| 172 | 0 | 547 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
文章将2015年10月实施的存贷比监管改革作为准自然实验，选取2010—2024年中国商业银行年度面板数据，运用连续型DID模型实证分析存贷比监管改革对银行流动性囤积的影响及其传导机制，并进一步考察了跨境资本流动的作用效果。研究表明，存贷比监管改革有助于抑制银行流动性囤积，且这一影响在城农商行以及资产规模小、资本充足率高的银行中更明显，该结论经过一系列内生性处理与其他稳健性检验后依然成立。机制分析表明，存贷比监管改革通过增强存款稳定性、缓解期限错配程度及提高银行竞争程度的多重作用渠道抑制了银行流动性囤积。作用效果分析表明，在资本强度维度，低强度的跨境资本流动对存贷比监管改革的流动性囤积抑制效应的增强效果更明显；在资本类型维度，以FDI为主导的跨境直接投资资本流动对存贷比监管改革的流动性囤积抑制效应的增强效果更明显；在资本稳定性维度，高稳定性的跨境资本流动对存贷比监管改革的流动性囤积抑制效应的增强效果更明显。进一步分析表明，在经济上行期、预防性动机驱动的流动性囤积以及高强度的流动性囤积状态下，存贷比监管改革对银行流动性囤积的抑制作用更明显。文章的研究为完善流动性监管机制、提升跨境资本流动监管效率以及防控银行业金融风险提供了理论指导与决策参考。
Abstract：This paper treats the loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform implemented in October 2015 as a quasi-natural experiment,selects annual panel data of China's commercial banks from 2010 to 2024,and employs a continuous DID model to empirically analyze the impact of the loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform on bank liquidity hoarding and its transmission mechanism.It further examines the effects of cross-border capital flows.The study reveals:(1) The loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform helps curb bank liquidity hoarding,with this effect being more pronounced in urban and rural commercial banks as well as smaller assetscale banks with higher capital adequacy ratios.This conclusion remains valid after a series of endogeneity treatments and other robustness tests.(2) Mechanism analysis indicates that the loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform curbs bank liquidity hoarding through multiple channels,including enhancing deposit stability,alleviating maturity mismatches,and increasing bank competition.(3) An analysis of the mechanisms reveals that,in terms of capital intensity,low-intensity cross-border capital flows have a more pronounced amplifying effect on the liquidity hoarding-curbing impact of the loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform.In terms of capital type,cross-border direct investment flows dominated by FDI have a more pronounced amplifying effect on the liquidity hoarding suppression effect of the loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform;in terms of capital stability,cross-border capital flows with high stability have a more pronounced amplifying effect on the liquidity hoarding suppression effect of the loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform.(4) Further analysis indicates that the loan-to-deposit ratio regulatory reform exerts a more pronounced inhibitory effect on bank liquidity hoarding during economic upturns,when liquidity hoarding is driven by precautionary motives,and under conditions of high-intensity liquidity hoarding.This research findings will provide theoretical guidance and decision-making references for improving liquidity regulatory mechanisms,enhancing the efficiency of cross-border capital flow regulation,and preventing and controlling financial risks in the banking sector.
[1] Acharya V V,Merrouche O.Precautionary hoarding of liquidity and interbank markets:Evidence from the subprime crisis[J].Review of Finance,2013,17(1):107-160.
[2] Alfaro L,Kalemli-Ozcan S,Volosovych V.Why doesn′t capital flow from rich to poor countries?An empirical investigation[J].The Review of Economics and Statistics,2008,90(2):347-368.
[3] Alper K,Binici M,Demiralp S,et al.Reserve requirements,liquidity risk,and bank lending behavior[J].Journal of Money,Credit and Banking,2018,50(4):817-827.
[4] Ananou F,Chronopoulos D K,Tarazi A,et al.Liquidity regulation and bank lending[J].Journal of Corporate Finance,2021,69:101997.
[5] Angelini P,Cetorelli N.The effects of regulatory reform on competition in the banking industry[J].Journal of Money,Credit and Banking,2003,35(5):663-684.
[6] Berger A N,Bouwman C H S.How does capital affect bank performance during financial crises?[J].Journal of Financial Economics,2013,109(1):146-176.
[7] Berger A N,Guedhami O,Kim H H,et al.Economic policy uncertainty and bank liquidity hoarding[J].Journal of Financial Intermediation,2022,49:100893.
[8] Borio C,ZHU H.Capital regulation,risk-taking and monetary policy:A missing link in the transmission mechanism?[J].Journal of Financial Stability,2012,8(4),236-251.
[9] Bruno V,Shin H S.Cross-border banking and global liquidity[J].The Review of Economic Studies,2015,82(2):535-564.
[10] Cerutti E,Claessens S,Ratnovski L.Global liquidity and cross-border bank flows[J].Economic Policy,2017,32(89):81-125.
[11] Claessens S,Laeven L.What drives bank competition?Some international evidence[J].Journal of Money,Credit and Banking,2003,36(3):563-583.
[12] Diamond D W,Rajan R G.The credit crisis:Conjectures about causes and remedies[J].The American Economic Review,2009,99(2):606-610.
[13] Forbes K J,Warnock F E.Capital flow waves:Surges,stops,flight,and retrenchment[J].Journal of International Economics,2012,88(2):235-251.
[14] Gale D,Yorulmazer T.Liquidity hoarding[J].Theoretical Economics,2013,8(2):291-324.
[15] Gorton G.Information,liquidity,and the(ongoing) panic of 2007[J].The American Economic Review,2009,99(2):567-572.
[16] Heider F,Hoerova M,Holthausen C.Liquidity boarding and interbank market rates:The role of counterparty risk[J].Journal of Financial Economics,2015,118(2):336-354.
[17] JIANG L,Levine R,LIN C.Competition and bank liquidity creation[J].The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,2019,54(2):513-538.
[18] LIU Z,YIN X,TU H,et al.Bank competition and resilience to liquidity shocks[J].International Review of Economics & Finance,2025,102:104210.
[19] Moser P,Voena A .Compulsory licensing:Evidence from the trading with the enemy act[J].American Economic Review,2012,102(1):396-427.
[20] 陈国绪.存贷比约束下的商业银行监管套利研究[J].财经问题研究，2016(4):52-57.
[21] 丁宁，吴晓.存贷比监管改革与银行风险承担——来自中国商业银行的准自然实验[J].金融研究，2023(2):96-114.
[22] 丁鑫，刘怡然，赵世宽.经济政策不确定性下商业银行流动性囤积行为——基于预防性动机与投机性动机的视角[J].金融经济学研究，2025,40(3):71-88.
[23] 丁一兵，李慧慧.跨境资本流动、金融科技与银行风险[J].国际经贸探索，2025,41(12):35-52.
[24] 顾海峰，童晓力.跨境资本流动、银行脆弱性与双支柱调控[J].国际贸易问题，2025(2):159-174.
[25] 郭娜，张骏，陈东晖.金融科技、银行风险容忍度与流动性囤积[J].金融论坛，2023,28(4):60-69.
[26] 韩先锋，付晓淞.存贷比监管改革、银行资产质量与风险化解——基于双重机器学习的因果推断[J].南方金融，2024(7):69-83.
[27] 刘刚，卢燕峰.资本账户开放、商业银行存贷比与信贷风险[J].金融论坛，2015,20(3):62-70;80.
[28] 隋洋，白雨石.中资银行应对流动性监管最新要求的策略研究[J].国际金融研究，2015(1):62-69.
[29] 孙莎，李明辉，刘莉亚.商业银行流动性创造与资本充足率关系研究——来自中国银行业的经验证据[J].财经研究，2014,40(7):65-76;144.
[30] 王劲松，余韵，武文慧.我国省域金融稳定指数构建、时空变化与政策研究[J].经济问题，2023(9):60-69.
[31] 王晰，王雪标，白智奇.存贷比与商业银行盈利能力的倒U型关系研究——引入不良贷款率的中介效应模型[J].科研管理，2020,41(7):230-238.
[32] 吴晓灵.金融市场化改革中的商业银行资产负债管理[J].金融研究，2013(12):1-15.
[33] 项后军，高鹏飞.银行数字化转型能缓解流动性囤积吗[J].经济学动态，2023(8):82-100.
[34] 谢贤君，郁俊莉.跨境资本流动与商业银行系统性风险[J].当代经济科学，2024,46(1):1-15.
[35] 周耿，阮东喆，范从来.信息不对称下信贷市场的惜贷与挤出效应[J].金融论坛，2021,26(1):25-36.
[36] 翟光宇.存贷比监管指标是否应该放松——基于中国上市银行2007—2012年的季度数据分析[J].经济理论与经济管理，2013(6):91-101.
(1)流动性资产包括现金及存放中央银行款项、存放同业和其他金融机构款项、贵金属、拆出资金、其他债权投资(一年内到期部分)、交易性金融资产、衍生金融资产、买入返售金融资产。
(2)非流动性资产包括应收利息、固定资产、在建工程、发放贷款及垫款、无形资产、买入返售金融资产、固定资产清理、债权投资(原持有至到期投资及应收款项类投资)、其他债权投资(一年以上到期部分)、其他权益工具投资、商誉、长期股权投资、递延所得税资产、投资性房地产、其他资产。
(3)流动性负债包括向中央银行借款、短期借款、应付职工薪酬、拆入资金、交易性金融负债、应交税费、同业存放、衍生金融负债、应付利息、个人及企业活期存款、卖出回购金融资产、其他应付款。
(4)篇幅所限,描述性统计结果未予给出,留存备索。
(5)篇幅所限,稳健性检验结果未予给出,留存备索。
(6)流动性衍生品包含货币衍生工具、利率衍生工具和商品及权益衍生工具;非流动性保证包含银行承兑汇票、贷款及其他信用承诺、开出保函、开出信用证、经营租赁承诺和资本性支出承诺。
基本信息:
DOI：10.13516/j.cnki.wes.2026.07.001
中图分类号:F832.6
引用信息:
[1]顾海峰,周祉晴.存贷比监管改革、跨境资本流动与银行流动性囤积[J].世界经济研究,2026,No.389(07):47-61+136.DOI:10.13516/j.cnki.wes.2026.07.001.
基金信息:
教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“跨境资本流动对商业银行信贷风险的影响机理及政策研究”(项目编号：20YJA790014); 东华大学人文社会科学繁荣计划预研究重大项目“制度型开放背景下跨境资本流动对银行脆弱性的影响机制及治理对策研究”(项目编号：2025Z001)
2025-11-24
2025
2026-05-22
2026-05-27
2026
1
2026-07-10
2026-07-10