（外脑精华·北京）金融体系改革不足
中国经济继续高速增长，2季度GDP增长率达到11.3%，为十多年来增长速度最快的一个季度。中国政府和世界上许多国家都担心，这种增长速度过快了，中国大陆要因此承担经济过热的风险。中央政府已经实施了多项措施来控制增长，但由于信贷资金继续不断流入高速公路和房地产等行业，2季度固定资产投资增长了30%以上。
中国政府无法有效控制高速增长的一个重要原因是，金融体系的改革还远远不够。虽然改革进程已经开始，但要有实质性的改变仍需多年时间。因此，需要制定一项全面、目标明确和更加积极的改革计划，以避免经济的大起大落。
而且，目前的金融体系还抵消了宏观调控的努力。今年5月份，中国人民银行将金融机构一年期贷款基准利率上调0.27个百分点，由现行的5.58%提高到5.85%，希望借此减少助推经济和固定资产投资过快增长的信贷资金。不过，1季度末的信贷总额就已经达到了2006年全年2.5万亿元人民币（或3125亿美元）目标值的一半。虽然贷款利率的小幅上升可能使一部分企业减少贷款，但仍由人民银行控制的存款利率并没有相应调整，因此，存贷款利率差的进一步扩大，会导致商业银行增加贷款以追求高额利润，而不是减少贷款。
提高贷款质量
由于存在存款利率上限，相对于国际水平，中国的贷款利率仍将保持在低位。麦肯锡全球研究所的研究表明，虽然中国的企业规模更小，并且要面对更加不稳定的经济环境，但中国上市公司平均只要支付5.1%左右的贷款利率，而美国的上市公司则需6.8%。5月份的调整并没有改变中国贷款利率的实质水平，同样也不会减缓固定资产投资增长。
为了使中国经济更加可持续的增长，中国政府的着力点应该不是减少贷款，而是应该鼓励商业银行将贷款投向更有效率的领域。目前，中国的商业银行将绝大部分贷款投向了大型国有企业，虽然后者已经进行了改革，但仍然是中国生产效率最低的部门。而私营企业的生产效率平均来说是国有企业的两倍，并且占到国内生产总值的52%，但却仅占贷款总额的27%。
但从商业银行的角度来看，给大型国企贷款当然是更加划算的。首先，给几家大型国企的大笔贷款比给众多小型民营企业的许多笔贷款，成本上要更节省一些。而且，有关民营企业潜在借款者的信息质量无法保证，而国企背后的政府隐性担保却可以降低贷款风险。实际上，由于国有企业大量的不良贷款，四大国有商业银行的其中三家已经获得了政府的注资。
整体改革
中国政府应该结束这种隐性担保，使所有企业在平等的融资起点上竞争。这将迫使国有企业为了继续吸引到融资而提高生产效率，从而将提高中国经济整体的生产效率。麦肯锡全球研究所的计算结果表明，资本配置和金融体系效率的提高将使中国的GDP增加3000亿美元，相当于当前GDP的17%。
利率市场化是最基本的步骤。中国正在决定渐进地对利率实行市场化改革，但这个过程直到2010年才会完成。由于利率市场化不能更加快速地推进，导致商业银行将继续提供廉价的贷款，这将扭曲经济增长并扰乱竞争秩序。商业银行也仍将获得巨大的存贷利差，并且没有任何激励提高贷款质量。中国庞大的储蓄者将仍然无法获得合理的回报。
资本配置效率低下并不是银行一个部门的问题。银行、股票市场、债券市场以及支付体系都是相互关联的，因此改革应该同时进行。比如说，在大多数国家，企业债券市场是重要的融资场所，是商业银行的重要竞争者。但是，中国的企业债券市场规模很小，企业债市值仅占中国大陆GDP的1%，而相比之下，韩国占到了68%，马来西亚占到了74%。如果没有相应的改革，使中国的企业债券发行者和机构投资者更加合格，中国债券市场将不会成长，并且无法成为商业银行的有力竞争者。
可持续增长
为了培育金融体系内部的竞争，监管者应该允许国内民营投资者进入金融部门，并放宽国外投资者的投资限制。就像多家大型国有商业银行实现了IPO，众多的城市商业银行也需要经验与技术在竞争更加激烈的贷款市场上成长，更多的城市商业银行应该实现民营化。监管者也应该要求商业银行改善治理结构。另外，由于中国很多地方土地权益不清，抵押品的范围应该扩大到除房地产以外的资产，这将使更多的中小民营企业可以从银行获得贷款。
过去25年，中国经济转型已经取得了令人瞩目的增长速度，并给中国人民的生活带来了繁荣。现在，中国需要建立一个市场化导向的金融体系，以实现更加均衡和可持续的增长。
注：作者为麦肯锡公司思想库——麦肯锡全球研究所（McKinsey Global Institute）的主管，其相关论文请见《金融系统改革将如何使中国受益》，载《麦肯锡季刊》2006年特刊－－译者注。
英文原文：AUGUST 9, 2006
China‘s Financials Need an Overhaul
McKinsey Global Institute‘s director says aggressive reform of the mainland‘s financial system is necessary to promote sustainable growth
The Chinese economy continues to defy gravity. Gross domestic product grew by 11.3% in the second quarter, its strongest clip in more than a decade.
Beijing－and much of the rest of the world－is afraid that pace is simply too fast and that the mainland runs the risk of overheating. The government has implemented various measures to rein in growth, but investment is up 30% from the second quarter a year ago as money continues to pour into everything from highways to housing estates.
One big reason China hasn‘t been more successful at tamping down its hypergrowth: Beijing hasn‘t done enough to reform its financial system. Although changes are under way, it will take years for them to make much of a difference. A comprehensive, clearly targeted, and more aggressive reform program is needed to avoid the boom-bust cycles of the past.
Problem is that current policies are undermining those efforts. In May, the People‘s Bank of China （PBOC） raised interest rates by 27 basis points, to 5.85%, in hopes of slowing the flood of cheap credit that has fueled growth and investment. By the end of the first quarter, total bank lending had already hit half the 2006 official target of 2.5 trillion yuan, or $312.5 billion. While the small rate hike may deter some businesses from borrowing, bank deposit rates－still firmly controlled by the PBOC－have not budged. The rise in lending rates has thus resulted in higher bank margins, perversely giving banks an incentive to lend more, not less.
BETTER LENDING. As long as deposit rates remain capped, lending rates will remain very low by international standards. Research by the McKinsey Global Institute finds that publicly traded enterprises in China pay an average of 5.1% in interest, compared with 6.8% for listed U.S. companies－despite the smaller size of Chinese businesses and the more volatile economic environment in which they operate. The modest rise put through in May won‘t make up this difference, nor will it slow investment.
To put the economy on a more sustainable path, the government should spend less energy trying to reduce lending and instead encourage banks to lend more productively. China‘s banks currently lend the most to large state-owned enterprises （SOEs） that, despite recent reforms, are still the least productive part of the economy. Privately owned companies in China are, on average, twice as productive as state-owned ones, accounting for 52% of China‘s GDP but just 27% of bank credit.
But from the perspective of China‘s banks, it makes sense to lend to the largest SOEs. It is cheaper for them to make large loans to fewer borrowers than many loans to smaller private companies. Moreover, the quality of information about potential borrowers is poor, and the implicit government guarantee behind SOEs lowers the risk of lending to them. Indeed, three of China‘s Big Four banks have received capital injections from the government to improve their balance sheets in the wake of bad loans to SOEs.
WHOLESALE EFFORT. China‘s policymakers must end this implicit guarantee and make all companies compete for funding on an equal footing. This would pressure SOEs to raise their productivity to continue to attract capital－which, in turn, would spur productivity in the economy as a whole. The McKinsey Global Institute calculates that improving the allocation of capital in China and improving the efficiency of the financial system could boost GDP by up to 17% annually－or well north of $300 billion.
Complete deregulation of interest rates－both for deposits and loans－is fundamental. China is planning to do this gradually, but the process isn‘t due to be completed until 2010. Without faster deregulation, China‘s banks will continue offering artificially cheap loans, which distorts the economy and stifles competition. The banks will maintain high margins, but will have little incentive to improve. China‘s prodigious savers will continue to pay the price in the form of meager returns on their savings.
Inefficient capital allocation isn‘t solely a concern for the banking sector. The performance of banks, equity markets, bond markets, and payment systems are all interdependent－so each of these needs to be reformed at the same time. A corporate bond market, for instance, could provide competition for banks and is the usual alternative for big companies in most countries. But China‘s is tiny: The value of corporate bonds outstanding in the mainland amounts to only 1% of GDP, compared with 68% in South Korea and 74% in Malaysia. China‘s bond market won‘t grow and compete with banks, however, without reforms to make it more amenable both to large issuers and institutional investors.
PROLONGED GROWTH. To foster competition throughout the financial system, regulators should allow private domestic investors into the financial sector, and raise limits on foreign ownership for banks. Like the large banks now slated for IPOs, smaller city banks will also need new skills and technology to thrive in a more competitive lending market. More of them should be privatized altogether. Regulators should also require higher standards of governance at all banks. It would be useful to broaden the definition of collateral to include assets beyond a borrower‘s property, since land titles are unclear in many parts of China. This would enable more small and mid-size private businesses to obtain credit.
The transformation of China‘s economy over the past 25 years has produced astonishing growth and prosperity for the Chinese people. The country now needs a market-oriented financial system that will promote more balanced, sustainable growth.
Diana Farrell is the director of the McKinsey Global Institute, McKinsey & Company‘s economics think tank
