Number of 'excellent'-rated tech credit evaluators jumps from 4 to 11 in six months

The number of institutions receiving an "excellent" rating in the financial authorities' technology credit evaluation quality review jumped from four to 11 in six months. All 14 institutions assessed received a rating of "satisfactory" or higher, signaling broad improvement in the quality of technology credit evaluations.

The Financial Services Commission announced the results of its first-half 2026 technology finance tech evaluation and quality review on Friday.

All 14 institutions subject to the quality review received a rating of "satisfactory" or above. Among them, the number earning the top "excellent" rating rose from four in the second half of last year to 11 in the first half of this year. All six external technology credit rating firms received excellent ratings, compared with just one in the previous review.

The six technology credit rating firms awarded excellent ratings were NICE D&B, Korea Ratings Data, Seoul Information Service, NICE Information Service, e-Credible and Korea Technology Credit Rating. Among the eight banks that conduct technology credit evaluations in-house, five received excellent ratings: NH NongHyup Bank, iM Bank, Shinhan Bank, Hana Bank and KB Kookmin Bank. The remaining three banks were rated "satisfactory."

In a separate assessment of individual technology credit evaluation reports, iM Bank was selected as the top-rated report issuer. NICE Information Service, Seoul Information Service and Woori Bank were recognized for outstanding individual reports.

Technology credit evaluation is a system that assesses a company's technological capabilities and business viability — factors difficult to gauge from collateral or past financial performance alone. Financial authorities review the evaluation frameworks, internal quality management practices and accuracy of reports at technology credit rating firms and self-evaluating banks on a semiannual basis.

The tech evaluation rankings, which measure banks' technology finance supply performance, also saw shifts. Among large banks, Hana Bank ranked first and Industrial Bank of Korea second. In the second half of last year, KB Kookmin Bank and NH NongHyup Bank had held the top two spots, respectively.

Hana Bank earned its top ranking by expanding unsecured lending and investment supply under its technology finance operations. Industrial Bank of Korea climbed to second place by improving its metrics for unsecured lending and startup support, areas where it had underperformed in the previous assessment.

In the small-bank category, Busan Bank overtook Kyongnam Bank to claim first place, earning high marks for increasing the volume of technology-assessment-based investments. Kyongnam Bank finished second.

The tech evaluation comprehensively assesses banks' technology finance supply performance and support capacity. It covers six large banks and eight small banks, allocating 85 points to quantitative indicators such as supply volume and 15 points to qualitative indicators such as dedicated staffing and organizational structure. The results feed into adjustments to each bank's contribution rate to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and Korea Technology Finance Corporation.

The overall scale of technology finance supply also expanded. The banking sector's outstanding technology finance balance grew from 318.7 trillion won ($238 billion) at the end of last year to 334.5 trillion won at the end of June this year, an increase of 15.8 trillion won, or about 5.0 percent.

Financial authorities said they plan to place greater emphasis going forward not only on technology finance supply performance but also on the reliability of technology assessments and their actual impact on financial support. They added that the technology finance evaluation system will be continuously refined to ensure that small and midsize companies with strong technological capabilities can access the funding they need.

Meanwhile, the FSC and the Financial Supervisory Service announced Thursday a set of measures to reform the governance of financial holding companies, aimed at curbing the long-term entrenchment of group chairpersons and strengthening board independence. Key elements include requiring CEO candidate recommendation committees to be composed solely of independent directors, tightening the voting requirements for the reappointment of banking holding company chairpersons, and expanding the role of institutional investors in nominating independent director candidates.