Research on the Difference Between the Financing Cost of State - Owned Enterprises and Private Enterprises Under the Background of Interest Rate Liberalization

Abstract

This paper focuses on the difference in financing loan costs between state-owned enterprises and private enterprises in the context of interest rate liberalization. The beginning of the article expounds the importance of the process of interest rate liberalization and the difference in financing costs between the two types of enterprises. In the theoretical basis part, the connotation and development process of interest rate marketization are introduced, as well as the related theories of corporate financing, such as MM theorem, preferential financing theory and agency theory, and the relationship between interest rate marketization and corporate financing is analyzed. The analysis of the current situation shows that the overall financing cost of state-owned enterprises is low, the loan term is long, the proportion of fixed-rate loans is high, and the cost decreases slowly over time. Private enterprises have high costs, and most of them are short-term and floating-rate loans, and the cost has not been significantly reduced due to interest rate marketization. The causes of the difference include the company's own factors, such as credit rating, business scale and stability, financial status and profitability. financing access factors, including differences in bank loans, bond market financing, and equity financing; and financial market and policy factors, such as imperfect market structure, different policy orientation, and poor interest rate transmission mechanism. Differences have a far-reaching impact on the economy, which is conducive to the growth and expansion of state-owned enterprises, but restricts the innovation and transformation of private enterprises. Finally, it is proposed that we should start from the multiple levels of enterprises, financial markets, and policies to narrow the difference in financing costs and promote balanced economic development.