Structured products are designed to facilitate highly customized risk-return objectives. This is accomplished by taking a traditional security and replacing the usual payment features with non-traditional payoffs derived not from the issuer's own cash flow, but from the performance of one or more underlying assets. The common examples of structured finance include mortgage backed securities (MBSs) and Asset Backed Securities (ABSs) backed by consumer loans, auto loans. SME loans and etc.
In rating structured finance products, we generally use a fundamental bottom-up analysis to capture the rating impact of different asset, portfolio or structure characteristics, taking into account the context of origination and relevant jurisdictions. We avoid one-size-fits-all assumptions but analyses securitizations, applying our knowledge of the local market. This is reflected not only in the way we look at key input assumptions, but also in how we apply stress tests to these assumptions.
TASSNIEF ’s analysis of risks in securitization deals examines their impacts on cash flow, interdependencies and relationships with other risk drivers. Our analysis focus on the asset quality of the securitization pool, structure of the deal, servicer quality and operational procedures of the originator. We mainly consider the below risks in our assessments:

• Contextual risks (e.g. Economy, Interest Rates, Regulation, Credit Cycle)
• Credit risk
• Prepayment risk
• Market risk
• Liquidity risk
• Counterparty risk
• Operational risk

The ratings assigned to Banks, Finance Companies are basically Tassnief's opinion on the types of risks that affect the relative ability of banks, finance companies and insurance companies to service their financial obligations in a timely manner. This exercise incorporates a review of the economy and the financial services sectors as well as the changing regulatory environment.
Bank ratings apply to all deposit-taking financial institutions offering financial services as their primary line of business, conducting banking operations, and regulated by the prudential supervisory authority for financial intermediaries (except in the case of multilateral development banks, usually unregulated).
As a matter of fact, bank rating is applicable to, among others, microfinance institutions, investment banks, specialized deposit-taking financial institutions and multilateral development banks (knowing that for the latter, External Support Factors are treated in a specific way).
This approach applies in its standard form to deposit-taking commercial bank and some adjustments are made to account for the specific case of finance companies.
As finance companies do not take deposits from customers and are usually subject to specific regulations that are dissimilar to those applicable on banks, Tassnief has modified its bank rating approach to capture the peculiarities of finance companies namely the funding and liquidity. The funding mix and liquidity of Finance Companies is what tends to drive them into trouble, as historically evidenced in practice. Wholesale funding is usually very concentrated, with relatively short maturities and supplied by banks. When market liquidity dries up, Finance Companies' balance sheet fall under considerable pressure.
On the other hand, the rating of an Insurance Company reflects its intrinsic financial strength, which does not depend on any parental External Support Factor. It is indeed the reflection of Tassnief's opinion on the Insurance Company's capacity to face the drawbacks of the economic cycle as well as internal and external shocks susceptible to affect it.
In comparison to the ratings of banks and finance companies, the composition of the Rating Factors for Insurance Companies differ from those used in the former.

Mutual funds are an effective tool for mobilizing resources from a large pool of investors and providing them access to wider capital markets, which might otherwise be difficult to achieve. Our rating analysis on these funds involves an in-depth review of their risk adjusted returns. In the future, we will also include a thorough assessment of the fund manager's overall creditworthiness and quality by analyzing its business growth and sustainability, investment policy and practice, as well as the capability and track record of its key personnel.
Our "Fund Performance Rankings" are based on a pure quantitative model, comparing historical risk-adjusted returns of funds investing largely in the same asset class

A sovereign credit rating provides the general credit worthiness as it signifies a country's overall ability to provide a secure investment environment. This rating reflects factors such as a country's economic status, transparency in the capital market, levels of public and private investment flows, foreign direct investment, foreign currency reserves, political stability, or the ability for a country's economy to remain stable despite political change.
As it is the doorway into a country's investment atmosphere, the sovereign rating is the first thing most institutional investors will look at when deciding whether to invest money abroad. This rating gives the investor an immediate understanding of the risk level associated with investing in the country.
A country with a sovereign rating will therefore get more attention than one without. So to attract foreign money, most countries will strive to obtain a sovereign rating, and they will strive even more to reach investment grade. In most circumstances, a country's sovereign credit rating will be its upper limit of credit ratings

When debt securities like Bonds or Sukuk are issued by a government or corporation, they are typically assigned a credit rating. The rating is an important process because the rating alerts investors to the quality and stability of the debt securities. That is, the rating greatly influences interest rates, investment appetite, and debt securities pricing. Higher rated debt securities ('AAA to BBB-'), known as investment grade securities, are seen as safer and more stable investments that are tied to corporations or government entities that have a positive outlook. Non-investment grade securities or "junk bonds" usually carry ratings of "BB+" to "C". Bonds that carry these ratings are seen as higher risk investments that are able to attract investor attention through their high yields.
Our rating exercises incorporate a variety of factors including the strength of the issuer's finances and its future prospects – and allow investors to gain a sense of how likely the debt securities are to default (or in other words, fail to make its interest and principal payments on time).

Specific factors that we look at include:

• The strength of the issuer's balance sheet. For a corporation, this would include the strength of its cash position and its total debt, countries are assessed on the total level of debt, their debt- to-GDP ratio, and the size and directional movement of their budget deficits.

• The issuer's ability to service its debt via the cash left over after expenses are subtracted from revenue.

• For a corporation, ratings are based on current business conditions, including profit margins, earnings growth, etc., while government issuers are rated in part based on the strength of their economies.

• The future outlook for the issuer, including the potential impact of changes to its regulatory environment, industry, ability to withstand economic adversity, tax burden, etc., or in the case of a country, its growth outlook and political environment.