Comparative Study Of Financial Regulation Regime Of The Main Developed-Countries

The financial industry is the lifeblood of economic activities and thus of key importance to economic development. The financial regulation has gradually evolved in response to financial fluctuations and crises. It is a regime developed by the government to ensure the financial stability through establishing regulatory agencies that regulate and supervise the business activities engaged by financial institutions. The objectives of financial regulation include safeguarding public confidence in the financial industry, protecting depositors, improving the efficiency of the financial system as well as controlling the overall risks.The theories of"failure of markets"and"information economics"that have laid foundation for the development of financial regulation mainly comprise of financial leverage theory in this industry, the public goods feature, imperfection and asymmetry of the information, and the paradox of free competition. Such theories stemmed from past experiences of dealing with financial crises and maintaining financial stability, and of course they are constantly corrected as new events continue to take place.The financial regulatory regime is a whole set of institutional arrangement that aims to achieve specific socio-economic goals through influencing financial activities. As different countries and regions have different historical, political, legal, cultural and economic backgrounds, each financial regulatory regime is unique to others. Moreover, the regime is never static and it varies from country to country and even from time to time in the same country. Despite the diversified opinions of categorizing the financial regimes in the academic circle, it is agreed that there are generally two kinds of regimes according to the function of regulators—sector regulation and integrated regulation. The former regime has a number of regulators, each responsible for a certain sector while the latter one has a sole regulator in charge of every sector in the financial industry. From a historical perspective, the financial regulatory regime has gradually evolved from integrated regulation to sector regulation and again to integrated regulation, embodying a dialectical process. Particularly in the 1990s, developed countries like UK, Japan and Germany, set out to reform their regulatory regimes from sector regulation into integrated regulation.The regime in US is a typical example of sector regulation. It took nearly 50 years for US to build up its regulatory regime from the adoption of the National Bank Act in 1864 to the establishment of federal reserves system in 1914. In light of the big economic crisis in 1930s, the US government was firmly stick to the prudential principle that resulted in the formation of sector regulation regime in US. It was only until 1999 when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was adopted that the long-awaited cross-sector operations were allowed. Yet, the US regime has not transformed from the sector regulation to the integrated regulation. It only shifted its focus in regulatory principles and processes, by placing more emphasis on the efficiency of the financial system, quantitative analysis on financial risks and risk control over financial innovations. At the moment, the financial regulation in US is divided by the federal level and the state level, and still featured with sector regulation. This is actually determined by its political structure, the history of the banking system as well as its sophistical legal system.UK is one of the cradles of modern banking activities. As early as 1964 when the Bank of England was established, its financial regulatory regime started to evolve. The financial activities had been basically regulated through self-disciplines until 1979 when the regulatory function of the Bank of England was legalized with the adoption of the Banking Act 1979. Subsequently, the Banking Act 1987 established the legal framework of the UK's financial regulation with clear articulation of the legal responsibility of the regulators. In 1990s, the collapse of the Bank of Credit & Commerce International and the Barings Bank proved that the sector regulation practiced in UK could not respond to the new trend. Therefore, UK launched its reform in October 1997, integrating the financial regulation functions of the Banking England, the Securities and Investment Board and other self-discipline organizations together to create the Financial Services Agency (FSA), which served as a milestone of the UK's transformation from sector regulation to the comprehensive and integrated regulation.Japan was following US practices in the design of its own regulatory regime after the World War II, and established a sector regulatory regime. In 1990s, the Asian Financial Crisis brought huge shocks to Japan's financial system, resulting in many bankruptcy cases of banks and security firms, exposing the country'financial system to dire challenges. In response, Japan carried out its reform of the financial regulatory regime from June 1998 to July 2000 by setting up the Financial Services Agency as the integrated regulator of the whole financial industry.By studying the history of US, UK and Japan's experiences, it is concluded that either the sector regulation or the integrated regulation has its own pros and cons. The sector regulation could be more professional in each sector, and creates competition and checks and balances among different regulators. To some extent, it can also prevent risk contagion from one sector to another. Nonetheless, such arrangement may also result in overlapping or vacuum of regulation. In addition, it is not suitable for big financial conglomerates and the conflicts of interests between regulators will also increase the cost, reduce the efficiency and even give rise to"regulatory arbitrage". The merits of integrated regulation include adaptability to the mixed operations of the financial businesses, low regulatory cost, flexible regulatory approaches, optimized allocation of regulatory resources, and fair competition among market players. Still, this regime has its defects in the aspect of over-reliance of internal arrangement, slow move in unified legislation, and power monopoly etc.On many fronts, the integrated regulatory regime looks better than the sector regulatory regime in terms of the regulatory objectives, standards, independence, capacity, cost, and coordinated efforts. The global financial industry is undergoing significant changes as showcased by the boom of mixed operations, financial innovation, securitization, and electronic transactions against the background of financial globalization, which promoted the general trend from sector regulation to integrated regulation in the transformation of individual country's regulatory regime.At present, China is practicing sector regulatory regime. The People's Bank of China, the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission are performing their regulatory mandates in different sectors. Such regime has played positive role in promoting China's economic reform and financial stability, however, it seems unfit for further opening-up and the control of systemic risks in the whole system because different regulators vary in their supervisory principles, and an effective information exchange system is yet to be built to coordinate different regulators. Therefore, China needs to draw upon the good lessons from developed countries and adopt an integrated regulatory regime at an appropriate time to ensure the safety and soundness of the financial industry. 21132642722812512912112112112 40182379566 78转94 5 2 301莫转功钱尹李亚这张中克谢李杨姜刘谢钱张《项张大数湛陈祁叶引当洪宏小能里一引中兵卫辅元荔荔平小泳国据文拉学毅有卫斌平自安部监:斯霞·自,莉靖,星::,安::银,军国克·振来:张·分《:张,管斯T源《,杨许监许王森:银:《,::《《《荔·开内制刘《荔密伯发《李国欧:发《刘日德国,《行《中银会:卢振:恩金放:和容央全业勇金行丁:米金金宏平达金本达平丽《埃《参斯《海融目经融融勒融融监巍:国金国《银能,瑾监:慧发林考监国坦发济标:,《银开,行家融监国《,家审管督创万:达:下了监《家管:达监新管猛计管路金马《职行放范边《际路金国《《中财中管国体国秋界产监:理金径管融南融美体:径能比:家金比国家制务央富制创委监华选问业的国《制监管融选:较金—金融较院,均的金银金货择《金改新管—,择员管:题协监组融研融监融融发效性经是行管会融比与效作币美革究监研织—比《金—监管与率依展济监管质—较,银率:体与》较监部业监究融管国金管体制银和管体附研与管,理:制研联》中行风变理对金研与的融比制于原究变制与比行第,邦究论究》国险署化融监外《变的监1较1的监》微机较革因中7三英》监演》革,实与管》开,储证管4研1组》心管研研观构,页国券》放习备,证变,职只,管监体4究页3织》,监市《究究6,监,眼能《据金体及报管与体制111》,页65结金管,场》》2中页告制从》和督发监系睛经融改931,中,页9构制》融,(2国页页,中,—改的管公济》展管监革98国页中,》改,下,10金中,,页问,理央趋共管革—导经与26金,国中页4(革册纯1融中中国,页刊验势政银与体央题中金委89融中财国,中粹)与0出国国金页中,(制研国员》策央融行》行出国政金中页文,的金版,融金金国中行分,会究》上银审的职2金版经融,国0版功融2社融出融中金国改能,职计监离)(》505社融济出中金6)能安2,页版出出国融金》中,会中能革:与》( ,出版出融国页,监全2,版版社金出融内国一》》文金,,610版2版社金出,1-《管》0中融社,社02版出,,版融个保上部7-1社06)社,版融商6金和系国。,,出252社版资海监险)值中3 ,页0。。,2出社务4页融列目金版220,0社料管国得,证监,2页002 10版,印,参报标融社000。29,6。注银督研券6,中03308社书2。8中考监告出,6。。0280监究管报意0国中。3,馆0。0-国》。管版2 6。05理会问,的金国0 8,2 3。时2课目社010。趋委卷内20融金6 10 0代页0前题,。96势调部员00出融7。7经,(负还1 4》查资会/9版出2。济上6仅责9/,分在料1)社版5 2出海人停。。金《析。。,社版三:留》世融2,社联谢在0界,监20,书伏理04《管经0。2店瞻论4济方中0。0,,层》国面5 1。执面,审分98笔,工计290。现人合》01 :在作2(0还陈的0114没全)备(有伟忘。8)国,录。家王》能彤,够。中完国全银脱监离会金内融部机资构料来。设计金融监管体制。...