我国金融混业经营趋势的法律思考

【作者】 高山；

【导师】 沈贵明；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 经济法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 中国入世后，将必须按照WTO《服务贸易总协定》(GATS)和1997年12月达成的《全球金融服务协议》的要求，根据中国在金融市场开放方面做出的承诺，开放中国金融服务市场，这将使中国不得不被卷入世界金融一体化和金融服务贸易自由化的洪流当中。这对本身发展脆弱、金融体制改革步履维艰的我国金融业无疑是严峻的挑战。而目前我国金融业经营模式和法律缺陷也是我国在入世后银行在与具有雄厚实力、良好的信誉，遍布全球的融资网络，先进的经营理念，科学的决策体系，健全的国际机制和激励机制，强大的金融创新能力的外资银行竞争中被动，因此，加强我国银行业改革、完善法律、建立适合我国经营环境的经营模式，增强竞争力刻不容缓。正文共分三大部分： 第一部分：总结了国际金融业经营方式从“分”到“合(混)”的历史嬗变原因及历程，分析金融业分业经营立法的起因及其立法体制的动摇，分析了我国金融业分业经营方式逐步确立的立法体现、历史合理性及现实弊端，并根据国际金融一体化的背景从多因素分析得出混业经营是我国金融业发展必然趋势的结论。 第二部分：从我国金融立法、监管及金融主体的现状对比国际金融混业经营所需的条件分析，说明我国金融要实现从分业经营向混业经营的转变仍面临不少问题，时机尚不成熟。尤其是在立法方面表现为，一方面我国现行金融立法整体上不仅层次多，价值追求偏于保守，不利于金融创新，存在该立法未立法的情况和因存在立法权配置不当而造成的立法质量不高的情况，如缺少一部统一的、规范金融机构的基本法，更没有专门的针对混业经营而制定的《金融控股公司法});另一方面混业经营没有法律依据，如我国现行金融法律确定的分业经营、分业管理的制度没有根本改变;现行银行法对中资银行及金融机构的业务范围限制过严，一般规定在传统的狭小的业务空间，很难适应国际国内市场竞争的需要等等。此外，由于金融监管主体的多元性以及由此而产生的协调困难，金融主体尤其是四大国有商业银行产权不够明晰、内控制度不健全等因素也在阻碍着我国金融混业经营的实行。 第三部分:笔者从金融立法、监管、金融机构改革、货币市场及资本市场建设等多方面提出了应对混业经营的建议。在金融法制建设方面，提出了金融重构的概念，为适应混业经营的内在要求，建议在新制定的《金融法》中应包含市场准入、存款保险、隐私权保护、金融监管等制度，以期使我国金融业健康、稳步发展。在金融监管方面，笔者强调银行、证券、保险三大监管机构应积极探讨彼此合作的协调机制和监管体系，根据《巴塞尔协议》和《有效银行监管的核心原则》对金融经营主体的经营活动进行监管等等。金融机构改革的重点是产权制度改革和内控制度建设。此外，为使金融机构能有良好的经营环境，笔者提出了资本市场、货币市场的改革建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 After China’s accession of WTO, China will open its financial market according its commitments, which will make the China into the stream of world’s financial liberalization . As a result of this , the Chinese financial industries have to confront severe competition with foreign financial industries. The foreign financial industries have developed for hundred years and owned strong operation abilities and good business record with global financial networks and advanced management concepts and decision-marking system, which will threat Chinese financial security. So it is urgent for Chinese banking to reform and improve the legal system and establish the rational and competitive circumstance.The text divides into three parts altogether:The first part of this thesis summarized the course of and the reasons for the financial system’s evolution from single financing to mixed financing. It analyzes the origin of legalization for single financing and also illustrates the gradual weakening of it. Based on studies on the legalization of, historical rationality for and the realistic shortcomings of such model it concludes the inevitability for mixed financing given the financial globalization background.The second part compares domestic and foreign conditions in legalization, supervision and financial institutions; it argues that it is not the proper time for domestic transforming from single financing to the mix model. Many problems exit especially in respect of financial legalization aspect. Firstly redundant legalization level and conservative preference lead to obstacle in financial innovation. At the same time legalization absence coexists with inferior legalization owing to improper legislative distribution, for instance there is no uniform fundamental law on financial institutions especially on holding financial company. Secondly there is no clear legal article on mixed financing and there is no fundamental change in existing single financing administration. Meanwhile local financial institutions under strict confine are incompetent to domestic and international competitions. Lastly other factors such as multiple supervising authorities and following coordination difficulty, improper internal control system and ambiguity in equity of state-owned banks are also barriers to mixed financing in China.Against mixed financing the third part put forward counter measures on financial legalization, financing supervision, financial institution reforms, monetary and capital market construction as well. As to financial legalization this part emphasizes on financial reconstruction. Market admittance, deposit insurance, privacy protection and financingsupervision should be incorporated in the new financial law. As to financing supervision the existing supervising authority on banking, securities and insurance should cooperate and coordinate with each other, they should effect administration as per the Basel Rules. As to financial institution reforms it should emphasize on ownership and internal controlling. This part also offers proposals about reforms on monetary market and capital market to assure due environment for financial institutions.更多还原