中國(guó)“明股實(shí)債”判例威脅影子銀行

A court ruling in a fourth-tier Chinese city has exposed legal risks from investment in “fake equity” by shadow banks, carrying potentially broad implications for the $2.6tn industry.

來(lái)自中國(guó)四線城市的一樁法院裁決暴露了影子銀行“明股實(shí)債”投資的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，該判決對(duì)這一規(guī)模2.6萬(wàn)億美元的產(chǎn)業(yè)可能造成廣泛影響。

Trusts have emerged as the biggest source of non-bank lending in recent years, with assets under management reaching Rmb18.2tn ($2.6tn) at the end of September. That places trusts second only to commercial banks and ahead of insurance companies and securities brokerages.

近年來(lái)，信托公司已成為非銀行貸款的最大來(lái)源，截至9月底所管理資產(chǎn)已達(dá)18.2萬(wàn)億元人民幣(合2.6萬(wàn)億美元)。信托公司的地位僅次于商業(yè)銀行，排在保險(xiǎn)公司和證券經(jīng)濟(jì)之前。

Some trust investments are classified as loans but a significant portion is instead labelled as equity. These deals typically involve an “equity” investment paired with a repurchase agreement, which requires the investee to buy back its equity along with a fixed dividend at a specified date. The repo essentially transforms the equity financing into a debt-like arrangement.

部分信托投資被歸類為貸款，但有很大一部分被標(biāo)記為股權(quán)。這些交易通常牽涉與回購(gòu)協(xié)議配套的“股權(quán)”投資，協(xié)議要求投資對(duì)象在指定日期以固定股利回購(gòu)其股票。這種回購(gòu)實(shí)質(zhì)上是將股權(quán)融資轉(zhuǎn)化成債務(wù)類安排。

The practice allows trusts to evade regulations intended to restrict lending to risky borrowers. In Chinese, the practice is known colloquially as “fake equity, real debt”. Analysts say fake equity is one reason China’s official debt statistics may fail to capture the full extent of credit growth in the country.

這一行徑令信托得以規(guī)避旨在限制向高危借款人貸款的法規(guī)。在中國(guó)，此做法俗稱“明股實(shí)債”。分析師表示假股權(quán)是中國(guó)官方債務(wù)統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)或許沒(méi)有充分反映國(guó)內(nèi)信貸增長(zhǎng)水平的原因之一。

In a little-noticed ruling last month, a district court in Wuxing district of Huzhou city, in east China’s prosperous Zhejiang district, rejected a claim by New China Trust that it should be treated as a debtholder in the bankruptcy of a local property developer.

在上個(gè)月一樁不為人注意的判決中，浙江省湖州市吳興區(qū)人民法院駁回了新華信托(New China Trust)的請(qǐng)求，新華信托申請(qǐng)?jiān)诋?dāng)?shù)匾患曳康禺a(chǎn)開(kāi)放商破產(chǎn)清算程序中應(yīng)被視作債權(quán)人。

New China Trust invested Rmb225m in Huzhou Port Land Real Estate Company to finance a residential development called Triumphant Return International. The deal required Port Land to repay the equity plus dividends in three stages over 30 months, but the developer made only partial repayment. In 2015 Port Land entered bankruptcy.

新華信托向湖州港城置業(yè)有限公司(Huzhou Port Land Real Estate Company)投資2.25億元人民幣，為凱旋國(guó)際(Triumphant Return International)社區(qū)項(xiàng)目提供資金。該交易要求港城置業(yè)在30個(gè)月內(nèi)分三期償還股本加股息，但這家開(kāi)發(fā)商只償還了部分債務(wù)。2015年港城置業(yè)進(jìn)入破產(chǎn)程序。

In a bid to recover its money, New China Trust submitted itself to the bankruptcy administrator as a creditor. This would have granted the trust seniority over equity holders in terms of recovering assets from Port Land. But the administrator disagreed, deciding that New China was in fact an equity holder. In its recent judgment, the district court upheld that decision against a challenge from New China Trust.

為了追回投資，新華信托向破產(chǎn)管理人提出自己應(yīng)作為債權(quán)人。這樣在收回港城置業(yè)資產(chǎn)時(shí)，新華信托將比股東優(yōu)先獲得欠款。但管理人不同意，認(rèn)為新華信托其實(shí)是股東。當(dāng)?shù)胤ㄔ涸谧罱呐袥Q中堅(jiān)持這一決定，駁回了新華信托的請(qǐng)求。

The ruling could have a major impact on China’s trust industry. Growth of trust loans outstanding dropped from 62 per cent in 2013 to only 2 per cent last year, according to data from the China Trustee Association, due in part to tougher regulation. But four other categories of trust investment, all of which potentially include fake equity deals, collectively grew 15 per cent last year.

該裁決可能對(duì)中國(guó)信托行業(yè)產(chǎn)生重大影響。根據(jù)中國(guó)信托業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)(China Trustee Association)的數(shù)據(jù)，由于監(jiān)管加強(qiáng)的部分作用，信托貸款增長(zhǎng)率從2013年的62%劇降到去年的2%。但去年其他四類信托投資總體增長(zhǎng)了15%，其中可能包括假股權(quán)交易。

New China has not said if it will appeal against the decision. If a higher court takes the opposite view — either in an appeal of this case or in a separate but similar case — the precedent could be reversed.

新華信托未表示是否會(huì)提出上訴。如果上級(jí)法院持相反意見(jiàn)——無(wú)論是對(duì)本案的上訴，還是對(duì)另一起相似案例——先前判決可以被撤銷。

If the precedent stands, trusts could be forced to return to more traditional lending structures. That would probably lead to less overall lending, due to the tighter regulations.

如果先前判決成立，信托公司可能被迫回到更傳統(tǒng)的貸款結(jié)構(gòu)。由于監(jiān)管規(guī)定收緊，這可能導(dǎo)致整體貸款減少。

Alternatively, trusts could continue with equity deals but they would face pressure to change how they deal with clients. Most trusts raise funds by selling high-yielding investment products to investors, who perceive them as carrying the safety of a fixed-income product. If fake equity investors lack the seniority that creditors enjoy, trusts would in principle have to communicate this increased risk investors.

或者，信托公司可以繼續(xù)股權(quán)交易，但它們將在壓力下改變與客戶打交道的方式。大多數(shù)信托公司通過(guò)向投資者出售高收益投資產(chǎn)品來(lái)籌集資金，而投資者認(rèn)為信托公司承擔(dān)著固定收益產(chǎn)品的安全。如果假股權(quán)投資者缺乏債權(quán)人所享有的優(yōu)先權(quán)，信托公司原則上必須與這一風(fēng)險(xiǎn)增加的投資者進(jìn)行溝通。