我国资产证券化法律监管探析

发布时间：2018-09-10 08:27

【摘要】：自1970年美国的政府国民抵押协会发行首笔以抵押贷款组合为基础资产的抵押支持证券以来,资产证券化作为一种创新金融工具在国际市场迅速发展起来。我国资产证券化试点开始于2005年,后受累于美国次贷危机中途暂停,2011年正式重启试点,此后随着监管的逐步发展和完善以及市场需求的扩大,资产证券化市场于2014年下半年开始进入快速发展时期。由于资产证券化的专业性和复杂性,使得其监管相对要困难很多。目前我国资产证券化的监管问题主要体现在以下几个方面:首先由于分业经营、分业监管的金融体制导致信贷资产证券化、企业资产证券化、资产支持票据分别由不同的监管机构监管,使得我国资产证券化从一开始就缺乏总体性的构想。其次从我国现行立法来看,片面依赖监管当局的监管,对行业自律明显突出不够。再次国内评级机构的监管框架目前并没有一个统一的资格准入,只是在评级公司具体做业务的时候,根据债券类型需要相应的债券准入监管机构的批准。职能界定不明确可能是我国信用评级机构存在的最大的一个问题。最后,信息披露监管较为粗放,监管机构缺乏独立性,且我国的证监会和证券交易所对于信息披露的监管多以事后处罚为主,这种监管方式无法对投资者利益做到真正的保护。基于上述认识和域外经验借鉴,笔者提出如下等建议:第一、保持现有监管格局的前提下,重组“一行三会”的职能,剥离其行业促进目标,通过协调职责法定化,提高金融监管协调制度的效率;第二、秉持“利于行业治理”及“适于行业协会职能承接力”的原则,合理划分政府与自律组织的监管权限;第三、对信用评级机构实行监管制度,加强对评级机构执业行为的监督,建立信用评级行业协会,加强行业自律;第四、在我国分业经营的国情之下,建立信息共享平台机制,以适度监管为原则积极构建资产证券化信息披露法律制度。
[Abstract]:Since the first mortgage-backed securities based on mortgage portfolio was issued by American National Mortgage Association in 1970, asset securitization has developed rapidly as an innovative financial instrument in the international market. China's asset securitization pilot began in 2005, and was later suspended in the middle of the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States, then officially restarted in 2011. Since then, with the gradual development and improvement of supervision and the expansion of market demand, Asset securitization market began to enter a period of rapid development in the second half of 2014. Because of the specialty and complexity of asset securitization, it is more difficult to supervise it. At present, the supervision of asset securitization in China is mainly reflected in the following aspects: firstly, the financial system of separate operation and supervision leads to the securitization of credit assets and the securitization of enterprise assets. Asset backed instruments are supervised by different regulators, which makes asset securitization lack of overall idea from the beginning. Secondly, from the point of view of our current legislation, relying on the supervision of regulatory authorities is obviously not enough for industry self-discipline. Once again, the regulatory framework of domestic rating agencies does not have a unified qualification, but when the rating agencies do business, they need the approval of the corresponding bond regulatory agencies according to the bond type. Unclear definition of functions may be the biggest problem of credit rating agencies in China. Finally, the supervision of information disclosure is relatively extensive, the regulatory body lacks independence, and the supervision of information disclosure by the CSRC and the stock exchange in our country is dominated by the punishment after the event, which can not really protect the interests of investors. Based on the above understanding and overseas experience, the author puts forward the following suggestions: first, under the premise of maintaining the existing regulatory structure, the author reorganizes the functions of "one line and three associations", deletes its industry promotion objectives, and legalizes its coordination responsibilities. Improve the efficiency of the financial regulatory coordination system; second, adhere to the principles of "good for industry governance" and "suitable for the functional acceptance of trade associations", and reasonably divide the regulatory authority between the government and self-regulatory organizations; third, We should implement a supervisory system for credit rating agencies, strengthen supervision over their practice, establish credit rating industry associations and strengthen industry self-discipline. Fourth, under the national conditions of separate operations in China, we should establish a platform mechanism for information sharing. To establish the legal system of asset securitization information disclosure on the principle of moderate supervision.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.287

【参考文献】