日韩信用评级行业发展及其对我国的借鉴

发布时间：2018-03-18 19:24

本文选题：日韩　切入点：信用评级　出处：《延边大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：日本和韩国是亚洲率先发展信用评级行业的国家,两国经济发展历程和所处世界环境与我国相似。日本的评级行业深受美国影响,作为亚洲第一个成立信用评级机构的国家,日本信用评级行业随着日本债券市场在20世纪80年代以来的金融自由化改革中的不断扩张而逐步起航,目前处于亚洲领先水平。韩国是亚洲国家中继日本之后第二个发展信用评级行业的国家。了解日本及韩国信用评级行业的发展历程及当前格局对于同处于亚洲这一大环境下的我国来说,有利于我们汲取经验、取长补短,对于我国评级行业的发展有一定的借鉴意义。本文遵循先进行一般理论分析,后提出实践措施的研究步骤,通过对日韩信用评级行业发展历程、行业监管、评级结果需求、付费模式以及双评级模式等方面进行分析,得出结论是：在债券市场发展程度上,我国资本市场同样长期依赖以银行为主的间接融资体系,债券市场等直接融资体系的发展较为滞后。长期以来,我国尚未发生一起实质违约事件,即使近年发生了数起风险事件也在最后关头转危为安。在债券市场体量快速扩大、内涵不断丰富之际,适时允许市场出现实际违约显得尤为重要。在信用评级行业监管模式上,我国是由中国人民银行、国家发展改革委和证监会按照债券市场划分对在相应市场开展业务的评级机构进行监管。监管模式上我国与日韩并不相同,就目前我国信用评级行业监管部门间协调程度上看,多头监管在政策制定、实行等方面的监管效率有待提高。在付费模式上,日本和韩国都曾尝试由发行人付费模式向投资人付费模式进行转变,虽然在实际操作中,投资人付费模式会加大评级机构收取费用的困难度,使评级机构不得不压缩成本,进而可能影响评级质量,但对于尝试减少发行人对评级结果的影响,提高市场评级水平仍有着重要意义。在双评级模式上,双评级在发达国家债券市场被普遍采用,在新兴国家债券市场中也比较常见,而我国应用较少,主要是在发行资产支持证券以及发行人更换评级机构时,要求双评级。相较于日韩对于双评级模式的普遍推广,我国也应紧跟步伐推进双评级模式的施行。由此提出适当开放国内评级市场,引进外资评级机构；降低评级结果在监管法规中的依赖作用；拓展评级结果应用领域；推进投资人付费模式应用；推动双评级制度实行等建议。针对两国评级行业发展历程中的跨越点,寻求我国进一步发展评级行业的新途径,推动我国评级行业进一步健康发展。
[Abstract]:Japan and South Korea are the first countries in Asia to develop the credit rating industry. Their economic development and world environment are similar to ours. Japan's rating industry is deeply influenced by the United States and is the first country in Asia to set up a credit rating agency. Japan's credit rating industry has set sail as the Japanese bond market continues to expand in the course of financial liberalization and reform since 1980s. South Korea is the second country to develop credit rating industry after Asian countries relaying Japan. Understand the history and current situation of credit rating industry in Japan and Korea. For our country in a big environment, It is helpful for us to learn from the experience and learn from each other, and it has certain reference significance for the development of our country's rating industry. This paper follows the general theoretical analysis, then puts forward the research steps of practical measures, through the analysis of Japan and South Korea credit rating industry development process, industry supervision, rating results demand, payment model and dual-rating model, and so on. The conclusion is that:. In terms of the development of bond market, the capital market of our country also depends on the indirect financing system which is dominated by banks for a long time. The development of direct financing system such as bond market has lagged behind. For a long time, there has not been a substantial default event in China. Even in recent years, a number of risky events have turned the corner. At a time when the bond market is rapidly expanding and rich in content, it is particularly important to allow the market to default in real time. In terms of the credit rating industry supervision model, China is governed by the people's Bank of China. According to the bond market, the State Development and Reform Commission and the Securities Regulatory Commission supervise the rating agencies operating in the corresponding markets. China is not the same as Japan and South Korea in terms of the mode of supervision. In terms of the degree of coordination between the regulatory authorities of the credit rating industry in China at present, The efficiency of long-scale supervision in policy-making and implementation needs to be improved. In terms of payment, both Japan and South Korea have tried to switch from issuer to investor, although in practice, investor payment makes it more difficult for rating agencies to collect fees. The rating agencies have to reduce the cost, which may affect the quality of the rating, but it is still important to try to reduce the impact of the issuer on the rating results and improve the market rating level. In the dual rating model, dual rating is widely used in the bond markets of developed countries and is also more common in the emerging countries, but it is seldom used in China, mainly when issuing asset-backed securities and changing the rating agencies of issuers. Compared with the general promotion of the dual rating model in Japan and South Korea, China should also keep pace with the implementation of the dual rating model. Therefore, appropriate opening of domestic rating market, introduction of foreign rating agencies, reduction of the dependence of rating results on regulatory regulations, expansion of the application of rating results, promotion of investor payment model application; Aiming at the leapfrogging points in the development process of the two countries' rating industry, we should seek a new way to further develop our country's rating industry and promote the further healthy development of our country's rating industry.
【学位授予单位】：延边大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：F831.5;F832.5

【参考文献】