2014-11-23 季天鹤央行观察

直接融资和间接融资的最本质差异，是资产负债表的变化不同。在复式记账法下，债务融资中融资方的负债侧必然要增加债务。若这种增加不对应所有者权益的减少，则必定对应资产的增加。

作者：季天鹤
转载请注明原作者和来源微信公众号《央行观察》

张明老师在11月13日的《上海证券报》上发表了文章《有关银行间债市的几个误读》，回顾了银行间债市的发展和现状，提供了非常有价值的指导。这里我想就张明老师关于“银行投资债券也是直接融资”的观点与张明老师商榷，并且提出我对于直接和间接融资的观点。

张明老师认为：“从理论上而言，是否属于直接融资，不是因为投资者而改变融资性质。债券和股票一样，属于典型的直接融资方式，其并不因为中介机构的存在而改变其直接融资性……从实践中而言，债券所具备的直接融资的基本属性，也不因被商业银行持有而改变。”但在论述中，“债券和股票融资一样，属于典型的直接融资方式”，仅将直接融资直接定义为债券和股票融资，并没有揭示直接融资和债务融资的本质。

传统理论用是否存在金融中介来区分直接融资和间接融资，但我认为，直接融资和间接融资的最本质差异，是资产负债表的变化不同。在复式记账法下，债务融资中融资方的负债侧必然要增加债务。若这种增加不对应所有者权益的减少，则必定对应资产的增加。但增加的资产对于出资人而言则可以有资产、负债、权益三种方式，这里暂讨论资产和负债的状况。出资人融出资产时，资产侧减记该资产而增加等量债权，故总资产不变，负债和所有者权益也不变；融资人增加资产，同时负债侧增加债务。出资人融出负债时，资产侧增加债权，负债侧增加负债，所有者权益不变，总资产和负债等量增加；融资人则依然增加资产和等量债务。此外，出资人融出负债时，本身也背上了对融资人的债务，可以说出资人和融资人互相进行债务融资，双方都是融资人，并且是另一方的出资人。

上面的两种融资方式中，融出资产对应了传统意义上的直接融资，融出负债（或者股权）则对应间接融资。等价的表示是直接融资下出资人总资产不变，间接融资下出资人总资产增加。直接融资的例子是人与人的纸币借贷：纸币是每个自然人的资产，融资时出资人减少纸币资产增加债权，融资人增加纸币资产和相应负债。间接融资的例子当然是银行贷款：银行资产增加债权，负债增加存款，融资人增加存款资产和相应负债。此外，少有提及的例子是1998年国家发行的2700亿特别国债，定向发给四大国有银行，直接补充其资本金。在这一操作中，国家增加债务给银行，银行以之为资产，同时定向对国家发行股份。这种“定向增发”本质和银行放贷相同，是间接融资，而不因发行股票和债券而改变。另一个例子里，银行作为融资方发行金融债，如果一家银行对另一家银行发行债券，另一家银行以准备金付款，则该金融债发行是一笔直接融资，而如果将自身储户的存款转化为债券，则本身并没有增加融资，只是债务成分变化，并不意味着新融资。因此直接融资和间接融资的区分和中介机构或金融工具并无直接关系。

间接融资和直接融资可以相互转化。间接融资中，如果融资人融资后用出资人的负债买入出资人资产，那么出资人因间接融资增发的债务消失，同时减少已出售的资产，达到直接融资中融资人增加债务和资产，出资人减少一种资产而增加债权资产的状态，即直接融资后的状态。而直接融资后，如果融资人融资后又将融入资产借给出资人，那么出资人的对融资人债权之外的资产回到了直接融资前的状态，而负债则增加了对融资人的负债；融资人的资产侧减少了借给出资人的资产，增加了对出资人的债权，负债侧依然保留债务，而这是间接融资后的状态。

这一相互转化的可能也造成了关于银行扩张信贷的不同解读。在传统的货币银行学中，银行吸收纸币这一资产并创造存款，之后将纸币贷出给融资人，而融资人又将纸币存入另一家银行，因而存款可以扩充到几倍于纸币的规模。而人民银行货政司孙国峰老师则认为，银行可以直接同时增加存款和贷款，将存款扩充至几倍于纸币的规模。两种观点的区别在于，前一种是直接融资视角下的货币创造，而后一种是间接融资的视角。由于直接和间接融资可以相互转化，因此这两种看法均可成立。传统货币银行学中，如果融资人融资后又立即将纸币存入银行，也就是融资人在直接融资后将融入资产借给出资人，就成为孙国峰老师的情况。而从孙国峰老师的情况出发，融资人获得存款后取出纸币，也就是融资人融资后用出资人的负债买入出资人资产，则回到了传统货币银行学的情况。

间接融资和直接融资的差别之所以产生，在于不是所有出资人都能通过增加负债的方式来满足融资人的需求。在中国只有央行，银行和发行特别国债时的国家这三种出资人可以做到，而其他机构一律则无法做到。所以我们看到余额宝虽然规模达到5000亿元，其份额在商品市场的流通能力甚至高于国债，但余额宝需要作为其资产的银行存款流入才能买入债券等其他资产，即使债券发行人从余额宝融资后将存款再投资余额宝，从而使余额宝份额同银行存款一样达到派生的效果，但这是传统货币银行学式的直接融资的派生，而不是孙国峰老师的间接融资式的扩充。所以间接融资当中，虽然理论上是债务的互持，出资人和融资人可以相互转化，如同国家发行特别国债注资四大行可以看作国家发行国债融资，也可以看作四大行发行股票融资，但由于一种（往往是银行存款，纸币）远比另一种（例如个人贷款）有流通能力，因此也就有了所谓的出资人和融资人。此外，央行和银行可以自己给自己进行间接融资：央行发行准备金负债可以直接买入外汇，银行发行存款可以直接买入纸币。这一能力甚至国家还不具备，财政部目前还不能直接发行国债收购粮食，而需借助银行存款和央行纸币。

至于张明老师不赞同的“银行成为银行间债券市场的投资者，使债券的直接融资性质退化为间接融资”的观点，我认为要看银行投资债券时给与发行人的是银行存款（银行负债）还是准备金存款（银行资产）。鉴于央行资产负债表上对非金融机构的债务只有政府存款，因此我认为银行买入企业债时是间接融资，银行扩大资产负债表，企业增加银行存款。而银行买入金融债和国债则是直接融资，融入方融入的都是央行的债务（准备金存款），特别是国债发行人由于在央行开户，发行国债就使央行准备金存款变成了政府存款。

中国目前的状况当然是直接和间接融资交织。央行提供几万亿间接融资给银行；对国家进行直接融资，无限期借给中投外汇，对应持有特别国债；给自己提供间接融资买入巨额外汇。存款性公司对其他居民部门进行间接融资，而以存款准备金为资产对国家和同业进行直接融资。居民部门之间以银行存款作为资产进行直接融资，而随着债券市场的发展，这部分直接融资一定会有更大的发展。

The most fundamental difference between direct financing and indirect financing lies in the distinct changes to the balance sheet. Under the double-entry bookkeeping method, in debt financing, the liability side of the financing party must inevitably increase debt. If this increase is not accompanied by a reduction in owner's equity, it will undoubtedly correspond to an increase in assets.

Teacher Zhang Ming published an article titled "Several Misinterpretations about the Interbank Bond Market" on November 13th in the "Shanghai Securities News." The article reviewed the development and current status of the interbank bond market and provided valuable guidance. In this context, I would like to discuss Teacher Zhang Ming's viewpoint that "bank investment in bonds is also a form of direct financing" and present my own perspective on direct and indirect financing.

Teacher Zhang Ming believes: "In theory, whether it is classified as direct financing does not change the financing nature due to the presence of investors. Bonds, like stocks, are typical forms of direct financing, and their nature as direct financing is not changed by the existence of intermediary institutions... In practice, the fundamental attributes of direct financing possessed by bonds are not altered by being held by commercial banks." However, in his discourse, the phrase "Bonds, like stocks, are typical forms of direct financing" only defines direct financing as bonds and stocks, without revealing the essence of direct and debt financing.

Traditional theory differentiates between direct and indirect financing based on the presence of financial intermediaries. However, I believe that the fundamental difference between direct and indirect financing lies in the changes to the balance sheet. Under double-entry bookkeeping, in debt financing, the liabilities of the financing party must increase. If this increase is not accompanied by a decrease in owner's equity, it must correspond to an increase in assets. But these increased assets can be represented as assets, liabilities, or equity for the investor. For now, let's focus on the situations involving assets and liabilities. When investors provide assets, the asset side decreases, and an equal amount of debt is added, keeping total assets, liabilities, and owner's equity unchanged. When financiers increase assets, the liability side sees an increase in debt. When investors provide liabilities, the asset side gains debt, the liability side gains liabilities, and owner's equity remains unchanged, resulting in an equal increase in total assets and liabilities. Financiers, on the other hand, still increase assets and liabilities in equal measure. Additionally, when investors provide liabilities, they also assume debt from the financiers, implying that investors and financiers engage in mutual debt financing, with both sides being financiers and the other side's investor.

In the two financing methods mentioned above, providing assets corresponds to the traditional notion of direct financing, while providing liabilities (or equity) corresponds to indirect financing. In other words, in direct financing, the investor's total assets remain unchanged, while in indirect financing, the investor's total assets increase. An example of direct financing is person-to-person currency lending: currency is an asset for each individual, and during financing, the investor decreases currency assets and increases the corresponding debt, while the financier increases currency assets along with corresponding liabilities. An example of indirect financing is bank loans: the bank's assets increase as debt increases, and liabilities increase as deposits increase, while the financier's assets and liabilities also increase.

Furthermore, there are rarely mentioned examples like the 270 billion special government bonds issued by the state in 1998, distributed exclusively to the four major state-owned banks, directly supplementing their capital. In this operation, the state increases debt to the banks, which treat it as an asset while simultaneously issuing shares to the state. This "targeted issuance" is essentially the same as bank lending, constituting indirect financing, and it does not change due to the issuance of stocks and bonds. In another example, if a bank issues financial bonds as a financier, and another bank purchases these bonds, paying with reserve funds, then the issuance of these financial bonds constitutes direct financing. However, if the bank converts its own depositors' deposits into bonds, it doesn't represent new financing but rather a change in the debt component. Therefore, the distinction between direct and indirect financing is not directly related to intermediary institutions or financial instruments.

Indirect and direct financing can be transformed into each other. In the case of indirect financing, if the financier uses the investor's debt to purchase the investor's assets after financing, the investor's debt arising from indirect financing disappears, and the sold assets decrease, achieving the state after direct financing where the financier increases debt and assets, and the investor decreases one type of asset while increasing debt assets. Similarly, after direct financing, if the financier lends the funded assets to the investor, the investor's assets return to their state before direct financing, and the liabilities increase due to the financier's debt. In this way, the situation after indirect financing is reached.

This possibility of transformation has led to different interpretations regarding bank credit expansion. In traditional monetary banking theory, banks absorb assets like currency to create deposits, then lend these currencies to financiers. If financiers deposit these currencies in another bank, the deposits can expand to several times the amount of currency. On the other hand, Sun Guofeng, from the Monetary Policy Department of the People's Bank of China, believes that banks can directly increase both deposits and loans, expanding deposits to several times the amount of currency. The difference between the two views lies in the perspective: the former is based on direct financing, while the latter is based on indirect financing. Since direct and indirect financing can transform into each other, both perspectives are valid. In traditional monetary banking theory, if financiers immediately deposit the borrowed currency in a bank after financing, essentially lending the funded assets to the investor, this situation aligns with Sun Guofeng's view. Conversely, starting from Sun Guofeng's view, if the financier borrows the deposited currency after financing, returning to traditional monetary banking theory, this corresponds to the situation in traditional monetary banking theory.

The reason for the difference between indirect and direct financing lies in the fact that not all investors can satisfy the financier's demands by increasing debt. In China, only three types of investors—the central bank, banks, and the government when issuing special government bonds—can achieve this, while other institutions cannot. Hence, while Yu'ebao's size might reach 500 billion RMB, and its trading capacity in the commodity market might even exceed that of government bonds, Yu'ebao needs bank deposits to flow into it as assets to purchase other assets like bonds. Even if the bond issuer borrows from Yu'ebao and reinvests the funds back into it, effectively bringing Yu'ebao's shares to the same derivative level as bank deposits, this is a derivation of direct financing from the traditional monetary banking theory, not an expansion in Sun Guofeng's sense of indirect financing. In this regard, although theoretically there's mutual holding of debt in indirect financing, and investors and financiers can transform into each other—just as the state issuing special government bonds to recapitalize the four major banks can be seen as state debt issuance or as issuing stocks for financing—it's because one form (usually bank deposits or currency) is far more liquid than the other (such as individual loans), leading to the concept of investors and financiers. Additionally, the central bank and banks can engage in indirect financing with themselves: the central bank can issue reserve deposit liabilities to directly purchase foreign exchange, while banks can issue deposits to directly buy currency. This ability even surpasses that of the state; currently, the Ministry of Finance cannot directly issue government bonds to purchase grain, and relies on bank deposits and central bank currency.

In terms of Zhang Ming's disagreement with the idea that "banks becoming investors in the interbank bond market has diluted the direct financing nature of bonds into indirect financing," I believe that it depends on whether banks invest in bonds using bank deposits (bank liabilities) or reserve deposits (bank assets). Given that the People's Bank of China's balance sheet only includes government deposits for non-financial institutions, I believe that when banks purchase corporate bonds, it constitutes indirect financing, as banks expand their balance sheets, and businesses increase bank deposits. However, when banks purchase financial bonds and government bonds, it constitutes direct financing, as the funded party issues debt (reserve deposits) to the central bank. Especially in the case of government bonds, as the bond issuer holds an account with the central bank, the issuance of government bonds transforms the central bank's reserve deposits into government deposits.

China's current situation is undoubtedly a mixture of direct and indirect financing. The central bank provides trillions of indirect financing to banks; they engage in direct financing with the state, lending unlimited foreign exchange to China Investment Corporation, corresponding to holding special government bonds; and they engage in indirect financing by buying large amounts of foreign exchange. Deposit-taking companies engage in indirect financing with other resident sectors, while using reserve deposits as assets to engage in direct financing with the state and other banks. Resident sectors engage in direct financing with each other using bank deposits as assets. With the development of the bond market, this form of direct financing will undoubtedly grow.