证券型通证的海外实践与分析

证券型通证可以被界定为具有“通证”属性,且符合“证券”标准的资产。当前,理论和实践中关于证券型通证的应用方向、优势和风险存在诸多理论假设,尚需实践检验。本文选取了89个海外证券型通证进行分析,发现证券型通证目前主要应用于中小微企业,特别是金融科技相关企业的融资。相对传统证券,其优势在于减少发行和交易成本以及节约中介服务成本,在改善信息不对称问题上的优势并不突出。目前的主要风险在于守法风险、履约风险和监管套利风险,需要采取针对性措施。     

美国金融科技最新立法监管动态及对我国的启示

金融科技有助于降低交易成本、提高市场效率,但同时也因其“空白型金融创新”的特质给传统金融监管方式带来严峻挑战。美国在金融科技的立法方面,强调“建章立制,立法先行”,创制法律规范具有前瞻性;在监管方面,秉持“负责任的创新”的监管理念,创新监管范式,力求实现金融创新与合法合规之间的动态平衡。我国可合理借鉴美国的立法和监管经验,加强金融科技的顶层设计和立法建设,创制新的专门性立法,构建有利于金融科技发展的监管协调机制,研究以行为监管为导向的监管范式,构建包容性监管制度,探索完善中国式“监管沙箱”机制,最终建构“技术驱动型”的金融监管体系。     

中国金融科技监管沙盒机制设计研究

本文旨在从设立中国金融科技监管沙盒的必要性、可行性分析、机制设计等角度,探讨如何识别有价值的创新、缩短金融科技企业的创新周期并及早发现和化解潜在风险等问题。本文发现,金融科技新业态更具有颠覆性创新特征,采用传统金融监管框架可能会抑制创新,而金融科技监管沙盒是帮助平衡金融科技创新与风险的有效手段。建议参考中国香港的沙盒模式,设立由国务院金融稳定发展委员会牵头、人民银行负责,协调银保监会与证监会具体执行的分业沙盒监管框架。     

The fintech gender gap

Can fintech close the gender gap in access to financial services? Using novel survey data for 28 countries, this paper finds a large and ubiquitous ‘fintech gender gap’: while 29% of men use fintech products, only 21% of women do. This difference exceeds the gender gap in bank account ownership at traditional financial institutions. While country characteristics and individual-level controls explain about a third of the fintech gender gap, the residual gap declines by 60% when accounting for gender differences in the willingness to use new financial technology, the suitability of fintech products, and the willingness to use fintech entrants if they offer cheaper products. The paper concludes by discussing drivers of differences in attitudes and implications for policy to foster financial inclusion with new technology.     

监管沙盒:国外应用和本土化

金融科技已成为金融创新和监管创新的主要推动力,也给金融监管带来挑战。英国、印度等国相继推出监管沙盒。借鉴国外发展经验,在监管实施主体层面,国家金融监管部门应与地方政府一起构建跨地区监管沙盒合作机制,实现普惠金融;在测试主体层面,以银行业为切入点逐步推广实施,积极引入金融科技公司形成协同效应,鼓励沙盒中的测试企业建立合作伙伴关系;在金融消费者层面,需要搭建消费者数据共享平台,注重消费者权益保护。未来,中国式监管沙盒需要构建良好的信息传递机制,促进监管能动性的积极转变,实现金融科技与监管创新的协同发展。     

The future of fintech

This article describes the growing field of financial technology (fintech) and the different financial paradigms and technologies that support it. Fintech is primarily a disintermediation force where disruptive technologies are the drivers. This framework discusses 10 primary areas in fintech comprising a taxonomy, which categorizes research in the field and also proposes a pedagogical structure. Pitfalls of fintech are also analyzed. Overall, the great strides made in computing technology, mathematics, statistics, psychology, econometrics, linguistics, cryptography, big data, and computer interfaces have combined to create an explosion of fintechs.     

公益性国有土地使用权收回的法律性质与补偿模式

当前金融与科技融合驱动下的新经济浪潮逐渐拉开帷幕,传统的高校金融人才、科技人才培养范式在新形势下都发生着深刻变化,形成了一场由传统教育到实践创新的系统性变革。新时代高校金融科技人才培养的实践创新与体系重构,是中国提升金融科技复合型人才质量的重要突破口。本文从新时代中国高校金融科技人才培养的现状及问题出发,分析高校金融科技人才培养的实践内容,并进一步提出中国高校金融科技人才培养与发展的创新要求及实现路径。本文认为充分发挥金融与科技在高校人才培养上的深度融合作用,着力培养具有国际视野、能够适应时代竞争的金融科技创新人才,成为现阶段中国高校人才培养的重要努力方向。     

论金融科技的穿透式监管

金融科技作为信息技术驱动的金融创新,正改变金融市场格局。但伴随金融与科技深度融合,综合性的金融主体、技术泛化的金融产品与异化的金融权利却诱致复杂的金融风险。由于传统金融监管在应对上述风险时存在对象错配、方式滞后与机制失效的局限,穿透式监管成为回应现实需求的最佳选择。金融科技的穿透式监管应坚持以实质重于形式为核心,突出对金融数据、内置算法与金融科技机构的多向穿透,并遵循适应性原则、系统性原则与比例原则指导具体监管实践。在实践中,金融监管层不仅应利用智能化、嵌入式的监管科技和全面、严格的信息披露刺破金融科技的复杂结构,还应搭建统一的监管协调体系、制定详尽的监管规范、划定主体的责任边界,以落实穿透式监管理念,提高金融科技监管有效性。     

论我国金融衍生产品交易的法律规制

近几十年来,全球金融衍生产品交易得到了迅猛的发展,在国际金融体系中所发挥的作用也越来越重要.但金融衍生产品的风险也在这次国际金融危机中淋漓尽致地体现出来.我国金融衍生产品交易刚刚起步,关于金融衍生产品交易的法律法规也缺乏系统性与权威性,立法层次低,监管成本高,自律监管不明确.为了促进我国金融衍生产品交易的健康发展,在法律规范这个层次上对金融衍生产品进行规制是必要的.应加快金融衍生产品交易的立法,以适应金融业的发展.     

基于复杂网络视角的金融科技风险传染研究

大数据、云计算、人工智能等新兴技术逐步改变金融生态,金融科技成为传统金融业提效降本的动力源泉.机遇与风险并存,金融科技的加入是否对传统金融造成风险冲击成为重要的研究课题.本文基于复杂网络视角,采用TENET方法搭建以金融科技、银行和证券机构为主体的风险关联网络,融合PMFG极大平面过滤图法,分析金融科技同传统金融主体的风险传染关系,在此基础上提出了关键性风险路径的识别方法.研究结果表明:相较于银行与证券,金融科技的内外部风险传染性最强;金融危机加强了风险传染的跨部门属性;风险传染以规模、业务相近的直接渠道为主,对关键性路径的识别有助于挖掘金融科技机构的潜在风险点.监管当局应加强对金融科技机构的宏微观审慎管理,识别同部门与跨部门的风险传染路径,优化监管效率.     

REGULATION OF FINANCIAL MARKETS: TOWARD A FOCUSED APPROACH

Regulation of financial markets arose in a simpler time when transactions were carried out face to face on an exchange floor or in a banker's office—when trading was localized and the variety of financial instruments was small. Today the task of regulators is much more difficult. Markets are global, trading takes place in cyberspace, and the variety of financial instruments is limitless.
The initial focus, and still the central concern, of our regulatory system is to ensure full corporate disclosure and transparency of trading markets. But regulation today goes far beyond disclosure requirements. The existing tendency to expand regulation to match the expanding financial markets is likely to be inefficient, unwieldy, and too costly, given the increased complexity and global nature of financial markets. A new approach and a new regulatory mindset are needed—one in which regulators aim to identify and provide only necessary regulation rather than simply continuing to expand regulatory oversight. Such a focused approach to regulation would separate what is regulated from what is not. Those aspects of banking that are essential to the integrity of the payments system would be regulated while other aspects would not. Some securities and derivatives markets would be regulated, while others would not. And market participants would be able to choose which markets to participate in. Given an ever-expanding financial system, such a focused approach to regulation is not only the most cost effective one—it is also likely to prove the only workable alternative to a system that is now under great pressure.     

Banks' consumer lending reaction to fintech and bigtech credit emergence in the context of soft versus hard credit information processing

Access to credit information and the ability to process this information effectively determine the conditions of competition in the credit market. Traditionally, local banks have had an advantage in relationship lending (based on soft credit information), whereas foreign banks are considered to base on hard credit information. With the advent of financial technology (or “fintech”) companies (or “fintechs”) and giant technology (or “bigtech”) companies (or “bigtechs”) providing alternative credit, the conditions of competition in the credit market have changed. In this empirical study, we shed light on the nature of the information advantages fintech and bigtech companies have compared to banks and how alternative lenders use them. We analyze competition in the consumer lending segment between banks and fintechs as well as bigtechs providing alternative lending. We used a database combining bank-level characteristics and country-level proxies for 72 countries from 2013 to 2018. We find that in developed markets, the relationships between fintech and bigtech credit providers and banks are similar and competitive in nature. However, banks' consumer lending grows simultaneously with fintech credit market development in emerging economies, but decreases in the aftermath of the emergence of bigtech credit. Fintech credit seems to penetrate market segments not serviced by banks; thus, it plays a complementary role, however only in emerging economies. Bigtech companies compete even more with banks and push some banking offers out of the market, both in emerging and developed economies. Furthermore, we show that domestic and privately-owned banks are more negatively affected by competition from technology-based lending, particularly bigtech, than foreign banks. Thus, bigtech lending may be treated as a serious competition for banks' relationship lending based on soft credit information processing, traditionally provisioned by local banks.     

Fintech and access to finance

This article surveys research on the effects of digitalization on access to finance. We focus the review on access through fintech. We review the growth of three main fintech technologies, fintech lending (incl. peer-to-peer lending), crowdfunding and initial coin offerings. We discuss existing evidence on how fintech affects access to finance for firms and investors and consider the regulatory challenges it poses. We incorporate the papers in this special issue, underlining their significant contributions to our understanding of the digitalization of finance and its effects. Finally, we discuss the challenges of research in the digital finance area and propose some new avenues for future research.     

Shadow Banking,Risk Transfer,and Financial Stability

Shadow banking is the process by which banks raise funds from and transfer risks to entities outside the traditional commercial banking system. Many observers blamed the sudden expansion in 2007 of U.S. sub‐prime mortgage market disruptions into a global financial crisis on a “liquidity run” that originated in the shadow banking system and spread to commercial banks. In response, national and international regulators have called for tighter and new regulations on shadow banking products and participants. Preferring the term “market‐based finance” to the term “shadow banking,” the authors explore the primary financial instruments and participants that comprise the shadow banking system. The authors review the 2007–2009 period and explain how runs on shadow banks resulted in a liquidity crisis that spilled over to commercial banks, but also emphasize that the economic purpose of shadow banking is to enable commercial banks to raise funds from and transfer risks to non‐bank institutions. In that sense, the shadow banking system is a shock absorber for risks that arise within the commercial banking system and are transferred to a more diverse pool of non‐bank capital instead of remaining concentrated among commercial banks. The article also reviews post‐crisis regulatory initiatives aimed at shadow banking and concludes that most such regulations could result in a less stable financial system to the extent that higher regulatory costs on shadow banks like insurance companies and asset managers could discourage them from participating in shadow banking. And the net effect of this regulation, by limiting the amount of market‐based capital available for non‐bank risk transfer, may well be to increase the concentrations of risk in the banking and overall financial system.     

信用交易监管：国际比较及借鉴

完善信用交易监管，是防范风险、维护市场稳定的重要手段。本文从信用交易监管制度基础的政策和法规、作为监管依据的信用交易余额公布、信用交易监管工具以及信用交易监管部门等四个方面，分析、比较了美国、英国、日本、韩国、台湾等国家和地区的监管经验，以为国内推出信用交易、完善做空机制提供借鉴。     

Any regulation of risk increases risk

We show that any objective risk measurement algorithm mandated by central banks for regulated financial entities will result in more risk being taken by those financial entities than would otherwise be the case. Furthermore, the risks taken by the regulated financial entities are far more systemically concentrated than they would have been otherwise, making the entire financial system more fragile. This result leaves three options for the future of financial regulation: (1) continue regulating by enforcing risk measurement algorithms at the cost of occasional severe crises, (2) regulate more severely and subjectively by fully nationalizing all financial entities, or (3) abolish all central banking regulations, including deposit insurance, thus allowing risk to be determined by the entities themselves and, ultimately, by their depositors through voluntary market transactions, rather than by the taxpayers through enforced government participation.     

Issues,risks, and challenges for auditing crypto asset transactions

Many entities are progressively engaged in crypto asset transactions. The distinct nature of crypto assets from typical financial instruments makes it more challenging for external auditors to provide reasonable assurance on financial statements encompassing material crypto asset activities and transactions. To provide more specific guidance in crypto asset-related audits, this paper aims to (1) identify various participants in the crypto asset ecosystem and illustrate their relationship with the audited entity, (2) identify and elaborate the new challenges and risks for financial statement audits related to the crypto asset ecosystem, and (3) summarize issues to be considered in crypto asset-related audits in an audit framework. The dynamically evolving crypto asset ecosystem not only brings challenges and risks but also new assurance opportunities to the auditing profession after identifying and addressing those critical issues.     

工业革命、金融革命与系统性风险治理

本文以历史上三次工业革命为切入点,探讨工业革命、金融革命与系统性风险治理间的关系。在工业革命演进过程中,先进技术创新应用、经济结构转变和社会环境变迁,推动了金融业演进发展和升级;反过来,资本的快速积累和有效融通对科技进步转化为工业革命不可或缺,以现代商业银行、现代投资银行和创业投资体系为特征的三次金融革命分别是三次工业革命的重要推动力量。但如果制度规则建设和监管滞后,金融发展失序也会导致系统性风险逐步累积,引发金融危机,反过来催生重大金融体制或监管制度变革。当前第四次工业革命已拉开序幕,金融科技引领的金融业集成创新有望成为第四次金融革命的突出特征。我国是全球金融科技发展领先的国家之一,应统筹发展与安全,在金融科技带动下发挥好银行体系、资本市场、创投体系和金融科技企业服务实体经济创新发展的合力,同时做好风险防范,引导从业机构在服务实体经济和遵从审慎监管的前提下守正创新,防止资本无序扩张,牢牢守住不发生系统性风险的底线。