Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the negative impact of non-performing loan (NPL) securitization on the profitability of commercial banks, emphasizing that it does not effectively reduce the NPL ratio as intended [2][19]. Summary by Sections Securitization Process - A bank issued a securitized product based on personal credit NPLs, with a total asset pool amounting to 1.2 billion yuan, including 1.11 billion yuan in principal and 90 million yuan in interest and fees [3][4]. - The expected total recovery from these NPLs over 2-3 years is 237 million yuan [3]. Cash Flow and Recovery Analysis - During the transition period, approximately 105 million yuan was recovered, accounting for 60.73% of the investment amount [5]. - In the year of issuance, 135 million yuan was recovered, representing 78.08% of the investment amount [6]. - Over the first year, a total of 204.5 million yuan was recovered, exceeding the investment amount of 172.9 million yuan [7]. Impact on NPL Reduction - The bank effectively reduced its NPLs by 1.82 billion yuan through securitization, but still had to write off a difference of 928 million yuan between the principal and the amount received [8]. - The article questions whether the cash flow received through securitization is genuinely "advanced," as the bank could have received similar amounts without securitization [9][10]. Long-term Recovery Comparison - Over a full year, the total recovery from the NPLs was significantly higher than the amount received through securitization, suggesting that not securitizing would have led to better NPL management [12]. - If the bank continues to issue securitized products annually, the effectiveness of this method in reducing NPLs diminishes over time [13]. Risk Classification and Profitability - Securitization leads to the loss of potential risk classification adjustments, as the underlying assets no longer belong to the bank, which could have been reclassified from non-performing to performing [18]. - The article concludes that the costs associated with securitization, including the need to write off non-compliant loans, negatively impact the bank's profitability [19][17]. Conclusion - Overall, the article argues that the perceived benefits of NPL securitization are misleading, as traditional methods of recovery and write-offs could achieve similar or better results without the associated costs and risks of securitization [19][20].

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that securitization is not an effective method for disposing of non-performing loans, despite its appearance of providing immediate liquidity and reducing the bank's non-performing loan balance [2][3]. Summary by Sections Securitization Process - A bank issued a securitized product based on personal credit non-performing loans, with a total principal amount of 11.10 billion yuan and an expected recovery of 2.37 billion yuan over 2-3 years [3][5]. - The securitized product was issued for 1.82 billion yuan, which is only 16.40% of the total principal amount [4]. Investor and Bank Perspectives - Investors are attracted to the securitized product because the expected recovery of 2.37 billion yuan exceeds the issued amount of 1.82 billion yuan, providing potential profit [6]. - The bank benefits from securitization by reducing its non-performing loan balance and receiving service fees for managing the loans post-securitization [7]. Profit Impact Analysis - The actual recovery from the securitized loans during the transition period was 1.05 billion yuan, which is 60.73% of the investment amount received [11]. - If the bank had not securitized, it could have potentially increased its profit by approximately 1.14 billion yuan through recovery and reversal of provisions [19][21]. Accounting and Provisioning - The securitized loans had a book value of 1.725 billion yuan after provisioning, and the profit from the securitization was only 0.004 billion yuan, indicating minimal financial benefit [16][19]. - The article highlights that the bank's profit from securitization is limited due to the high level of provisions already accounted for [20]. Long-term Implications - The article suggests that securitization may lead to a long-term negative impact on the bank's profitability, as future recoveries from the securitized loans will not contribute to the bank's profits [21]. - The potential for multiple securitizations could cumulatively result in significant profit losses for the bank [21].

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that while securitization is a financing tool, it is not suitable for banks to dispose of non-performing loans due to various inefficiencies and potential losses associated with the process [1][2][21]. Summary by Sections Principle Explanation - Securitization primarily generates returns for investors from the recovery of non-performing loans, which are still collected by the banks themselves, leading to a situation where banks effectively pay out a portion of their own recoveries to investors [1][2]. - The cash flow from securitized non-performing loans tends to be stable initially but decreases over time, which complicates the timing of cash recovery during the transition period before formal issuance [2][5]. - During the transition period, banks may only receive about 50% of the expected cash flow from the securitized assets, as the initial recoveries belong to the investors [5][6]. - The article highlights that banks often incur significant write-off resources when securitizing loans, which could be avoided through direct recovery methods [7][8]. Empirical Analysis - From 2021 to 2024, Postal Savings Bank issued 22 securitization products, with the total amount of non-performing loans disposed of and the corresponding cash received from securitization detailed in a table [11][12]. - The average cash recovery during the transition period reached approximately 47.8% of the securitization proceeds, demonstrating the inefficiency of the securitization process [14]. - The analysis shows that the cash recovery period for these products averaged around 367 days, indicating that banks could have achieved similar results through direct recovery without securitization [14][15]. Related Thoughts - The article discusses the motivations behind banks engaging in securitization, suggesting that intermediaries benefit financially from the process, which may lead to a lack of thorough cost-benefit analysis by the banks themselves [20][21]. - It emphasizes that while securitization is a common practice, it may not be the most effective method for managing non-performing loans, as banks could achieve better outcomes through direct recovery and write-off strategies [21][22].

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that securitization is not an effective method for disposing of non-performing loans, despite being a financing tool [2][10]. Summary by Sections Securitization Example - Postal Savings Bank issued a securitized product based on personal credit non-performing consumer loans, with a total of 18,529 loans and 8,675 borrowers involved [3][4]. - The total principal amount of the underlying assets was 1.11 billion yuan, with an expected recovery of 237.33 million yuan over 33 months [3][4]. Issuance Details - The securitized product had a total issuance amount of 182 million yuan, with a senior tranche of 142 million yuan at a fixed interest rate of 2.38% [4][5]. - The expected maturity date for the senior tranche is January 26, 2024, with a legal maturity date of April 26, 2028 [5]. Recovery and Issuance Discrepancies - The article questions why only 182 million yuan was issued against a principal of 1.11 billion yuan, highlighting that the loans are non-performing and not all can be recovered [7]. - It also discusses why the expected recovery of 237 million yuan led to an issuance of only 182 million yuan, emphasizing the need to account for costs and investor returns [7]. Investor Interest - Investors are willing to purchase the securitized product because the expected recovery exceeds the amount invested, providing a potential profit margin [8]. Bank's Motivation for Securitization - The bank benefits from reducing its non-performing loan balance and receiving upfront cash from the securitization, which can enhance profits if the loans have been fully provisioned [9]. Critique of Securitization - The article argues that the cash received from securitization may be less than what could be recovered through traditional collection methods, especially when considering the transitional period where funds are not accessible to the bank [11][15]. - It highlights that the supposed time advantage of receiving cash earlier through securitization does not hold up under scrutiny, as the bank cannot freely use funds collected during the transitional period [15][17]. Alternative Solutions - The article suggests that traditional methods like write-offs and collections could effectively replace securitization, as they do not incur the same costs and risks associated with securitization [20][22]. - It emphasizes that banks can still manage their non-performing loans effectively without resorting to securitization, which may lead to negative impacts on profitability and loan classification [24][26].