Jia Hongwen, Gao Nan, Ahmad Fayyaz, Farooq Ahsan, Javed Aamir
School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Gansu, China.
School of Economics, University of Sahiwal, Sahiwal, 57000, Punjab, Pakistan.
Heliyon. 2024 Jul 11;10(14):e34488. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34488. eCollection 2024 Jul 30.
As the financialization issue is getting more and more attention, the behavioral motives and effects behind this appearance should not be ignored, and it is of great practical significance for the high-quality development of China's real economy to explore the impact and mechanism of the financialization trend on the investment and financing maturity mismatch of China's real enterprises. Using sample data of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2013 to 2020, this article empirically examines the impact of financialization on the investment and financing maturity structure from a new perspective of asset classification by using a fixed-effect model, and explores the mechanism of the financial regulatory environment's moderating effect on the relationship between the two mentioned above. The study shows that: there is an inverted U-shaped nonlinear relationship between the financialization of investment income and fixed income and "maturity mismatch ". The term mismatch of investment and financing increases with the degree of financialization, after reaching the critical point, it eases with the deepening of financialization. However, the specific point of view is different. In the sample interval, the investment income financialization exacerbates the investment and financing maturity mismatch more obviously; the fixed income financialization inhibits the investment and financing maturity mismatch more obviously. Under the different perspectives of the firms' ownership nature, financing constraints, and principal-agent problems, there are differences in the impact of firms' allocation of different types of financial assets on the investment and financing term structure. In addition, the regulatory effect of financial supervision weakens the inverted U-shaped relationship of investment income financialization with investment and financing maturity mismatch; it enhances the inverted U-shaped relationship between fixed income financialization and investment and financing maturity mismatch. In general, financial supervision has had a significant positive effect on investment and financing maturity mismatches. The findings have important policy implications in terms of corporate real investment, financial market development, and financial regulation, which can help promote China's economic development and stability.
随着金融化问题日益受到关注，这一表象背后的行为动机及影响不容忽视，探究金融化趋势对中国实体企业投融资期限错配的影响及作用机制，对中国实体经济的高质量发展具有重要现实意义。本文利用2013—2020年中国A股上市公司的样本数据，采用固定效应模型从资产分类的新视角实证检验金融化对投融资期限结构的影响，并探究金融监管环境对上述二者关系的调节效应机制。研究表明：投资收益类与固定收益类金融化与“期限错配”之间存在倒U型非线性关系。投融资期限错配程度随金融化程度上升而增加，到达临界点后，随金融化程度加深而缓解。但具体观点存在差异，在样本区间内，投资收益类金融化对投融资期限错配的加剧作用更明显；固定收益类金融化对投融资期限错配的抑制作用更明显。在企业所有权性质、融资约束和委托代理问题等不同视角下，企业配置不同类型金融资产对投融资期限结构的影响存在差异。此外，金融监管的调节作用弱化了投资收益类金融化与投融资期限错配的倒U型关系；强化了固定收益类金融化与投融资期限错配的倒U型关系。总体而言，金融监管对投融资期限错配起到了显著的正向作用。研究结论在企业实体投资、金融市场发展和金融监管等方面具有重要政策启示，有助于促进中国经济发展与稳定。
