【作者】 周玲玲；

【导师】 田中景；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 世界经济， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 2007～2009年美国遭受了次贷风暴——金融海啸——经济衰退等一系列危机的冲击。众多重量级金融机构破产或者陷入经营困境被迫接受政府救助。美国、欧盟和日本先后宣布经济陷入衰退。而在此之前的几十年里,美国金融体系在协调资金供需、资源配置等方面一直卓有成效,成为经济增长的推动力量。在2007年以前,美国金融业的完美与高效是其他国家学习和效仿的对象,而这一切伴随危机的爆发而毁誉参半。危机的乱象终于过去以后,有必要对危机的形成和发生进行反思。在危机中投资银行成了重灾区。由于投资银行在金融体系甚至经济体系中占据核心地位,因此考察美国投资银行的变迁过程,分析其变迁的背景和动因,研究投资银行变迁的影响和效应,具有重要的理论和实践意义。美国投资银行从18世纪末的证券经纪业务起步,到19世纪后半期伴随美国工业化的发展,投资银行业迅速崛起,经历了自由混业阶段、独立投行阶段、走向混业以及银行控股公司等几个发展阶段,尤其是20世纪70年代以来的发展和变化对美国的金融体系产生了深远的影响。20世纪70年代以后,美国的金融市场发生了前所未有的变化,利率和汇率经常波动,通货膨胀率居高不下成为头号经济难题。同时,监管理念发生了变化,监管规则逐渐趋向于放松管制,经济和金融自由化浪潮兴起,金融创新此起彼伏,金融机构间的界限逐渐模糊。同时,监管部门放宽了对金融业内部各部门之间相互融合的限制,并最终通过《金融服务现代化法案》对混业经营予以了确认。从本质上来说,投资银行的变化是市场环境变化的一部分,但是投资银行的变迁进一步推动了市场环境的变化,进而促进了监管的改变,而监管的改变反过来又促成投资银行新的变迁。这形成了一个互相影响、互相推动的动态过程。随着市场环境和监管环境的变化,投资银行的业务结构逐渐发生变化,传统业务的重要性在下降。同时,现代信息技术的发展一方面促进交易规模的扩大和交易范围的拓展,另一方面推动了投资理论的革命与金融工具定价理论的发展,而这些变化进一步推动了投资银行业务的变迁。投资银行业务变迁表现出如下特征:交易的重要性日益突出,业务专门化、数学化和模型化特征日益明显以及风险形态日益复杂化。这些变化的潜在影响在于投资银行必须不断扩大交易规模以维持其收益水平,而过度地依赖数学模型和计量工具来开展业务活动和进行风险管理的弊端是显而易见的,毕竟现实经济是受多因素影响并且各因素及其关系是不稳定的。美国投资银行业的实践说明模型失败的结果可能是灾难性的。同时,美国投资银行的组织形式发生了变化,即普遍由合伙制转变为股份制的上市公司。这种转变对投资银行的治理结构产生重大影响,尤其是激励-约束机制的不对等导致了严重的道德风险和利益冲突。另一方面,由于投资银行不断向商业银行业务扩展,形成投资银行控股形式的混业经营集团,即投资银行控股公司,其经营的类银行业务实际是处于监管真空中,也令金融系统在遭遇系统风险暴露时传统的救济手段失效。另外,投资银行间以及投资银行与其他金融机构间的并购浪潮此起彼伏,但是并购的绩效是不确定的,并且易形成“大而不倒”的道德风险。投资银行变迁带来的金融非均衡发展是导致80年代以后持续不断的金融动荡的根源,2007～2009年的金融危机是这种失衡的集中爆发。投资银行的融资手段创新、高杠杆交易等对危机负有重要责任,另外,投资银行激励与约束机制不对等导致明显的投机驱动和逆向选择。从制度层面来看,金融监管总是滞后于金融业务的变迁,并且在放松监管的主流哲学的指导下,美国金融业的监管不足普遍存在,导致金融运行失范和无序;监管失当和“大而不倒”的道德风险也促进了金融发展的进一步失衡。危机的发生促成了《2010年华尔街改革和消费者保护法》的出台,美国投资银行发展将面临一个相对严厉的监管环境,但是该法案可能仍然无法避免危机的发生。中国的投资银行业虽然起步较晚,但经过二十几年的发展已取得长足的进步,并已开始参与一定范围的国际竞争。但是,从整体来看,与美国投资银行相比,中国的投资银行规模小,业务范围狭窄,股权结构比较集中,内部控制和监督机制较弱;混业经营形式在一定范围内得到了发展,形成持股复杂的金融集团。美国投资银行发展的经验和教训,可以对中国的证券公司的发展提供启示。首先,适当扩大业务范围,有助于收入来源多元化和稳定增长以及分散风险,但是业务创新必须坚持为实体经济服务的基本原则,在业务创新和监管之间应该保持平衡;其次,在证券公司的内部治理方面要不断完善独立董事和监事制度,坚持激励机制和约束机制的对等和统一,避免“强激励、弱约束”的失衡现象和其他委托代理问题;最后,要根据金融机构的特点和市场定位以及监管状况来进行分业-混业的选择,并对事实上存在的混业经营机构加强监管。更多还原

【Abstract】 United States suffered from the subprime crisis, financial crisis and the economic recession within 2007-2009. Many heavyweight financial institutions are forced to accept government assistance because of bankruptcy or financial difficulties. USA, EU and Japan had announced the economic recession one by one by the end of 2008. In the decades before that, as the driving force of economic growth, the U.S. financial system is highly effective in coordinating supply and demand of capital and in allocating resources. Prior to 2007, the U.S. financial industry is the object of study and emulate for other countries because of its perfect and efficiency, but all these are to be as much praised as blamed with the outbreak of the crisis.Chaos of the crisis was finally over, it is necessary to reflect the formation and occurrence of the crisis. Investment banking industry in the crisis became a disaster area. Because investment banking is the core in the financial system and even in the economy, it has important theoretical and practical significance to examine the changing process of U.S. investment banking, analyze the background and motivation of the changes and study the impact and the effects of investment banking’s changes.U.S. investment banking started from brokerage business of the late 18th century and rapidly rise in the second half of the nineteenth century with the development of American industrialization. It has gone through free mixing stage, independent investment banking stage, mixed operation stage and finance holding company stage. Particularly since the 1970s investment banking’s development and changes had far-reaching impact.Within 1970s, the U.S. financial markets took place unprecedented changes, interest rates and exchange rates often fluctuated, high inflation became the first economic problem. These changes made companys’ financial position very unstable. Meanwhile, the regulatory philosophy had changed, and regulatory rules gradually moved to deregulation, the tide of economic and financial liberalization rose, economy became more competitive, the market was increasingly global, multinational business expanded to many countries. All these made the company finance and investment and risk management very complicated. Regulatory authorities relaxed the limitation of the integration between the various sector within the financial industry, and finally confirm the mixed operation by the Financial Services Modernization Act. Essentially, the changes of investment banking are parts of the market environment changes, but changes of investment banking further promote the market changes, thus contributing to the regulation change, in turn regulatory changes further promote investment banks’change. This creates a dynamic process with mutual influence and promotion.With the changes of the market and regulation, the investment bank’s business scope has gradually expanded, the firms gradually focus on the new business especially trading, and the importance of traditional business is declining. There are several reasons contributing to the rise and large development of new business: changes of financial markets competition and regulation; the revolution in investment theory and the development in financial instruments pricing theory and modern information technology. Changes of investment banking business show the following characteristics: the importance of trade becomes increasingly prominent; business has become to specialization, mathematicization and modelization and all type of risks are faced.Meanwhile, the U.S. investment banking has changed their organizational form, namely from partnership to the stock company. This shift has a major impact on the governance structure of investment banking, especially asymmetry between incentive mechanism and restrictive mechanism has led to serious moral hazard and conflict of interest. On the other hand, the investment banks expand to the commercial banks’business continuously which forms investment-bank-holding- company. It is the banking business conformed by investment-bank-holding- company that is actually in the regulatory vacuum, which results in the accumulation of risks. In addition, M&A between investment banks and between investment banks and other financial institutions rise one after another, but the performance of M&A is uncertain, and it is easy to rise the moral hazard of too big to fall.Asymmetric financial development is the source of financial instability after 1980s. 2007-2009 financial crisis is a concentrated outbreak of this imbalance. From a institutional perspective, financial regulation always lags behind the changes in the financial services, and under the guidance of the mainstream philosophy of deregulation, the inadequate supervision of U.S. financial industry is widespread, which results in anomie and disorder in financial operations; regulatory misconduct and the too big to fall moral hazard also promote the further financial imbalances. From a technical level, the investment bank’s innovation of financing instruments, highly leveraged transactions take on the important responsibility to the crisis. In addition, asymmetry between incentive mechanism and restrictive mechanism of investment banks lead to significantly speculative drive.The Crisis got rise of 2010 Wall Street Reform and the Consumer Protection Act introduced, so U.S. investment banking will face a relatively stringent regulatory environment.China’s investment banking industry started late, after 20 years of development it has made great progress, and has been involved in a range of international competition. However, compared with U.S. investment banking, China’s investment banks are small, over-reliance on traditional business, and mergers, investment and other new business develop slowly; besides, most are limited company, and the internal ownership structure is more concentrated, internal controls mechanisms are weak. Mixed operation has been developed within a certain range,forming complex financial holding group. The experience and lessons of U.S. investment bank could inspire to the development of China’s securities companies. First, we must adhere to the basic principles of financial innovation servicing the real economy, and maintain a balance between innovation and regulation. Secondly, we must establish the balance mechanisms of incentive and restraint in the internal governance of securities companies, and avoid imbalance of "strong incentives, weak constraints" and other principal-agent problem. Finally, supervision should be strengthened in mixed operation groups.更多还原