国企债券违约市场化处置的法律选择
Legal Options for Market-Based Disposal of SOE Bond Defaults
DOI: 10.12677/ojls.2024.129809, PDF,   
作者: 艾思源:上海大学法学院,上海
关键词: 刚性兑付债券违约市场化Rigid Payment Bond Default Marketization
摘要: 市场经济背景下,债券的刚性兑付模式因其具有增加地方政府债务风险、危害市场公平竞争、影响投资者长期利益等诸多弊端逐渐被打破。政府隐性担保预期下债券违约的省级传染效应也要求债券信用状况与地方财政水平分野。由此,以政府隐性担保为根本的刚性兑付模式亟须退出市场。但国有企业特殊的公共利益属性导致其不能轻易破产倒闭,国企债券违约仍需要政府救助。在不放弃政府救助的语境下,引入市场化违约处理机制能够利好经济市场发展。优化国企债券违约的处理机制,应当以强化债券发行人的信息披露义务、采用市场化信用机制为规范进路。以市场化信用机制替代政府隐性担保预期,应选择引入第三方担保机制、将ESG信息纳入风险预警系统、畅通债券退出通道等方式。
Abstract: In the context of the market economy, the rigid payment model of bonds is gradually being broken down because of its many drawbacks, such as increasing the risk of local government debt, jeopardizing fair competition in the market and affecting the long-term interests of investors. The provincial contagion effect of bond defaults in anticipation of implicit government guarantees also requires that bond creditworthiness be differentiated from the level of local finances. As a result, the rigid payment model, which is based on the implicit government guarantee, needs to be withdrawn from the market. However, the special public interest attributes of SOEs lead to the fact that they cannot easily go bankrupt and close down, and SOE bond defaults still require government bailouts. In the context of not giving up government bailout, the introduction of market-based default handling mechanism can benefit the economic market development. Optimizing the mechanism for dealing with SOE bond defaults should be regulated by strengthening bond issuers’ information disclosure obligations and adopting a market-based credit mechanism. To replace the government’s implicit guarantee with a market-based credit mechanism, the introduction of a third-party guarantee mechanism, the incorporation of ESG information into the risk early warning system, and a smooth bond exit channel should be chosen.
文章引用:艾思源. 国企债券违约市场化处置的法律选择[J]. 法学, 2024, 12(9): 5683-5689. https://doi.org/10.12677/ojls.2024.129809

参考文献

[1] 罗荣华, 刘劲劲. 地方政府的隐性担保真的有效吗?——基于城投债发行定价的检验[J]. 金融研究, 2016(4): 83-98.
[2] 吴文锋, 胡悦. 财政金融协同视角下的地方政府债务治理——来自金融市场的证据[J]. 财经聚焦, 2022(8): 143-162, 207.
[3] 杨志勇. 地方政府债务风险: 形势、成因与应对[J]. 财经聚焦, 2023(9): 68-73.
[4] 柳永明, 殷越. 国企债券违约、隐性担保预期与唤醒效应——来自永煤违约事件的证据[J]. 财经研究, 2024, 50(3): 122-137.
[5] 王叙果, 沈红波, 钟霖佳. 政府隐性担保、债券违约与国企信用债利差[J]. 财贸经济, 2019, 40(12): 65-78.
[6] 杨慧辉, 顾敏琦, 沈红波. 信用评级风险与债券违约——以华晨汽车集团为例[J]. 财会月刊, 2022(20): 116-123.
[7] 虞李辉, 胡婕莹. 市场化背景下债券违约问题解构及其处置机制研究[J]. 宏观经济, 2021(12): 14-20.
[8] 洪艳蓉. 新《证券法》债券规则评析[J]. 银行家, 2020(3): 139-141.
[9] 冯果, 张阳. 债券违约处置的法治逻辑[J]. 中国金融, 2020(23): 44-46.
[10] 彭雨晨. ESG信息披露制度优化: 欧盟经验与中国镜鉴[J]. 证券市场导报, 2023(11): 43-55.
[11] 李小荣, 徐腾冲. 环境-社会责任-公司治理研究进展[J]. 经济学动态, 2022(8): 133-146.
[12] 冯丽艳, 肖翔, 程小可. 社会责任对企业风险的影响效应——基于我国经济环境的分析[J]. 南开管理评论, 2016, 19(6): 141-154.
[13] 白俊, 乔君, 吴爽. 债券市场“刚性兑付”打破与企业风险信息披露[J]. 当代财经, 2023(12): 53-67.
[14] 焦健, 张雪莹. 债券违约对流动性影响的传染效应研究[J]. 证券市场导报, 2021(1): 44-55.