發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-03 21:25

【摘要】：全球金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)后，影子銀行體系因?yàn)槠潺嫶蟮娜谫Y規(guī)模、高杠桿率和運(yùn)行機(jī)制不透明的特點(diǎn)，成為監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)的工作重點(diǎn)和學(xué)術(shù)界的研究熱點(diǎn)。美國(guó)影子銀行體系在金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)后從擴(kuò)張轉(zhuǎn)向收縮，但其證券化鏈條和抵押品中介鏈條都基本保持完整。中國(guó)影子銀行體系興起不足十年，是一個(gè)以商業(yè)銀行的影子業(yè)務(wù)為核心的、存在簡(jiǎn)化和異化的影子銀行體系，其功能主要是影子借貸。 我們可以從發(fā)展背景、結(jié)構(gòu)與運(yùn)行機(jī)制以及監(jiān)管等方面對(duì)兩國(guó)影子銀行體系進(jìn)行對(duì)比。從發(fā)展背景來(lái)說(shuō)，兩國(guó)的金融體制、社會(huì)融資結(jié)構(gòu)和利率市場(chǎng)化程度都存在差異。從影子體系結(jié)構(gòu)與運(yùn)行機(jī)制來(lái)說(shuō)，兩國(guó)影子銀行體系都實(shí)現(xiàn)了信用中介功能，但其證券化功能（美國(guó)）與非信貸融資功能（中國(guó)）之間的差別反映了兩國(guó)影子發(fā)展階段的差異：當(dāng)前中國(guó)影子體系與美國(guó)八十年代的發(fā)展程度相當(dāng)；美國(guó)則處于更高階段，且金融危機(jī)的爆發(fā)為影子體系的深化改革提供了契機(jī)。從監(jiān)管方面來(lái)說(shuō)，兩國(guó)也存在較大差異。 從美國(guó)經(jīng)驗(yàn)和中國(guó)實(shí)際出發(fā)，我國(guó)影子銀行今后應(yīng)注意嚴(yán)格界定產(chǎn)品風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，慎重展開證券化，改革獎(jiǎng)懲機(jī)制；監(jiān)管部門也應(yīng)在宏觀審慎框架下，提高影子透明度，建立消費(fèi)者保護(hù)機(jī)制，，鼓勵(lì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融規(guī)范發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:After the outbreak of the global financial crisis, the shadow banking system has become the focus of the work of the regulators and the research hotspot in academia because of its huge financing scale, high leverage ratio and opaque operating mechanism. The U.S. shadow banking system moved from expansion to contraction after the financial crisis, but its securitisation and collateral intermediation chains remained largely intact. The shadow banking system of China has been developed for less than a decade. It is a shadow banking system with the shadow business of commercial banks as its core, and there is a simplified and alienated shadow banking system. Its function is mainly shadow lending. We can compare the shadow banking systems of the two countries in terms of their development background, structure and operation mechanism and supervision. From the development background, there are differences in financial system, social financing structure and interest rate marketization between the two countries. From the perspective of shadow system structure and operation mechanism, both countries' shadow banking systems have realized the function of credit intermediation. But the difference between the securitization function (USA) and the non-credit financing function (China) reflects the difference between the two countries' shadow development stage. The United States is at a higher stage, and the outbreak of the financial crisis provides an opportunity to deepen the reform of the shadow system. In terms of regulation, the two countries also have big differences. Based on the American experience and the reality of China, China's shadow banks should pay attention to defining product risk strictly, carrying out securitization prudently, and reforming the reward and punishment mechanism. Regulators should also improve shadow transparency, establish consumer protection mechanisms and encourage the development of Internet financial norms under the macroprudential framework.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：F832.3;F837.12

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王雪;孫建坤;;商業(yè)銀行資產(chǎn)池理財(cái)產(chǎn)品探析[J];銀行家;2010年10期

2 周衛(wèi)江;;影子銀行的發(fā)展及其監(jiān)管[J];財(cái)經(jīng)理論與實(shí)踐;2012年03期

3 宋旺;鐘正生;;中國(guó)金融脫媒度量及國(guó)際比較[J];當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)科學(xué);2010年02期

4 劉利;美國(guó)利率自由化的原因過程和結(jié)果分析[J];國(guó)際金融研究;2000年02期

5 王達(dá);;論美國(guó)影子銀行體系的發(fā)展、運(yùn)作、影響及監(jiān)管[J];國(guó)際金融研究;2012年01期

6 范小云;王道平;;巴塞爾Ⅲ在監(jiān)管理論與框架上的改進(jìn):微觀與宏觀審慎有機(jī)結(jié)合[J];國(guó)際金融研究;2012年01期

7 張偉;;當(dāng)代美國(guó)金融監(jiān)管制度實(shí)施效果的實(shí)證研究[J];國(guó)際金融研究;2012年07期

8 朱孟楠;葉芳;趙茜;王宇光;;影子銀行體系的監(jiān)管問題——基于最優(yōu)資本監(jiān)管模型的分析[J];國(guó)際金融研究;2012年07期

9 毛澤盛;萬(wàn)亞蘭;;中國(guó)影子銀行與銀行體系穩(wěn)定性閾值效應(yīng)研究[J];國(guó)際金融研究;2012年11期

10 徐錚;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融的若干模式及比較分析[J];中國(guó)發(fā)展觀察;2014年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 涂曉兵;金融脫媒下我國(guó)商業(yè)銀行的現(xiàn)狀分析與路徑選擇[D];武漢大學(xué);2012年

2 徐景;美國(guó)金融結(jié)構(gòu)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

本文編號(hào)：2309086