| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 106 === Since the Financial Crisis in 2008, “shadow bank” has become a popular financial issue. However, so far there’s still no any consistent definition of “shadow bank”. Each supervision authority defines shadow bank according to its role and ability. Shadow banks were emerged in response to the economic environment and the supply and demand of the financial market, therefore are bound to have irreplaceable benefits from commercial banks. The best way to control the risks bring by shadow banks, in the meanwhile maintain diversification and flexibility of the financial system, is to pinpoint how the risks were formed, then accordingly manage them, so as to better coordinate the financial system and supervisory regulations.
The Thesis mainly adopts literature analysis and comparative research methods, focusing on European and American legal systems. Besides, using "nonbank financial institutions" as the research basis, and further limited to one that composing the credit intermediation chain of shadow banks and posing the potential risks. The Thesis also classified shadow banks into “wholesale funding”, “securitization”, and“asset management company and mutual fund” according to the intermediate process. After comprehensively summarizing and analyzing the risks, as well as the insight of doctrines, the Thesis puts forward comments and analysis of supervisory regulations. Then, for further researches or regulation reforms, the Thesis also studies the range, scale and relative regulations of the shadow banks in Taiwan, bases on how the Central Bank classified the financial institutions in Taiwan, and points out the deficiencies and spaces for improvement of the supervisory regulations herein.
To sum up, the supervisory trend of shadow banks started to focus on“macro-prudential regulation”, such as considering pro-cyclicality with capital reserves, as well as expending the ranges of prudential regulations, so as to better defense systemic risk. As a result, macro-prudential regulation should be implemented in the existing supervisory regulation of financial institutions. Additionally, to keep the consistency among supervisory regulations, coordination between each supervision authority is also essential.
|
|---|
