1. Report Industry Investment Rating - No information about the report industry investment rating is provided in the given content. 2. Core Viewpoints of the Report - In May 2025, new regulations were introduced to promote the issuance of "science - technology innovation bonds" and support equity investment institutions in participating in bond - market financing. The report analyzes the definition, credit characteristics, and rating methods of equity investment institutions at home and abroad, and offers suggestions for improving the rating methods [2]. - The current regulatory definition of equity investment institutions is overly broad. Domestic rating methods rely too much on static financial indicators, and there is insufficient penetration of underlying assets in domestic rating models [3]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs 3.1 Definition of Equity Investment and Equity Investment Institutions - Equity investment refers to investors or investment institutions purchasing stocks of other enterprises or directly investing in the shares of other enterprises with monetary funds, intangible assets, and other physical assets. In China, "equity investment funds" refer to "private equity investment funds." The term "private" has two meanings: private equity and non - public fundraising. Currently, Chinese equity investment funds can only be raised privately [4]. - Considering regulatory definitions and actual bond - issuing enterprises, equity investment institutions are defined as those engaged in private equity investment and venture capital with registration in relevant authorities, and various enterprises or institutions with equity investment as their main business [10]. 3.2 Main Credit Characteristics of Equity Investment Institutions - Asset dimension: The core assets of equity investment enterprises are financial assets formed by equity investment. The investment portfolio accounts for over 85% of total assets, and equity - related assets account for about 85% of the investment portfolio [11][12]. - Income dimension: The income of equity investment enterprises mainly comes from investment income and changes in fair - value gains or losses, with relatively high income volatility. From 2022 - 2024, the year - on - year growth rates of investment income were - 11.5%, 24.8%, and - 10.2% respectively [15]. - Leverage dimension: The business funds of equity investment enterprises mainly come from self - owned funds and raised funds, with a significantly lower overall leverage ratio compared to non - financial enterprises. From 2022 - 2024, the asset - liability ratios of sample equity investment enterprises were 40.7%, 43.0%, and 43.3% respectively, lower than the approximately 52% of non - financial bond - issuing enterprises [16]. 3.3 Rating Methods of Domestic and Foreign Credit Rating Agencies for Equity Investment Institutions 3.3.1 International Perspective - **S&P**: It uses a "business risk + financial risk" dual - analysis framework for investment holding companies. Business risk is analyzed from national, industry, and investment - portfolio dimensions, and financial risk is analyzed from aspects such as leverage and liquidity. The final credit rating is obtained through a risk matrix and adjustment factors [21]. - **Moody's**: It analyzes investment holding companies from five dimensions: investment strategy, asset quality, financial policy, market - value - based leverage (MVL), and debt coverage and liquidity. The initial credit rating is determined by a scoring table, and the final rating is obtained after adjustment [25]. - **Fitch**: It evaluates investment holding companies from business and financial risk dimensions. In the business dimension, it assesses investment strategy, risk preference, investment - portfolio diversity, and credit characteristics. In the financial dimension, it focuses on cash - flow indicators and uses a triple - LTV system [35][36]. 3.3.2 Domestic Perspective - Different domestic rating agencies have different definitions of equity investment institutions. The rating methods generally adopt a combination of "individual rating + external support analysis." In terms of business risk, there is high consensus in evaluating investment - portfolio dispersion, investment strategy and risk control, asset liquidity, and asset credit quality. In terms of financial risk, core indicators are similar [39][40]. 3.4 Thoughts on the Rating Methods of Equity Investment Institutions - The current regulatory definition of equity investment institutions is overly broad. Some institutions with mixed business models are included, and the asset characteristics of state - owned holding platforms and industrial investment entities differ from those of typical PE/VC institutions. Solutions include strict screening and classification [47]. - Domestic rating methods rely too much on static financial indicators, making it difficult to capture the core dynamic risk characteristics of equity investment institutions. Dynamic evaluation indicators such as market - value sensitivity and rolling cash - flow forecasts need to be introduced [48]. - Due to the high proportion of non - listed equity and insufficient asset transparency, domestic rating models have insufficient penetration of the underlying assets of equity investment institutions. Penetration standards and risk - quantification tools need to be improved [49].