"New quality productivity involves new fields with high technological content, driven by innovation. Finance serves as an accelerator, and technological finance supports innovative enterprises and industries in forming new quality productivity by providing financial resources, thereby promoting the realization of innovative capabilities and accelerating the formation of new quality productivity." Recently, in an interview with the Chinese Science Bulletin, Fan Xiaoyun, a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and dean of the School of Finance at Nankai University, stated that from the current development situation, Chinese technology companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and startups, still face difficulties in financing, with many bottlenecks between the innovation chain and the capital chain, indicating that China's high-quality development of technological finance still has shortcomings.
According to Fan Xiaoyun, in terms of financial system structure, the indirect financing system dominated by commercial banks lacks patience capital, early-stage capital, social capital, and circulating capital needed by innovative enterprises due to the asymmetric risk preferences. Although some exploration has been made in the supply of technological finance dominated by Chinese banks, the business model is still immature, sustainability is weak, and the risk control system supporting technological innovation needs to be improved urgently.
In terms of ownership structure of financial institutions, state-owned financial institutions have a strong preference for state ownership, which hinders the financing supply to private sci-tech enterprises, the main force of innovation. Even if state capital participates in venture capital activities, it adopts a more risk-averse investment attitude. In terms of regulatory preferences, there is a lack of consideration for the technological attributes of sci-tech enterprises and tolerance for the special risks of innovation-driven growth.
In terms of policy arrangements, technological finance is independently regulated among different departments, stages, and types of policy tools, lacking policy coordination. Communication between the financial sector and the science and technology sector is insufficient. The effective combination of government strategic guidance and the market-oriented functions of finance is still insufficient, and there is a lack of a technological finance policy system design under multi-target constraints.
In terms of structural monetary policy, the current monetary policy tools supporting the development of technological finance only include the one-year term loans for technological innovation, and it is not yet clear whether monetary policy can regularly support technological innovation and the corresponding support mechanisms.
In terms of enterprise value perception, the understanding of the value of sci-tech enterprises still remains in the cognitive model of traditional industrial societies. In the era of digital intelligence, key technologies and management talents have a huge impact on the value of sci-tech enterprises, and their intangible assets and organizational capital are more intensive. The traditional reliance on balance sheet methods cannot fully and accurately reflect the value of such enterprises.
To address these issues, Fan Xiaoyun suggested firstly adhering to the principles of "market leadership, government promotion, and joint construction by multiple parties" to reasonably determine the boundaries between the government and the market. The government should play an active role in areas where the market fails or is ineffective, focusing on building service chains to promote precise integration of innovation chains and industrial chains through efficient service chains. This includes establishing a unified and open technology transfer platform, cultivating professional talents in technology transfer, strengthening information sharing, and providing precise docking services between technology supply and demand.
Secondly, optimizing financial supply and developing a comprehensive technological finance service system covering the entire chain and process. By integrating the characteristics of commercial banks, capital markets, venture capital funds, etc., in supporting technological innovation, complementary advantages can be achieved, and different types of financial institutions can be encouraged to establish financing alliances to provide diversified, three-dimensional, and relay-type financial support throughout the lifecycle for technology enterprises. Innovative service products should adhere to the principle of risk pricing, adopt more flexible interest rate pricing, and repayment methods.
Thirdly, improving the financial service system to create a technological finance ecosystem that serves the development of new quality productivity. Faced with complex and changing paths of technological innovation and high technological thresholds, it is necessary to establish a technological innovation intelligent evaluation system based on big data and intelligence analysis, and accelerate the establishment of matching risk assessment, prevention and control, and management systems. Accelerate the construction of intellectual property assessment and transaction markets, fully tap the innovative service functions of technology markets and property rights markets, and reduce the information acquisition and transaction costs of financial institutions.
Finally, there is a need to change financial thinking from risk avoidance to risk management and to break through valuation theories and technical methods.
