You are on page 1of 14

INTRODUCTION

Credit Risk Grading is an important tool for credit risk management as it helps a Bank to understand
various dimensions of risk involved in different credit transactions. The credit risk grading system is vital
to take decisions both at the pre-sanction stage as well as post-sanction stage.
At the pre-sanction stage, credit grading helps the sanctioning authority to decide whether to lend or not
to lend, what should be the pricing for a particular exposure, what the extent should be of Exposure, what
should be the appropriate credit facility and the various risk mitigation tools. At the post-sanction stage,
the bank can decide about the depth of the review or renewal, frequency of review, periodicity of the
grading, and other precautions to be taken. Having considered the significance and necessity of credit risk
grading for a Bank, it becomes imperative to develop a credit risk grading model which meets the
objective outlined above.

DEFINITION OF CREDIT RISK GRADING (CRG)


The Credit Risk Grading (CRG) is a collective definition based on the pre-specified scale and reflects
the underlying credit-risk for a given exposure.
A Credit Risk Grading deploys a number/ alphabet/ symbol as a primary summary indicator of risks
associated with a credit exposure.
Credit Risk Grading is the basic module for developing a Credit Risk Management system.

FUNCTIONS OF CREDIT RISK GRADING


Well-managed credit risk grading systems promote bank safety and soundness by facilitating informed
decision-making. Grading systems measure credit risk and differentiate individual credits and groups of
credits by the risk they pose. This allows bank management and examiners to monitor changes and trends
in risk levels. The process also allows bank management to manage risk to optimize returns.

USE OF CREDIT RISK GRADING


The Credit Risk Grading matrix allows application of uniform standards to credits to ensure a
common standardized approach to assess the quality of an individual obligor and the credit
portfolio as a whole.
As evident, the CRG outputs would be relevant for credit selection, wherein either a borrower or
a particular exposure/facility is rated. The other decisions would be related to pricing (credit
spread) and specific features of the credit facility.

Risk grading would also be relevant for surveillance and monitoring, internal MIS and assessing
the aggregate risk profile. It is also relevant for portfolio level analysis.

NUMBER AND SHORT NAME OF GRADES USED IN THE CRG


The proposed CRG scale for the banks consists of 8 categories with Short names and numbers
are provided as follows:
Grading

Short Name

Number

Superior

SUP

Good

GD

Acceptable

ACCPT

Marginal/watch list

MG/WL

Special Mention

SM

Substandard

SS

Doubtful

DF

Bad Loss

BL

CREDIT RISK GRADING DEFINITION CRITERIA


1. Strength of the bank.
2. Condition of the bank.
3. Condition of franchise value.
4. Condition of operating environment.
5. Capability for timely repayment for any commitment.
6. Possibility of being adversely affected by seen or unseen events.
7. Credit facilities fully secured/partly secured/unsecured.
8. Credit facilities fully covered by government guarantee.
9. Credit facilities fully covered by top tier international/local bank

CREDIT RISK GRADING DEFINITIONS


A clear definition of the different categories of Credit Risk Grading is given as follows:
Risk Rating
Definition
Grade
Superior Low Risk

Good Satisfactory Risk

Facilities are fully secured by cash deposits


Government bonds or a counter guarantee from a top
tier international bank.
All security documentation should be in place.
The repayment capacity of the borrower is strong.
The borrower should have excellent liquidity and low
leverage.
The company should demonstrate consistently strong
earnings and cash flow.
All security documentation should be in place.
Aggregate Score of 95 or greater based on the Risk
Grade Scorecard.

Acceptable Fair Risk

Marginal Watch list

Special Mention

Substandard

Doubtful
(non-performing)

Bad & Loss


(non-performing)

Adequate financial condition though may not be able


to sustain any major or continued setbacks.
These borrowers are not as strong as Grade 2
borrowers, but should still demonstrate consistent
earnings, cash flow and have a good track record
An Aggregate Score of 75-94 based on the Risk Grade
Scorecard.
Grade 4 assets warrant greater attention due to
conditions affecting the borrower, the industry or the
economic environment.
These borrowers have an above average risk due to
strained liquidity, higher than normal leverage, thin
cash flow and/or inconsistent earnings.
Aggregate Score of 65-74 based on the Risk Grade
Scorecard.
Grade 5 assets have potential weaknesses that deserve
managements close attention.
If left uncorrected, these weaknesses may result in a
deterioration of the repayment prospects of the
borrower
An Aggregate Score of 55-64 based on the Risk Grade
Scorecard.
Financial condition is weak and capacity or inclination
to repay is in doubt
Loans should be downgraded to 6 if loan payments
remain past due for 60-90 days
Not yet considered non-performing as the correction of
the deficiencies may result in an improved condition,
and interest can still be taken into profits.
An Aggregate Score of 45-54 based on the Risk Grade
Scorecard.
Full repayment of principal and interest is unlikely and
the possibility of loss is extremely high.
However, due to specifically identifiable pending
factors, such as litigation, liquidation procedures or
capital injection, the asset is not yet classified as Loss.
The adequacy of provisions must be reviewed at least
quarterly on all non-performing loans, and the bank
should pursue legal options to enforce security to
obtain repayment or negotiate an appropriate loan
rescheduling.
In all cases, the requirements of Bangladesh Bank in
CIB reporting, loan rescheduling and provisioning
must be followed.
An Aggregate Score of 35-44 based on the Risk
Grade Scorecard
Assets graded 8 are long outstanding with no progress
in obtaining repayment (in excess of 180 days past
due) or in the late stages of wind up/liquidation.

The prospect of recovery is poor and legal options


have been pursued.
The proceeds expected from the liquidation or
realization of security may be awaited. The
continuance of the loan as a bankable asset is not
warranted
An Aggregate Score of 35 or less based on the Risk
Grade Scorecard

HOW TO COMPUTE CREDIT RISK GRADING OF A BANK


Step I: Identify all the Principal Risk Components (Quantitative & Qualitative)
Credit risk for counterparty may be broadly categories under Quantitative and Qualitative factors
which arise from an aggregation of the following:

QUANTITATIVE FACTOR:
Capital Adequacy
Asset Quality
Earnings Quality
Liquidity and Capacity of External Fund Mobilization
Size of the Bank & Market Presence

QUALITATIVE FACTOR:
Management status
Regulatory Environment & Compliance
Risk Management
Sensitivity to Market Risk
Ownership (Share holding pattern) & Corporate Governance
Accounting Quality
Franchise Value
Step II: Allocate weightages to Principal Risk Components
According to the importance of risk profile, the following weights are proposed for corresponding
principal risks components (Quantitative and Qualitative factors).
Principal Risk Components:
Weights
QUANTITATIVE FACTOR:
60%
Capital Adequacy
15%
Asset Quality
15%
Earnings Quality
15%
Liquidity and Capacity of External Fund Mobilization
10%
Size of the Bank & Market Presence
5%
QUALITATIVE FACTOR:
40%
Management
10%
Regulatory Environment & Compliance
10%
Risk Management
5%

Sensitivity to Market Risk


5%
Ownership (Share holding pattern) & Corporate Governance
5%
Accounting Quality
3%
Franchise Value
2%
Step III: Establish the Key Parameters
Once weightages are allocated to the Principal Risk Components (Quantitative and Qualitative Factors)
the next task is to arrive at key parameters corresponding to the Principal Risk Components.
Key Parameters for Capital Adequacy
Banks plan to raise equity to support its growth (Internal Capital Generation)
Minimum Capital Adequacy Requirement (CAR) set by Bangladesh Bank
Leverage ratio of the bank is satisfactory
Dividend policy of the Bank
Key Parameters for Asset Quality
Risk Management includes exhaustive pre-approval and post approval activities
Portfolio Management System
Level of nonperforming loans
Sector from where the gross NPL are coming from
Nature of security/collateral and the frequency of valuation
Key Parameters for Earnings Quality
Level of earnings
Diversity of earnings
Return on Assets (ROA)
Return on Equity (ROE)
Average cost of fund,
Net Interest Income Margin (NIIM) trend is satisfactory
Key Parameters for Liquidity and Capacity of External Fund Mobilization
Statutory Liquidity Reserve, Cash Reserve Requirement and Loan Deposit Ratio compliance
Asset liability maturity structure
Core asset funded by core liabilities
Impact on interest rate volatility on deposit and its trend
Ability to raise fund through stable sources in cost effective manner
Key Parameters for Size of the Bank & Market Presence:
Number of branch network and employees
Level of automation
Products and services offered are regularly reviewed
Key Parameters for Management:
Quality of Management (details of Senior Management, background of MD and other top
executives)
Experience and educational background of the senior, mid level and junior management
Management Philosophy (Vision & Mission)
Human resource development plans
Quality of training being offered

Staff turnover
Emphasis to Information Technology and staff knowledge in this area
Key Parameters for Regulatory Environment & Compliance:
Policy on loan classification and provisioning
Policy on large loans
Disclosure requirement for banks
Delegation of power at operating level
Internal Control and Compliance mechanism
Status on Basel II compliance
Key Parameters for Risk Management:
Implementation of risk management in the areas of Credit Risk,
Implementation of risk management in the areas of Operational Risk
Implementation of risk management in the areas of and Market Risk
Key Parameters for Sensitivity to Market Risk
Degree to which changes in interest rates can adversely affect companys earnings
Degree to which changes in foreign exchange rates can adversely affect companys earnings
Degree to which changes in commodity prices can adversely affect companys business
Key Parameters for Ownership (Share holding Pattern) & Corporate Governance:
Ownership pattern & composition of Board (current shareholding with names of promoters)
Conflict of interest issues in the operational management
Personal policy and employee satisfaction
Application of information technology in the system
Key Parameters for Accounting Quality:
Policies for income recognition
Provisioning and valuation of investment are examined
Quality of Auditors
Key Parameters for Franchise Value:
Joint venture partner or Strategic Alliance
Management contract or Technical collaboration
Alliance/arrangement with World Bank/ADB/IFC/SEDF or awards/certification/recognition
Step IV: Assign weightages to each of the key parameters
Once the above mentioned key risk parameters are evaluated, analyzed and reviewed properly the next
step will be to further assign weightages against each key parameter depending on its strength and
merits.
Step V: Input data to arrive at the score on the key parameters
After the risk identification & weightages assignment process (as mentioned above), the next steps
will be to input actual score obtained by the Bank (under review process) against the key parameters in
the score sheet to arrive at the total scores obtained.
Step VI: Arrive at the Credit Risk Grading based on total score obtained
The following is the proposed Credit Risk Grade matrix based on the total score obtained by an
obligor (i.e. a Bank).

Risk Grading

Short Name

Superior

SUP

Score
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Good
Acceptable
Marginal/watch list
Special Mention
Substandard
Doubtful
Bad & Loss

GD
ACCPT
MG/WL
SM
SS
DF
BL

Grade

85 100
Credit facilities fully cash
covered (100%) or near cash.
Government guarantee
International Bank guarantee
75 84
65 74
55 64
45 54
35 44
25 34
< 25

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Credit Risk Grading: A Practical Example on Janata Bank Limited


Qualitative Factor

KEY PARAMETERS

Points

1.Capital Adequacy
Banks plan to raise equity to
support its growth is acceptable
(Internal Capital Generation)

15.00
4.00

Bank has maintained the


Minimum CAR set by BB
5.00

Leverage Ratio of the Bank is


acceptable
4.00

Is the dividend policy of the Bank


satisfactory keeping in line with
capital adequacy requirement
2. ASSET QUALITY: 15 Points
CRM includes exhaustive preapproval and post -approval
process
Portfolio Management System

2.00

15.00
2.00

2.00

Parameter

Excellent
Strong
Good
Moderate
3% or more above RR
1% to 2% above RR
Required minimum ratio
1% to 2% below RR
More than 2% below RR
9 % or More
7 % to less than 9%
5% to less than 7%
2% to less than 5%
Less than 2%
Satisfactory
Acceptable
Unsatisfactory
Always
Sometimes
Never
Satisfactory
Moderate

Actual

4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
2
1.5
1
2
1
0
2
1

Score
Obtained
11.50
3

Strong

1.85 %

Fair

Acceptable

1.5

Always

10.00
2

Satisfactory

3.00
Is level of non -performing loans
acceptable
Sector wise gross NPL

1.00

Sector from where the gross NPL


are coming from are periodically
reviewed
Are classified loans being
followed regularly with clear
action plan for recovery?
Have Credit Risk Grading of
clients are in place and effective?

1.00

Portfolio Diversities are being


ensured by the management

1.00

Nature of security/collateral are


clearly analyzed and the
frequency of valuation seems
justified
Quality of non-industrial
lending are analyzed properly
and exposures are satisfactory
3. EARNINGS QUALITY: 15
Points
Bank is maintaining satisfactory
growth in level of earnings
Diversity of earnings is regularly
pursued
Growth in Return on Assets
(ROA)

1.00

Growth in Return on Equity


(ROE)

2.00

Interest Rate Management,


Interest rate policy are impacting
margin and profitability
Non funded business prospects
and its contribution towards
earnings are regularly reviewed
for income growth
Average cost of fund is well
under bank's established

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

Unsatisfactory
Less than 3%
3% to5%
5% to 10%
10% to 15%
More than 15%
Satisfactory
Moderate
Unsatisfactory
Regularly
Sometimes
Hardly
Yes
No

0
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
1
.5
0
1
.5
0
2
0

Always
Sometimes
Hardly
Regularly
Irregularly
Not at all
Justified
Poor
Unjustified

1
.5
0
1
.5
0
1
.5
0

Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory

1
.5

5% to 10%

Moderate

.5

Regularly

Regularly

Sometimes

.50

Irregularly

.5

1
Poor

Unsatisfact
ory

15.00
2.00
1.00
2.00

1.00

1.00

.5

12.00
Yes
No
Yes
No
Satisfactory
Moderate
Lower
Satisfactory
Moderate
Lower
Highly
Moderate
Low
Yes
No

2
1
1
.5
2
1.5
1
2
1.5
1
2
1.5
1
1
.5

Yes

N0

.5

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

1.5

Moderate

1.5

Yes

Regularly
Sometimes

1
.5

Regularly

parameter and are being


monitored
Average lending rates are well
under bank's established
parameter and are being
monitored
Net Interest Income Margin
(NIIM) trend is satisfactory
Yield per taka staff cost is well
under bank's control
4. LIQUIDITY AND
CAPACITY OF EXTERNAL
FUND MOBILIZATION: 10
Points
Bank is complying to SLR
(Statutory Liquidity Reserve),
CRR (Cash Reserve Requirement)
and Loan Deposit Ratio
Asset liability maturity structure
is in place and is reviewed in
ALCO meeting.
Bank liquidity ratio is satisfactory

Hardly

.25

1.00

Regularly
Sometimes
Hardly

1
.5
.25

Regularly

1.00

Yes
No
Strong
Weak

1
.5
1
.5

Yes

Weak

.5

1.00
10.00

2.00

Satisfactory
Moderate
Hardly

2
1.5
1

Satisfactory

2.00

Yes
No

2
1

Yes

2.00

Yes
No
Yes
No

2.00
1.00
1.00
.50

Satisfactory

No

.50

1.00

Regularly
Irregularly

1.00
.50

Irregularly

.50

1.00

Capable
Failure
Yes
No

1.00
.50
Yes

Capable

1.00

Core asset funded by core


liabilities are been identified and
proper matching is ensured
Bank regularly reviews the impact
on interest rate volatility on
deposit and its trend
Bank has the ability to raise fund
through stable sources
Bank has the credibility of
funding sources in distress
situation
5. SIZE OF THE BANK &
MARKET PRESENCE: 5
Points
Number of branch network and
employees

1.00

Level of automation

2.00

Products and services offered

9.00

1.00

5.00

2.00

1.00

TOTAL QUANTITATIVE FACTOR

4.50

Large
Medium
Small
High
Medium
Low
Regularly
Irregularly

2.00
1.50
1.00
2.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.50

Large

2.00

1.50
Medium
Regularly

1.00

60.00

46.50

QUALITATIVE FACTOR

6. MANAGEMENT : 10 POINTS

10.00

Bank is viewed as a human resource based


institutions
Quality of Management (details of Senior
Management, background of MD and other
top executives) is satisfactory
Experience and educational background of
the senior, mid level and junior management
is acceptable
Management Philosophy is crystallized
through a well laid down Vision and
Mission
Bank's human resource development plans
are properly documented and being properly
implemented
Quality of training being offered by the bank
is acceptable
Management operating efficiency are being
calculated on the basis of earning and are
properly recognized
More emphasis are placed on system &
process based banking
Staff turnover rate is acceptable

1.00

Management places emphasis on IT and


continuous enrichment of staff knowledge in
this area
7. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT &
COMPLIANCE : 10 Points
Policy on loan classification and provisioning
are in line with Bangladesh Bank
guidelines/circulars
Policy on large loans are properly monitored
and followed per Bangladesh Bank
requirements
Loan against Shares, Debentures etc. are
properly approved and monitored as per
Bangladesh Bank guidelines
Disclosure requirement for banks are handled
properly
Delegation of power at operating level are
well defined and properly allocated
Instructions for compliance of provisions of
Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2002 are
properly handled at required level

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00
1.00

1.00
1.00

7.00
Yes
No
Satisfactory
Moderate
Unsatisfactory
Sufficient
Moderate
Good
Yes
No

1
.5
1
.5
.25
1
.5
.25
1
.5

No

.5

Satisfactory

1.00

Moderate

.5

No

.5

Always
Regular
Sometimes
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Yes
No

1
.5
.25
1
.5
1
.5

Regular

.5

Unsatisfactory

.5

Yes

1.00

Yes
No
Yes
No
Very Good
Fair
Poor

1
.5
1
.5
1
.5
.25

No

.5

Yes

Fair

.5

10.00
2.00

7.50
Highly
Moderate
Low
Yes
No

2.00
1.50
1.00
1.00
00

Moderate

1.5

Yes

.50

0.50

Yes
No

.50
00

Yes

.50

1.00

Yes
No
Sufficient
Negligible
Satisfactory
Moderate
Unsatisfactory

1.00
.50
1.00
.50
2
1.5
1

Yes

1.00

Sufficient

.50

Moderate

1.5

1.00

1.00
2.00

Company has been operating satisfactorily in


complying to the regulations of BSEC and
related bodies
Internal Control & Compliance mechanism
as per Bangladesh Bank guidelines are fully
implemented and is operative in all respect
Bank's effort in moving towards achieving
the way for Basel II compliance is
satisfactory
8. RISK MANAGEMENT: 5 Points
Is Credit Policy & Process Manual fully
implemented

1.00

Implementation of risk management in the


areas of Operational Risk Management

2.00

Implementation of risk management in the


areas of Market Risk Management

1.00

9. SENSITIVITY TO MARKET RISK: 5


Points
Changes in interest rates substantially affect
companys earnings
Changes in foreign exchange rate materially
affect companys earnings
Changes in commodity prices may affect
bank's business
10. OWNERSHIP & CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE
Ownership pattern & composition of Board

5.00

Conflict of interest issues in the operational


management are fully analyzed
Personal policy and employee satisfaction

1.00

Application of information technology in the


system

1.00

11. ACCOUNTING QUALITY: 3.00


Points

3.00

Policies for income recognition is


documented and properly accounted
Provisioning and valuation of investment are
properly examined
Bank's Books of Accounts are being audited
by quality Audit Firm
12. FRANCHISE VALUE: 2 Points
Joint Venture Partner/Strategic alliance
(foreign or local partners adding to the
synergy)

1.00

1.00

0.50

5.00
2.00

2.00
2.00
1.00

Excellent
Moderate
Low
Fully
Partially
Poorly
Satisfactory
Negligible

1.00
.50
00
1.00
.50
00
.50
00

Moderate

.50

Fully

1.00

Satisfactory

.50

Highly
Moderately
Partially
Completely
Moderately
Partially
Completely
Moderately
Partially

2
1.5
1
2
1.5
1
1
.5
.25

High

3.50
1.5

Moderately

1.5

Moderately

.5

3.50
Highly
Moderate
Highly
Moderate
Heavily
Lower

2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
.50

High

Moderate

Lower

.5

5.00
2.00

1.00

1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00

3.50
Joint
Single
Always
Sometimes
Satisfied
Unsatisfied
Strong
Weak

2
1
1
.5
1
.5
1
.5

Joint

Sometimes

.5

unsatisfied

.5

Weak

.5

2.50
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Joined
Single

1.00
0.50
1.00
.50
1.00
.50
1.00
.50

Yes

No

.5

Yes

Joined

2.00
1.00

Management Contract/Technical
collaboration (foreign or local partners
adding to the synergy)
Alliance/arrangement with World
Bank/ADB/IFC/SEDF or any
awards/certification or any other recognition
granted to the Bank
TOTAL QULIITATIVE FACTOR

0.50

Joined
Single

Join
ed

.50
.25

.50

0.50

Joined
Single

Join
ed

.50
.25

.50

GRAND TOTAL

40.00
100.00

CREDIT RISK GRADING

29.50
76.00
GOOD (GD)-2

Interpretation of the Findings: GOOD (GD)-2


Strong Bank
Very good Financials
Healthy and productive franchises
Excellent operating environment
Strong capability for timely payment of financial commitments
Very low probability to be adversely affected by foreseeable events
Excellent liquidity and low leverage.
Well established cliental base and strong market share.
Very good management skill & expertise.
Credit facilities fully covered by the guarantee of a top tier local Bank.
Aggregate Score of 75-84 based on the Risk Grade Score Sheet
EXCEPTIONS TO CREDIT RISK GRADING
Head of Credit Risk Management may also downgrade/classify an account in the normal
course of inspection of a Branch or during the periodic portfolio review. In such event, the
Credit Risk Grading Form will then be filled up by Credit Risk Management Department and
will be referred to Corporate Banking/Line of Business/Credit Administration
Department/Recovery Unit for updating their MIS/records.
Recommendation for upgrading of an account has to be well justified by the recommending
officers. Essentially complete removal of the reasons for downgrade should be the basis of any
upgrading.
In case an account is rated marginal, special mention or unacceptable credit risk as per the risk
grading score sheet, this may be substantiated and credit risk may be accepted if the exposure
is additionally collateralized through cash collateral, good tangible collaterals and strong
guarantees. These are exceptions and should be exceptionally approved by the appropriate
approving authority.
Whenever required an independent assessment of the credit risk grading of an individual
account may be conducted by the Head of Credit Risk Management or by the Internal Auditor
documenting as to why the credit deteriorated and also pointing out the lapses.

If a Bank has its own well established risk grading system equivalent to the proposed credit
risk grading or stricter, then they will have the option to continue with their own risk grading
system.

Limitations of CRG
Credit Risk Grading is a good cushion for the banks. Hence it has some limitation. The most common
limitations are given below:
The weightage given are not proportionate equally.
The weights are fixed always rather than flexible.
Various categories of bank exist in the industry but the weightage are not of various
categories.
It is very complicated to identify the principle risk components.
Problems are found in case of setting key parameters.
It is very easier said than done to find consistency in the theory and practice.
No formal revision of the manual is made since its inaugural.
Its a very lengthy process to calculate the aggregate score
Complexity is observed in interpreting score obtained through the process.

Conclusion
An appropriate, precise and flexible Credit Risk Grading system is mandatory for creating and
adopting a risk management culture in the organization for developing a sustainable credit risk
management environment in the banking sector of Bangladesh. Credit risk generates not only from
counter party but also from improper policies, procedures and systems within the organization. This
paper focuses on the weakness of the existing risk evaluation system that entails assessing risk through
counter party or single obligor wise risk analysis. The new proposed Credit Risk Grading and
Evaluation system describes a new lending system that specifically addresses the flaws, thus helping
all parties to the process. Based on the proposed evaluation system, it is expected that the credit risk
analysis policies should: always follow the detailed and formalized credit evaluation or appraisal
process, provide risk identification, measurement, monitoring and control, define target markets, risk
acceptance criteria, credit approval authority, credit maintenance procedures and guidelines for
portfolio management, be communicated to branches or controlling offices and clearly spell out roles
and responsibilities of units involved in origination and evaluation system of credit risk for any
industrial project.

References
I. Lehaj-Ul-Hasan, Principles, Policies and Guidelines for Sustainable Credit Risk
Management in Bangladesh, A thesis work submitted to the Department of Industrial and Production
Engineering, Bangladesh University of Science and Technology (BUET), December, 2007.
II. Commercial Bank Financial Management, In the Financial Services Industry, Sixth EditionJOSEPH F. Sinkey, JR.
III.CRG Guidelines of Bangladesh Bank (www.bangladesh-bank.org)
IV.www.fe-bd.com
V.www.investopedia.com
VI.www.wikipedia.com