外文翻譯---企業(yè)信用數(shù)據(jù)庫和擔保體系的開發(fā)

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯之二</b></p><p>　　THE DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATE CREDIT INFORMATION DATABASE AND CREDIT GUARANTEE SYSTEM </p><p>　　FINAL DRAFT REPORT </p><p>　　作者： Dr. Sha

2、rifah Mariam Alhabshi，</p><p>　　Mr. Abdullah Azmi Abd. Khalid</p><p>　　Prof. Dr. Barjoyai Bardai </p><p>　　國籍： Malaysia</p><p>　　出處：University of Malaya

3、</p><p><b>　　原文正文：</b></p><p>　　1、conclusion</p><p>　　Firstly, government efforts toward enhancing the capability and capacity of SMEs as the country growth engine has b

4、een 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 sch

5、emes and identifying implementing agencies that run the schemes have confused not only SMEs but also financial institutions. </p><p>　　Secondly, SME is dominated by micro enterprises. Demands and needs of mi

6、cro 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

7、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 know</p>

8、<p>　　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 l

9、ate 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 growt

10、h. SMEs have a key role to play in the wider development agenda, especi</p><p>　　2、CGC: Issues and Problems </p><p>　　1. Being a public credit guarantee institution, CGC has capitalized its mono

11、polistic 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

12、 guarantee market. This is unhealthy, particularly in terms of an effective check and balance. </p><p>　　2. The usual complaints from the participating banks is that the CGC is slow to process its guarantee

13、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. </p><p>

14、;　　3. CGC’s 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

15、of the sources of income for CGC. CGC states that this issue needs to be corrected and resolved immediately through a negotiated policy decision. </p><p>　　4. Many SMEs have voiced their grievances on the lo

16、ng 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

17、 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. </p><p>　　5. From the CGC’s perspective, th

18、is 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 a

19、nd based on its internal 5Cs criteria - Credit, Character, Capacity, Collateral and Condition. </p><p>　　6. Additionally, to improve the information flow in the application process, CGC suggests that this co

20、uld 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 tim

21、e since the SME Credit Bureau which is owned by CGC only started operations in 2008. </p><p>　　7. There have also been cases where the participating banks have approved the loans (non-DAGS) of some SMEs but

22、were finally rejected by the CGC. No concrete reasons were given for the rejections. </p><p>　　8. The public image of the CGC and its employees is not that good. This could be due to its complacency as a mon

23、opolistic 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

24、coverage, except television. </p><p>　　3、 Policy Discussion, Future Development of SMEs and Credit</p><p>　　Guarantee Cooperation </p><p>　　Broadly this study examines the current s

25、ituation 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 con

26、sider 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 gua

27、rantee system. </p><p>　　Accordingly, we have surveyed 652 SMEs and interviewed the Credit Guarantee Corporation (CGC), the SME Credit Bureau, selected commercial banks, development financial institutions an

28、d 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 re

29、garding the future development of the credit registry/ bureau and the credit guarantee system in M</p><p>　　In line with the ASEAN blueprint which encourages synergy between private and public sectors in enh

30、ancing 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

31、 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.</p><p>　　4、Possible Route

32、s of Developing the CGC in Malaysia in Meeting SMEs’ Financing Needs </p><p>　　It would be possible to have another credit guarantee provider to cater for the large number of SMEs which require financing. Th

33、is 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 prov

34、ide better products and services. The goal is to strive for greater effectiveness and efficiency in the critical areas of operations, delivery systems a</p><p>　　If that is not possible, then another way is

35、to eventually turn CGC into a fully independent private entity. A hint of this is already evident in CGC’s transformation plan. However, this would have some major policy implications, particularly regarding ownership an

36、d 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 intellectua

37、l challenge wou</p><p>　　Being a partner and supporter of the SMEs and an important link between the SMEs and financial institutions, GCG’s role and functions would definitely become more complex and multi-f

38、aceted. 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,

39、 it must not lose sight on the increasing significance of micro-financing of SMEs. In the context </p><p>　　Currently, the policies pertaining to the CGC’s functions and roles are well in place. But in the l

40、arger SME framework in Malaysia, the CGC is also classified as a Development Financial Institution (DFI). There is no clarity about CGC’s functions and responsibilities as a DFI. Can a public credit guarantee company at

41、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 </p><p>　　企業(yè)信用數(shù)據(jù)庫和擔保體系的開發(fā)&

42、lt;/p><p>　　作者：Sharifah Mariam Alhabshi博士</p><p>　　Abdullah Azmi Abd. Khalid先生</p><p>　　Barjoyai Bardai教授（博士）</p><p><b>　　國籍：馬來西亞</b></p><p><b

43、>　　出處：馬來亞大學</b></p><p><b>　　中文譯文：</b></p><p><b>　　一、總結(jié)</b></p><p>　　首先、政府在提高中小企業(yè)的能力作為國家經(jīng)濟增長的引擎方面的努力已經(jīng)變得十分明顯。持續(xù)多樣的援助已經(jīng)被引入各種水平的中小企業(yè)。廣泛的成功是顯著的，但并不是所有領(lǐng)域

44、都是這樣。首先，不只中小企業(yè)，金融機構(gòu)在理解各項計劃和確定實施這些計劃的政策的體制問題方面混淆不清。</p><p>　　其次，中小企業(yè)以微型企業(yè)為主。微型企業(yè)的需求可能不同于小企業(yè)，無疑更不同于中型企業(yè)。因此，盡管在提高中小企業(yè)方面付出了各種努力，但針對中小企業(yè)的投訴卻比比皆是。因為中小企業(yè)的需求沒有能被理解，所以其需求就不會被滿足。例如，以家庭手工業(yè)形式發(fā)起的微型企業(yè)很少有財務(wù)文件支持它們呢的財務(wù)運用，它們很

45、少或者幾乎不知道由政府或者金融機構(gòu)提供的各種金融計劃。</p><p>　　第三，在不斷變化的全球環(huán)境下，馬來西亞的中小型企業(yè)如雨后春筍般出現(xiàn)。政府也一直致力于發(fā)展和提高中小企業(yè)，但結(jié)果有好有壞，部分原因是政策制定者在區(qū)分微型企業(yè)、小型企業(yè)和中型企業(yè)的不同需求和特點方面滯后。發(fā)展中小企業(yè)的多樣化和全球競爭性是去的可持續(xù)經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的中心點。中小企業(yè)在更廣泛的發(fā)展議程，特別是在馬來西亞各民族人民之間消除貧困和公平發(fā)展方

46、面，扮演者重要角色。</p><p>　　二、信貸擔保公司：問題和困難</p><p>　　1、作為一個公共的信用擔保機構(gòu)，信貸擔保公司在中小企業(yè)金融市場上已經(jīng)具有壟斷地位。在股本和持續(xù)資金方面，國家銀行和金融機構(gòu)一直支持著它。由于沒有競爭，它能夠完全控制信貸擔保市場。這種狀態(tài)是不健康的，特別是在有效制衡方面。</p><p>　　2、通常，來自參與信貸擔保的銀行的

47、控訴主要是信貸擔保公司處理信貸擔保事件的速度太慢，并且就整體而言，其收取的擔保費過高。銀行和信貸擔保公司收取的處理費和利息支付已經(jīng)達到其上限。</p><p>　　3、信貸擔保公司對銀行的控訴的反應(yīng)是其收取的擔保費并不是一種負擔。并且考慮到事實，與銀行承擔的20%風險相比，信貸擔保公司覆蓋了80%的風險。擔保費是信貸擔保公司的收入來源之一。信貸擔保公司表明這個問題需要通過協(xié)商政策決定來糾正和解決。</p&g

48、t;<p>　　4、許多中小企業(yè)都對長期由信貸擔保公司決定擔保范圍的官僚體制很是不滿。并且已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了許多擔保公司錯放或者丟失已經(jīng)提交的文件的案例。在處理問題遲緩這個問題上，信貸擔保公司則表明這主要是因為申請人提交的文件不完整或提交信息和文件誤期等等。</p><p>　　5、從信用擔保公司的角度看，這種信息不對稱主要是由于中小企業(yè)在貸款文件過程中缺乏經(jīng)驗和理解不完全引起的。信貸擔保公司還強調(diào)中小企業(yè)

49、的商業(yè)計劃必須是可行的，并且是基于其內(nèi)部5C（信用、性格、能力、抵押品和條件）標準的。</p><p>　　6、此外，信貸擔保公司表示，可以通過擴大咨詢服務(wù)和手控服務(wù)的方法改善應(yīng)用過程中的信息交流。中小企業(yè)信貸局提供共的一站式服務(wù)將會成為有效利用的途徑之一。但由信貸擔保公司成立的中小企業(yè)管理局從2008年才開始運作，因此這需要很長一段時間才能實現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　7、此外，也有參與信

50、貸擔保的銀行已經(jīng)批準了一些中小企業(yè)的貸款（非DAGS）的情況下最終被擔保公司拒絕的案例。并且擔保公司并沒有給出拒絕擔保的具體理由。</p><p>　　8、信貸擔保公司及其員工的公眾形象并不好。這可能是由于其作為一個壟斷性的公共擔保提供商的自滿。它很少于公眾進行溝通。對于這種批評，信貸擔保公司表示它有一個打包良好的且正在進行的溝通方案，包括路演和媒體的報道，但除了電視。</p><p>　

51、　三、政策討論、中小企業(yè)和信貸擔保合作的未來發(fā)展。</p><p>　　本調(diào)研廣泛地調(diào)查了馬來西亞信貸登記機構(gòu)和信貸局的現(xiàn)狀和它們的未來發(fā)展前景；在充分調(diào)查制度框架的基礎(chǔ)上，為企業(yè)尤其是中小企業(yè)建立一個信貸信息數(shù)據(jù)庫；考慮一個合適的區(qū)域合作機制，以創(chuàng)造一個協(xié)調(diào)信息共享系統(tǒng)；回顧了信貸擔保系統(tǒng)的現(xiàn)狀并確定信用擔保體系發(fā)展面臨的挑戰(zhàn)。</p><p>　　因此，我們調(diào)查了652家中小企業(yè)并采訪

52、了信貸擔保公司、中小企業(yè)信貸局、被選擇的商業(yè)銀行、發(fā)展金融機構(gòu)和政府機構(gòu)。這些調(diào)查和采訪可能面臨各種限制，包括時間限制和金融約束。但是，政策建議我們提出關(guān)于信貸登記處（或信貸局）未來發(fā)展方面的考慮用以提高和加強馬來西亞中小企業(yè)的水平和實力。</p><p>　　符合東盟鼓勵私人和公共部門之間協(xié)同促進中小企業(yè)的發(fā)展，馬來西亞的商業(yè)銀行、DIFs和政府機構(gòu)嚴格協(xié)同、指導(dǎo)中小企業(yè)，并為其融資以促進中小企業(yè)發(fā)展。這份藍圖