【文/观察者网专栏作者 鹿鸣】 近日，广西、柳州再次进入全国舆论场的中心；前者涉及反腐与自治区人事异动，后者则是因为债务。 昨日独山，今柳州？ 6月25日，广西自治区党委书记陈刚在柳州市主持召开自治区党委常委会扩大会议，专题研究柳州市债 务化解和经济社会发展工作。而就在此次会议上强调，化解柳州债务是全区防范化解债务风险的重中之 重，举全区之力支持柳州化解债务。 柳州的热度成为互联网上的第二个"独山县"，而债务同螺蛳粉一样成了这座工业城市的一张"名片"—— 当然，这不是褒义。 网民们普遍惊叹，整个自治区都来支持柳州化债，柳州的债务问题肯定是非常严重了。但在笔者看来， 恰恰相反，此时的柳州是"已过万重山"。柳州不仅顺利完成了6月底前非标债务"清零"的阶段性化债任 务，且连续4年多守住了不发生系统性金融风险的底线。 根据2025年柳州市政府工作报告，2024年全年累计化解到期债务本息超过1000亿元，全年减少利息支出 16亿元；债务结构持续优化，银行贷款、债券、非标比例由5.5:2.9:1.6优化为6.7:2.7:0.6，债券、非标分 别减少50亿元、272亿元；全面梳理存量资产，全年盘活处置资产超过100亿元；持 ...

债券研究 证 券 研 究 报 告 【债券深度报告】 从 2024 年财报看城投平台新变化 ——化债攻坚系列之八 ❖ 本文结合城投年报数据支撑重点解答以下问题：一是从债务总量、增速、结构、 期限、债务率等维度看，2024 年城投化债成效几何？在融资口径趋严的背景 下，是否有新的关注点；二是统筹抓好化债和发展的政策指导下，城投平台的 资产质量、利润、现金流表现如何。 ❖ 2024 年城投化债成效如何？ 1、整体债务规模及增速变化：城投平台带息债务及城投债券规模同比小幅增 长，增速大幅放缓至 2019 年以来最低。其中城投债务增速连续四年下滑，债 务扩张态势明显收敛。究其原因，一是 2024 年地方政府债置换了部分城投隐 债，相关债务从城投平台转移到地方政府；二是地方政府投资项目严控新增， 城投平台项目融资需求减弱；三是城投债券融资政策依旧趋严，城投主体新增 发债难度较大，直接融资渠道受限。 2、分省份债务规模及增速变化：6 个重点省份 2024 年带息债务规模同比下 降，其中天津、贵州压降效果最为明显。而非重点省份除新疆、西藏外，带息 债务均有不同程度增长。债券方面，共 12 个省份城投债券规模同比压降，江 苏、 ...

1. Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. 2. Core Viewpoints of the Report - The "15th Five - Year Plan" period will be a new turning point for the urban investment industry. Urban investment enterprises need to seize development opportunities, use relevant policies, and address long - standing issues such as low profitability, poor asset quality, high debt pressure, and heavy reliance on local government resources [3][4]. - In 2024, under the "package debt resolution" policy, urban investment enterprises showed some positive changes, but the substantial improvement of the overall fundamentals still needs further observation. Key provinces achieved certain debt - resolution results, but their profitability, investment, and financing capabilities were weaker than other regions, and the debt - repayment pressure was prominent [2][15]. - Urban investment enterprises in the process of transformation need to pay attention to issues such as insufficient profitability in the initial stage, low asset quality, and high debt pressure, and promote the smooth transition between old and new businesses [5][6]. 3. Summary by Relevant Catalogs Asset Side - The expansion speed of urban investment enterprises was lower than the growth rate of social financing, and assets were concentrated towards the top. The asset growth rate of urban investment enterprises in key provinces slowed down significantly. By the end of 2024, the total asset scale of urban investment enterprises reached 162.70 trillion yuan, with a year - on - year growth of 5.31%, lower than the social financing growth rate of 8% in 2024 [8][17]. - The liquidity of urban investment assets weakened. The scale of monetary funds decreased significantly, and the scale and proportion of accounts receivable increased. By the end of 2024, the total scale of monetary funds of urban investment enterprises was 7.59 trillion yuan, a year - on - year decrease of 8.65% [24]. - Due to investment constraints, infrastructure business was restricted, and the growth rate of inventory slowed down. The scale of construction - in - progress projects of urban investment enterprises in key provinces decreased. In 2024, the inventory growth rate of urban investment enterprises was only 3.24%, a significant decrease of 5.46 percentage points [30][33]. Liability Side - The growth rate of debt scale slowed down. The asset - liability ratio and the scale of interest - bearing debt of urban investment enterprises in key provinces decreased for the first time. By the end of 2024, the total liability scale of urban investment enterprises reached 101.13 trillion yuan, with a year - on - year growth of 6.33%, and the growth rate decreased by 5.19 percentage points compared with 2023 [38][40]. - The financing cost of urban investment enterprises increased slightly but was still in a downward channel. The cost in key provinces decreased more significantly but was still relatively high. In 2024, the median financing cost of urban investment enterprises was 5.16%, a slight increase of 9BP compared with 2023 [46]. - The scale and proportion of non - standard financing of urban investment enterprises "double - dropped", and the debt structure of urban investment enterprises in key provinces improved significantly. In 2024, the proportion of non - standard financing of urban investment enterprises dropped to 8.57%, a decrease of 1.19 percentage points [49]. Cash Flow - The net cash flow from operating activities turned positive for the first time in five years, and nearly 80% of urban investment enterprises in key provinces had positive cash flow net. In 2024, the net cash flow from operating activities of urban investment enterprises was 0.81 trillion yuan, turning positive for the first time in five years [12][53]. - The cash outflow from investment activities slowed down. Urban investment in key provinces was more restricted, but long - term equity investment improved. In 2024, the cash outflow from investment activities of urban investment enterprises was 8.72 trillion yuan, a year - on - year decrease of 4.49% [12][56]. - The cash inflow from financing activities was under pressure, and the net amount decreased. Urban investment financing in key provinces was more restricted. In 2024, the cash inflow from financing activities of urban investment enterprises was 29.98 trillion yuan, with a year - on - year growth of 5.27%, and the growth rate decreased significantly by 6.53 percentage points [13][61]. Debt - Repayment Ability - The debt - repayment ability of urban investment enterprises continued to decline, and urban investment enterprises in key provinces faced greater debt - repayment pressure. In 2024, the current ratio, the coverage ratio of monetary funds to short - term debt, and the EBITDA interest coverage ratio of all urban investment enterprises were 2.41, 0.30, and 2.72 respectively [65]. - The debt - repayment ability of entities facing the maturity or put - back of urban investment bonds in 2025 tended to weaken. From May to December 2025, the entities facing the maturity or put - back of urban investment bonds were mainly AAA - rated and municipal - level. The maturity pressure in key provinces such as Heilongjiang and Gansu was relatively large [69].