How to view China’s credit in full bloom? Sina Finance and economics e observation (WeChat public number: sinaeguancha) columnist Wang Jian January credit blooming, it is rumored that in February the number is not small. This may not be a sudden phenomenon, but a change in the bank’s behavior after the change in the overall regulatory index. MPA started the central bank in 2016 to implement the "macro Prudential evaluation system" (Macro Prudential Assessment, hereinafter referred to as MPA) in the banking sector, quarterly assessment. The first quarter has more than half, more than a month later, the banks are about to usher in the first assessment. Please On your marks. The main purpose of MPA is to control the overall risk level of the financial system. For a long time, there has been a big problem in financial regulation, that is, the micro stability of financial institutions does not necessarily bring about macro stability. Even if each financial institution is robust, in some cases, macro risks will also arise. The most typical example is the stock market allocation. Each business leverage seems to be controllable, but all these controllable levers add up, in extreme circumstances, the market will stampede. Therefore, the financial supervision should not only manage the individual of financial institutions, but also manage the macro entirety". Not only focusing on certain institutions is not compliance, but also pay attention to important points, good macroeconomic risk monitoring. The practice is periodic Supervision: if macro risk signs, it is necessary to begin to control leverage, lever down. The better the business cycle is, the more likely the institution is to have a fever and leverage, and the more leverage the regulator will have. This is countercyclical regulation. Although the lever down will make less money, but when the mother is for you. How to let institutions consciously reduce leverage? It’s easy to reward low-risk "good banks" and punish "wild kids"". How to distinguish between "good bank" and "wild child"? Doesn’t this mother make up a MPA scoring system? According to the central bank has the disclosure of MPA information, the content is as follows: (1) the central bank has designed a scoring system, to consider the macro risk level (including 7 aspects, namely capital and leverage, assets and liabilities, liquidity, pricing, asset quality, debt risk, credit policy implementation). Specific content may be adjusted according to the actual situation. Then, the banks were graded every quarter. (2) the original means of supervision were upgraded into MPA. For example, the original narrow credit (i.e., the loan, the central bank stipulates the size of the bank’s preferred loans), now become a broad credit management (including bonds, non-standard and other means of lending). Because the bank loan means of enterprise can only manage credit derived M2, so is the control of M2 (2012-2013 is an example, but the central bank credit, no industry, the industry there spilled a lot of M2, leading to excessive M2, the central bank had to go to war, with a "shortage of money" to curb). In fact, we have introduced the word "generalized credit" in the early report. Correspondingly, the central bank controls the agreed loans.

如何看待中国现在怒放的信贷?   文 新浪财经金融e观察(微信公众号:sinaeguancha)专栏作家 王剑   1月信贷怒放,据传2月数字也不小。这可能不是突然现象,而是整体监管指标改变之后,银行行为的相应转变。   MPA启动   央行于2016年开始在银行业实施“宏观审慎评估体系”(Macro Prudential Assessment, 以下简称MPA),每季度一考核。一季度已经过半,一个多月后,银行们即将迎来第一次考核。请大家各就各位。   MPA的主要意图,是为了控制金融体系的整体风险水平。   长期以来,金融监管上一直有个头大的问题,就是金融机构的微观稳健并不必然带来宏观稳健。即使每个金融机构是稳健的,某些情况下,也会暴发宏观风险。   最为典型的例子,就是股市配资。每笔业务杠杆率看似都是可控的,但所有这些可控的杠杆加起来,在极端情景下,市场就会踩踏。   所以,金融监管,不但要管好“金融机构个体”,还要管好“宏观整体”。不能只盯住某某机构是不是合规,还要大处着眼,监控好宏观风险。   通行的做法是周期监管:如果宏观有风险苗头,就要开始控杠杆,把杠杆水平降下来。经济周期越好时,机构们越容易头脑发热加杠杆,监管者就越要控杠杆。这就是逆周期监管。虽然降了杠杆会少赚钱,但当妈的是为你好。   怎么样让机构们自觉降杠杆呢?很简单,给风险低的“乖银行”奖励,惩罚“野孩子”。怎么分辨“乖银行”、“野孩子”呢?这不央妈就编了一套MPA评分体系吗?   根据央行已披露的MPA信息,其内容大致为:   (1)央行设计了一套打分体系,用来考量宏观风险水平(包括7大方面,即资本和杠杆、资产负债情况、流动性、定价行为、资产质量、外债风险、信贷政策执行)。具体的内容可能会根据实际情况不断调整。然后,每季度给银行们打分。   (2)原来的监管手段被“升级”,纳入MPA。比如,原来只管狭义信贷(就是贷款,央行规定银行的合意贷款规模),现在变成管住广义信贷(包括债券、非标等其他放款手段)。因为银行对企业的各种放款手段都能派生M2,所以仅管住信贷是控制不住M2的(2012-2013年就是例证,央行只管信贷,没管同业,结果同业那边漏出了好多M2,导致M2过量,央行不得不大动干戈,用一场“钱荒”来遏制)。其实,我们在早期的报告里就已经引进“广义信贷”一词了。相应地,央行对合意贷款的控制也取消。   央行祭出一整套的宏观审慎监管框架,根本目标是为了维持宏观金融体系的稳定,避免类似过于几年那样,因监管不够协调或不够宏观,导致监管真空,小型、局部流动性危机每两年出现一次(温州事件、钱荒、股灾,后面还会有啥?)。MPA也是对前期高层会议要求金融监管统一的落实。   不必惊奇于怒放的信贷   监管制度变革后,银行的行为自然也会变化。因为人的行为是制度的函数。   比如,银行以前受存贷比、合意贷款规模、资本充足率、贷款投向限制等监管制约,发放贷款的总额有限。很多资产投放包装成非标资产,由同业资金或理财资金对接,不再体现在信贷科目内。   如今,存贷比即将弱化,合意贷款规模也取消,那么制约银行投放信贷的因素少了很多,也就没那么大动机去把信贷包装成非标出表了。   于是,很多以前不得不用非标投放的资产,可以光明正大地纳入信贷科目了。我们相信,这是1月份信贷怒放的原因之一(当然不是惟一原因)。   所以,怒放的信贷,是整体监管指标改变之后,银行行为的相应转变。   M2增长、广义信贷与融资结构   1月信贷数据虽高,但如若按MPA的思路,我们应关注广义信贷。   广义信贷的投放,最终会形成M2(银行以自有资金向实体企业或个人投放,均会派生M2)。M2是央行关注的指标。   从前,外汇占款投放了一部分M2(2013年曾经高至20%左右),更而多M2则依靠广义信贷来投放,其中信贷又是最主要的。但2014年,外占下降,无法提供那么多M2了,广义信贷承担了更多投放M2的功能。   到了2015年之后,外占下降,反而是收缩了M2。于是,为了保持M2平稳增长,其他M2派生渠道的投放力度就要进一步加强。   所以,这能一定程度上解释今天的广义信贷的井喷。2016年1月,外汇占款下降1000亿美元,收缩了约6600亿元的M2。因此,所投放的约3万亿元广义信贷中,6600亿元用来对冲外占收缩的M2,净投放M2也就2.3万亿多,M2余额同比增长14%(比我们预期略高,但不算离谱),所以并不如大家想象的那么恐怖。   今后,央行关注M2,银行则参考预期的M2增速,控制广义信贷投放,从而保证全国M2增速合理。   而广义信贷里面的结构,则可由银行自行决定。这对银行来说,有很大好处。   因为,广义信贷中的不同品种,对应的是不同的资金投向(先不考虑各类客户的风险水平对银行资产投放意愿的影响)。比如,中小企业(包括零售部门)适合贷款、票据贴现,大型企业则适合债券,其他一些客户(比如地方融资平台)则适合非标。以前信贷额度被控制,银行转为投放非标、债券,其实恰恰影响了中小企业、零售部门的融资,而纵容了大型企业、地方融资平台的融资。这明显与高层“信贷支持中小微企业”的政策意图相反。这就是扭曲的监管措施导致了银行的行为扭曲,偏离了高层政策意图。   所以,取消了信贷规模,只管广义信贷,虽然总量上不影响M2,但从结构上,使融资结构更为灵活,有助于银行更好地服务实体经济。这确实是好事。   (本文作者介绍:中国人民大学金融学硕士,CFA持牌人,曾供职于浙商证券、光大证券研究所,担任金融行业分析师,2015年7月加盟东方证券研究所。)   本文为作者独家授权新浪财经使用,请勿转载。所发表言论不代表本站观点。相关的主题文章: