20180404-兴业研究-Ranking_of_Local_Government_Credit_Risk_17页_1mb

报告摘要

Summary of "Ranking of Local Government Credit Risk"

Core Content

This report presents a composite index to evaluate the credit quality of prefectural-level local governments in China. The index is built upon five key categories: aggregate GDP and financial strength, GDP and budgetary revenue growth prospects, local economic conditions, debt burden, and local data quality. The composite index aims to provide a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of local government credit risk than traditional metrics such as GDP alone.

Main Viewpoints

Aggregate GDP and Financial Strength: Higher GDP and budgetary revenue generally indicate better financial health and credit quality. However, due to limited data availability, only budgetary revenue is used for comparison.
GDP and Fiscal Revenue Growth Prospects: Growth rates are weighted (20% for 2015, 30% for 2016, and 50% for 2017) to reflect future economic potential. Positive growth rates are associated with better credit quality.
Local Economic Conditions: Better economic conditions are characterized by higher GDP per capita and a higher share of the tertiary industry in GDP. A lower share of the primary industry is also seen as a positive indicator.
Debt Burden: The composite index includes a measure of debt burden, calculated as the ratio of explicit debt + LGFVs' interest-bearing debt to financial strength. This ratio is negatively correlated with credit quality.
Local Data Quality: Two indicators are used to assess data credibility:
- Correlation between GDP growth and budgetary revenue: A high correlation suggests more reliable data.
- Gap between Li Keqiang index and real GDP growth rate: A smaller gap indicates more credible data.

Key Information

The composite index is developed based on previous research and includes both quantitative and qualitative indicators.
The report ranks 221 prefectural-level local governments based on the composite score.
Top 30 and Bottom 30 rankings are provided for each category to illustrate the distribution of credit risk across local governments.

Detailed Breakdown of Categories

Category	Indicators	Impact
Aggregate GDP and financial strength	Aggregate GDP, Budgetary revenue	Positive
GDP and fiscal revenue growth rates	Real GDP growth rate, Budgetary revenue growth rate	Positive
Regional economic conditions	GDP per capita, % of primary industry in GDP, % of tertiary industry in GDP	Positive (GDP per capita and tertiary industry), Negative (primary industry)
Debt burden	(Local governments' explicit debt + LGFVs' interest-bearing debt)/financial strength	Negative
Local data credibility	Correlation between GDP growth and budgetary revenue, Gap between Li Keqiang index and real GDP growth rate	Positive

Top and Bottom 30 Rankings

Top 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of aggregate GDP: Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, etc.
Top 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of budgetary revenue: Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, etc.
Top 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of real GDP growth rate: Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, etc.
Top 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of budgetary revenue growth rate: Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, etc.
Top 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of GDP per capita: Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, etc.
Top 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of correlation between GDP growth and budgetary revenue: Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, etc.
Top 30 prefectural-level local governments with the narrowest gap between Li Keqiang index and real GDP growth rate: Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of aggregate GDP: Ulanqab, Fuxin, Liaoyuan, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of budgetary revenue: Ulanqab, Fuxin, Liaoyuan, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of real GDP growth rate: Fuxin, Liaoyuan, Siping, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of budgetary revenue growth rate: Zhenjiang, Fuxin, Liaoyuan, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of GDP per capita: Ulanqab, Fuxin, Liaoyuan, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of correlation between GDP growth and budgetary revenue: Pingliang, Huaibei, Siping, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments with the widest gap between Li Keqiang index and real GDP growth rate: Ulanqab, Fuxin, Liaoyuan, etc.

Composite Score Rankings

Top 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of composite score: Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, etc.
Bottom 30 prefectural-level local governments in terms of composite score: Ulanqab, Fuxin, Liaoyuan, etc.

Detailed Composite Score Information

Local Gov.	Aggregate GDP (RMB '00mn)	Budgetary Income (RMB '00mn)	Real GDP Growth Rate (%)	Budgetary Income Growth Rate (%)	GDP per Capita (RMB 10k)	% of Primary Industry in GDP	% of Tertiary Industry in GDP	Debt Ratio in the Broad Sense (%)	Correlation Relationship	Gap Between Li Keqiang Index and Real GDP Growth Rate	Composite Score
Shenzhen	22,438.39	3,332.13	8.88	13.83	18.84	0.08	58.62	0.08	0.25	0.56	91.45
Guangzhou	21,503.15	1,533.06	7.64	7.72	15.31	1.09	70.94	1.24	0.61	0.13	77.67
Hangzhou	12,556.16	1,567.42	8.92	14.00	13.67	2.48	62.58	1.52	0.90	0.26	74.15
Qingdao	11,037.28	1,157.11	7.74	7.87	11.99	3.45	55.36	1.46	0.64	0.31	67.33
Wuhan	13,410.34	1,402.93	8.10	7.53	12.46	3.04	53.25	1.69	0.42	0.22	67.10
Nanjing	11,715.10	1,271.91	8.31	11.84	14.17	2.25	59.73	3.11	0.80	0.29	66.30
Wuxi	10,511.80	930.00	7.37	6.38	16.07	1.29	51.49	3.00	0.91	0.34	65.50
Dongguan	7,582.12	592.00	8.07	8.65	9.18	0.31	52.29	0.67	0.75	0.26	65.15
Xiamen	4,351.18	696.78	7.61	8.13	11.10	0.53	57.73	0.67	0.59	0.23	64.91
Ningbo	9,846.94	1,245.07	7.63	12.47	12.50	3.19	44.96	2.28	0.52	0.53	64.68

Bottom 10 Local Governments

Local Gov.	Aggregate GDP (RMB '00mn)	Budgetary Income (RMB '00mn)	Real GDP Growth Rate (%)	Budgetary Income Growth Rate (%)	GDP per Capita (RMB 10k)	% of Primary Industry in GDP	% of Tertiary Industry in GDP	Debt Ratio in the Broad Sense (%)	Correlation Relationship	Gap Between Li Keqiang Index and Real GDP Growth Rate	Composite Score
Pingliang	388.91	27.59	5.52	4.70	1.85	27.52	47.98	1.24	0.35	-0.09	41.97
Huaibei	929.00	60.50	6.18	3.39	4.21	6.89	34.20	3.20	0.65	0.24	41.88
Liuzhou	2,755.64	179.79	7.18	11.06	6.96	6.88	39.16	4.32	0.13	0.36	41.68
Zhenjiang	4,105.36	284.34	8.31	-0.65	12.88	3.47	47.06	7.12	0.84	0.27	41.24
Ulanqab	835.00	43.12	7.28	-9.51	3.96	13.62	37.35	2.18	0.22	0.19	41.02
Fushun	954.50	88.10	-0.63	-0.59	4.44	6.10	40.90	2.72	0.66	0.22	40.16
Laibin	663.69	27.64	5.55	-8.43	3.02	24.10	38.22	2.12	0.43	0.32	40.07
Siping	1,230.32	103.47	3.14	-3.28	3.78	25.28	35.48	1.11	0.00	0.00	39.63
Fuxin	421.70	38.20	-4.64	-7.31	2.38	24.05	49.80	1.45	0.69	0.06	37.39
Liaoyuan	772.11	18.30	4.17	-15.41	6.42	7.72	35.09	3.28	0.74	-0.29	36.94

Legal and Disclaimer Information

This report is produced by CIB Research and is for informational purposes only.
It does not constitute an offer to buy or sell securities or a recommendation for investment.
Investors are advised to make their own independent evaluations and consult professional advisors before making any investment decisions.
The report may contain opinions, speculations, and forecasts that are subject to change without further notice.
The copyright of this report belongs to CIB Research, and unauthorized use is prohibited.
The disclosure of interests indicates that CIB Research may have positions in or provide investment banking services for the companies mentioned. This may affect the objectivity of the report.