% >=3.00% >=2.00% >=0.00% >=(-5.00%) >=(-10%) <(-10%)

[b] 10 8 6 4 2 -2 -4 -6

[c] 1

[d] NA

[e] NA

[f] Normalised

Average year to year growth in Net Sales in Last Two Quarters [%] Previous year Current year Net sales in Mar Qtr 0.00 -0.00 -last 2 qtrs June Qtr -0.00 -0.00 Average Growth NA

Growth% #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Company's Score

Normalised

page: 6

(ix)Financial Flexibility(Success record in % terms vis--vis the target set for raising funds/mobilising resources
Ratio Band [%] Marks Weight [a] Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [a]x[b]

Excellent >=90% Very Good >=70% Good >=50%

10.00 7.00

0.50

Excellent (Success record) >=90%

10

5.00

4.00 Satisfactory =>40% 2.00 Unsatisfactor y <40% 0.00 Financial Flexibility: a) Ability to raise Funds through internal sources b) Ability to raise resources through external sources viz.Relationship with Bankers,Liquidity back-ups c) Records in raising funds from Capital Market d) Flexibility to defer its capital expenditure in case of weakening financial position [x] Case I : Gross Average DSCR for All Loans [for a borrower enjoying TL facility only] [Maximum Weighted Score : 20]
Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

Ratio Band

Marks

Weight

Company's Ratio

Company's Score from [b]

[a] >=2.00 >=1.98 >=1.95 >=1.92 >=1.90 >=1.88 >=1.85 >=1.80 >=1.78 >=1.75 <1.75

[b] 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

[c] 2.00

[d] NA

[e] NA

[f] NA

[xi] Case II : (Inventory / Net Sales + Receivables / Gross Sales) x 365 (Days') [for a borrower enjoying WC facility only] [Maximum Weighted Score : 20] TABLE - I [a] Latest Ratio
Ratio Band [%] Marks Weight Company's Ratio Company's Score from [b] Company's Weighted Score = [c]x[e]

[a] <= 90 <=120 <=150 <=180 <=210 <=240 >240

[b] 8 6 4 3 2 1 0

[c] 2

[d] NA

[e] NA

[f] NA

page: 7

[b] Moving Average of Company's Last 3 Years' - Ratio - (Inv./NS+Rec./GS) x 365 [Days']
Company's latest ratio as compared to its 3 years' average Company's Company's Score from Weighted [d] Score = [e]x[f]

TABLE-II

Last 3 Years' average

Company's latest ratio from Table-I

Marks

Weight

[d] [e] [f] [g] 2 2 NA NA [b]=[a] or {[a] +[15]} 1 [b]>{[a] +[15]} 0 Note: i) If the Company/firm obtains maximum score in Table-I, the score in Table-II will be 2 ii)Improvements in the ratio only below the benchmark level of 210 days would qualify for getting a score of 2, otherwise it would be treated at par and get a score of 1.
[b] < [a]

[a] NA

[b] NA

[c]

[c] Summary of Total Score under Case = II - (Inv. / NS + Rec. / GS) x 365 [days'] Particulars Companys Score from Table I Companys Score from Table II Company's Total Weighted Score Weighted Score NA 0.00 NA

TABLE - III

CASE - III : For a Company having both WC & TL Facilities. [i] Scoring done for TL as under Case-I [ii] Scoring done for WC as under Case II Final Score (for both WC & TL- (case-I + case-II)/2)

Score : Score :

NA NA #VALUE! page: 8

Annexure Name of the unit: ABC LTD Risk Score / Rating Transition Matrix Prev-to-Prev Yr Prev. Yr Aggregate CRA Rating Aggregate CRA Rating Risk Score Risk Score

31-Mar-11 Aggregate CRA Risk Score Rating #VALUE! SB #VALUE! Comparison of latest Financial Risk(FR) Score of last 3 years Prev-to-Prev Yr Prev. Yr 31-Mar-11 FR score: FR score: FR score: #VALUE! Out of Out of Out of 65 Comments: