中美银行监管制度比较研究
Banking Supervision and Its Regulations—Comparative Study between U.S.and China
邓晗
【全文】
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE DEVELOPMENT TENDENCY OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERICAL BANKS''SUPERVISION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CHINA
III. BANKING SUPERVISION IN U.S
IV. BANKING SUPERVISION IN CHINA
V. BASEL AGREEMENT AND NEW BASEL CAPITAL AGREEMENT
VI. CONCLUSION
I. INTRODUCTION
The health of the economy and the effectiveness of monetary policy depend on a sound financial system. A smoothly functioning banking supervision regime is one of the cornerstones of any financial system. Only a stable financial system, which is one of the key aims of state regulation and oversight, can optimally fulfill its macroeconomic function of efficient and low-cost transformation and provision of financial resources. The primary goals of supervision and regulations include protecting depositors'' funds, maintaining a stable monetary system, promoting an efficient and competitive banking system and protecting consumer rights related to banking relationships and transactions.
Banking supervision basically entails the rules that have to be complied with when setting up banks and carrying out banking business. The liberalization of the financial markets has created new business opportunities for banks which can significantly increase their risk. To enable banking supervisors to prevent bank insolvencies, new risks require new methods of banking supervision. It is thus not surprising that the liberalization of the financial markets over the past two decades has led to a tighter regime of prudential supervision. More specifically, examiners supervise the activities of bank holding companies and financial holding companies, their non-bank subsidiaries, and state-chartered member banks. Examiners also monitor the financial condition of these institutions and review for compliance with federal laws and regulations.
II. THE DEVELOPMENT TENDENCY OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERICAL BANKS’ SUPERVISION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CHINA
In view of the steady increase of international banking activities, the appropriate regulation and supervision of multinational banks become more and more relevant. Financial regulators have long been aware of the problems surrounding the supervision of multinational banks, and considerable efforts have been invested in developing a sound regulatory framework. Most countries have adopted the BIS guidelines for international banking supervision, so that basic supervisory responsibilities are divided between the relevant home-and host country authorities. Together with the “Core Principle’s for Effective Banking Supervision” that were established following the BCCI crisis, they are now followed by many countries. Moreover, bilateral Memoranda of Understanding specify how information exchange between these authorities is organized.
In recent years, a number of emerging market countries, particularly in Asia , have become important participants in the international financial markets. The exposure of investors and banks in industrial countries to merging market countries has increased substantially, as portfolio investment flows and bank lending to the emerging markets have grown and the latter’s financial sectors have expanded, relative to the financial sectors of industrial countries. Even developing countries are not yet major players in the financial markets would benefit from being included in multilateral arrangements—a sound financial system can make an important contribution to economic performance. G-10 has responded to the momentous changes in financial markets in the 1980s and 1990s by strengthening supervision and regulation of the international banking system through several multilateral arrangements. These arrangements have generally been successful in reducing risks to the system and averting potential problems.
In the past few decades, as one financial crisis falls, another rises, spurring the evolvement of banking business areas and the development of banking supervision frame in domestic, regional and international level. The Asian crises, Russian crisis, Turkey crisis, Argentine crisis and Brazil crisis along with their spread to the world are typical examples. Even though U.S. and Japanese supervisory agencies adopted different measures to maintain soundness and safety of their banking and financial system as well as single bank, the systemic turbulences and crises were still inevitable. It can be well illuminated by the crises of savings and loan institutions in U.S. occurred during late 1980s and early 1990s and 1998 Asian financial crises.
With the incessant changes of external environment, the modes of the international commercial banking supervision went though four phases from Administrative order approach to Standard approach, Internal model-based approach and then Pre-commitment approach . Because of the increasing complexity of financial instruments and the speed of movement in financial markets, intrusive supervision has become less meaningful. Thus the U.S. federal banking agencies have adopted a risk-focused approach to banking supervision that emphasizes the adequacy of banks'' internal risk management systems. Together with the traditional approaches of loan review and transaction monitoring, market-based supervision will best ensure the continued viability of the banking sector.
III. BANKING SUPERVISION IN U.S
A fundamental goal of modern United States banking law is to prevent another Great Depression, with massive runs on banks, and heavy costs to society. Bank regulation in the United States is highly fragmented compared to other G-10 countries where most countries have only one bank regulator. In the U.S., a bank''s primary regulator could be the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, or any one of 50 state regulatory bodies, depending on the charter of the bank. And within the Federal Reserve Board, there are 12 districts with 12 different regulatory staffing groups.
It is also one of the most highly regulated banking environments in the world, however, many of the regulations are not safety and soundness related, but are instead focused on privacy, disclosure, fraud prevention, anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism, anti-usury lending, and promoting lending to lower-income segments. Even individual cities enact their own financial regulation laws.
Significant Legislation
Over the years, legislation has changed what banks can or cannot do. For example, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 abolished the core provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, also known as the Glass-Steagall Act, which restricted banks from selling insurance and securities. As the impact of the law takes hold, consumers will be able to purchase a variety of services, such as car insurance or a checking account, and trade stocks, all at one place. The Federal Reserve has been given responsibility for regulating these multiple-service providers. Legislation also regulates both the international activities of U.S. banks in foreign locations and the activities of foreign banks in U.S locations. For example, the International Banking Act of 1978 provided equal powers for foreign banks operating in the United States to promote equal competition between them and U.S. banks. In addition, the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 requires the Federal Reserve and other U.S. banking agencies to consult with bank regulators in other countries to adopt consistent supervisory policies to facilitate international banking. The Federal Reserve is responsible for regulating branches of foreign banks operating in the United States.
