In the process of Chinese-style modernization, financial development and financial supervision also have very obvious Chinese characteristics, one of the important manifestations of which is the integration of financial institution supervision and financial behavior supervision, that is, the entry and exit of financial institutions and business behavior are under the supervision of the same regulatory department, that is, as the saying goes, "whose child is held".
The advantage of this regulatory model is that any financial institution has a corresponding regulatory department or superior supervisory unit, that is, the "mother-in-law" as the saying goes, and the regulatory responsibility is very clear. From birth (establishment), survival and development (operation), and even death (cancellation) of a financial institution, a financial institution is managed by someone, and it is a "child with a mother", not a "wild child". This regulatory model is a concrete manifestation of China's traditional "paternalistic" administrative management model in the financial sector.
However, the main problem with the "paternalistic" supervision model is "paternalism", and the result is often that "one's own children cannot be taught by themselves, but can only be taught by others". This is embodied in the following two aspects:
On the one hand, there is the scarcity of licenses in institutional supervision. An important manifestation of institutional supervision is the financial license, that is, the approval of the entry and launch of financial institutions. For the sake of "more is better than less", a smaller number of financial institutions is a necessary prerequisite for reducing regulatory affairs. Therefore, the access of financial institutions is often strictly approved, and raising the entry threshold is an inevitable trend. In addition, financial institutions that have already obtained financial licenses, in order to maintain the gold content of financial licenses, often lobby the regulatory authorities to reduce the approval of new financial institutions and raise the entry threshold. The financial license has become the most scarce financial resource, and has even become a "gold medal for avoiding death" that is not subject to the 4 times the LPR private usury standard. Even if there is a problem with a financial institution, most of the time it is not bankrupt and deregistered, but often its license is resold several times and continues to survive with a new vest. Of course, for the development of the entire financial industry, raising the entry threshold can indeed improve the ability of financial institutions and risk resilience, which also has a certain positive effect.
On the other hand, there are flexible soft constraints on behavior supervision. The essence of paternalistic supervision is not supervision but guardianship, just like guardianship of the unaspired. Due to the close relationship between the regulatory authorities and the supervised objects, due to China's unique human face, rent-seeking and corruption and other institutional defects, it is often "one eye and one eye" and "calf-protecting" supervision in the supervision of behavior, and it is difficult to achieve strict restraint, and the regulatory authorities have become the "child slaves" of licensed financial institutions. The end result of this kind of guardianship supervision is that "loving mothers have many defeated children", and most licensed financial institutions often lack basic independent viability and self-generating ability, such as core competitiveness such as independent customer acquisition ability and independent risk control ability. Especially after the risk event, in order to escape the responsibility from top to bottom, the regulatory authorities and licensed financial institutions have become "grasshoppers in a boat", often "big things into small things", catch a few typical punishments, as if to say "my child made a mistake, I have been taught and punished, consumers, you should stop chasing after it". And those "wild children without mothers", illegal private finance that have not been approved by the regulatory authorities, such as the savage growth of Internet finance, P2P, etc., the final result is to be wiped out in the barbaric rectification. Compared with these wild children who have been wiped out, the supervision of licensed financial institutions is actually the guardianship of the unavoided, and there is no strict supervision at all.
To truly resolve this deep-seated contradiction, the only way to do this is to separate institutional supervision from behavioral supervision. This is the consideration that the State Administration of Financial Supervision has set up a separate Department for the Access of Financial Institutions to make the function of institutional supervision independent of behavior supervision. However, in order to achieve a true separation of the two, it is necessary to more thoroughly separate the legislative power (the formulation of the financial institution access system) from the judicial power (the function of financial institution access supervision).
The State Administration of Financial Supervision is responsible for formulating the regulatory system for the access of financial institutions, transferring the functions of financial supervision and access supervision to the Registration Bureau of the State Administration for Market Regulation, unifying the access and registration management of all market operators, and truly reforming the access approval system of financial institutions into a registration system for market entities, so as to "wean" financial institutions.
Further, in terms of the supervision of the behavior of financial institutions, the formulation of the system should also be transferred to the State Administration for Market Regulation, and the unified formulation of the supervision system for the business conduct of market entities, while the State Administration of Financial Supervision is only responsible for the supervision of the behavior of financial institutions.
In this way, the two major regulatory functions of institutional supervision and behavior supervision, and the two major regulatory powers of system formulation and function implementation, are respectively responsible for the State Administration of Financial Supervision and the State Administration for Market Regulation, so as to achieve complete separation.
List of high-quality authors