Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges and complexities surrounding the transferability of accounts receivable debt certificates issued by urban investment platforms, highlighting the difficulties faced by investors in liquidating these assets in the secondary market [2][16][19]. Group 1: Overview of Accounts Receivable Debt Certificates - Accounts receivable debt certificates are typically issued by urban investment platforms and can be transferred or used to offset debts, representing a new model for these platforms to manage their liabilities [1][3]. - The certificates are backed by the credit of urban investment companies, which investors initially believed would facilitate easier trading in the secondary market [2][3]. Group 2: Case Study of Investor Experience - An investor, Guo Pei, exchanged six properties valued at approximately 6.5 million yuan for accounts receivable debt certificates worth over 11.5 million yuan, believing in their high liquidity due to the backing of a city investment company [7][10]. - Despite the initial optimism, Guo faced significant challenges in transferring the certificates, discovering that they were difficult to sell in the market, leading to a situation where they became "hot potatoes" [2][16]. Group 3: Market Dynamics and Challenges - The market for these debt certificates is characterized by a lack of buyers, with Guo's attempts to liquidate his holdings resulting in no viable offers, reflecting a broader trend where many investors are unable to find buyers for similar certificates [16][18]. - The urban investment company involved, Shengxiang Investment, indicated that the certificates would not be redeemable until 2028, further complicating the liquidity issue for investors [19][20]. Group 4: Regulatory and Structural Insights - The article mentions a regulatory framework aimed at standardizing the issuance and management of accounts receivable debt certificates, which is intended to support small and medium-sized enterprises in obtaining financing and to help urban investment platforms manage their assets [21][22]. - The recent guidelines from the central bank and other departments emphasize the need for better management and oversight of these financial instruments to prevent potential risks associated with their misuse [22][23].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by individuals and companies in trading accounts receivable debt certificates backed by urban investment platforms, highlighting the difficulties in liquidity and market acceptance of these financial instruments [2][3][10]. Group 1: Accounts Receivable Debt Certificates - Accounts receivable debt certificates are issued by urban investment platforms and are intended for transfer or debt settlement, representing a new model for urban investment platforms to alleviate debt [2][3]. - The initial creditor of the certificates is the New Oriental Urban Investment Company, while the debtor is the Inner Mongolia Shengxiang Investment Company, with a maturity date set for November 29, 2028 [2][3]. Group 2: Investment and Exchange Process - An individual named Guo Pei exchanged six properties valued at approximately 650,000 yuan for accounts receivable debt certificates worth over 1,150,000 yuan, believing in the high liquidity of these certificates due to the backing of urban investment companies [4][7]. - The exchange was facilitated by a company named Hongsha Commerce, which promised high returns and a buyback option, further encouraging the investment [4][5]. Group 3: Market Challenges - Despite the initial optimism, Guo Pei found it difficult to transfer the certificates in the secondary market, leading to a realization that they had become "hot potatoes" with no willing buyers [3][9][10]. - Other individuals in similar situations reported challenges in receiving payments on their certificates, indicating a broader issue with the liquidity and marketability of these financial instruments [9][10]. Group 4: Regulatory and Market Context - The article mentions a regulatory framework emerging around accounts receivable electronic certificates, aimed at standardizing and managing these financial instruments to support small and medium enterprises and urban investment platforms [12][13]. - The Central Bank and other departments issued guidelines to regulate supply chain financial services, indicating a move towards more structured management of accounts receivable debt certificates [13].