第三方担保与地方隐性债务风险化解:基于专业担保与关联担保的对比研究

Third party guarantee and risk resolution of implicit local public debts:A comparative study based on related guarantee and professional guarantee

第三方担保作为债务融资广泛运用的增信工具,是建立市场化债务风险处置机制、稳妥有序化解地方隐性债务风险的一个重要探索方向。与以往仅关注担保整体效应不同,利用2014—2020年城投债发行与交易数据,首次区分“地方融资平台”和“融资担保公司”两类担保人。地方融资平台实为“关联担保”,不仅无法缓释风险,还会加大平台关联与风险累积,产生“担保正溢价”现象;融资担保公司作为专业经营信用风险的持牌金融机构,通过担保信号提供“贷前”增量信息、增加第二还款来源降低“贷后”违约损失两个渠道,带动风险溢价下降0.089%~0.46%。专业担保还能“雪中送炭”,对行政等级低、债务负担重等更需增信支持的弱资质平台,以及突发极端市场环境表现出更强缓释效果。研究结果对深入理解隐性担保与显性第三方担保关系,更好地发挥专业担保在保障融资平台合理融资需求、防止发生处置风险的风险中的积极作用有指导意义。

As a risk mitigation tool widely used in debt financing,third-party guarantee is an important exploration direction for establishing a market-oriented implicit local public debt(ILPD)risk disposal mechanism.Based on the issuing and trading data of urban investment bonds(UIBs)from 2014 to 2020,this paper distinguishes two types of guarantors:“financing guarantee company”(FGCs)and“local government financing vehicles”(LGFVs),and systematically investigates the risk mitigation effect of third-party guarantee on ILPD.(1)The related guarantee between LGFVs can increase the correlation risk and push up the issuing premium of UIBs.(2)The professional guarantee provided by FGCs can provide incremental information by sending guarantee signals and reduce default losses,driving the issuing premium and trading spreads of UIBs by 0.089%-0.46%on average.(3)Professional guarantee can also be a“timely help”.For debt-issuing LGFVs with weak fundamentals and less political resources,and market environments in which default occurs and external credit support is needed,FGCs will play a more significant role in risk mitigation.This paper reveals the specialized market force of FGCs,which has been neglected for a long time but can effectively mitigate the risks of UIBs.It has important practical value for the disposal of ILPDs especially under the current debt default cluster.