CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that the research work entitled “Factors affecting Credit risk Management Efficiency of Agri banks in Hanoi”orally defended/presented under the DBA program jointly offered by Southern Luzon State University of the Republic of the Philippines and Thai Nguyen University of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, embodies the result of original work carried out by the undersigned. This thesis does not contain words or ideas taken from published sources or written works by other persons which have been accepted as basis for the award of any degree from other higher education institutions, except where proper referencing and acknowledgement were made. _______________________ FULL NAME OF STUDENTS: TRACY Date Orally Defended: ……………..
THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY Socialist Republic of Vietnam SOUTHERN LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY Republic of the Philippines FACTORS AFFECTING CREDIT RISK MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY OF AGRI BANKS IN HANOI A RESEARCH PROPOSAL PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE SCHOOL SOUTHERN LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY LUCBAN, QUEZON, PHILIPPINES THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY S.R VIETNAM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION By Pham Thi Tuyet (Tracy) SLSU-DBA November, 2017 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that the research work entitled “Factors affecting Credit risk Management Efficiency of Agri banks in Hanoi”orally defended/presented under the DBA program jointly offered by Southern Luzon State University of the Republic of the Philippines and Thai Nguyen University of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, embodies the result of original work carried out by the undersigned This thesis does not contain words or ideas taken from published sources or written works by other persons which have been accepted as basis for the award of any degree from other higher education institutions, acknowledgement were made _ FULL NAME OF STUDENTS: TRACY Date Orally Defended: …………… except where proper referencing and APPROVAL SHEET In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration, this research paper entitled “Factors affectingCredit risk Management Efficiency of Agri banks in Hanoi ”has been prepared and submitted by Tracy (Pham Thi Tuyet) who is hereby recommended for oral examination FULL NAME OF ADVISERS Research Adviser Nguyen Khanh Doanh Approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Docter of Business Administration by the Oral Examination Committee Member Member Member Member Chairperson Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business Administration JOANNA PAULA A ELLAGA, DBA Dean, College of Business Administration Date ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In grateful recognition and sincerest thanks for the encouragement, guidance and unselfish sharing of their knowledge, time, effort and skills, and for the untiring motivation that leads to the completion of this study, the researcher acknowledges the following: Prof Nordelina B.llano, Ph.D Dr, OIAA of Southern Luzon State University, Republic of the Philippines, for her untiring effort and belief that this collaboration is possible thus enabling us to pursue the DBA degree; Prof Dang Kim Vui, Ph D., Director of International Training Center, Thai Nguyen University, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, for his enormous pursuit to provide the Vietnamese people an opportunity to grow through education; Assoc Prof PhD Nguyen Khanh Doanh for his support and supervision throughout my graduate study program His kindness and daily instructions in the last three years are greatly appreciated and this dissertation is as much his work as mine; Mr Tran Luu Hung, Deputy Head of International Faculty, Thai Nguyen Universityfor his assistance and encouragement to pursue this study; To all the SLSU and TNU Professors, for their support and guidance extended throughout the graduate studies in Thai Nguyen University, Vietnam; To the research adviser, for her selfless guidance and assistance thereby making this paper a scholarly work; PROFESSORS , CHONA V.CAYABAT, CATHERINE R.GONZALVO, who composed the written Defense Committee, for their suggestions, comments and corrections to improve this study; ITC STAFF, for providing me the necessary research materials provided to us; Respondents, for their patience and cooperation in answering the questionnaire and for other data given; My family and friends, for the love and support in one way or the other; and to all who have contributed to make this study a success DEDICATION This piece of work is humbly dedicated to my colleagues and fellow instructors, my students, my family and my relatives, my friends, my husband, and my children Pham Thi Tuyet (Tracy) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS ANOVA APT BIS CAPM CAR CBK CFA CRM EFA GDP NIM NPLR SPSS SEM ROA MEAN Analysis of Variance Arbitrage Pricing Theory Bank of International Settlement Capital Asset Pricing Model Capital Adequacy Ratio Central Bank of Kenya Confirmatory Factor Analysis Credit Risk Management Exploratory Factor Analysis Growth Domestic Product Net Interest Margin Non- Performing Loans Ratio Statistical Package for Social Sciences Structural Equation Modeling Return on Assets TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY APPROVAL SHEET LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ABSTRACT .1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1.2 Objectives of the Study 1.3 Significance of the study 1.4 Scope and limitations of research 1.5 Research questions .8 1.6 Research Hypotheses 1.7 Definition of terms 10 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 11 2.1 Theory of credit risk in commercial banks 11 2.1.1 Credit risk definition .11 2.1.2 Credit risk classification .14 2.2 Credit risk management efficiency of commercial banks 16 2.2.1 The definition of credit risk management .16 2.2.2 The definition of risk management efficiency .18 2.2.3 Criteria of credit risk management indicators at Agribanks 21 2.2.3.1 Risk assessment 25 2.2.3.2 Overdue Debts, Bad debt 29 2.2.3.3 Provisioning Risk Rate 32 2.2.3.4 Ratio Profit from credit 34 2.3 Factors affecting the efficiency of credit risk management in commercial banks 35 2.3.1 The efficiency of employees in the Bank credit .35 2.3.2 The instructions of the Central Bank 36 2.3.3 Agri banks' credit policies and procedures 39 2.3.4 Credit control before procedures 42 2.3.5 Credit control in borrowing procedures .44 2.3.6 Credit control after procedures 44 2.3.7 Information asymmetry between customers and banks 46 2.3.8 Agribank'scredit risk management model 50 2.4 Credit risk management in terms of levels of efficiency .53 2.5 Conceptual framework 54 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .55 3.1 Research design 55 3.2 Locale of the study 58 3.3 Sources of Data .58 3.4 Population, Sample and Sampling Technique .58 3.5 Determination of sample size 58 3.6 Research Instrument 60 3.7 Data Gathering Procedure .71 3.8 Statistical Treatment 71 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 75 4.1 Background characteristics of Agribanks 75 4.1.1 Overview of Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam .75 4.1.1.1 Organizational structure of the Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development of Vietnam 75 4.1.1.2 The network of Agribank system .77 4.1.1.3 Overview of business results of Agribank Vietnam period 2014 - 2016 78 4.1.2 Effectiveness of credit risk management in the Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development in Hanoi 83 4.1.2.1 Overview of Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development in Hanoi .83 4.1.2.2 Capital and debt ratios of Agri banks in Hanoi for the period 2014-2016 86 4.1.2.2.1 Indicators reflect the effectiveness of credit risk management of Agri banks in Hanoi period 2014 - 2016 .86 4.1.2.2.2 Credit rating in credit risk management in Agri banks in Hanoi 88 4.1.2.2.3 Overdue debt ratio of Agri Banks in Hanoi 92 4.2.2.4 Provision for risk provisioning, risk management and debt recovery of Agri banks in Hanoi 2014 - 2016 96 4.3 Assessment of respondents on factors affecting credit risk management .100 4.4 Assessment of respondents on credit risk management in term of levels of efficiency 112 4.5 The evaluation of factors affecting Credit Risk Management in Agricultural Bank 113 4.5.1 Scale reliability 113 4.5.2 Results of the EFA analysis 126 4.5.3 Confirmatory factor analysis - CFA 130 4.5.4 Determine the significant differences on factors that influence the efficiency of credit risk management at Agri banks 133 4.6 The indentified limitations 136 4.7 Conclusion 139 CHAPTERV: SUMMARYOFFINDINGS, CONCLUSIONANDRECOMMENDATIONS 141 5.1 Summary of the Findings 141 5.2 Conclusions 145 5.3 Recommendations 145 5.4 For further research .153 REFERENCES APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Moody’s corporate rating .27 Table: 3.4 Scale factors affecting credit risk management effective of Agri Bánks .62 Table 4.1.3 Business results of Agribank VietnamPeriod 2014 - 2016 79 Table 4.1.4 Statistics of transaction centers and branches of type I of the Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development in Hanoi 83 Table 4.1.5 Capital and debt balance of Agri banks in Hanoi for the period 2014-2016 87 Table 4.1.6: Aggregate debt classification of Agri banks in Hanoi Period 2014 - 2016 .93 Table 4.1.6: Agri banks in Hanoi compared with Agribank in the period 2014 - 2016 97 Table 4.1.7 Agribank's debt recovery performance in Hanoi compared to Agribank's period 2014 - 2016 98 Table 4.2.1: Characteristics of Research Subjects 99 Table 4.3.1 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of the efficiency of employess in the Bank credit .102 Table 4.3.2 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of the instructions of the Central bank .104 Table 4.3.3 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of the credit policy and procedures of the Bank 106 Table 4.3.4 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of Credit Control before borrowing 107 Table 4.3.5 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of Credit Control in borrowing proceduces 108 Table 4.3.6 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of Credit Control after borrowing 109 Table 4.3.7 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of Information asymmetry .110 Table 4.3.8 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of the Risk management model 111 Table 4.4.1 Mean distribution of one-sample T-test in term of Credit Risk Management 112 Table 4.5.1.1 Result of the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of The efficiency of employee in the Bank credit (1st) 114 Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Asy2 Asy3 Asy4 Asy5 11.87 11.89 11.80 11.88 4.107 3.984 4.158 4.169 Correlation 794 743 756 689 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 830 850 844 870 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 642 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item Sys1 Sys2 Sys3 Sys4 Sys5 Sys6 Sys7 Sys8 26.25 26.13 26.15 26.19 26.04 26.50 27.09 26.65 11.138 11.205 11.762 10.835 13.378 12.833 11.773 12.208 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 841 Correlation 541 524 436 584 105 114 294 238 Deleted 559 564 588 546 667 678 624 639 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item Sys1 Sys2 Sys3 Sys4 11.96 11.83 11.85 11.90 4.367 4.355 4.629 3.930 Correlation 656 657 593 797 Deleted 806 806 832 741 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 865 CRI1 CRI2 CRI3 CRI4 CRI5 CRI6 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item 18.70 18.74 18.74 18.66 18.66 20.13 Reliability Statistics 9.863 10.455 9.881 9.859 9.997 13.502 Correlation 825 698 841 832 813 091 Deleted 812 836 810 811 815 937 Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 937 CRI1 CRI2 CRI3 CRI4 CRI5 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item 16.11 16.15 16.14 16.07 16.07 8.654 9.099 8.672 8.639 8.819 Correlation 851 749 869 861 829 Deleted 919 936 916 917 923 APPENDIX 3: RESUTL OF EFA TESTING KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling 903 Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Factor Approx Chi-Square df Sig 8762.577 861 000 Total Variance Explained Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total % of Variance Cumulative % 13.362 31.814 31.814 3.154 7.510 39.325 2.631 6.263 45.588 2.357 5.612 51.200 2.073 4.936 56.136 1.893 4.508 60.644 1.673 3.984 64.628 1.283 3.056 67.684 1.181 2.813 70.497 927 2.208 72.704 794 1.890 74.594 778 1.851 76.445 650 1.549 77.994 608 1.448 79.442 577 1.374 80.816 552 1.313 82.129 517 1.231 83.360 500 1.191 84.551 494 1.175 85.726 474 1.130 86.856 443 1.054 87.910 421 1.001 88.912 401 955 89.867 375 892 90.759 340 811 91.569 Total % of Variance Cumulative % 13.023 31.008 31.008 2.838 6.756 37.764 2.213 5.268 43.032 1.951 4.645 47.677 1.729 4.116 51.793 1.471 3.503 55.296 1.315 3.131 58.427 980 2.333 60.760 838 1.995 62.755 Loadingsa Total 8.051 6.654 6.658 6.457 6.958 10.267 5.870 5.424 6.665 26 339 806 92.376 27 314 748 93.124 28 288 686 93.810 29 262 623 94.433 30 258 615 95.048 31 242 576 95.625 32 235 559 96.183 33 221 526 96.709 34 205 488 97.197 35 200 476 97.672 36 193 460 98.133 37 178 423 98.556 38 162 386 98.942 39 150 358 99.300 40 123 292 99.592 41 098 233 99.825 42 074 175 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring a When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance Pattern Matrixa Factor Per6 953 Per4 912 Per3 855 Per5 770 Per7 764 Per8 744 Af2 938 Af3 774 Af5 732 Af1 706 Af4 619 Proc4 766 Proc1 748 Proc2 663 Proc5 622 Proc3 602 Proc6 566 Inst3 868 Inst2 766 Inst4 703 Inst5 697 Inst1 657 Asy2 Asy4 Asy3 Asy5 CRI1 CRI3 CRI4 CRI2 CRI5 Sys4 Sys1 Sys2 Sys3 Befo4 Befo2 Befo1 Befo3 Inpro3 Inpro2 Inpro1 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization 864 831 801 697 950 949 807 685 623 958 704 667 654 795 721 690 635 824 766 718 a Rotation converged in iterations APPENDIX RESUTL OF CFA TESTING Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Per6 < - Per Per4 < - Per Per3 < - Per Per5 < - Per Per8 < - Per Per7 < - Per Af2 < - Af Af3 < - Af Af5 < - Af Af1 < - Af Af4 < - Af Inst3 < - Inst Inst2 < - Inst Inst1 < - Inst Inst5 < - Inst Inst4 < - Inst CRI4 < - CRI CRI3 < - CRI CRI5 < - CRI CRI2 < - CRI CRI1 < - CRI Asy2 < - Asy Asy4 < - Asy Asy3 < - Asy Asy5 < - Asy Proc3 < - Proc Proc1 < - Proc Proc2 < - Proc Proc4 < - Proc Proc5 < - Proc Proc6 < - Proc Sys4 < - Sys Sys1 < - Sys Sys2 < - Sys Sys3 < - Sys Befo3 < - Befo Estimate 1.000 976 973 861 855 873 1.000 935 893 878 812 1.000 877 831 829 804 1.000 930 1.018 878 925 1.000 958 1.008 908 1.000 1.125 989 1.052 902 820 1.000 785 838 711 1.000 S.E C.R P 042 043 047 048 048 23.310 22.679 18.410 17.680 18.068 *** *** *** *** *** 055 056 059 061 17.001 16.079 14.991 13.403 *** *** *** *** 059 062 061 061 14.971 13.442 13.656 13.242 *** *** *** *** 042 038 047 044 22.326 27.089 18.556 21.135 *** *** *** *** 055 17.539 *** 059 16.944 *** 061 14.905 *** 109 089 089 084 085 10.352 11.084 11.867 10.790 9.701 *** *** *** *** *** 057 13.785 *** 056 14.899 *** 056 12.617 *** Label Befo2 < - Befo Befo1 < - Befo Befo4 < - Befo Inpro2 < - Inpro Inpro1 < - Inpro Inpro3 < - Inpro Estimate 965 893 965 1.000 898 965 S.E C.R P 083 11.636 *** 088 10.199 *** 085 11.415 *** 062 14.483 *** 063 15.286 *** Label Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Per6 Per4 Per3 Per5 Per8 Per7 Af2 Af3 Af5 Af1 Af4 Inst3 Inst2 Inst1 Inst5 Inst4 CRI4 CRI3 CRI5 CRI2 CRI1 Asy2 Asy4 Asy3 Asy5 Proc3 Proc1 Proc2 Proc4 Proc5 Proc6 Sys4 Sys1 Sys2 Sys3 Befo3 Befo2 Befo1 Befo4 Inpro2 Inpro1 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Per Per Per Per Per Per Af Af Af Af Af Inst Inst Inst Inst Inst CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI Asy Asy Asy Asy Proc Proc Proc Proc Proc Proc Sys Sys Sys Sys Befo Befo Befo Befo Inpro Inpro Estimate 907 881 871 788 771 780 866 809 780 743 686 877 752 695 704 688 906 854 934 796 834 873 824 805 738 741 752 679 730 660 691 891 716 761 669 744 751 646 733 816 788 Inpro3 < - Inpro Estimate 833 Covariances: (Group number - Default model) Per < > Af Per < > Inst Per < > CRI Per < > Asy Per < > Proc Per < > Sys Per < > Befo Per < > Inpro Af < > Inst Af < > CRI Af < > Asy Af < > Proc Af < > Sys Af < > Befo Af < > Inpro Inst < > CRI Inst < > Asy Inst < > Proc Inst < > Sys Inst < > Befo Inst < > Inpro CRI < > Asy CRI < > Proc CRI < > Sys CRI < > Befo CRI < > Inpro Asy < > Proc Asy < > Sys Asy < > Befo Asy < > Inpro Proc < > Sys Proc < > Befo Proc < > Inpro Sys < > Befo Sys < > Inpro Befo < > Inpro Estimate 156 207 332 191 164 246 245 198 167 294 191 140 219 173 264 287 179 148 180 147 237 306 242 287 264 352 136 153 150 210 128 142 290 165 197 218 S.E .036 037 041 034 032 040 041 042 034 039 032 030 038 036 042 038 032 030 036 035 041 036 034 040 040 045 027 033 033 037 031 031 040 038 042 042 C.R 4.305 5.615 8.049 5.682 5.135 6.138 6.028 4.748 4.874 7.613 5.926 4.700 5.816 4.753 6.282 7.562 5.669 4.986 4.970 4.180 5.834 8.429 7.114 7.228 6.616 7.757 5.018 4.682 4.601 5.719 4.151 4.569 7.238 4.359 4.722 5.145 P Label *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** APPENDIX RESUTL OF SEM MODEL TESTING Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI Per6 Per4 Per3 Per5 Per8 Per7 Af2 Af3 Af5 Af1 Af4 Inst3 Inst2 Inst1 Inst5 Inst4 CRI4 CRI3 CRI5 CRI2 CRI1 Asy2 Asy4 Asy3 Asy5 Proc3 Proc1 Proc2 Proc4 < - Per < - Af < - Inst < - Asy < - Proc < - Sys < - Befo < - Inpro < - Per < - Per < - Per < - Per < - Per < - Per < - Af < - Af < - Af < - Af < - Af < - Inst < - Inst < - Inst < - Inst < - Inst < - CRI < - CRI < - CRI < - CRI < - CRI < - Asy < - Asy < - Asy < - Asy < - Proc < - Proc < - Proc < - Proc Estimate 178 154 153 318 164 126 109 122 1.000 976 973 861 855 873 1.000 935 893 878 812 1.000 877 831 829 804 1.000 930 1.018 878 925 1.000 958 1.008 908 1.000 1.125 989 1.052 S.E .044 049 048 054 064 045 051 054 C.R 4.019 3.157 3.183 5.884 2.551 2.794 2.150 2.255 P Label *** 002 001 *** 011 005 032 024 042 23.310 043 22.679 047 18.410 048 17.680 048 18.068 *** *** *** *** *** 055 17.001 056 16.079 059 14.991 061 13.403 *** *** *** *** 059 14.971 062 13.442 061 13.656 061 13.242 *** *** *** *** 042 22.326 038 27.089 047 18.556 044 21.135 *** *** *** *** 055 17.539 *** 059 16.944 *** 061 14.905 *** 109 10.352 *** 089 11.084 *** 089 11.867 *** Proc5 < - Proc Proc6 < - Proc Sys4 < - Sys Sys1 < - Sys Sys2 < - Sys Sys3 < - Sys Befo3 < - Befo Befo2 < - Befo Befo1 < - Befo Befo4 < - Befo Inpro2 < - Inpro Inpro1 < - Inpro Inpro3 < - Inpro Estimate 902 820 1.000 785 838 711 1.000 965 893 965 1.000 898 965 S.E C.R P Label 084 10.790 *** 085 9.701 *** 057 13.785 *** 056 14.899 *** 056 12.617 *** 083 11.636 *** 088 10.199 *** 085 11.415 *** 062 14.483 *** 063 15.286 *** Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI Per6 Per4 Per3 Per5 Per8 Per7 Af2 Af3 Af5 Af1 Af4 Inst3 Inst2 Inst1 Inst5 Inst4 CRI4 CRI3 CRI5 CRI2 CRI1 Asy2 Asy4 Asy3 Asy5 Proc3 Proc1 Proc2 Proc4 Proc5 Proc6 Sys4 Sys1 < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - Per Af Inst Asy Proc Sys Befo Inpro Per Per Per Per Per Per Af Af Af Af Af Inst Inst Inst Inst Inst CRI CRI CRI CRI CRI Asy Asy Asy Asy Proc Proc Proc Proc Proc Proc Sys Sys Estimate 185 147 144 274 131 126 102 130 907 881 871 788 771 780 866 809 780 743 686 877 752 695 704 688 906 854 934 796 834 873 824 805 738 741 752 679 730 660 591 891 716 Sys2 Sys3 Befo3 Befo2 Befo1 Befo4 Inpro2 Inpro1 Inpro3 < < < < < < < < < - Sys Sys Befo Befo Befo Befo Inpro Inpro Inpro Estimate 761 669 744 751 646 733 816 788 833 Covariances: (Group number - Default model) Per < > Af Per < > Inst Per < > Asy Per < > Proc Per < > Sys Per < > Befo Per < > Inpro Af < > Inst Af < > Asy Af < > Proc Af < > Sys Af < > Befo Af < > Inpro Inst < > Asy Inst < > Proc Inst < > Sys Inst < > Befo Inst < > Inpro Asy < > Proc Asy < > Sys Asy < > Befo Asy < > Inpro Proc < > Sys Proc < > Befo Proc < > Inpro Sys < > Befo Sys < > Inpro Befo < > Inpro Estimate 156 207 191 164 246 245 198 167 191 140 219 173 264 179 148 180 147 237 136 153 150 210 128 142 290 165 197 218 S.E .036 037 034 032 040 041 042 034 032 030 038 036 042 032 030 036 035 041 027 033 033 037 031 031 040 038 042 042 C.R 4.305 5.615 5.682 5.135 6.138 6.028 4.748 4.874 5.926 4.700 5.816 4.753 6.282 5.669 4.986 4.970 4.180 5.834 5.018 4.682 4.601 5.719 4.151 4.569 7.238 4.359 4.722 5.145 P Label *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ... attainments Assess the factors of efficiency affecting the credit risk management efficiency of Agri Banks in Hanoi in terms of: 3.1 The efficiency of employees in the Bank credit 3.2 The instructions... on factors affecting credit risk management .100 4.4 Assessment of respondents on credit risk management in term of levels of efficiency 112 4.5 The evaluation of factors affecting Credit Risk. .. reflect the effectiveness of credit risk management of Agri banks in Hanoi period 2014 - 2016 .86 4.1.2.2.2 Credit rating in credit risk management in Agri banks in Hanoi 88 4.1.2.2.3