视点 | 加强金融监管，有效防范系统性风险

本文作者系IMI研究员、华夏银行总行资产管理部产品经理李虹含。文章指出，越来越多的人认识到，对中国经济面临的系统性风险进行准确评估和预测具有重要意义。目前，中国金融业的风险主要来自于向混合业务转型，互联网的融入以及创新。与此同时，金融监管体制也陷入了恶性循环。这意味着传统的金融监管框架面临着巨大的挑战。然而亡羊补牢，为时不晚。找到并弥补金融体系中的漏洞，就能够有效地防止系统性风险的进一步扩大和恶化。目前监管制度存在的三个主要问题是监管空白、监管交叉与监管套利。文章进一步指出，跨部门监管不应当成为一种形式，这意味着必须明确监管的目标和责任。跨部门监管的目标是防范金融风险，使金融部门更好地支持实体经济。

以下为文章全文：

There is growing consensus that it is of critical significance to make accurate evaluations and predictions of systemic risks facing the Chinese economy. And it is believed that a prudent yet tougher stance toward the country's financial sector oversight and overseas investment will turn out to be a powerful means of ensuring China's financial security and guarding the country against systemic risks.

The added value of China's financial sector as a percentage of the country's GDP hit 8.4 percent at the end of 2016. The ratio is higher than that what's seen in many developed economies such as the US and Japan and roughly equals to the added value of the US financial sector in the year prior to the subprime mortgage collapse as a proportion of the US GDP for the year. In other words, the ratio in China has outnumbered the figures in many developed countries relying on the financial sector as a mainstay of their economies and has surely exceeded the tolerable level of risk for developing countries including China.

Currently, the risks to China's financial sector mainly emanate from the sector's transition toward hybrid operations, the sector's incorporation into the Internet, and innovation. Meanwhile, the financial regulatory regime in which separate agencies oversee different parts of the financial sector has debunked a variety of maladies. This means the traditional financial oversight framework faces a huge challenge. First, banks, worried by either relatively high levels of nonperforming loans (NPLs) or potentially high NPL ratios, are at risk for transformation bottlenecks. Second, non-bank financial institutions are confronted by the risks of regulatory arbitrage and ballooning leverage trading. Third, private finance in the country that comprises Internet finance and various local asset trading platforms faces the risk of excessive financial innovation. Also, financial risks are seen coming from regulatory policy changes, credit and social financing, and fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, bulk commodity prices and property prices, among others. 

On top of that, Internet finance as a latent source of systemic risk has gradually come to light. From the advent of online finance back in 2011 up till now, Internet-based financial transactions have seen swift growth, with the compound annual growth rate exceeding 150 percent in terms of transaction value. Last year, the country had more than 500 million Internet finance users and its Internet finance sector totaled 17.8 trillion yuan ($2.64 trillion) in transaction value, accounting for nearly 20 percent of the country's GDP. The massive user base, as such, renders Internet finance risk highly contagious and could easily spread the risk into traditional financial institutions and those susceptible to financial risks. This might be particularly the case factoring the country's shift toward a cashless society and the growing popularity and penetration of mobile payment and online wealth management products among the mass of people. In light of this, once Internet finance is exposed to risks mass user confidence in finance and consumption will collapse and result in severe systemic risks.

There is a saying that it's never too late to mend. To spot the loopholes and rectify them can prevent systemic risks from further spreading and worsening. There are three main problems in the current separate regulatory regime: regulatory void, overlap, and arbitrage. The emergence of various financial innovations has in particular given prominence to the oversight issue in which financial innovation in many areas such as banking, securities, funds and insurance creates regulatory void and then makes room for regulatory arbitrage. In addition, under the separate oversight framework, a single product is likely to be put under the purview of many regulatory agencies, leading to regulatory overlap and void. 

That said, the establishment of trans-sectoral oversight and review of traditional industries' overseas investment are necessary requirements for the country to stay secured against systemic risks that gradually emerge in its financial sector. In this regard, the recently concluded National Financial Work Conference shows great foresight. The finance meeting, held only once in every five years, highlighted that the financial sector should serve the real economy and emphasized the impact of financial risks on the current economic landscape. Against the backdrop of hybrid operations and de-regulation, it's inevitable to ramp up the transition toward functional oversight from the current agency-based oversight. Additionally, regulatory agencies should keep an eye on the continued development of financial innovations and keep pace with financial innovations in order to prevent regulatory delay and void. Furthermore, the country needs to learn from the experience of others to build an effective regulatory framework that is capable of preventing and controlling risks, as well as fostering financial operations.

The trans-sectoral oversight pushed by the central government and the review of overseas investment by firms in traditional sectors are thus putting a powerful grip on capital excessively obsessed with profit maximization. Considering that capital would always keep pursuing high yields and evade regulations, it's thus a helpful means to enable a penetration of regulatory oversight by stepping up efforts to put in place a code of conduct and increase the awareness of moral hazard for financial sector participants. Meanwhile, there needs to be increased coordination and linkage between different regulatory bodies so as to spot and correct flaws in the existing regulatory system in a timely manner.

Having said all this, it needs to be noted that efforts to build trans-sectoral oversight and review overseas investment should avoid becoming a mere formality, which means the regulatory goals and responsibilities must be clarified. The goal of trans-sectoral oversight is to prevent financial risks and have the finance sector better support the real economy. Other than that, the financial stability and development commission, announced at the National Financial Work Conference, is supposed to be above the current regulatory framework consisting of the central bank and three main regulatory bodies overseeing the banking, securities and insurance industries. The new commission will assume the responsibility of coordinating and overseeing the central bank and the three regulatory bodies, the fulfillment of which is indispensable for systemic risk prevention.

编辑  叶梦芊 沈桓玉 

来源  Global Times

点击查看近期热文

欢迎加入群聊

为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察将建立微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。

入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。

欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，推荐好文章可联系：邮箱[e-mail]；电话[phone]

关于我们

中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的80余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，70余位中青年专家担任研究员。

研究所长期聚焦国际金融、宏观经济理论与政策、金融科技、财富管理、金融监管、地方金融等领域，定期举办高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《中国财富管理报告》《金融科技二十讲》等一大批具有重要学术和政策影响力的产品。

2016年，研究所入围《中国智库大数据报告》影响力榜单列高校智库第4位，并在“中国经济类研究机构市场价值排行榜（2016）”中名列第32位。

国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn

微信号：IMI财经观察

（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）

只分享最有价值的财经视点

We only share the most valuable financial insights.