|
|
|
| Has China's Monetary Policy Reform Prevented Enterprises from “Being Diverted out of the Real Economy”？ Evidence Based on the Medium-term Lending Facility |
| LI Zengfu, LI Mingjie, TANG Xudong
|
School of Economics and Management, South China Normal University;
School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology |
|
|
|
Abstract As the Central Bank, the People's Bank of China(PBC) has continued to implement measures to maintain stable economic development. Notably, the PBC continues to use the Medium-term Lending Facility (MLF) as an important tool for achieving its monetary policy intentions and to improve firms' expectations, investment prospects and financing structures.
Although a number of studies discuss the impact of the MLF, little research examines how the MLF affects the financialization of enterprises. This paper examines this relationship with the aim of clarifying the role that the MLF plays in preventing enterprises from “being diverted out of the real economy.”
This paper uses manually compiled data on the loans and interest rates provided by the MLF on a case-by-case basis. Based on quarterly data from non-financial listed companies from 2014 to 2021, a panel data analysis is conducted to empirically test the impact of the MLF on corporate financialization. The results show that a moderate reduction in the MLF interest rate significantly reduces the level of financialization of firms. Specifically, moderate decreases in the MLF interest rate are found to lead to moderate declines in bank loan interest rates, thus reducing the financing costs of enterprises, ensuring sufficient mid-term and long-term loans for enterprises, improving the investment level of enterprises and alleviating the phenomenon of being diverted out of the real economy. Further analysis shows that the above effects are more significant for enterprises that make active speculative transactions and have strong financing constraints, a heavy tax burden and low levels of regional financialization. These results suggest that the MLF plays a beneficial role in reducing the financing costs of the real economy and promoting long-term corporate financing and investment. Accordingly, the MLF plays a significant role in restraining the phenomenon of being diverted out of the real economy and promoting steady economic development.
The MLF can also play a positive financing role in injecting low-cost capital into the real economy. This additional low-cost capital effectively reduces the financing costs of enterprises, improves their long-term financing and enhances their investment capacity. To achieve this, the MLF makes full use of the operational characteristics of banks and the transmission mechanism of the credit market. Following the successful implementation of the MLF, the PBC created the Targeted Medium-term Lending Facility (TMLF) to provide clearer lending targets and more favorable interest rates and to prevent private enterprises from being diverted out of the real economy,and the economic impact of the new facility is an important topic for future research.
The MLF has a relatively effective micro-transmission mechanism that matches the economic context and can make full use of the pricing mechanism of banks. As the MLF is also highly policy-oriented, policies can be set to make full use of the market mechanism to restrain enterprises from being diverted out of the real economy. As policy can be used to stabilize market expectations, combined with the reform of the loan prime rate mechanism, the MLF’s micro-transmission mechanism enables funds to be precisely targeted in the policy-oriented real economy. The MLF is a major reform initiative and innovation of the PBC. In the future, the MLF is likely to be updated and improved so as to continually optimize its economic impact. Given the increasingly important role the MLF is playing in the monetary policy system, any improvement of the policy is likely to have a positive impact on the real economy. Overall, the MLF is expected to provide increasingly strong and high-quality support for the real economy, improve the stability of the macroeconomic market and contribute to China' new journey toward modernization.
|
|
Received: 16 September 2021
Published: 20 January 2023
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
曹伟、万谍、钱水土和金朝辉,2019,《“一带一路”背景下人民币汇率变动的进口价格传递效应研究》,《经济研究》第6期,第136～150页。
|
| [2] |
邓伟、宋敏和刘敏,2021,《借贷便利创新工具有效影响了商业银行贷款利率吗？》,《金融研究》第11期,第60～78页。
|
| [3] |
范子英和彭飞,2017,《“营改增”的减税效应和分工效应:基于产业互联的视角》,《经济研究》第2期,第82～95页。
|
| [4] |
韩珣和李建军,2020,《金融错配、非金融企业影子银行化与经济“脱实向虚”》,《金融研究》第8期,第93～111页。
|
| [5] |
金鹏辉、张翔和高峰,2014,《银行过度风险承担及货币政策与逆周期资本调节的配合》,《经济研究》第6期,第73～85页。
|
| [6] |
鞠晓生、卢荻和虞义华,2013,《融资约束、营运资本管理与企业创新可持续性》,《经济研究》第1期,第4～16页。
|
| [7] |
邝雄、胡南贤和徐艳,2019,《货币政策不确定性与银行信贷决策——基于新闻报道文本分析的实证研究》,《金融经济学研究》第5期,第68～79页。
|
| [8] |
李宏瑾、苏乃芳和洪浩,2016,《价格型货币政策调控中的实际利率锚》,《经济研究》第1期,第42～54页。
|
| [9] |
李梅和余天骄,2016,《研发国际化是否促进了企业创新——基于中国信息技术企业的经验研究》,《管理世界》第11期,第125～140页。
|
| [10] |
李青原、陈世来和陈昊,2022,《金融强监管的实体经济效应——来自资管新规的经验证据》,《经济研究》第1期,第137～154页。
|
| [11] |
李雪和郭俊余,2022,《中国货币政策向收益率曲线传导的有效性——兼论结构性政策工具组合》,《经济社会体制比较》第1期,第77～90页。
|
| [12] |
李增福、陈俊杰、连玉君和李铭杰,2022,《经济政策不确定性与企业短债长用》,《管理世界》第1期,第77～89+143+90～101页。
|
| [13] |
刘晓光和刘元春,2019,《杠杆率、短债长用与企业表现》,《经济研究》第7期,第127～141页。
|
| [14] |
彭俞超、倪骁然和沈吉,2018,《企业“脱实向虚”与金融市场稳定——基于股价崩盘风险的视角》,《经济研究》第10期,第50～66页。
|
| [15] |
钱雪松、杜立和马文涛,2015,《中国货币政策利率传导有效性研究:中介效应和体制内外差异》,《管理世界》第11期,第11～28+187页。
|
| [16] |
强静、侯鑫和范龙振,2018,《基准利率、预期通胀率和市场利率期限结构的形成机制》,《经济研究》第4期,第92～107页。
|
| [17] |
饶品贵和姜国华,2013,《货币政策对银行信贷与商业信用互动关系影响研究》,《经济研究》第1期,第68～82+150页。
|
| [18] |
史本叶、王晓娟和冯叶,2020,《流动性管理视角下中国货币政策工具有效性研究》,《世界经济》第9期,第147～172页。
|
| [19] |
苏冬蔚和毛建辉,2019,《股市过度投机与中国实体经济:理论与实证》,《经济研究》第10期,第152～166页。
|
| [20] |
田国强和李双建,2020,《经济政策不确定性与银行流动性创造:来自中国的经验证据》,《经济研究》第11期,第19～35页。
|
| [21] |
王博、李力和郝大鹏,2019,《货币政策不确定性、违约风险与宏观经济波动》,《经济研究》第3期,第119～134页。
|
| [22] |
王克敏、刘静和李晓溪,2017,《产业政策、政府支持与公司投资效率研究》,《管理世界》第3期,第113～124+145+188页。
|
| [23] |
王曦和金钊,2021,《同业市场摩擦、银行异质性与货币政策传导》,《经济研究》第10期,第56～71页。
|
| [24] |
王义中、陈丽芳和宋敏,2015,《中国信贷供给周期的实际效果:基于公司层面的经验证据》,《经济研究》第1期,第52～66页。
|
| [25] |
吴丽华和傅广敏,2014,《人民币汇率、短期资本与股价互动》,《经济研究》第11期,第72～86页。
|
| [26] |
伍中信、张娅和张雯,2013,《信贷政策与企业资本结构——来自中国上市公司的经验证据》,《会计研究》第3期,第51～58+96页。
|
| [27] |
谢富胜和匡晓璐,2020,《制造业企业扩大金融活动能够提升利润率吗？——以中国A股上市制造业企业为例》,《管理世界》第12期,第13～28页。
|
| [28] |
杨筝、王红建、戴静和许传华,2019,《放松利率管制、利润率均等化与实体企业“脱实向虚”》,《金融研究》第6期,第20～38页。
|
| [29] |
易宪容,2014,《美国量宽政策退出的市场不确定性效应》,《财贸经济》第5期,第39～50页。
|
| [30] |
喻坤、李治国、张晓蓉和徐剑刚,2014,《企业投资效率之谜:融资约束假说与货币政策冲击》,《经济研究》第5期,第106～120页。
|
| [31] |
战明华、李帅、刘恩慧和许月丽,2019,《利率市场化改革是否弱化了货币政策传导的“伯南克之谜”》,《世界经济》第4期,第101～122页。
|
| [32] |
张成思和刘贯春,2018,《中国实业部门投融资决策机制研究——基于经济政策不确定性和融资约束异质性视角》,《经济研究》第12期,第51～67页。
|
| [33] |
张成思和张步昙,2016,《中国实业投资率下降之谜:经济金融化视角》,《经济研究》第12期,第32～46页。
|
| [34] |
Acharya, V. V., Eisert, T., Eufinger, C., and Hirsch, C. 2019. “Whatever It Takes: The Real Effects of Unconventional Monetary Policy”, Review of Financial Studies, 32(9):3366～3411.
|
| [35] |
Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., and Davis, S. J. 2016. “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4):1593～1636.
|
| [36] |
Custódio, C., Ferreira, M. A., and Laureano, L. 2013. “Why Are US Firms Using More Short-term Debt？”, Journal of Financial Economics, 108(1):182～212.
|
| [37] |
Foley-Fisher, N., Ramcharan, R., and Yu, E. 2016. “The Impact of Unconventional Monetary Policy on Firm Financing Constraints: Evidence from the Maturity Extension Program”, Journal of Financial Economics, 122(2):409～429.
|
| [38] |
Gomes, J., Jermann, U., and Schmid, L. 2016. “Sticky Leverage”, American Economic Review, 106(12): 3800～3828.
|
| [39] |
Hadlock, C. J. and Pierce, J. R. 2010. “New Evidence on Measuring Financial Constraints: Moving beyond the KZ Index”, Review of Financial Studies, 23(5):1909～1940.
|
| [40] |
Rocheteau, G., Wright, R., and Zhang, C. 2018. “Corporate Finance and Monetary Policy”, American Economic Review, 108(4-5):1147～1186.
|
| [41] |
Titman, S. and Wessels, R. 1988. “The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice”, Journal of Finance, 43(1):1～19.
|
| [42] |
Zentefis, A. K. 2020. “Bank Net Worth and Frustrated Monetary Policy”, Journal of Financial Economics, 138(3):687～699.
|
|
|
|
