Grading Scale for Microfinance Institutions
M1 Indicates that in ICRA’s current opinion, the Graded MFI’s ability to manage its microfinance activities in a sustainable manner is the highest.

M2 Indicates that in ICRA’s current opinion, the Graded MFI’s ability to manage its microfinance activities in a sustainable manner is high.

M3 Indicates that in ICRA’s current opinion, the Graded MFI’s ability to manage its microfinance activities in a sustainable manner is moderate.

M4 Indicates that in ICRA’s current opinion, the Graded MFI’s ability to manage its microfinance activities in a sustainable manner is below average.

M5 Indicates that in ICRA’s current opinion, the Graded MFI’s ability to manage its microfinance activities in a sustainable manner is weak.

Note For the Grading categories M2, M3 and M4, the sign of + (plus) may be appended to the Grading symbols to indicate their relative position within the Grading categories concerned. Thus, the Gradings of M2+, M3+ and M4+ are one notch higher than M2, M3, and M4, respectively.  




Grading Scale or Real Estate Developers
DR1 Very strong project execution capacity.

DR2 Strong project execution capacity.

DR3 Moderate project execution capacity.

DR4 Inadequate project execution capacity.

DR5 Weak project execution capacity.

Note The suffix of '+' or '-' may be used with the grading symbol (from DR2 to DR4) to indicate the comparative position within the group covered by the symbol.



 



Grading Scale for the Real Estate Project
ICRA grades real estate projects on an eight-point scale from "Seven-Star" through to "One-Star" and finally "Weak", with "Seven-Star" being the highest grade and "Weak" the lowest. An ICRA-assigned real estate grade is an evaluation of the prospects of successful implementation of the real estate project concerned and transfer of ownership in accordance with the agreed terms on a relative scale. The grade assigned is specific to the city/area in which the project is being developed, and the name of the city/area is prefixed to the grade assigned.



 



ICRA Grading Symbols for Contractors
CR1 Very strong contract execution capacity.

CR2 Strong contract execution capacity.

CR3 Moderate Contract execution capacity.

CR4 Inadequate contract execution capacity.

CR5 Weak contract execution capacity.

Note The suffix of '+' or '-' may be used with the grading symbol (from CR2 to CR4) to indicate the comparative position within the group covered by the symbol.



 



ICRA Grading Symbols for Consultants
CT1 Very strong project engineering/ project management services capacity.

CT2 Strong project engineering/ project management services capacity.

CT3 Moderate project engineering/ project management services capacity.

CT4 Inadequate project engineering/ project management services capacity.

CT5 Weak project engineering/ project management services capacity.

Note The suffix of '+' or '-' may be used with the grading symbol (from CT2 to CT4) to indicate the comparative position within the group covered by the symbol.



 



ICRA Grade 1 The institution has resources and processes consistent with those required for delivering the highest quality of maritime education and training.

ICRA Grade 2 The institution has resources and processes consistent with those required for delivering quality of maritime education and training that is high but not as high as ICRA Grade 1.

ICRA Grade 3 The institution has resources and processes that can deliver good quality of maritime education and training.

ICRA Grade 4 The institution has resources and processes delivering moderate quality of maritime education and training.

ICRA Grade 5 The institution has resources and processes delivering low quality of maritime education and training.



 



Rating Scale for Collective Investment Schemes
CS 1 High Grade: Schemes rated CS 1 are considered to have high probability of achieving indicated returns. The protective factors are above average.

CS 2 Adequate Grade: Schemes rated CS 2 are considered to have adequate probability of achieving indicated returns. The risks associated with such schemes are higher than schemes rated as CS 1. The protective factors are average. Returns are susceptible to adverse changes in circumstances.

CS 3 Moderate Grade: Schemes rated CS 3 are considered to have moderate probability of achieving indicated returns. The risks associated with such scheme are higher than schemes rated in the higher categories. The protective factors are below average. Adverse changes in circumstances are more likely to affect returns.

CS 4 Inadequate Grade: Schemes rated CS 4 are considered to have inadequate probability of achieving indicated returns. The protective factors are weak. Such schemes are considered to have speculative characteristics.

CS 5 High Risk: Schemes rated CS 5 are considered to have very high risks. Such schemes are Extremely Speculative.



 



Brokerage House Grading
BHG1 The Brokerage House has resources and processes consistent with those required for delivering the highest quality of services.

BHG2 The Brokerage House has resources and processes consistent with those required for delivering high quality of services.

BHG3 The Brokerage House has resources and processes consistent with those required for delivering good quality of services.

BHG4 The Brokerage House has resources and processes adequate for delivering moderate quality of services.

BHG5 The Brokerage House has resources and processes that are likely to result in low quality of services.



 



Solar Power Gradings
Financial Strength
Highest High Moderate Weak Poor
Performance Capability Highest SP 1A SP 1B SP 1C SP 1D SP 1E
High SP 2A SP 2B SP 2C SP 2D SP 2E
Moderate SP 3A SP 3B SP 3C SP 3D SP 3E
Weak SP 4A SP 4B SP 4C SP 4D SP 4E
Poor SP 5A SP 5B SP 5C SP 5D SP 5E
The grading will be valid for a period of two years from initial exercise under Solar PV technology. In case of grading under solar thermal the grading will be valid for two years and date will be adjusted to 30th June or 31st December of that particular year subject to validity will not be more than two years.



 



Grading of Engineering Colleges/Universities
Symbol Definition
ICRA EG1 (IN/ST) The institution has resources and processes that can deliver very high quality engineering education.
ICRA EG2 (IN/ST) The institution has resources and processes that can deliver high quality engineering education.
ICRA EG3 (IN/ST) The institution has resources and processes that can deliver good quality engineering education.
ICRA EG4 (IN/ST) The institution has resources and processes that can deliver moderate quality engineering education.
ICRA EG5 (IN/ST) The institution has resources and processes that can deliver only low quality of engineering education.
Note: IN stands for "all-India" and indicates that the Grading is an all-India-level Grading; ST stands for “State” and indicates that the Grading is a State-level Grading. For the Grading categories ICRA EG2 through to ICRA EG4, the sign of + (plus) may be appended to the Grading symbols to indicate their relative position within the Grading categories concerned.



 



Grading of Management Education Institutes
Symbol Definition
ICRA EB1(IN/ST) The institution has the ability to deliver a very high quality of management education in a way that achieves the objectives of the graded programme
ICRA EB2(IN/ST) The institution has the ability to deliver high quality of management education in a way that achieves the objectives of the graded programme
ICRA EB3(IN/ST) The institution has the ability to deliver good quality of management education to achieve the objectives of the graded programme
ICRA EB4(IN/ST) The institution has the ability to deliver moderate quality of management education
ICRA EB5(IN/ST) The institution has the ability to deliver only low quality of management education
Note: For the grading categories ICRA EB2 through to ICRA EB4, the sign of + (plus) may be appended to the Grading symbols to indicate their relative position within the grading categories concerned.



 



ICRA Financial Strength Grading Scale for Shipbuilders
Financial Strength Grade 1 Highest financial strength
Financial Strength Grade 2 High financial strength.
Financial Strength Grade 3 Adequate financial strength
Financial Strength Grade 4 Moderate financial strength
Financial Strength Grade 5 Inadequate financial strength
Financial Strength Grade 6 Weak financial strength
Financial Strength Grade 7 Poor financial strength
Financial Strength Grade 8 Lowest financial strength


 



ICRA Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable-Business Grading
[ICRA] CRSB 1 Highest level of commitment to, and effectiveness of, CRSB initiatives
[ICRA] CRSB 2 High level of commitment to, and effectiveness of, CRSB initiatives
[ICRA] CRSB 3 Adequate level of commitment to, and effectiveness of, CRSB initiatives
[ICRA] CRSB 4 Moderate level of commitment to, and effectiveness of, CRSB initiatives
[ICRA] CRSB 5 Inadequate level of commitment to, and effectiveness of, CRSB initiatives
[ICRA] CRSB 6 Low level of commitment to, and effectiveness of, CRSB initiatives
The modifier "+" [plus] may be suffixed to any of the CRSB Grades from [ICRA]CRSB2 through to [ICRA]CRSB6 to indicate the relatively superior strength of the Graded entity within the Grading category concerned.

 





Independent Credit Evaluation
Symbol Definition
[ICRA]RP1 Debt facilities/instruments with this symbol are considered to have the highest degree of safety regarding timely servicing of financial obligations. Such debt facilities/instruments carry lowest credit risk.
[ICRA]RP2 Debt facilities/instruments with this symbol are considered to have high degree of safety regarding timely servicing of financial obligations. Such debt facilities/instruments carry very low credit risk.
[ICRA]RP3 Debt facilities/instruments with this symbol are considered to have the adequate degree of safety regarding timely servicing of financial obligations. Such debt facilities/instruments carry low credit risk.
[ICRA]RP4 Debt facilities/instruments with this symbol are considered to have moderate degree of safety regarding timely servicing of financial obligations. Such debt facilities/instruments carry moderate credit risk.
[ICRA]RP5 Debt facilities/instruments with this symbol are considered to have moderate risk of default regarding timely servicing of financial obligations.
[ICRA]RP6 Debt facilities/instruments with this symbol are considered to have high risk of default regarding timely servicing of financial obligations.
[ICRA]RP7 Debt facilities/instruments with this symbol are considered to have very high risk of default regarding timely servicing of financial obligations.
 





Project Finance Ratings
Rating Scale Definitions
[ICRA] PFR1 Based on Fundamentals and Risk Assessment, the project is graded superior, as compared with other similar projects assessed on this scale
 
[ICRA] PFR2+ Based on Fundamentals and Risk Assessment, the project is graded good, as compared with other similar projects assessed on this scale
[ICRA] PFR2
[ICRA] PFR2-
 
[ICRA] PFR3+ Based on Fundamentals and Risk Assessment, the project is graded average, as compared with other similar projects assessed on this scale
[ICRA] PFR3
[ICRA] PFR3-
 
[ICRA] PFR4+ Based on Fundamentals and Risk Assessment, the project is graded low, as compared with other similar projects assessed on this scale
[ICRA] PFR4
[ICRA] PFR4-
 

Recent Releases

  • Update on reason for delay in periodic surveillance

    Rationale / 22 Jul 2019

  • Globe Fincap Limited: Ratings reaffirmed

    Rationale / 19 Jul 2019

  • Globe Capital Market Limited: Ratings reaffirmed; rating amount enhanced

    Rationale / 19 Jul 2019