2. The emergence of urban investment bonds is the product of multiple factors, such as the mismatch between central and local financial powers, soft financial constraints of local governments, and incentive mechanisms. Therefore, in the historical process of the continuous expansion of urban investment bonds, there are more and more participants and regulators. At first, the National Development and Reform Commission approved urban investment bonds, and then the association registered urban investment bonds. Later, the exchange bond market released a lot of water, and private equity cities invested in bonds in various chaos. It's almost impossible to get around now.
There is no doubt that there are many advantages in stock. Because the city investment is to help the government (investment and financing) and the debt of the city investment is the government's (hidden) debt, the central government should strictly control the debt (additional payment) of the city investment to prevent the government debt risk. If it is the debt of private enterprises or state-owned industries, there is no need to do so, because the debt risk cannot be transmitted to the government. More importantly, urban investment bonds account for almost half of the expensive stock of credit bonds. In any case, urban investment in bonds is inevitable.
4. The essence of rumors is to control risks. The purpose of restricting debt issuance in areas with high debt (or weak economy) is to prevent risks from rising further. If bonds are not allowed or issued less, what about the stock debt? Replacing local bonds, special bonds and CDB loans is similar to directional "secondary replacement", just like the ongoing replacement of local bonds in established counties. But the biggest uncertain factor is whether to replace all urban investment bonds with 100%, and whether it is possible to replace them with 30% or 50% discount.
5, so the foothold is to avoid risk sinking. 1 is a shrinking area of refinancing, and the market recognition of these areas is low; The other type 1 is the city investment whose marketization is too unrestrained. Maybe you think of it as a city investment, but the government doesn't think so.