Group
No consolidated view
Lines file on different definitions, so combined exposure is assembled by hand at period end.
- Concentration not mergeable
- Manual period-end close
Sector · Financial holding & quasi-financial
Buying per business line leaves the group without one risk view
Lending, leasing, factoring, pawn, guarantee and distressed assets each run their own workflow, but credit limits, counterparty concentration and overdue definitions must be a single set. We unify the data dictionary and indicator definitions first, then release risk models, credit approval and recovery management line by line, with the group view generated from the same ledger.
Context and source of the rules
Businesses differ; authority sits in credit policy and classification
Quasi-financial field definitions come from two constraints, not from workflow: credit policy (who may borrow, how much, approved at which level) and asset classification rules (how overdue is determined, how the five-tier grade migrates, when impairment is booked). Together they decide which fields must exist, which values cannot be rewritten, and which action constitutes evidence.
A financial holding group adds a horizontal problem. One counterparty can hold a loan with the lending arm, a receivable with factoring, and a counter-guarantee with the guarantee arm. Each transaction clears on its own; summed, it is a concentration question. Projects that build each line separately usually fail here — not for missing features, but because the group cannot see the combined exposure.
So our first deliverable is a cross-line definition layer: counterparty master data, the limit object, classification rules and indicator definitions. Workflow front-ends then ship by business line.
Unified or separate
Two separate decisions: one dictionary, many workflows
A common platform does not mean forcing every line through the same process. Lease-asset administration, receivable confirmation, collateral valuation and distressed-asset disposal behave very differently; a single generic flow slows each of them.
What must be common is narrower: counterparty and related-party links, limits and exposure, asset classification and migration, indicators and alerts. Once those are versioned in the data dictionary, each line keeps its own approval logic while the group view aggregates live.
- One counterparty key across lines
- Exposure computed on a merged basis
- One rule set for grading and migration
- Eighteen indicators recomputed on the same basis daily
Live pressure
Four forces converge on the same table
The date these four collide is usually the date the project is authorised.
Risk
Alerts after arrears
Indicators are computed monthly by hand; by then the classification is already stale.
- Late recompute
- Thin migration evidence
Disposal
Recovery without a trail
Diligence, valuation and recovery on a distressed pool lack a continuous evidence chain.
- Scattered disposal steps
- Recovery hard to attribute
Security
Sensitive actions must be traceable
Limit and impairment changes touch restricted fields, so control has to reach field level.
- Field-level permissions
- Behaviour monitoring
A quasi-financial platform is judged by one test: whether the combined exposure of a single counterparty can be computed on one table, not by how many business lines it nominally covers.Delivery methodology · indicator framework
Order of remediation
Definitions first, lines in batches, disposal last
The order matters because a line released before the common layer is versioned gets migrated twice, in year two, for consolidation.
01 · common
Fix counterparty and limits
Build cross-line counterparty master data, related-party links and the limit object with merge rules.
- One master key
- Limit object modelled
- Related-party map
02 · metrics
Version classification and alerts
Write grading rules, migration triggers and the eighteen indicators into a signed data dictionary.
- Rule table
- Indicator basis
- Named threshold owners
03 · front-end
Release credit approval
Configure the workflow engine to each line’s approval logic, deployed publicly, privately or on intranet.
- Layered approval
- Per-line workflow
- Field-level rights
04 · monitoring
Recompute daily
Run the risk model each day and route alerts, sentiment and behaviour signals into one queue.
- Daily recompute
- Alert tickets
- Sensitive-action trail
05 · disposal
Close the recovery loop
Keep diligence, valuation, disposal steps and recovery attribution on one chain, feeding the group view.
- Continuous disposal record
- Consistent recovery basis
- Same-source group view
Capability map: business line to system
System names follow the published catalogue. The mapping shows module ownership, not a fixed feature boundary.
| Business line | Core objects | System | Key actions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group level | Consolidated exposure, indicators, risk view | Financial holding group management | Unify definitions, roll up alerts |
| Lending | Borrower, facility, drawdown, arrears | Micro-lending system | Credit approval, grade migration |
| Distressed assets | Pool, valuation, disposal, recovery | AMC operations / distressed-asset management | Diligence, pricing, recovery trail |
| Debt trading and issuance | Asset, pricing, issuance, underwriting | Debt trading and issuance system | Full trail, consistent basis |
| Leasing / factoring / pawn / guarantee | Leased asset, receivable, collateral, counter-guarantee | Configured under the group platform | Limit usage, title, disposal |
| Cross-line monitoring | Portfolio company and counterparty signals | Portfolio and fund risk monitoring | Sentiment watch, indicator recompute |
Risk and integration elements
Common in-scope configuration items. Licensing scope and local supervisory requirements govern eligibility decisions.
Risk modelCredit approvalRecovery management18 risk indicatorsCustom indicator assessmentFinancial-report OCRDesktop behaviour monitoringFunction / data / field permissionsDingTalk / Lark / WeComAir-gapped intranetXinchuang full-stack adaptation
One group view or line-by-line builds
Both routes work; they differ in whether year two brings a re-migration for consolidation. In assessment we take a position on your data maturity and organisational readiness.
01
Unify definitions, then release lines
Dictionary and indicators are versioned up front; lines ship quarterly. Slower start, but the group view arrives with the first line. Our default recommendation for multi-line groups.
02
Lead with one line, build the layer alongside
Put the most pressured line first — commonly lending or distressed assets — while the common layer takes shape. Watch for the missing field owner when line two connects.
03
Procure each line separately
Fastest per line, but the group has no single risk view, annual consolidation stays manual, and concentration cannot be computed. Integration rework usually appears in year two.
04
Start from monitoring only
Where legacy systems cannot be replaced yet, build the group view first on portfolio and fund risk monitoring with the eighteen indicators, then set replacement order. Quick, but it does not trail credit approvals.
18
Risk indicators with custom assessment
10+
Years in financial software delivery
15
Domestic offices for on-site delivery
100+
Registered software copyrights
Substantiable basis and service terms
Each row maps to published material or a contract clause. Client names come only from public sources; case pages stay anonymous.
| Item | Basis | Qualifier |
|---|---|---|
| Risk indicators | 18 indicators with customisable assessment | Indicator list and thresholds follow your risk policy |
| Security | AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit, three permission levels | Subject to deployment form and contract terms |
| Response | 24/7 emergency response, issue located within one hour | One year free service after acceptance |
| Process and certification | CMMI Level 3, ISO 9001, national high-tech enterprise | Scope per certificate |
| Localised stack | Xinchuang qualification for domestic adaptation | Adaptation list confirmed with your supervising body |
| Scale | 500+ institutions / 14,000+ funds covered | Cumulative coverage, not our revenue or assets under management |
Institutions named in public materials (selected)
Drawn from the company’s published website and product-site pages; order does not reflect scale or precedence.
Jiaozi Financial HoldingGuoxinGuangtou GroupAnhui State CapitalCSCHaitong Securities
Listing means only that these names appear publicly; it is not a statement about project content, system scope or outcomes.
When we advise against buying
A single-line operator with a small counterparty book is cheaper served by a credit ledger plus a reviewer. We also decline engagements that expect the platform to generate five-tier classifications on its own: grading needs a rule source and a signing owner, and software executes rules rather than legislates them. Catalpa provides software and advisory, not licensed lending, disposal or advisory services.
Questions at shortlist and acceptance
Mechanism answers; they do not replace your risk policy or your supervisor’s written position.
Can the system migrate the five-tier classification automatically?
Migration needs two inputs: the rule (days past due, guarantee changes, restructuring flags) and an exception record. Once the rule is in the data dictionary the platform recomputes daily and proposes a grade; a risk officer still confirms the migration, because the policy reserves the right to override. We do not recommend defaulting to automatic migration — audit then cannot find a decision-maker.
Should lending, factoring and guarantee run on the same platform?
One platform, different workflow configurations. The transactions behave differently, but counterparty, limit, grading and alerts must share a source. Split procurement leaves concentration uncomputable. Our delivery treats the common layer as one work package and releases front-ends per line, each keeping its own approval chain.
How long until the group risk view exists, and what does version one contain?
It depends on how fast counterparty master data cleans. Version one usually ships with the first connected line: merged exposure, overdue distribution and the state of the eighteen indicators. What it cannot show is lines not yet connected — and we display that gap explicitly instead of defaulting it to zero, because a silent zero reads as no risk.
How granular must distressed-asset disposal tracking be?
To the level a reviewer can replay: pool diligence file, valuation assumptions with versions, the decision node for each disposal route, and every recovery action with its attribution. Pools and underlying assets share one master key so recovery reconciles to the original pool. Proceeds and impairment flow back into the group view, so the disposal line does not keep a second set of books.
What is different about security and permissions in quasi-financial work?
Three things: field-level rights (limit, impairment and client identity authorised separately), a trail on sensitive operations (desktop behaviour monitoring covers bulk export and unusual access), and encryption at rest and in transit (AES-256, TLS 1.3). Where data may not leave the network, deploy on an air-gapped intranet; the localised-stack list follows your jurisdiction.
Next step
Run a cross-line definition check first
Bring the latest risk report from each line to a 45-minute session. We compare counterparty, limit and grading definitions on the spot and state which build order we recommend. A separate case page covers online credit control for quasi-financial groups.