【视点】贲圣林：基础设施融资的新思路和新方法
5月3日，IMI执行所长、浙江大学互联网金融研究院院长贲圣林教授在德国举办的亚洲开发银行年会活动上发表演讲。他在演讲中表示，亚洲基础设施投资供需缺口巨大，金融机构和普通大众都参与有限，而解决的方案在于数字金融。
以下为根据其英文演讲整理翻译的中文全文：
对我们在座的许多人来讲有一个“众所周知”的数字：根据亚洲开发银行（ADB，以下简称亚开行）的估计，亚洲每年在基础设施方面的投资需求为8千亿美元。而亚开行和世界银行的贷款规模分别为560亿美元和2900亿美元左右，资金需求和供给能力之间的缺口十分巨大。在某种程度上，这种缺口也促成了亚洲基础设施投资银行（AIIB，以下简称亚投行）的成立，亚投行的一大关注点即为基础设施融资。相较于亚开行169亿美元和世界银行100亿美元的注册资金，亚投行的注册资本目标定为1000亿美元，但即便如此仍不能解决基础设施资金巨大的需求缺口。
同时，私人部门（金融机构）对基础设施融资的参与看似极其有限，且呈现令人担忧的下降趋势。因为跨国银行更关注金融交易活动，而不愿涉足（基础设施之类的）长期贷款项目，其逐渐降低的贷款资产比即可佐证。现今，我们的金融体系正显示出一种“市场化”和投机性的趋势，而金融机构的交易文化更是昭然若揭：2015年，全球外汇交易量是全球GDP的26倍，而在中国，股票交易量与股市市值之比竟超过了500%！纵使大张旗鼓，公私合作模式（PPP）也在基础设施融资中的作用甚微。
另一方面，囿于现有的融资体系及其通行商业模式的成本结构，普通大众很少参与或有途径参与到基础设施投资。这或许是普通大众（Main Street）和华尔街（Wall Street）少有的共同之处：几乎不参与真正有需求的基础设施建设融资。
让人感到沮丧又困惑的是，一方面全球的储户都在忍受（接近于）零的利率乃至负利率（而在此状况下他们许多人又不得不存更多的钱来应对退休生活）, 另一方面现行金融体系无法将多余的储蓄有效用到实体经济和基础设施这类真正有需要的地方，而这才是金融中介应该发挥作用的领域。因而从效率性和有效性上看，我们的金融体系和金融市场在将储蓄转化为贷款和投资机会方面的表现要么是很差，要么是完全失败。
这种困境和矛盾有解决方案吗？如果有，解决方案是什么？我们认为有答案且答案在于数字科技。数字科技能够建立并加强国与国之间、地区与地区之间的联系（正如新丝绸之路所连带起来的欧亚跨大陆合作）。数字科技也能够建立并加强公共领域和私人领域之间、储户与投资人（借贷者）之间的联系，以及时间跨度上的联系（从短期存款到长期基建融资的时间向度上的中介联系）。因为数字科技的介入，联结的可见度和透明度均大为提高，信任度增强了，而信任是金融体系得以运作的基石。金融的数字化也带来了我们所需的更高的效率、接近于零的低成本、投资的低壁垒以及更广泛的公众参与。这些都是“普惠金融”的标志，也是我们如今在“共享经济”中所要达成的目标。
这些并不是幻想的产物。数字金融正在以“金融科技”的名义被广泛应用，尤其是在中国、印度等新兴市场。金融科技不仅为现有的金融市场带来竞争活力，更通过填补基础设施融资的缺口，对包括多边开发机构、私有银行以及债权资本市场在内金融体系形成有力补充。更重要的是，金融科技所释放的竞争压力有利于推动现有体系变得更为开放、包容、高效与实际。这也将引导金融部门回到它的根本和初心：服务实体经济，基础设施融资毫无疑问是其中的重要部分。
700多年前，传奇的欧洲人、旅行家马可•波罗去了中国，这需要很大勇气和时间，他花了24年时间才回到欧洲和世界分享丝绸之路的故事。今天中国人提出了新丝绸之路计划，亦即所谓的“一带一路”。不同于13世纪，今天任何故事的传播可以是即时的。
女士们，先生们，时至今日我们缺的并不是远见，也不是技术、意愿、机会、资金或是存款。我们缺的是基础设施融资的新思路和新方法。这种思路和方法必将在新科技条件下，通过我们的协同努力而实现！
谢谢大家！
以下为英文原文：
It is a well-known number to many of us here: Asia alone requires an estimated infrastructure investment of USD 800 billion per annum, according to Asia Development Bank. There is a significant gap between the requirements and the capacity of current multilateral development institutions: ADB and World Bank has a total loan book of USD 56 billion and USD 290 billion respectively. To a certain extent, the gap has led to the creation of Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with a particular focus on infrastructure financing. However AIIB, even with its larger registered capital (targeted at USD 100 billion as compared to USD 16.9 billion and USD 10 billion respectively for ADB and WB), will not be able to close the huge gap of demand.
In the meantime, the private sector (financial institutions)’ participation in infrastructure financing appears to be very limited and worryingly decreasing as global banks have become more focused on trading activities and less willing to book long term loans, as evidenced in their increasingly lower loan-to-asset ratios. Our financial system today is much more “markets-oriented” and speculative in nature, and the trading culture of financial institutions is more pronounced: in 2015, global foreign exchange trading volume was 26 times of global GDP and in China the stock trading volume/stock market capitalization was over 500%! Notwithstanding the fanfare, public-private-partnership, or PPP, has not been working in infrastructure financing.
On the other hand, the general public has had very little participation or avenues to participate in infrastructure financing, thanks to the existent system and cost structure of its prevailing business models. This is probably one of the very rare occasions that the Main Street and Wall Street have something in common: little participation in financing real infrastructure needs.
What is both frustrating and contradictory is that while savers are getting (closer to) nil or negative interest rates across the world (and in such circumstances many of them are forced to save more for retirement), the financial system has failed to deploy the excess savings to where the money is required for the real economy and real needs of the world such as infrastructure financing, which is what financial intermediation is supposed to do. Therefore, the financial system and markets have either performed poorly or failed miserably in intermediating savings to loan and investment opportunities, in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness.
Are there solutions to the paradoxes and contradictions? If there are, where are they? We believe that there are solutions and the solutions reside with digital technology. Digital technology can help establish or enhance connectivity between nations and regions (such as the New Silk Initiative which encompasses Asia-Europe inter-continental collaboration); between public and private sectors; between savers and investors/borrowers; and over the spans of time (maturity intermediation between shorter-tenor of deposits and longer-term nature of infrastructure financing). With new digital technology, there will be more visibility and transparency of the connectivity, and therefore more trust, which is the foundation of a functional financial system. The digitization of finance also provides the much needed efficiency, near-zero cost, lower barrier for investment, and broader participation of the general public, all of which are hallmarks of “inclusive finance” that we are aiming to achieve in today’s “sharing economy”.
These are not just imaginative technologies. The application of digital finance has already been widely seen in the name of FinTech, particularly in some emerging markets like China and India. FinTech will not only compete but also complement existent solutions including multilateral institutions, private sector banks and bond markets to plug the gap of infrastructure financing. More importantly the competitive pressure that FinTech has been unleashing will also help the existent system become more inclusive, participative, efficient and effective. This will help guide the financial sector to focus back on its roots and original purposes: serving real needs of the economy, infrastructure financing included.
Over 700 years ago, the legendary European, Marco Polo, went to China and it took him a lot of courage and time (24 years) to return and thus share his Silk Roadstories with the world.
Today, there is the New Silk Road initiative, the so-called One Belt & One Road strategy proposed by China. Compared to 13th century, any story sharing today can be instant!
Ladies and gentlemen, today we are NOT short of vision, nor are we short of technologies, will, opportunities, money and savings. What are needed is a new mindset and a new approach to infrastructure financing, enabled by the new technology and concerted effort from all!
Thank you!
注：本文源自贲圣林教授在德国举办的亚洲开发银行年会活动上发表的演讲，原文为英文版，由王哲人、施嘉翻译。
入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。
欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，推荐好文章可联系：邮箱imi@ruc.edu.cn；电话010-62516755
中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。
中国人民银行副行长潘功胜与诺贝尔经济学奖得主蒙代尔出任IMI顾问委员会主任，委员包括王兆星、埃德蒙、苏宁、任志刚、李若谷、亚辛·安瓦尔、李扬、汉克、夏斌、陈云贤等10位国内外著名经济学家或政策领导人；中国人民银行副行长陈雨露出任学术委员会主任，委员会由46位来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的著名专家学者组成。
自2012年起，研究所开始每年定期发布《人民币国际化报告》，重点探讨人民币国际化进程中面临的重大理论与政策问题。报告还被译成英文、日文、韩文、俄文、阿拉伯文等版本并在北京、香港、纽约、法兰克福、伦敦、新加坡和阿拉木图等地发布，引起国内外理论与实务界的广泛关注。
迄今为止，研究所已形成“国际金融”、“宏观经济理论与政策”、“互联网金融”、“银行与财富管理”、“金融监管”等五个研究方向，并定期举办货币金融圆桌会议、大金融思想沙龙、燕山论坛、麦金农大讲坛、陶湘国际金融讲堂等具有重要学术影响力的高层次系列论坛或讲座。主要学术产品包括IMI大金融书系、《国际货币评论》（中文月刊&英文季刊）、《IMI研究动态》（周刊）、《国际货币金融每日综述》（日刊）等。国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn
微信号：IMI财经观察（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）