DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Feasibility Study of Credit Rating Upgrading through Technology Evaluation of SMEs

중소기업의 기술력평가를 통한 신용등급 상향의 타당성 연구

  • 김재천 (KEB하나은행 중소벤처금융부) ;
  • 손석현 (KEB하나은행 중소벤처금융부)
  • Received : 2018.02.05
  • Accepted : 2018.04.30
  • Published : 2018.05.31

Abstract

Technology finance is an area in which financial authorities have introduced and implemented a strong policy will for the advancement of the financial industry and the development of SMEs. As a result, the Bank's own technology evaluation was conducted from September 2016. Technically superior companies are upgrading their credit ratings, and as a result, they benefit from financial transactions as much as their higher credit ratings through technology evaluation. Based on the data generated during this process, we analyze the degree to which credit ratings was upgraded by technology evaluation. The pre study handles 406 data from KEB Hana Bank's technology evaluation conducted in the second half of 2016. As a result of combining the credit rating with the calculated technology rating, J58 'Publishing Activities' technology-credit rating is raised by 1.05 rating, which is the highest, and C10 'Manufacture of Food Products' is the second highest. As a result, we were able to identify the sectors that benefited from the technology evaluation and confirmed the usefulness of technology evaluation by industry(KSIC). To expanding the study, 2,719 companies evaluated during the entire period were analyzed by technology grade, business experience and promising growth industry code. As a result of the analysis, technological power over T-4 grade companies had the highest credit rating upgrades. The companies belonging to promising growth industries designated for efficiency of policy support, it is confirm that the support of the promising business type was useful because the credit grade was upgraded through technology evaluation. The validity of the technology evaluation based on the five-year business experience was found to be insignificant. In the future, it will be possible to maximize the support effect by concentration on the companies with over T-4 grade and growth potential companies when supporting SMEs.

References

  1. 손석현.김재영.김재천 (2017), "기술신용평가기관(TCB) 효율성 제고 및 기업기술력 강화를 위한 평가지표간 상관관계 분석연구", 기술경영경제학회, 제25권 제4호, pp. 1-15.
  2. 금융위원회 (2015), "기술신용대출 정착 로드맵", 보도자료.
  3. 금융위원회 (2014), "기술금융 추진 현황 및 향후 계획", 보도자료.
  4. 통계청 (2014), "한국표준산업분류", https://kssc.kostat.go.kr
  5. 서울경제 (2017), "100조 돌파한 기술금융".
  6. 신동호 (2015), "효율적인 기술신용정보의 산출.제공 및 활용 방안", 한국금융공학회, 제1권, pp. 97-128.
  7. 김성태.홍재범 (2015), "고성장기업의 결정요인에 관한 연구: 기술평가지표를 중심으로", 기술혁신연구, 제23권 제3호, pp. 373-396. https://doi.org/10.14383/SIME.2015.23.3.373
  8. 김광희 (2008), "기술금융 활성화 방안: 기술금융상품을 중심으로", 중소기업연구원
  9. 임형준 (2013), "기술금융 현황과 활성화 방안", 금융연구원
  10. 김성태.홍재범 (2015), "고성장기업의 결정요인에 대한 연구: 기술평가지표를 중심으로", 기술혁신연구, 제23권 제3호, pp. 373-396 https://doi.org/10.14383/SIME.2015.23.3.373
  11. 차우준 (2016), "기술신용평가기관(TCB) 기술평가 모형의 금융기관 활용 적합성에 대한 연구: TCB 평가를 받은 기업들 사례 중심으로", 한국경영공학회, 제21권 제1호, pp. 71-93.
  12. 이젬마 (2015), "기술금융의 현황과 효율적 정착을 위한 개선안", 국가미래연구원.
  13. 배영임 (2014), "중소기업 R&D지원사업의 효율성과 효과성 분석", 기술혁신연구, 제22권 제2호, pp. 77-104. https://doi.org/10.14383/SIME.2014.22.2.077
  14. 김영수.신인아.송경모.유문재.황유진 (2016), "기술금융의 이해와 실무", 영화조세통람.
  15. 중소기업연구원 (2009), "중소기업의 신용평가 방식에 대한 문제점 및 개선방안에 대한 연구", 중소기업진흥공단.
  16. 기술보증기금 홈페이지, http://www.kibo.or.kr
  17. 정성찬.함석동 (2006), "기술평가제도 개선방안 모색", 산업재산권, 제19권, pp. 163-185.
  18. 이도형 (2010), "국가연구개발 사업화 과정에서의 기술가치평가 요인 분석: 사업화 성과에 관한 실증분석을 중심으로", 건국대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
  19. 서병호 (2015), "기술금융의 연착륙(soft landing)", 주간 금융브리프. 제27권 제17호, pp. 3-9.
  20. 기술보증기금 (2008), "기업.기술의 평가", 부산: 기술보증기금.
  21. KDB산업은행 (2017), "미래 신성장 분야 지원에 활용할 신성장 공동기준 수립", 보도자료.
  22. Boer, F. P. (1999), The Valuation of Technology, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  23. Bao, S. X. and Yin, Y. F. (2009) "Credit Evaluation and Empirical Analysis of SME", Science & Technology Progress and Polic, Vol. 26, pp. 143-148.
  24. Limei Wang, Zhe Wang, Yu Hu, and Tian Bai (2014), "Integrated Learning-Based SME Credit Rating", Open Journal of Social Science, pp. 326-333.