【作者】 高贤升；

【导师】 吴弘；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 经济法， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 论文的逻辑顺序是:金融经营模式的变化带来对金融监管的挑战。应对这种挑战,中国应从两方面着手,其一是分析新金融模式的特点与风险,寻求本土化经验;其二是分析国外的实务以及立法,寻求域外经验并且将其本土化。在这基础上设计应对新挑战的规则的制度。本文共分六章:第一章的标题是“金融监管的挑战:从混业经营到产融结合”。该章首先回顾了金融监管存在的原因以及价值追求。认为金融监管务必要与金融实务契合。而当下包括中国在内的世界各国,金融模式的变更早已不限于金融行业内部(银行业、证券业、信托业、保险业等)的混业经营,已经开始涉足于跨行业领域。这种现象,笔者称之为“产融结合”。在界定“产融结合”之前,笔者首先界定了金融资本的含义,认为金融资本是资本历史形态演进的最高阶段,是专门投资于各类金融资产,并追求价值无限增值即盈利最大化的货币资本。一方面,金融资本与产业资本紧密结合、产业资本依赖金融资本的关系;另一方面,金融资本独立于产业资本,以追求利益最大化为目标的投资功能。在此基础上笔者认为从广义或者实质的角度而言,产融结合是指金融资本与产业资本的相互渗透融通的现象。从狭义或者形式的角度而言,产融结合是指在生产高度集中的基础上,金融业与非金融产业通过股权参与以及由此而产生的人事结合等方式所形成的资本直接融合关系。产融结合的模式根据产融结合的发展驱动因素以及制度环境所作的划分,可以分为市场主导模式与银行主导模式;根据控制力主体和产业渗透方向所作的划分,可以分为由融而产模式与由产而融模式;这个根据业务相关性,及其相关金融业务在所有金融业务中所占比例对产融结合模式所作的分类,可以分为,相关产融结合模式、弱相关产融结合模式和非相关产融结合模式。为了厘清产融结合概念,笔者又比较了其与混业经营的关系。认为混业经营可以包括狭义和广义二个涵义,而广义的混业经营已经包括了产融结合的因素。产融结合的兴起,引起了金融监管环境的变化。其带来的新的金融风险,给金融监管带来了挑战。资本重复计算及控股公司的财务杠杆比率过高;集团公司实体间的关联交易;相对复杂的法人机构、业务活动结构和管理结构;垄断风险;集团内会计制度不同带来的财务信息披露风险等等。针对这些新的风险,有必要对传统的金融监管作一反思。第二章的标题是“韩国产融结合法律制度分析”。韩国由于其特殊的经济发展路径,产融结合非常盛行。相对应的,韩国对产融结合的法律规范也较为全面具体,并且随着国内外经济环境的变化不断地变更,形成了独特的法律制度。本章中,笔者首先概括介绍韩国金融监管体系下产融结合制度的法律渊源以及整体制度框架。随后对《关于金融机构的资产运用和金融业结构改善的法》进行详细分析,并对限制产融结合制度存废争议做一评述,检讨韩国最近相关改革方案及政策。最后,对韩国金融控股公司做一介绍分析。追溯韩国金融资本与产业资本的分合轮转的路径,笔者认为产融结合现象反映了经济发展的需求和利益取向,但毕竟两个不同的行业结合很难把握适当程度,一旦失败导致金融和产业经济的同时破坏且危害性巨大,更主要的是两个行业的监管标准不同,监管机构无法及时地采取适当的措施,世界各国也在不同的程度和形式下严格监管金融产业资本的运作。第三章的标题是“其他国家及地区产融结合监管制度分析”。在这章中,笔者逐个分析了美国、英国、日本、德国、法国、澳大利亚、加拿大、东亚新兴市场、中国台湾地区产融结合监管制度。通过比较法研究,笔者认为中国在借鉴国外监管经验时,在金融监管理论上可以借鉴国外的功能型监管理论;在监管方式和技术上引进西方的风险“防火墙”制度等。笔者认为研究一国监管制度之前,先需要了解该国混业经营实践情况以及国家的金融及法律制度发展的传统。不同的公司惯例与市场交易传统可以导致法律对公司治理的不同模式。第四章的标题是“中国金融模式嬗变的路径分析”。该章主要内容是:中国金融模式正在同时经历二种嬗变:一是从分业经营从混业经营;二是产融结合模式的兴起。在介绍第一种嬗变史,笔者从制度与实践二个角度探讨其演变的路径。在制度层面,中国商业银行的经营模式的发展,经历了“混业经营→分业经营→分合并存”三个阶段。证券基金业,尤其是私募行业通过各种方式参与商业银行、保险公司。同时,保险制度也慢慢打开走向混业经营的大门。在实务层面,中国金融主要存在以下几种模式:一是浅层次的业务合作。如商业银行与证券、基金、保险、信托共同开发综合性产品并代理销售;二是企业集团组建纯粹型控股公司,集团本身不经营金融业务,而由其控股的银行、信托、证券、保险多个金融子公司分别经营多种金融业务;三是中外合资成立跨业经营的机构;四是通过并购外资机构开展混业经营。如工商银行通过控股工银亚洲(香港),并通过工银亚洲控制太平洋保险,渗入投行和保险业;五是设立基金公司,开展混业经营。而第二种嬗变—产融结合模式的兴起,从上个世纪90年代中后期始,中国掀起了“产融结合热潮”,产业资本又一次大规模进入金融业。这股热潮,以2001年海尔集团大举控股金融公司为起点,以2004年发生的德隆集团的债务危机和信用危机为调整点。各企业介入金融业的方式多样,包括发起设立、投资控股、参股、并购及中外合资等等方式。动因方面,产业集团和金融机构为了自己生存和发展,实现做大做强的目标,成为财团、金融控股公司而谋求战略联盟。第五章的标题是:“中国金融模式嬗变的风险分析”。笔者以德隆模式为例,分析了产融结合的风险。德隆模式的核心是产融结合,通过产业控制金融,金融作为整个企业集团的融资平台。但这种经营模式的资金链太紧,且对外抗风险能力差,随着企业集团的快速成长,加速了整个企业集团蕴藏的不稳定性。一旦银行紧缩贷款,德隆资金链破裂就倒塌了。从浅层分析,德隆败局的原因在于信息披露监管制度缺失;公司治理制度存在严重问题;企业合并的监管制度;对中小股东和债权人的保护制度;对监管者的监管制度。从深层分析,德隆案发生的根本原因在于产融结合的发展模式和经营策略的失衡。产融结合模式自身蕴含着极大的风险。金融与产业资本在流动性等性质上存在区别。一旦产业资本比重过大,容易影响资产的流动性,造成风险在产融结合集团内部的传播。事实上,在中国金融体制中,各种金融风险相互并存、相互作用。为了避免孤立地分析产融结合风险,笔者在这章中也分析了混业经营和金融控股公司的风险。混业经营主要存在经济性风险和法律性风险。金融控股公司存在内部交易问题、利益冲突风险、风险传递问题、负的协同效应以及道德风险等问题。第六章的标题为“中国金融新模式下的协调监管”。主要内容是:后危机时代需要对金融监管进行反思。一方面,金融监管需要跟上金融创新的步伐;另一方面,需要对金融监管对象进行再界定。在产融结合的金融大环境下,原先只针对狭义金融机构的监管已经不能满足有效降低系统风险的要求了。完善金融监管应当从监管对象这一起点出发,将为传统监管忽视的相关机构纳入到研究、监管的视野中。在此基础上,笔者认为在中国新的金融模式现实下,要从以下三个方面完善金融监管。第一,要建立与完善类金融控股公司的监管制度。为促进类金融控股公司集团的健康发展,首先需要制定、修改和完善相关法律法规,为规范化、制度化的金融控股公司监管提供法律基础;同时,制定相关的实施细则,增加金融控股公司集团监管法律的操作性和针对性。第二,要构建金融“防火墙”制度。通过“防火墙”这种制度安排,约束集团成员间的内部交易,控制风险在各金融分支行业之间相互传递,从而有效化解金融企业集团混业经营所带来的风险问题。第三,要引入金融控股公司制度。笔者建议中国在未来金融控股公司立法中要特别注意立法模式、金融控股公司模式选择与组建、内部交易的法律规则等问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 The thesis starts form the challenges to financial regulatory brought by the changes in the financial business model. Respond to this challenge, it should be settled in two ways. For one thing, in order to require localization experience we should analyze the characteristics and risks of the new financialmodels, for the other we should study and analyze foreign practices and legislations so as to get foreign experience. On the base of the said factors, the appropriate system may be designed to meet the challenges.The first chapter is entitled "Challenges of Financial Supervision: from Mixed Operation to the Combination of Industry and Finance (hereinafter referred to as“CFI”)." The chapter first reviews the reasons for the existence of financial regulation and pursuit of value. Therefore, It is convinced that the financial supervision should match financial practices. Currently, the changes in the financial models of countries in the world, including China, have not limit mixed operation among banking, securities, trust and insurance, has already extended to cross-industry fields which phenomenon is named as "the Combination of Industry and Finance". Before clarify the conception, I first defined the meaning of financial capital that is the highest stage of evolution of capital’s history, and is to invest in various financial assets, and pursue the maximizing value. On the one hand, the financial capital has a close relationship with industry capital in virtue of industrial capital relying on financial capital; the other hand, the financial capital is independent from the industrial capital in pursuit of the objective of maximizing the interests of the investment function. On this basis, I believe that on the broad or substantive point of view, the combination of industry and finance is the phenomenon of mutual penetration between financial capital and industry capital.Form a narrow point of view, the Combination of industry and finance means that by the way of equity participation and personnel, finance integrates industry. The types of the CFI can be divided into various ways. According to the drivers and the environment of systems, it can be divided into market-oriented one and bank-oriented one. According to the dominant parties and the direction of penetration, it can be divided into one starting form the finance to industry and the other starting form industry to finance. According to the relevance of business, it can be divided into correlation mode, weak correlation mode and no correlation mode. In order to clarify the concept of the Combination, the author has compared the relationship between CFI and mixed operation. On the basis of comparison, it is sure that mixed operation consists of narrow and broad meanings, and the broad one has already includes the conception of CFI. The rise of CFI brings challenges and risks to the finance regulatory system, for example, double counting of capital, high leverage point of holding company, related party transactions between the entities, relatively complex business activities and management structure, monopoly risks, the failure of information disclosure. In response to these new risks, it is necessary to reflect on traditional financial supervision system.The second chapter is entitled "South Korean legal system of the Combination." CFI has gotten great popularity in South Korea because of its special path of economic development. Correspondingly, the laws and regulations related to CIF are relatively comprehensive. And with ever-changes in domestic and international economic environment, it has formed a unique legal system.In this chapter, the author firstly outlines the Korean financial regulatory system and the overall framework, then introduce "assets of financial institutions and financial structure to improve the use of the law" in details make a comment on the related controversies and arguments, review recent reforms and policies. Finally, the author introduce financial holding company of SouthKorean. after trace the rise and fall of CIF, I believe that the phenomenon reflects the needs and interests of economic development. However in consideration of the different characteristics of the two industries, once the failure happened, it might spread in the overall financial and industrial economy. Therefore, some effective measure should be taken.The third chapter is entitled "other countries and regions of the Combination of regulatory system." In this chapter, the author introduced and analyzedCFI regulatory system of the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, the East Asian emerging markets, China Taiwan region one by one. By comparative study, the author believes that whenChina learn related experience from abroad. For example, as to the financial regulation theory, it can learn foreign functional regulation theory. As to the method of supervisory and monitoring , it can draw lessons from the "firewall" theory . I believe that before study on the regulatory system of a country, it is necessary to understand the tradition and practices of financial operation in the country. Different company governance practices and market transactions tradition lead to different patterns of supervisory. Chapter IV is entitled "Evolution of China’s financial model path analysis." The chapter introduces two kinds of evolution related to China’s financial operation pattern: one is transformation from the separate operation to the Mixed;Second, the other is rise of CFI. I stated the history of the former evolution in two angles of view. At the system level, the business model of theChinese commercial banks has experienced three phases, which started from mixed operation, then separate operation, and finally co-existing of separate and mixed operation. Securities and fund industry, especially in private equity, participated in commercial banks and insurance companies through a variety of ways. Meanwhile, the insurance system also slowly opened the door to mixed operation. At the practical level, China’s financial industry mainly contains the following modes: first, low-level business cooperation. for instance commercial banks and securities, funds, insurance or trust co-operate to develop integrated products and sales agents; second, establishing Holding Company that the Group does not operate business by itself, but engaged in finance by controlling the equities of banks, trusts companies , securities companies, insurance companies and other entities; third, joint venture operating different industries; fourth, mixed operation through the acquisition of foreign institutions; fifth, setting up asset management company for carrying out mixed operation. As to the second evolution, the rise of Mixed mode, from 1990’s, CIF spread in overall China. Large-scale industrial capital invested the financial industry. In 2001, the Haier Group acquiring financial institutions represented the starting point of the trend, which then was adjusted after the bankruptcy of DLong. The companies involved in the financial industry in variety of ways, including initiating the establishment, holding equity, joint-stock, mergers and acquisitions and joint ventures, and so on. the objection of CIF is to achieve bigger and stronger. Chapter V is entitled: "Evolution of China’s financial models of risk analysis." taking example of DLong mode, the author analyzed the risk of CFI.The core of Delong model is that the commerce and industry companies acquired or controlled the financial institutions in order to finance. But of funding chain and cash flow of the business model is so tight that overall group featured high risk and internal instability which could speed up with the rapid growth. Once the banks tightened credit, DLong’s cash flow sudden collapsed.From the shallow analysis, The failure of DLong resulted from lack of information disclosure regulatory system, poor corporate governance system, regulatory system of M&A, protection system on minority shareholders and creditors , on the regulatory system of regulators . From the deep analysis, the collapse of DLong rooted in the the development model of CIF and the imbalance of business strategy. The CIF mode itself involves great risks. Meanwhile, there was many difference between Financial and industrial capital, such as liquidity. the over-level proportion of industrial capital easily brought risks to overall entities in the group established in the mode of CIF because of its poor liquidity.In fact, the various financial risks coexist and interact in China’s financial system,. To avoid the isolation of risks of CFI, the author also analyzed the risks of mixed operation and financial holding companies. Mixed operation mainly exists the economic risks and legal risks. Financial holding company exists the problem of insider trading, conflict of interest risk, risk transfer problems, the negative synergy and moral hazard problems.Chapter VI is entitled "regulatory coordination under China’s financial new model." Post- subprime crisis, we need to rethink financial regulatory. On the one hand, financial regulators need to keep up with the pace of financial innovation; On the other hand, we need to re-define the object of financial regulation. In the environment of CIF, once narrow objects under supervisory can not meets the requirements of reducing systemic risk. To improve the financial supervision, we should bring related institutions which once were ignored into the vision of regulatory. On this basis, in order to improve China’s financial regulatory, the following measures should be taken: First, establishing and improving the supervision system of similar financial holding companies. In order to prove the road for financial holding companies to an order and sound further, relevant laws and regulation should be amended or legislated. Second, building up financial firewall system. It is wise to restrict internal transactions between group members and control risks in the financial branch of industry through the institutional arrangements of "firewall", which could effectively resolve risks caused by the financial conglomerate. Third, introducing financial holding company system. The author suggested that in future, legislations related to China’s financial holding company should pay special attention to legislative mode, model selection and establishment of the financial holding company , insider trading rules and other issues.更多还原