本篇論文代寫-駱駝等級分析講了金融機構被要求根據其業務運作的不同方面進行評級。評論或分析這些基礎或不同因素的最流行的協會或機構之一是駱駝。該系統是在美國開發的。它對於評估銀行業的績效和預測未來的風險是非常有效、準確和高效的。授權監管機構對每家銀行進行評估，並給它們打1到5分的分數。本篇論文代寫文章由美國第一論文 Assignment First輔導網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
Financial institution are required to get rated on the basis of different aspects of their business operations. One of the most popular association or institution that comment or analyze these basis or different factors is CAMELS. The system was developed in the USA. It is very effective, accurate and efficient for evaluating the performance of banking sectors and to anticipate the future risks. Authorized supervisors assess each bank and give them a score on a scale of one to five.
A rating of one is considered the best and the rating of five is considered the worst for each factor (Stella, 2010).
The acronym CAMELS stands for:
Analysis of the CAMELS Rating:
Banks and financial institutions are rated on different basis and they are; different ratios, comparison with standards or benchmarks, profitability, loans and advances and on many other aspects. CAMELS rating are detailed analysis of performance measures of the banks and financial institutions. On the basis of strength and weakness of banks and financial institutions CAMELS rate banks and these ratings are published in their annual report or prospectus. The CAMELS rating is internationally used. Thus it is easy to supervise and analyze various banks across the globe on the same measures. The CAMELS rating measure is extremely flexible in use and is also easy to interpret. CAMELS rating is the like result provided to banks and financial institutions on their financial matters undertaken during defined period (Sarwar and Asif, 2011). On CAMELS rating goodwill and reputation of banks are based and high rated banks are recognized worldwide.
Contradictions of CAMELS Rating
CAMELS enable the examiner to differentiate between the good and the bad. The in-betweens are left with indeterminacy. When bank inspectors are forced to make a judgment, then it leads to the second problem of subjectivity. Examiners have differing levels of expectations and perspectives. The CAMELS approach suffers from indeterminacy, subjectivity and even inconsistency. There are instances when an examination of the accounting records cannot decide whether to give an average or below average score.