美、欧、日资产证券化比较:历程、产品、模式及监管

Comparative Analysis of Securitization in the US, Europe and Japan:Progress, Products, Models and Regulation

2008年美国次贷危机的爆发引起了人们对资产证券化的反思。相比全球资产证券化发展,中国资产证券化试点起步较晚,但随着金融改革的不断深入,预计未来十年内中国资产证券化规模与类型都会取得重大突破。本文对美、欧、日资产证券化的发展历程、主要产品、运作模式和监管情况进行了比较分析,并在此基础上对中国未来的资产证券化路径提出了建议。本文的主要结论包括:第一,美、欧、日资产证券化的发展初衷都与金融市场的流动性不足有关;第二,美、欧、日除了都有MBS、ABS和CDO等产品外,还各自出现了具有本国特色的产品;第三,美、欧、日资产证券化运作模式的差异较大,美国为"表外证券化"模式,欧洲为"表内证券化"模式,日本则为"特殊目标机构"和"信托银行"两种模式并存;第四,美、欧、日资产证券化的监管模式也完全不同,美国采取伞形监管模式,英国采取双峰监管模式,日本则采取统一监管模式。

The subprime crisis of the US in 2008 has sparked reflection on asset securitization. Whileasset securitization has been in existence for years, its history in China has been quite short.However, with the deepening of its financial reform, China is expected to see breakthroughs inasset securitization in terms of both size and types of securitized assets in the coming ten years.In this article, we compare the history, main products, models of operation and regulation ofasset securitization in the US, Europe and Japan, and, on that basis, propose China's futurepath of asset securitization. Main conclusions include: First, inadequate liquidity in thefinancial market is behind the decision to develop asset securitization; second, besides suchgeneral products as MBS, ABS and CDO, there have also been products that cater to localmarkets in the US, Europe and Japan; third, the US, Europe and Japan have had differentmodels of asset securitization; in the US, it is an off-balance sheet model; in Europe, it is anon-balance sheet model; and in Japan, there coexist two models: the special-purpose vehiclemodel and the trust bank model; last but not least, the regulatory patterns of assetsecuritization are starkly different: the US takes an umbrella regulatory model; the UK takes abimodal regulatory model; and Japan takes a unified regulatory model.