混业经营：模式比较与现实选择

【作者】 吕俊；

【导师】 周光伟；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 金融学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 金融业的分业和混业是一个争论已久的话题。早在20世纪30年代，面对5000多家银行在大危机中清盘倒闭的现实，人们就开始反思银行经营证券业务的合理性，并最终选择了将证券、保险等业务从银行中分离出来的分业经营模式。但是自20世纪70年代以来，随着金融自由化浪潮的兴起，关于分业和经营的讨论又重新提上日程。伴随着这一讨论过程，各主要发达国家纷纷放弃了原来的分业经营制度，走上了混业经营的道路。混业经营似乎已经成为一股不可逆转的潮流。但是，在这股潮流中，各个国家在自身混业模式的选择上各有其特点。如德国银行业务的扩张主要是通过银行自身的账户来进行，也就是仍然在原有的“单一法人”框架内拓展业务；英国银行对证券、保险业务的渗透主要采取“异业子公司”的形式；而美国银行业的跨业经营则主要是通过在原来的银行控股公司制度的基础上升级为金融控股公司的方式来进行的。为什么各个国家在混业经营模式的选择上会出现如此大的差异，这些模式之间存在一个优胜之分、效率之别吗，更进一步，如果我们国家金融业的发展混业经营不可避免，应该选择哪一类模式，步骤应该如何安排？这些都成为急需解决的问题。为回答这些问题，本文分为五个部分：导言部分对各主要发达国家混业经营的历程作了一个简要的回顾，试图以此说明混业经营在实践上已成为一股潮流，一股不可逆转的趋势。本文的第二部分试图在理论上说明现阶段混业经营制度取代分业经营制度的必然性。分为两个层次：第一个层次从一般化的角度运用成本收益方法分析混业经营制度的比较收益和比较成本。混业经营制度相对于分业经营制度，其优势主要表现在信息经济和范围经济方面，其劣势则体现在潜在的风险扩张、利益冲突的扩大化和津贴外溢的损失等。这就说明混业经营制度对分业经营制度的取代决非一种“帕累托改进”，混业经营与分业经营的选择问题是一个两难选择问题：每一个制度都内在的包含了制度收<WP=3>益和制度成本。第二个层次在第一个层次讨论的基础上，分析现阶段混业经营制度取代分业分业经营制度的具体原因。这是一种从一般到特殊的论证方法。既然前已说明混业与分业的抉择问题是一个两难选择，为什么在现阶段混业经营制度会压倒性的战胜分业经营制度呢？本文的分析表明：一方面，20世纪70年代以来“脱媒化”危机以及市场形态的转变不断的强化了混业经营的制度收益；另一方面，成熟的资本市场、严密的金融风险防范体系及完善的金融监管体系又不断的弱化了混业经营的制度成本。所以，一个混业经营制度收益不断强化、混业经营制度成本不断弱化的过程就是一个混业取代分业的过程。本文第二部分的分析表明，混业经营制度对分业经营制度的取代在带来制度收益的同时，也不可避免的带来一些制度成本（尽管在现阶段有所弱化）。那么，我们能否通过混业经营的某种内部结构安排，使我们既能够最大化混业经营收益，又能够最小化混业经营成本？这便是本文第三部分试图回答的问题。本部分首先将世界各国混业经营的实践划分为三种模式：全能银行模式、母银行模式、控股公司模式。全能银行模式以德国最为典型，母银行模式以英国作为主要案例，控股公司模式则以美国作为模板。通过对这三种模式的比较，我们发现：全能银行模式能够最大化混业经营收益，但同时又最大化混业经营成本；而控股公司模式能够最小化混业经营成本，但同时也最小化了混业经营收益；母银行模式则是一种“中庸”的模式。也就是说，三种模式之间很难谈得上“孰优孰劣”这个问题，每一种模式都无法同时兼顾混业经营收益最大化和混业经营成本最小化这两个方面。所以，对于模式的选择而言，实际上面临的是一个“权衡”的问题，强调的方面不同就决定了模式选择的优先次序问题。正因为如此，世界各国混业经营模式的发展才体现出如此大的差异性。另一方面，我们通过对美国、德国混业经营法律的分析还发现：即使在同一个国家范围内，混业经营模式的选择也不是绝对化的和僵化的。如《美国金融服务现代化法》就针对不同的银行主体为其分别<WP=4>制定了两类混业模式：控股公司模式和母银行模式。德国《银行法》也针对不同的业务类型制定了不同的业务扩张模式，如不允许在“全能银行”框架内开展基金业务，而必须通过“异业子公司”的形式（母银行模式）从事基金业务。这就说明，即使在同一个国家范围内，有差异性的主体、有差异性的业务决定了有差异性的模式选择。最后，世界各国混业经营制度的演绎还表现出一种“渐进式”改革的逻辑。在“渐进式”的改革过程中，可能因为动态的经济发展而产生动态的模式选择。如日本的改革就呈现出“分业—母银行模式—控股公司模式”的发展轨迹。所以，模式选择应该具有动态性。这是本文第三部分的另一个结论。本文的第四部分主要运用前面所论述的一些原理和结论来分析我国的混业经营实践。第一节对我国混业经营的现状进行了简单的描述。指出我国虽然在法律体系上仍然坚持分业经营制度，但在实践上，一些银行已开始采取全能银行模式、母银行模式和控股公司模式进行业务扩张（既有符合法律规范的，?更多还原

【Abstract】 The dispute of the integration of financial services and the separation of financial services is a long-debated topic，which can be dated back to 1930s ,when, shocked by the reality of more than 5,000 bank failures in "the Great Depression", people began to suspect the validity of bank operating securities business and at last preferred the separation of bank business and securities business. But since 1970s, with the development of financial liberalization, the integration of bank, securities and insurance has become an irreversible trend. Most developed countries have forsaken their old institutions and allowed the integration of financial services， hence arise different models. Germany permits its banks to expand their activities within the banks, which we call "universal bank model". Great British adopts "bank-parent model", allowing its banks to operate securities and insurance activities on condition that they set up separate subsidiaries to operate these activities. The banks of the United States under "holding company model" should set up a financial holding company, if they wanted to expand their businesses to securities and insurance field. Why are there so many different models? What’s the difference of these models? If the banks of our country were allowed to expand their businesses, which model should they adopt? These questions are what I want to answer in this paper.To answer these questions, this paper is divided into five parts.In the first part of the paper, some examples are cited to illustrate the truth: the institution of the integration of financial services has overcome the institution of the separation of financial services in the world. In the second part of the paper, to answer the question why "integration" has replaced "separation" in a worldwide scope is the main point. Compared with the institution of the separation of financial services, the institution of the integration of financial services has the advantages of<WP=7>information economics and scope economics, but it also has the disadvantages of expansion of risk, conflicts of interests and extension of subsidy etc. So, the integration of financial services is a double-bladed sword. Then, why has "integration" replaced "separation" in the past thirty years? Our analysis shows that the change of environment plays an important role. In the past thirty years, at one side, financial disintermediary and reversion of market force have been strengthening the advantages of "integration", at the other side, developing capital market and more and more perfect bank supervision have been lessening the disadvantages of "separation". So, the institution of the integration of financial services becomes inevitable.In the third part of the paper, I employ the theories of the second part to make contrast of three models mentioned above. Through the contrast, I found that there exists "trade-off" relationship among three models, which means that we can’t say that one model is superior to another, because each model has its own advantages and disadvantages. So, the aspect each country wants to emphasize determines its choice among three models. For example, if a country thinks safety outweighs efficiency, "holding company model" may be a better choice. But another country may think otherwise. Just for that reason, different countries adopt different integration models.Through the analysis of the laws of different countries, I found that, even within the same country, there exist different integration models for different banks and different activities.The fourth part of the paper is a practical study. In this part, I try to answer this question which model the banks of our country should choose, if "integration" were inevitable? In the whole, the bank-parent model and the holding company model may turn out to be superior. But in specific cases, for different banks and different activities, there should be different<WP=8>choices. In the last part of the paper, I make a review of the paper.Looking over the paper, I fin更多还原