本文選題：次貸危機 + 法律成因��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 自2007年2月美國第二大次級抵押貸款機構(gòu)新世紀(jì)金融公司宣布2006年第四季度業(yè)績將出現(xiàn)虧損,美國次貸危機浮出水面以來,至今已經(jīng)兩年有余。在這兩年多的時間里,盡管次貸風(fēng)險已全面暴露,但其所造成的損失和影響卻尚未見底。在美國次貸市場發(fā)展過程中,由于次級貸款及其證券化所存在的市場參與者的自利機制以及各方之間的信息不對稱等問題互相誘發(fā)了各自的道德風(fēng)險,而對這些道德風(fēng)險的法律規(guī)制存在缺陷,致使次貸市場基本上處于無序的狀態(tài)正是產(chǎn)生次貸危機的法律方面原因。 次貸危機的法律成因具體而言包括以下四個部分:首先,過于寬松的借貸消費法律環(huán)境為消費者透支借貸消費提供了便利,大量低收入者涌入次貸市場,而貸款機構(gòu)和貸款經(jīng)紀(jì)商則利用消費者權(quán)益保護法的缺陷誘使不少消費者申請了次級貸款。其次,由于規(guī)范貸款機構(gòu)放貸行為的法律存在著較大的局限性,因此對貸款機構(gòu)的不當(dāng)放貸行為,如不斷降低貸款門檻,放松貸款標(biāo)準(zhǔn),以及掠奪性貸款等未能進行有效的規(guī)制。再次,證券化中介機構(gòu)尋租法律約束缺失使得投資銀行與信用評級機構(gòu)在證券化過程中不僅沒有積極發(fā)揮其監(jiān)督職能,反而通過尋租牟取高額利潤。最后,金融監(jiān)管法律制度的缺陷造成了金融監(jiān)管機構(gòu)缺位以及次貸衍生品監(jiān)管空白。次貸危機爆發(fā)后,美國的立法機關(guān)以及金融監(jiān)管機構(gòu)開始深刻反思危機所暴露出來的法律缺陷,并正在積極進行金融法律制度改革。
[Abstract]:It has been more than two years since February 2007, when New Century Financial, the second largest U.S. subprime mortgage lender, announced that it would lose money in the fourth quarter of 2006. In more than two years, although subprime risk has been fully exposed, its losses and effects have not yet bottomed out. In the course of the development of the subprime mortgage market in the United States, due to the self-interest mechanism of the market participants in subprime loans and securitization and the information asymmetry between the parties, the moral hazard is induced to each other. However, the legal regulation of these moral risks is defective, which causes the subprime mortgage market to be in a disordered state, which is the legal reason for the subprime mortgage crisis. The legal causes of the subprime mortgage crisis include the following four parts: first, the excessive lenient legal environment of borrowing and consumption facilitates consumers' overdraft and consumption, and a large number of low-income people pour into the subprime mortgage market. Lending institutions and loan brokers use the shortcomings of consumer rights and interests laws to induce many consumers to apply for subprime loans. Secondly, due to the greater limitations of the law regulating lending behavior of lending institutions, improper lending practices to lending institutions, such as lowering loan thresholds and relaxing loan standards, And predatory loans and other failed to carry out effective regulation. Thirdly, the lack of legal restriction on rent-seeking of securitization intermediary institutions makes investment banks and credit rating agencies not actively exert their supervisory functions in the process of securitization, but make high profits by rent-seeking. Finally, the defects of the legal system of financial supervision lead to the absence of financial supervision institutions and the lack of supervision of subprime derivatives. After the subprime mortgage crisis broke out, American legislative organs and financial supervision organizations began to reflect deeply on the legal defects exposed by the crisis, and are actively carrying out the reform of the financial legal system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D971.2;DD912.28

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫立強;美國消費信貸的管理及對我國的啟示[J];財經(jīng)科學(xué);1999年05期

2 張波;;基于市場轉(zhuǎn)型的美國金融監(jiān)管體制變革:從1999年現(xiàn)代化法案到次貸危機[J];南方金融;2008年10期

3 廖岷;;從美國次貸危機反思現(xiàn)代金融監(jiān)管[J];國際經(jīng)濟評論;2008年04期

4 李玫;;美國次貸危機的法律分析及對我國的啟示[J];甘肅社會科學(xué);2009年02期

5 侯世宇;;美國《社區(qū)再投資法案》理論爭議與實踐述評[J];河南金融管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年06期

6 符浩勇;美國《社區(qū)再投資法》實施效應(yīng)及對我國的啟示[J];海南金融;2004年06期

7 李林強;;美國次貸危機對我國消費市場的警示[J];合作經(jīng)濟與科技;2008年23期

8 韓立達(dá);肖云;;購房貸款首付比例變化對房地產(chǎn)市場的影響分析[J];價格月刊;2008年01期

9 李圓;;美國次級債危機對中國資產(chǎn)證券化的啟示[J];經(jīng)濟視角(下);2008年07期

10 羅斌;;美國現(xiàn)行法對掠奪性放貸的規(guī)制及其局限性[J];金融法苑;2009年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 江文波;美日利率市場化比較研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號：1778694