## 3 Results
### Examples of Lending to Enterprises
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Indictors** & **Recommended Value** & **E-1** & **E-2** & **E-3** & **E-4** \\ \hline K\({}_{7}\) & Current liquidity ratio & K\({}_{7}\geq 2\) & K\({}_{7}=8\) & K\({}_{7}=0.02\) & K\({}_{7}=0.18\) & K\({}_{7}=1.83\) \\ K\({}_{8}\) & Ratio of financial independence & K\({}_{8}\geq 50\%\) & H (1; 0.75) & L (0.25; 0) & L (0.25; 0) & HM (1; 0.5) \\ K\({}_{9}\) & Working capital financed by & K\({}_{9}\geq 70\%\) & K\({}_{9}=89\%\) & K\({}_{8}=91\%\) & K\({}_{8}=60\%\) & K\({}_{8}=84\%\) \\ K\({}_{9}\) & equity to total assets ratio & & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) \\ K\({}_{10}\) & Debt service coverage ratio & 2 \textgreater{} K\({}_{10}\geq 1.5\) & K\({}_{10}=2.21\) & K\({}_{10}=1.5\) & K\({}_{10}=1.29\) & K\({}_{10}=1.33\) \\  & & HM (1; 0.5) & H (1; 0.75) & HM (1; 0.5) & HM (1; 0.5) \\ K\({}_{11}\) & Accounts receivable turnover ratio & K\({}_{11}\geq 12\) & H (1; 0.75) & K\({}_{11}=0\) & K\({}_{11}=19\) & K\({}_{11}=5.89\) \\ K\({}_{12}\) & Accounts payable turnover ratio & K\({}_{12}\geq 1\) & H (1; 0.75) & L (0.25; 0) & H (1; 0.75) & M (0.75; 0.25) \\ K\({}_{13}\) & Inventory turnover ratio & 18 \textgreater{} K\({}_{13}\geq 8\) & K\({}_{12}=1.83\) & K\({}_{12}=0.95\) & K\({}_{12}=0.65\) & K\({}_{12}=0.9\) \\  & & H (1; 0.75) & HM (1; 0.5) & M (0.75; 0.25) & HM (1; 0.5) \\ K\({}_{13}\) & Inventory turnover ratio & 18 \textgreater{} K\({}_{13}\geq 8\) & K\({}_{13}=248\) & Not recom- & K\({}_{13}=7\) & Not recom- \\  & & L (0.25; 0) & mended & HM (1; 0.5) & mended \\ K\({}_{14}\) & Debt-to-equity ratio & K\({}_{14}\leq 1\) & K\({}_{14}=0.07\) & K\({}_{14}=0.09\) & K\({}_{14}=0.64\) & K\({}_{14}=0.19\) \\  & & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) \\ K\({}_{15}\) & Profit margin ratio & K\({}_{1}\geq 40\%\) & K\({}_{15}=50\%\) & K\({}_{15}=100\%\) & K\({}_{15}=57\%\) & K\({}_{15}=45\%\) \\  & & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) & H (1; 0.75) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Input variables—financial and economic indicators. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Indictors** & **E-1** & **E-2** & **E-3** & **E-4** \\ \hline K\({}_{1}\) & Dynamics of development of & M & M & HM \\  & the industry & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (1; 0.5) \\ K\({}_{2}\) & Prospects for the development of & M & M & HM \\  & the industry & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (1; 0.5) \\ K\({}_{3}\) & Needs of the market (industry) & M & M & HM \\  & for such products (work, services) & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (1; 0.5) \\ K\({}_{4}\) & Dynamics of the development of & HM & H & HM \\  & the economy of the region & (1; 0.5) & (1; 0.75) & (0.75; 0.25) & (1; 0.5) \\ K\({}_{5}\) & Prospects for the development of & M & M & M \\  & the economy of the region & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (0.75; 0.25) & (1; 0.75) \\ K\({}_{6}\) & Needs of the market (region) for & HM & HM & HM \\  & such products (work, services) & (1; 0.5) & (1; 0.5) & (0.75; 0.25) & (1; 0.5) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Input variables—indicators of industry and regional specifics. The fuzzy production system for assessing the creditworthiness of a small business based on the theory of fuzzy sets is a functional mapping of the form:  
\[X=\{x_{i}\}\to U=\{u_{j}\},\,i=1,\ldots,n;j=1,\ldots,s\]  
\[U=\{u_{j}\}\to Q,\,j=1,\ldots,s\]  
where \(X\) is the vector of influencing indicators, \(U\) is the aggregated influencing indicators, and \(Q\) is the overall creditworthiness of a small business. The set of groups of evaluation indicators, \(U=\{u_{j}\}\), \(j=1,\ldots,s\) by which it is proposed to determine the feasibility of lending to the borrower, must be divided into qualitative and quantitative:  
* Indicators of industry and regional specifics;
* Financial and economic indicators;
* Small business performance indicators.