In this paper, we study different impacts on Chinese banks’ SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) investment of different impact factors. We employ GMM method to estimate different impacts of above factors by making use of a panel data of 113 Chinese banks’ SPV investment in 7 years. Our sample consists of 5 large commercial banks (LCBs), 8 national joint-stock commercial banks (NJSCBs), 45 city commercial banks (CCBs) and 55 rural commercial banks (RCBs). The heterogeneity analysis on different type of banks shows that: RCBs and LCBs are inclined to circumvent capital requirement by SPV investment but NJSCBs and CCBs are not. The credit risk transfer is another important incentive for all types of banks to make SPV investment. NJSCBs and CCBs may count on the profit by the SPV investment in the case of narrowing net interest margin while LCBs and RCBs do not care about it. The deposits and interbank liabilities are the main funding resources to invest SPV for all types of banks despite that LCBs and NJSCBs also use the central bank liabilities as additional funding. The impact of the limiting policy on SPV investment is weak, particularly for NJSCBs with zero effect.
Keywords: Heterogeneity Analysis, Shadow Banking, GMM, SPV Investment.