China's highways carry too much public love and hate for government investment infrastructure.

Ten years ago, if you want to be rich, you must first build roads; after ten years, you must make a decision and move first.

This is exactly what the Ministry of Transport recently drafted: “The Regulations on the Management of Toll Roads (Draft for Soliciting Opinions)”. This amendment adds three reasons for continuing tolls for expressways, one of which is “The state implements free policies for management. If the legitimate income is affected, it may be compensated by appropriate extension of the charging period." This means that the government provides free holidays for more than 20 days, and in exchange for more money for a few years later, one can imagine what he says.

If the matter is discussed on business or business, the regulations of the Ministry of Transport are not inappropriate, because in accordance with the internationally adopted BOT model of “build-operate-transfer”, such regulations are the policy risks in the course of project operations. Preventive measures.

The principle of risk sharing for BOT projects is “who can control who will bear”. According to this principle, market commercial risks are generally borne by the project company. Force majeure risks can be solved by the project company through insurance, while policy risks are borne by the government or It is mainly borne by the government and properly shared by the project company. This clearly stipulates that if the government promises to investors that if it does not reach a certain proportion of the traffic flow forecast at the time of signing the contract, such as 80%, the government will have to compensate by extending the operating period.

The problem lies in the fact that free of charge for more than 20 days and holidays reduces the amount of traffic that can produce economic benefits, and no one has estimated how to publish it; how the design of the sharing mechanism of policy risks is actually unclear, and at least the public is not clear. . However, the extension of the time limit for the charging period, which was originally absent from the policy, is now being added to the scene due to the so-called "policy risks."

What are the risks of investing in highways? Land acquisition is legal, and it is for the needs of the public interest. Related peasant land compensation measures have not yet been introduced; bank loans are long-term and cheaper and safer than real estate investment loans. They also rely on collecting vehicle tolls. Loans are also sustainable; fees can be increased, and the length of charges can be extended. Relatively speaking, the market commercial risks of highway investment companies are almost negligible. It's no wonder that the average gross profit margin of the 19 listed expressways reached a record high of 61.76% in the first half of last year, and Chongqing Luqiao's gross profit margin in 2011 even reached 91.14%.

The question then arises. Whose assets are the highways with such profit margins? What is the core source of income for the asset?

Regardless of economics or jurisprudence, highways are quasi-public goods with natural monopoly. The government can transfer the operating rights of expressways for a certain period of time through franchise, but these funds are only obtained from highways. The right to operate assets for a certain period of time. The ownership of expressway assets is owned by the state. After the expiration of the franchise period, the entire expressway assets should be returned to the government without compensation.

Well, it is obvious that the highways that the government undertakes to invest in are completely public assets. When the public enjoys such public goods, there is no need to pay fees because taxes have already been paid. In addition to public financial investment, roads that use social financing to raise funds for investment and construction should also be public assets. Companies that invest and operate, whether state-owned enterprises or private enterprises, can only manage roads on behalf of the country. It is to repay construction loans.

However, the reality in China today is that highways have become high-quality assets for listed companies of roads and bridges. The core source of profitability for such assets is the state’s charging rights. The country’s temporary free policy has turned into a big deal and it seems that there are It has been siege by various interest groups. The short-term operating rights of public assets have become the long-term profit support point for some companies. Isn’t that the cart before the horse?

What's more, from the perspective of the highways that have been built, the sources of funds are mainly bank loans, central fiscal funds, and local fiscal funds. The proportion of foreign investment and social capital is small. Even the so-called BOT model is used in the entire highway investment and construction. non-mainstream. The non-mainstream risk-sharing mechanism has been widely applied to all completed expressways and even to the expressway which is already close to the loan repayment period. This is deliberately fooling the public, or intending to mislead the government, or various related interest groups. A kidnapping of national policy? unknown.

However, despite the fact that private owners and Luqiao companies have irreconcilable positions and attitudes on this issue, truck drivers who have made real contributions to logistics development and economic growth are still a silent majority. They are neither The beneficiaries of the free policy, however, became the biggest victims of the new rules set by the free policy. To force them to drive off the highway has slowed the economy down. I am afraid that it was not the initial thinking of the policy makers but it is very likely that they will be the last two losers.