谁受到了货币政策的有效调控?——基于上市公司投资行为的研究  

Who Has Been Effectively Controlled by Monetary Policy?——Research on the Investment Behavior of Listed Companies

作　　者：杨兴全[1] 尹兴强 

机构地区：[1]石河子大学经济与管理学院/公司治理与管理创新研究中心,832003

出　　处：《会计研究》2017年第4期3-11,共9页Accounting Research

基　　金：国家自然科学基金项目(71362004);国家社科基金项目(14BGL040);新疆维吾尔自治区研究生科研创新项目(XJGRI2015046);文化名家暨"四个一批"人才工程项目的资助

摘　　要：本文以货币政策收紧时公司投资的变化为切入,基于2003-2013沪深两市A股上市公司的样本数据,深入探究了微观主体中谁受到了货币政策的有效调控?研究发现,紧缩货币政策通过缩减公司投资发挥了宏观调控作用,其中民企(尤其是较高外部融资依赖民企)受到了货币政策的有效调控,而国企受货币政策调控的影响较弱;细分国企发现,央企(尤其是垄断行业央企)及较高财政收支压力和政治升迁压力的地企未受到货币政策的有效调控;进一步研究表明,紧缩货币政策引致民企(尤其是较高外部融资依赖民企)的信贷资金显著减少,地企次之,而央企(尤其是垄断行业央企)却无明显变化;较高财政收支压力和政治升迁压力的地企则可能通过发行城投债来替代信贷资金的减少。上述结论在溯清不同主体缘何在面临相同外部环境时做出不同行为选择的背后成因的同时,也为我国货币政策缘何超调低效提供了来自微观企业的经验证据。Taking investment changing in tight monetary policy(TMP)as a point,Based on A-share listed companies from 2003 to 2013,this paper explored that who has been effectively controlled by TMP?There found that TMP plays its macro-control role by reducing corporates investment,private companies(PC,higher external financing dependence(EFD)especially)has been effectively controlled by TMP,while central companies(CC,monopoly industry especially),local companies(LC)of higher financial pressure(FP)or Political-promote pressure(PPP)don't have been controlled by TMP.Furthermore,TMP lead to a drastic credit decrease in PC,LC to the second place,while CC don't change at all,LC of higher FP or PPP issue bonds in TMP.The findings not only give an explanation that why different companies choose different behavior when faced the same external environment,but also provides the micro evidence that China's MP is inefficient.

关 键 词：货币政策 公司投资 国民差异 央地关系 

分 类 号：F822.0[经济管理—财政学]