融资平台退出和城投公司转型的路径探析——基于金融债权视角

Core Viewpoint - Local debt risk is considered one of the three major "gray rhinos" in the economic field, crucial for the overall construction of Chinese-style modernization. The exit of financing platforms and the market-oriented transformation of urban investment companies are essential for establishing a long-term mechanism to prevent and resolve local debt risks, as well as achieving "development through debt reduction" [1]. Financing Platform Exit Situation - The local debt, primarily carried by financing platforms, has played a significant role in promoting local economic and social development. A series of government documents since 2010 have aimed to regulate and reduce the functions of these platforms, culminating in the 2024 "Document No. 150," which mandates the complete exit of financing platforms by June 2027, requiring them to clear hidden debts and transform into market-oriented entities [2][3]. Progress and Path of National Financing Platform Exit - By 2025, significant progress has been made in reducing the number of financing platforms, with a total reduction of 4,680 platforms, accounting for over two-thirds of the annual decrease. Some provinces, such as Ningxia and Inner Mongolia, have achieved exit rates of 76% and 66.5%, respectively, surpassing the national average [3][4]. Challenges and Difficulties in Financing Platform Exit - The exit process faces several challenges, including pressure to clear hidden debts, difficulties in obtaining consent from financial creditors, and unclear operational standards. The current economic environment, characterized by declining land transfer revenues and tight finances, exacerbates these challenges [6]. Urban Investment Company Transformation Path - Urban investment companies are experiencing a "three weaknesses" phenomenon in operations, management, and assets. The transformation process is focused on market-oriented, refined, and specialized development, with a shift towards becoming state-owned capital investment/operation companies, urban comprehensive operators, or industrial groups [7][8]. Transition to State-Owned Capital Investment/Operation Companies - The primary model involves integrating industrial investment with state-owned asset management, focusing on optimizing state capital layout and enhancing value preservation and appreciation. This transition is guided by national policies and aims to improve operational efficiency [9]. Transition to Urban Comprehensive Operators - Urban comprehensive operators are expected to provide a full range of services, from planning and construction to operation and management. This transition requires a clear urban development strategy and the expansion of diversified business operations [13][14]. Transition to Industrial Companies - The trend of urban investment companies rebranding as "industrial investment" reflects a strategic intent to alleviate local debt pressure and effectively promote industrial development. This involves optimizing industrial park operations and leveraging regional resource advantages [16][17]. Recommendations for Financing Platform Exit and Urban Investment Company Transformation - To achieve effective exit and transformation, a top-level design approach is necessary, focusing on short-term survival and long-term development. This includes establishing clear exit goals, optimizing asset and debt structures, and enhancing financial support mechanisms [19][20][21].