Khủng hoảng trái phiếu doanh nghiệp ở Việt Nam - Ai chịu trách nhiệm? | VOA

Comparison of US and Vietnamese Bond Markets
📌 In the US, issuing bonds to the public requires rigorous compliance with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), including the involvement of professional underwriters and audited accounting records for the past three years.
📌 A crucial requirement for public bonds in the US is obtaining a credit rating (e.g., from Moody's or S&P), which is largely absent in the Vietnamese "3-No" bond structure (no collateral, no bank guarantee, no credit rating).
📌 US regulations strictly mandate that only licensed brokers/dealers with proper qualifications can sell bonds, often in separate, clearly designated areas within a bank, distinguishing them from regular bank employees.

Vietnamese Bond Crisis: Causes and Responsibility
📌 The "3-No" bond structure in Vietnam, especially bonds sold through banks like SCB, is inherently high-risk because the issuer lacks collateral and independent credit verification.
📌 A major concern is that employees without specialized investment qualifications sold these complex products, leading investors to mistakenly believe they were guaranteed bank deposits, evidenced by victims signing documents certifying them as "professional investors" without understanding the implications.
📌 There is suspicion of a systemic fraud involving the overlap between SCB's board of directors and Vạn Thịnh Phát, suggesting potential coordinated malfeasance that requires deep forensic investigation.

US Regulatory Framework and Lessons Learned
📌 Following major crises, the US implemented stricter laws, such as the Dodd-Frank Act, to prevent banking and investment failures, demanding annual inspections and stress tests for financial institutions.
📌 In the US, bond investment risk is clearly defined: if you invest, you bear the loss; however, cases involving clear fraud lead to lawsuits where company assets must be liquidated to compensate victims, following a strict hierarchy of repayment.
📌 The collapse of companies like Enron demonstrated the necessity of rigorous, independent auditing, leading to regulations that hold rating agencies accountable (though they are rarely forced to pay compensation unless direct bribery is proven).

Outlook and Policy Challenges in Vietnam
📌 Investor loss of confidence following recent scandals has caused a sharp decline in bond purchases, severely restricting capital flow (cash flow is the lifeblood) for businesses reliant on this financing channel.
📌 The Vietnamese government faces a dilemma: tightening regulations (like Decree 153, requiring credit ratings) builds public trust but immediately chokes off corporate funding, while loosening rules risks recurring disasters like the SCB case.
📌 The extension of Decree 153's enforcement deadline by one year delays necessary structural reforms, allowing the problematic "3-No" bond issuance to continue, highlighting the government's difficulty in balancing market liquidity and investor protection.

Key Points & Insights
➡️ In the US, investment sales are separated from standard banking operations, ensuring specialized licensed professionals handle complex products like bonds.
➡️ In cases of proven fraud in the US, companies face asset liquidation to compensate victims, although the repayment order follows a strict legal sequence (salaries first, then secured debt, finally unsecured debt).
➡️ Vietnam’s current challenge is the "half-capitalist, half-socialist" application of market economics, where low public financial literacy meets inadequate regulatory oversight, leading to investor vulnerability.
➡️ The resolution of the SCB/Vạn Thịnh Phát case by the Public Security Ministry is crucial for rebuilding public trust before further legislative measures (like Decree 153) can effectively stabilize the corporate bond market.

📸 Video summarized with SummaryTube.com on Nov 18, 2025, 03:43 UTC