I hope it will be helpful to you (hope to adopt it)

In order to analyze the similarities and differences between the financial regulatory systems of the United States and my country, you must first understand the characteristics of the financial regulatory systems of the United States and China. Only then can a detailed and reasonable explanation be given.

At noon on June 17, 2009, the U.S. government officially announced the most thorough comprehensive financial regulatory reform plan since the "Great Depression" in 1929, calling it the "white paper" for the reform of the U.S. financial regulatory system. The reform blueprint and the latest white paper will be analyzed below.

(1) Main contents of the reform blueprint

The "Modernization Blueprint" puts forward suggestions from the short, medium and long term. Among them, the long-term suggestions put forward the new concept of target supervision to establish The three-pillar regulatory system of market stability supervision, prudential supervision and financial market commercial conduct supervision ensures the core position of the United States in the global financial market.

1. Short-term recommendations aimed at empowering and enhancing coordination. The short-term recommendations are mainly aimed at the current turmoil in the credit and housing mortgage markets. It is recommended that measures be taken to strengthen cooperation with regulatory authorities and strengthen market supervision to promote financial market stability and strengthen consumer protection. Specific contents include: First, improve the efficiency of the President’s Financial Markets Working Group (PWG) as the coordinator of financial regulatory policies. Incorporate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) into the PWG as new members to expand its lineup and expand the PWG's focus from the financial market to the entire financial system. Second, create the Federal Mortgage Loan Founding Committee to strengthen the supervision of home mortgage loan originations and supervise the management of mortgage loans by states, so as to change the current situation in which many such brokers are out of federal supervision. Third, grant the Federal Reserve more rights to know and review. Grants the Federal Reserve the authority to request additional information or conduct on-site reviews from all financial system participants (including commercial and noncommercial banks) that have borrowed emergency liquidity to assess the liquidity of financial institutions and the impact of related activities on overall financial stability.

2. Medium-term recommendations aimed at the partial integration of regulatory agencies. On the basis of short-term recommendations, the blueprint proposes some mid-term recommendations to reduce regulatory overlap in the United States and improve the effectiveness of financial regulation. Some of these recommendations can be implemented as soon as possible under the existing regulatory framework. Specifically, it includes five aspects: first, it is recommended to cancel the federal savings institution license and integrate it into the national bank license system. This process should be completed within two years; to abolish the savings administration, and its original responsibilities are assigned to the currency audit with national bank supervision power. Bureau performs. Second, in view of the current situation where state-registered federal deposit insurance banks are subject to dual supervision by states and federal governments, it is proposed that state-registered banks be handed over to the Federal Reserve or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for supervision. Third, in the supervision of payment and settlement systems, federal franchises and federal priorities for important payment and settlement systems should be established. The Federal Reserve has the primary responsibility for supervising such systems and enjoys important discretionary power and the ability to formulate relevant mandatory standards. that power. Fourth, in terms of the insurance industry, state regulatory authorities have always been responsible for supervision. The federal government only regulates the insurance business but rarely supervises it. This has led to the US insurance giant American International Group (AIG) due to a large number of creations. and holding CDS to the brink of bankruptcy. Fifth, merge the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission will conduct unified supervision of the securities and futures industry to improve the previous inefficiency of separate supervision of the securities and futures industries.

3. Long-term suggestions aimed at establishing a targeted supervision model. The blueprint recommends: First, the Federal Reserve should fulfill its responsibilities as a market stability regulator, with the goal of ensuring financial market stability and focusing on controlling systemic risks. Second, establish a Prudential Financial Regulator to integrate bank regulatory powers and bring the daily banking supervision matters currently handled by five federal agencies under the unified responsibility of the Financial Prudential Management Agency. Its supervision focuses on the daily business operations of financial institutions with government guarantees, monitoring their capital adequacy, investment restrictions, activity restrictions and other matters, and conducting necessary on-site inspections. Third, establish a new Business Conduct Regulator to be responsible for supervising business conduct and protecting the rights and interests of investors and consumers (mainly part of the main functions of the existing Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission and banking regulatory agencies functions). In addition, a federal insurance guarantor and corporate finance regulator are established.

From this point of view, the blueprint reorganizes and categorizes the current multi-functional functional regulatory system, achieving a close integration of three regulatory objectives and three levels of regulatory agencies, with the purpose of improving Regulatory efficiency, maintaining financial stability, and better protecting the rights and interests of investors and consumers will enhance the competitiveness of the United States in global capital markets. Moreover, through the introduction of the blueprint, we can also see that the reform of the blueprint is to improve supervision rather than simply increase supervision and increase intervention. It does not abandon the concept of fully relying on market discipline, but in the context of new financial market development, Rebalancing the relationship between regulation and market.

(2) The latest results of the reform of the financial regulatory system: "White Paper"

At noon on June 17, 2009, the U.S. government officially announced the latest financial reform since the "Great Depression" in 1929. The thorough and comprehensive financial regulatory reform plan is called the "white paper" for the reform of the U.S. financial regulatory system. This 88-page reform plan touches on almost every aspect of the U.S. financial sector, from stricter consumer protection policies to the introduction of stricter regulatory rules for financial products. This plan will transform the financial sector that is currently outside of supervision. Products and financial institutions must be placed under the control of the federal government. The purpose of the reform is to comprehensively repair the existing financial regulatory system in the United States and prevent a recurrence of a crisis like the current one.

First, strengthen the supervision of financial institutions. The white paper states that all financial institutions that may pose serious risks to the financial system must be subject to strict supervision. To this end, the government will implement the following six reforms: establish a Financial Services Regulatory Commission led by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to monitor systemic risks; strengthen the power of the Federal Reserve and authorize the Federal Reserve to address accumulation of risks that threaten the entire system; and expand the scope of supervision to all possible Businesses that pose a threat to financial stability. In addition to bank holding companies, hedge funds, insurance companies, etc. will also be included in the scope of supervision of the Federal Reserve; stricter capital and other standards will be set for financial companies, and higher standards will be set for large and closely related companies. The Federal Reserve has Brings the final say on bank capital requirements and authority over executive compensation of these companies and monitoring of financial market trading systems to the Federal Reserve; establishes a national bank regulator to supervise all banks with federal charters; abolishes the Thrift Administration and other institutions that may lead to regulatory loopholes to prevent some deposit-taking institutions from using this to circumvent supervision; hedge funds and other private equity institutions need to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Secondly, establish comprehensive supervision of the financial market. The white paper recommends strengthening the supervision of the securitization market, including increasing market transparency and strengthening the management of credit rating agencies. Creators and issuers must bear certain risk responsibilities in related credit securitization products. Comprehensively supervise over-the-counter trading of financial derivatives, expanding the scope of federal supervision to the gray area of ??financial market supervision. Complex derivatives transactions and transactions in mortgage-backed securities will be placed under supervision, including strengthening the supervision of hedge funds and over-the-counter securities. The trading market (OTC) is the most typical. Gives the Federal Reserve the authority to oversee payment, settlement, and clearing systems in financial markets.

Third, protect consumers and investors from improper financial behavior. The white paper points out that in order to rebuild confidence in financial markets, strict and coordinated regulation of consumer financial services and investment markets is needed. The government must promote this market to be transparent, simple, fair, responsible, and open. To this end, the white paper recommends: establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers from unfair and fraudulent practices in the financial system, strengthen supervision of consumer and investor financial products and services, and promote the transparency, fairness, and reasonableness of these products . Improve industry standards for providers of consumer financial products and services to promote fair competition and protect the interests of consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

Fourth, give the government the necessary policy tools to respond to the financial crisis, so as to avoid the dilemma of whether the government should rescue distressed companies or let them go bankrupt. Establish a new mechanism so that the government can decide independently how to deal with non-bank financial institutions that are in crisis and may bring systemic risks. The government has the power to take over and break up large financial companies that are in trouble to avoid individual collapse that will endanger the overall economy. This is exactly what the government was lacking last year at the height of the financial crisis. And the Fed needs permission from the Treasury Department before providing emergency financial relief to businesses.

Fifth, establish international regulatory standards and promote international cooperation. To this end, the white paper recommends reforming the corporate capital framework, strengthening supervision of international financial markets, strengthening cooperative supervision of multinational enterprises, and coordinating the policies of various countries to create a compatible regulatory framework and strengthen international crisis response capabilities. Specific measures include formulating similar regulatory provisions on credit derivatives, signing cross-border agreements on the supervision of large multinational financial institutions, and better cooperation with overseas regulatory agencies.

This financial regulatory reform plan considers the financial industry as a whole for the first time and is the largest financial regulatory reform in the United States since the 1930s. However, it is worth pointing out that this reform plan is compared with the "Blueprint for the Reform of the Modern Financial Regulatory Architecture" announced by US Treasury Secretary Paulson on March 31, 2008. The "White Paper" continues the "Blueprint for the Reform of the Modern Financial Regulatory Architecture". The spirit of the Federal Reserve has greatly expanded the power of the Federal Reserve, including banks and hedge funds within the scope of the Federal Reserve's supervision, and abolished the Savings Bureau, a federal agency used to supervise savings and loans. However, it has also been reduced to a considerable extent, such as the government The original plan was to consolidate regulators and create a single agency to oversee the banking industry, but ultimately opted for an approach that would strengthen the Fed's powers within the existing structure.

In short, through the above analysis of the content and reasons of the reform of the U.S. financial system, it can be seen that the United States has begun to prepare to move from the current multi-head functional supervision model to a more centralized target supervision model of regulatory agencies. This reform path and idea can be said to be completely in line with the development trend of international financial supervision, that is, the trend of centralized supervision.

(3) Analysis of the targeted regulatory model in the reform blueprint - comparison with the functional regulatory model

In 1999, the passage of the US Financial Services Modernization Act completely ended It marked the beginning of mixed business operations in the United States. Correspondingly, the concept of financial supervision in the United States has also changed from the previous institutional supervision to functional supervision. Although the concept of functional supervision transcends the shortcomings of institutional supervision based on the identity of financial institutions in the case of separate operations, the U.S. functional supervision system promotes cooperation among various regulatory agencies without touching the existing regulatory system. Functional coordination, information communication and law enforcement cooperation are still essentially separate supervision models, and do not provide clear system construction and authorization support. Therefore, during the ten years of operation of this financial regulatory system, its shortcomings have gradually been exposed, and they broke out in this crisis. Mainly manifested in the following aspects: First, there is a lack of an institution that can possess all regulatory information and prevent regulatory systemic risks. Second, different regulatory agencies apply different regulatory legal rules and apply different regulatory concepts. This provides space for some financial institutions to engage in regulatory arbitrage, leading some institutions to actively choose the regulatory agency that is most beneficial to them. Third, multi-level regulatory agencies and multi-standard regulatory operations will inevitably lead to overlap in regulatory work. This regulatory overlap increases regulatory costs.

Compared with the shortcomings of functional supervision, the advantages of the targeted supervision model are mainly reflected in the following points:

First, through the integration of regulatory agencies and regulatory forces, it can improve Efficiency of supervision. The reform blueprint aims at the problems of inefficiency caused by regulatory gaps and regulatory overlaps exposed in the subprime mortgage crisis, and proposes that only by targeting regulatory guidance can we better deal with various problems that arise in financial regulatory practice and leverage the joint efforts of various regulatory agencies. The targeted supervision model breaks the separate supervision model of the four major industries of banking, insurance, securities and futures. According to different regulatory objectives and types of risks, regulatory agencies are divided into market stability regulators, prudent financial regulators, and business conduct regulators. or three major systems. The close integration of the three systems not only avoids the emergence of regulatory loopholes and regulatory overlaps, but also enables regulatory agencies to adopt unified regulatory standards for the same financial products and risks, which will greatly improve the efficiency of supervision. This integration of regulatory agencies reflects a trend from decentralization to concentration of power, and the concentration of power will inevitably improve the efficiency of supervision.

Second, the targeted regulatory model can better respond to regulatory gaps caused by financial innovation. The lagging nature of financial regulation determines that simply regulating the financial field through the formulation of regulatory rules cannot cope with the rapid changes in the financial market. As financial innovation continues to deepen, firstly, it is impossible to keep up with the speed of innovation through the formulation of specific rules alone; secondly, financial innovation continues to break through the restrictions of the rules, resulting in gaps in supervision. The subprime mortgage crisis is the best illustration. Faced with the continuous packaging and reorganization of subprime mortgage loans to create new derivative products, regulatory agencies cannot regulate them uniformly by one agency based on inherent rules, resulting in risks that vary widely. The financial system accumulated more and more, eventually detonating the subprime mortgage crisis. Targeted regulation does not stick to the formulation of specific regulatory rules. It starts from the entire financial system and integrates the stability of the financial system, prudent operation of financial institutions and consumer protection as three major goals to build an efficient and unified regulatory department. In this way, risks arising in the entire financial innovation chain will be covered, and there will be no regulatory gaps.

Thirdly, another biggest advantage of the proposed targeted supervision is that it breaks away from the debate on the separate supervision model or the mixed supervision model, and can be compatible with both supervision models. The reform blueprint reaffirms the important goals of financial market supervision and proposes three major goals for maintaining financial market stability and security: financial market stability, prudent operation of financial institutions, and financial consumer protection. When achieving these regulatory goals, a single regulatory agency can implement "mixed industry" supervision, but in theory, it does not exclude the "separate" supervision of financial regulatory agencies in different industries. This needs to be specific depending on the timing and national conditions. design. For example, in this reform blueprint, regarding the supervision of financial market stability, it is emphasized that the Federal Reserve’s power as a market stability regulator will be expanded. In addition to supervising commercial banks, it will also have the power to supervise investment banks, hedge funds and other other things that may contribute to the financial system. Financial institutions that pose risks. This is the choice of comprehensive and unified supervision determined by the current situation of mixed financial operations in the United States. Similarly, if a country has always had a tradition of separate supervision, then under any regulatory objective, it can also consider maintaining the original separate supervision model.

2. The Enlightenment of the Reform of the U.S. Financial Supervision System to my country

Through the above analysis of the reform of the U.S. financial supervision system and the centralized supervision trend of international financial supervision, it can be seen that the major developed countries They are gradually consolidating the number of financial regulatory agencies and moving closer to either a single or dual-headed regulatory model. Based on the current development status of my country's financial regulatory system, the author believes that my country should establish a unified financial regulatory system for the following reasons:

First, as a latecomer, my country can establish a unified financial regulatory system in one step.

Throughout the history of the development of the financial industry in major Western developed countries, financial operations have experienced repeated historical cycles of mixed industry - divided industry - mixed industry. For example, the United States allowed mixed banking operations at the end of the 19th century. In 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act prohibited commercial banks from underwriting corporate securities or engaging in brokerage business. It also prohibited investment banks from engaging in commercial banking activities, thus establishing the separation of industries. Operations, until the promulgation of the "Financial Services Modernization Act" in 1999 finally restored mixed financial operations, which has gone through a process of nearly a century. Since the 1980s, the world's major developed countries have abandoned the separate business model and established a mixed business model. This change in the financial business model has directly led to the reform of the financial regulatory system. Countries have carried out drastic reforms of the original financial regulatory system, merged financial regulatory agencies and established single or dual-headed regulatory agencies, forming a centralized Regulatory system. The current reform of the financial regulatory system in the United States is also an integration of the existing multiple regulatory agencies to make them more efficient in preventing the occurrence of systemic risks. The historical changes in financial operations in developed countries have led them to seek centralized supervision. As a late-developing country, our country has not experienced the development of an over-prosperous financial industry like that of Western developed countries. Our country's financial industry is still in its infancy, the financial market is still very imperfect, and financial products are still very imperfect. developed. Drawing on the experience of Western developed countries, our country can establish a unified regulatory system in one step. This can avoid to a certain extent the crisis-driven characteristics of financial supervision lagging behind financial innovation, and make my country's financial supervision system more forward-looking and better able to respond to the ever-changing changes in the financial market.

Second, the current development status of mixed operations in my country’s financial industry has put forward requirements for a unified regulatory system. In fact, since the professional division of labor of the National Bank was abolished in 1994, the process of financial business integration has begun to advance. In practice, under the background of the rapid development of the international financial industry and the huge competitive pressure at home and abroad, the connection between my country's banks, securities, and insurance has been continuously strengthened, and the situation of financial businesses intermixing and interpenetrating has gradually formed, and financial institutions have maintained mutual support. The stock-holding phenomenon has gradually increased, and the financial industry has shown a development trend of comprehensive management. Group-type, bank holding models and industrial enterprise holding-type de facto financial holding companies have emerged. Financial innovation has exceeded the corresponding laws and regulations and regulatory scope. It poses a challenge to the separate supervision system, and the development of practice calls for a unified supervision system.

Third, establishing a centralized and unified financial regulatory agency is in line with my country’s policy orientation of establishing a large ministry system to save administrative resources. Our country currently implements a small department system. The departmental system is an organizational system for the comprehensive management of government affairs. It is characterized by "large functions, wide fields, and few institutions." The management scope of government departments is wide and the functions are relatively comprehensive. The "large-ministry" reform implemented in accordance with the spirit of the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China is necessary to improve the socialist market economic system and deepen the reform of the social management system, and has important and practical significance. However, the reform of most ministries will not be completed in one step, and a gradual advancement has basically reached a consensus. The current scope of the pilot system of large ministries may be selected from three areas: first, the so-called large agriculture, partial functional combination of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Water Resources; second, the adjustment and combination of the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense system; third, large transportation, It mainly involves the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Railways, the Civil Aviation Administration, etc. Although large-scale reform in the field of financial supervision has not yet been put on the agenda, establishing a unified financial regulatory agency in addition to the People's Bank of China to supervise the entire financial industry is in line with the value orientation of large-scale reform. Therefore, in the future, we should merge the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission to establish a financial regulatory commission that is independent of the People's Bank of China. The People's Bank of China is only responsible for the formulation of monetary policy and macro-control of the financial industry and no longer has financial regulatory functions. This not only avoids the overlapping functions of the three departments in specific financial supervision, but also prevents regulatory gaps caused by the emergence of ever-changing financial innovative products and improves the efficiency of financial supervision.

Fourth, learn from the experiences and lessons of East Asian countries and establish a unified financial regulatory system. In 1997, a financial crisis began in Thailand and quickly spread to the entire Southeast Asia and the world. The currency and stock markets of many Southeast Asian countries and regions plummeted one after another, and the financial system and even the entire social economy were severely damaged. After the crisis, the Japanese government carried out two major reforms in the financial regulatory system in 1998: First, it established an independent financial regulatory agency, which combined the financial regulatory departments of the Banking Bureau and the Securities Bureau, the Financial Inspection Department, and Securities Trading from the Ministry of Finance. The Supervisory Committee was separated and established as a financial regulatory agency as an external bureau of the Prime Minister's Office - the Financial Supervision Office (later renamed the Financial Services Agency), which became an agency specifically responsible for financial regulatory affairs. Another reform is to strengthen the independence of the central bank in implementing monetary policy. South Korea, another hard-hit country in East Asia, established a single financial regulatory agency, the Financial Supervisory Commission, in April 1998 with the financial assistance and influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It can be seen that after the Asian financial crisis, East Asian countries represented by Japan and South Korea have established unified financial regulatory agencies to implement comprehensive supervision, which has played a certain role in effectively preventing systemic risks in the financial industry. It can be said that the economic rise of Japan and South Korea after the Asian financial crisis is closely related to the prosperity of the financial industry brought about by financial regulatory reforms.

Although our country was not severely hit by the Asian financial crisis and achieved a soft landing of the economy, these experiences and lessons of East Asian countries are worth learning from. Combining my country's actual financial supervision and national conditions, establishing a unified financial supervision system is our inevitable choice.

What is the current financial regulatory system in our country? The situation is as follows:

The basic feature of my country's current financial regulatory system is separate supervision. In recent years, with the rapid development of financial globalization, liberalization and financial innovation, it has become an irreversible trend for financial institutions to carry out mixed operations. The separate supervision system has shown obvious incompatibility and has its own inherent problems. also gradually revealed. Therefore, it is imperative to reform the financial regulatory system, strengthen financial supervision, prevent financial risks, and improve regulatory efficiency.

Financial supervision is a general term for a country’s financial regulatory authorities to supervise and manage banks and other financial institutions and their financial activities across the country in accordance with laws and regulations in order to achieve macroeconomic and financial goals. It serves as a financial institutional arrangement provided by the government to correct market failures, with the purpose of maximizing the efficiency and stability of the financial system. A country's financial regulatory system is fundamentally determined by its political and economic system and financial development. The key to judging whether a country's financial regulatory system is effective or not is whether it can ensure the safe operation of the country's financial system and whether it can Adapt to the development level of the country’s financial industry.

Challenges and existing problems faced by the current financial regulatory system

The construction of my country's financial regulatory system can be roughly divided into two stages: the first stage was unified by the People's Bank of China before 1998 Implement financial supervision; in the second stage, starting in 1998, the supervision of the securities industry and the insurance industry were separated from the unified supervision of the People's Bank of China, and were respectively responsible for the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, forming a new system of China's The structure of separate supervision by the People's Bank of China, China Securities Regulatory Commission and China Insurance Regulatory Commission. In 2003, the China Banking Regulatory Commission was formally established and took over the banking supervision functions of the People's Bank of China. As a result, my country has formally established a financial supervision system with separate operations, separate supervision, and division of labor between the three commissions.

The basic feature of my country’s current financial regulatory system is separate supervision. According to the division of labor in financial supervision, the China Banking Regulatory Commission is mainly responsible for the supervision of commercial banks, policy banks, foreign banks, rural cooperative banks (credit cooperatives), trust investment companies, finance companies, leasing companies, and financial asset management companies, with the large banking industry as its caliber. , the China Banking Regulatory Commission established the first, second and third supervision departments, the cooperative financial supervision department and the non-bank financial institution supervision department, and correspondingly established provincial bureaus, municipal branch bureaus and county (city) office systems from top to bottom. The China Securities Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission are respectively responsible for the supervision of securities, futures, funds and insurance industries; they have established corresponding regulatory departments and offices internally, and have established a top-down system of corresponding committees and bureaus (provincial, municipal, and separate planning). After the establishment of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the People's Bank of China focused on strengthening its functions of formulating and executing monetary policies, being responsible for the payment security of the financial system, and giving full play to the role of the central bank in macro-control and preventing and resolving financial risks. This financial regulatory organizational structure shows that, except for the central bank, which is responsible for macro-control, several other regulatory agencies are focused on the micro-regulation level of relative industries. The biggest benefit of choosing this kind of regulatory system is that it will help improve the professional level of supervision and achieve regulatory goals in a timely manner, and it will help improve the efficiency of "institutional supervision."

As far as my country’s current financial regulatory system is concerned, the results achieved since its actual operation are generally worthy of recognition. It not only unifies the regulatory framework, strengthens regulatory professionalism, and improves It not only improves regulatory efficiency, but also helps the central bank formulate and implement monetary policies more effectively. However, in recent years, with the rapid development of financial globalization, liberalization and financial innovation, the opening up of the financial industry has accelerated, and the financial regulatory environment has undergone major changes. The separate supervision system has shown obvious incompatibility and has its own inherent problems. also gradually revealed.

It can be seen from this that the financial supervision system currently implemented in our country is based on the current basic national conditions of our country, starting from the overall situation of society, and harmoniously building a benign financial supervision system in order to ensure that our country The economy can develop smoothly and serve various social undertakings.

Different from the United States, it is formulated from a political perspective and based on the operation of the capital market