Q: Some media outlets say that China has done well in
most aspects of reform, with the exception of the reform of
state-owned commercial banks, which have a high volume of
non-performing loans (NPLs). They say that the financial sector may
hinder China's economic development. What do you think of these
comments? What has China done to reform its financial system since
the country's reform and opening up? What are the goals of
financial reform?
A: All those comments are based on a precondition—the high ratio
of NPLs to the total assets of state-owned commercial banks. An
overly high ratio of NPLs will not only make people lose confidence
in the operation of state-owned commercial banks, but will also
hinder the country's economic development.
China has all along taken measures to deal with non-performing
assets (NPAs), especially after the Asian financial crisis began in
1997.
First, the Chinese Government abandoned administrative
intervention in state-owned commercial banks and determined that
these banks can independently provide loans.
Second, the performance of state-owned commercial banks has been
improved, with their ratio of NPLs decreasing at a rate of 3 to 5
percentage points annually. This lays a foundation for the country
to stably promote the reform of commercial banks.
To accurately grasp China's financial reform, we need a clear
picture of the history and process of reform in the whole financial
sector.
The place of financial reform in China's overall economic reform
is a matter of strategic choice. In the early days of reform and
opening up, fiscal and financial resources were used first in
reforms of agriculture, state-owned enterprises and the foreign
economy. When there was shortage of fiscal resources and when the
system lacked flexibility, the financial sector bore the cost of
reform. As a result, the banking sector accumulated a large
quantity of NPLs, making financial reform lag behind other
reforms.
Comparing state-owned commercial banks with state-owned
enterprises, we easily find they are very similar: Both follow the
system of government departments with distinct administrative
levels and official rank standards. So, financial reform differs in
its core tasks at different stages of economic reform and shows
that it's exploring the path of a market-oriented reform.
In the 1980s, financial reform focused on separately
establishing the central bank and commercial banks, and setting up
some new specialized banks. All the banks have their own specific
businesses. For example, the Bank of China (BOC) focused on
international business, while the China Construction Bank (CCB)
centered its business on infrastructure construction.
In 1993, the country required specialized banks to transform
into commercial banks, and set up three policy banks: the China
Development Bank, the Export-Import Bank of China and the
Agricultural Development Bank of China. Consequently, commercial
banks would never take on policy-related business.
During the subsequent financial reform, the country issued
special treasury bonds of 270 billion yuan (US$32.65 billion) to
make up for state-owned commercial banks' inadequacy of capital.
Asset management companies were also founded, which peeled part of
NPAs off state-owned commercial banks. The country even drew on
foreign exchange and gold reserves, putting it into the BOC and
CCB. We can see that reform of state-owned commercial banks is
striding forward step by step, with past steps laying the
foundation for future progress.
Capital infusion is only a step in the whole reform of
commercial banks. In 2004, trial joint-stock reform in the BOC and
CCB was the continuance of China's financial reform, the focus of
which was strengthening corporate governance and improving the
internal control mechanism.
So, the BOC and the CCB engaged world-renowned financial
consultants and consultation companies to design an internal
organizational structure and governance structure for them, and set
up joint-stock companies and boards of directors in August and
September 2004 respectively, according to legal procedures. The
banks have since done much work with regard to internal control,
incentive mechanisms, punishment of people responsible for NPAs,
and human resources, including the selection of international
employees.
The final goal of the state-owned commercial bank reform is to
set up modern commercial banks, where maximizing profits is the key
trait. Currently, some people consider public listing as the final
goal. This is obviously a misunderstanding of the process of
state-owned commercial bank reform. In fact, the point of getting
publicly listed is to establish a standard structure for corporate
governance and turn state-owned banks into real market entities
through incentive mechanisms based on performance, sufficient risk
control and capital restriction that meet the requirements of
modern commercial banks.
Practice proves that China is pushing its financial reform
rapidly and with much strength. Apart from the reform of
state-owned commercial banks, reform of rural credit cooperatives
has begun, and the reform of 12 joint-stock commercial banks and
about 120 urban commercial banks has been accelerated. After
reform, the Chinese banking sector will be much more competitive
and can better confront the challenges posed by foreign financial
institutions.