【作者】 何晓行；

【导师】 赵万一；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 文章由“导论”和五章正文组成。“导论”的内容包括选题意义、国内外研究综述、文章研究思路、主要内容和创新点。资产证券化是近30年来最重要的金融创新形式。次贷危机前,各国实务界趋之若鹜,理论界赞誉有加。次贷危机给资产证券化狂热浇了一盆冷水。危机爆发后,证券化交易被当成罪魁祸首备受指责,转眼间从市场宠儿变成过街老鼠。我国的资产证券化萌芽于1990年代初,最近几年资产证券化发展迅速,产品种类增多,发行规模成倍增长。尽管危机对证券化试点产生了一定的冲击,但是,资产支持证券在2008年整体上仍呈增长趋势。随着危机的阴影逐渐散去,业界呼吁大力发展资产证券化的声音重新抬头。本文的宗旨即是,以次贷危机为背景,立足美国市场实践,全面审视资产证券化交易的市场价值和法律本质,客观分析交易利弊,以期为我国发展资产证券化市场,建立资产证券化法律制度提供参考。全文以价值分析为主线,适当结合美国法框架下的规范分析,透视交易本质,解析交易问题。主体部分五章的主要内容如下：第一章“资产证券化概述”是文章立论的基础,分为三部分：第一部分简要介绍美国资产证券化市场的发展轨迹,适当分析造成市场井喷的与交易法律结构无关的其它原因,并扼要介绍证券化交易在美国以外市场的发展状况,比较美国市场和其它市场的主要区别,意在为我们对资产证券化和金融风暴之间的关系提供一个全方位认识,避免将次贷危机完全归咎于证券化交易；第二部分重点介绍交易基本运作程序。资产证券化交易种类繁多,本部分力图以尽可能少的篇幅介绍基本交易程序,重点是SPV的法律构造以及信用增级的各种途径方法；第三部分是对交易常见类型的介绍。文章以交易法律结构作为分类标准和研究基准,分别研究了不动产抵押支持证券(MBS)、非抵押资产支持证券(ABS)以及债务抵押证券(CDOs)的不同结构,并重点研究CDOs的法律构造。CDOs产品结构复杂,技术性强,最能体现不同参与主体之间的利益冲突,同时,它也是次贷危机的始作俑者。国内以往的著述对其着墨也不多。本章末尾扼要介绍了整体营业证券化,它是资产证券化和普通公司融资的杂交产品。第二章、第三章和第四章是本文研究的核心部分。第二章从经济学角度对资产证券化交易的市场价值进行了深入探讨。本章分为三个部分：第一部分选取公司资本理论的整体框架为视角,依据资本结构与企业价值不相关理论、权衡理论以及啄食顺序理论,从经济学角度比较资产证券化融资与股权融资、普通债券融资以及担保债券融资的优劣。从公司资本理论上看,证券化融资的重要功能在于弥补其它融资方式的某些不足。第二部分是对资产证券化融资的具体市场效率的分析,从融资成本节约的表象入手,再分析成本节约的原因。资产证券化节约成本的直接原因是免除银行中介、促进市场专业化分工、实现规模经济效应等,深层次的原因则是改善融资人的信息不对称状况。本部分对这些因素逐一进行了分析。第三部分是对交易成本的研究,重点考察利益冲突及系统风险两个方面。资产证券化的交易成本在次贷危机后成为国外学者研究的重点,本文借助国外学者的研究成果,重点分析了复杂证券化交易中通常存在的七类利益冲突,并指出针对这些利益冲突对各参与人进行动机整合的困难。次贷危机将复杂资产证券化交易产生的市场系统风险暴露无遗,本文对倒买倒卖交易方式、证券流动性不足以及复杂交易结构可能产生的系统风险淤积进行了全面考察,分析这些因素导致系统风险的路径。通过对交易市场效率与成本的全面剖析,本章得出结论：交易复杂程度决定了它是否具有市场效率。第三章和第四章主要从法学视角审视资产证券化。第三章研究次贷危机前资产证券化法律规范的法理基础以及国外的专门立法实践。本章研究的逻辑思路是：为什么需要针对资产证券化专门立法?既往法律专门规范选择怎样的路径进行?国外如何按照这一路径进行立法实践?按照这条思路,本章第一部分首先论述资产证券化与传统法律制度之间的冲突,指出法律专门规范的必要性。尽管大陆法系和普通法系在法制体例上存在较大差异,但二者基本商事制度中体现的法律原则差别不大。因此,本部分重点论述证券化发源地和最大市场——美国学术界、实务界以及监管部门对交易法律基础的争论,籍此认识资产证券化与传统法律制度之间冲突的核心——规避传统法律制度加在担保权上的“破产税”。本章第二部分通过对证券化交易规避“破产税”的正当性的法理分析得出结论：传统法律规范选择的路径是有限承认部分类型交易的法律效力。以此为基础,本部分末尾对美国和欧洲大陆及亚洲主要市场的立法实践进行了考察。第四章研究次贷危机对传统资产证券化法律规制的挑战。分为三部分：首先概述次贷危机的经过；然后从法律规制角度分析证券化交易法律结构导致危机发生的可能因素,着重探讨传统金融市场规制措施失灵的原因。主要包括：信息披露为什么没有发挥应有的监督作用,倒买倒卖交易方式与放贷标准降低之间究竟是何种关系,信用评级失准的原因,以及市场自律为什么会失灵四个方面；最后综合分析国外学者对规制交易市场风险开出的各种针对性药方,比较各种建议的利弊,探讨它们的适用条件。文章认为,减少“倒买倒卖”交易方式的弊端,以及采取措施积极应对信用评级失准,是规制交易市场风险的主要途径。第五章研究我国资产证券化法律制度的完善与构建,作为全文的结论。本文的研究重点是资产证券化交易的价值分析(市场价值与法律价值),而不是对交易具体规范的研究,因此,本章侧重结合我国实际,根据文章研究结论,对我国资产证券化法律制度建设的总体框架提出自己的建议。本章分为四部分。第一部分简要回顾我国资产证券化的实践,指出当前我国的交易试点无论从交易法律结构,还是从实现市场价值上看都还只是起步；第二部分分析我国的资产证券化立法现状及其存在的主要不足。本文认为,我国现有制度既不能为交易提供基本法律基础,制度本身也缺少内在市场逻辑,同时防范市场系统风险的措施也有待加强；第三部分对构建我国特色的资产证券化法律制度的立足点提出看法。本文认为,正确认识当前发展证券化的利弊是制度构建的前提和基础,而公正、效率则是制度建设应当坚持的基本价值取向。尽管次贷危机要求加强监管,但考虑到我国长期计划经济形成的集权惯性,正确定位政府角色、尊重市场主体地位仍应当是我国制度建设需要贯彻的基本原则；第四部分对当前我国发展资产证券化市场的制度选择提出建议。本文认为,当前应当积极发展未来收益证券化市场,为企业、公共事业单位拓宽融资渠道,对于金融资产证券化则应当审慎推进,以免发生市场风险；在立法模式上,本文建议采取基础法律和专项法相结合的方式；同时建议建立满足市场需要的适度监管制度,保证监管效率。更多还原

【Abstract】 The article includes "Introduction ", which includes the topics, the academic overview, the research path, the main ideas and the innovations. and the succeeding five chapters.Securitization, as the most important innovation in the last 30 years, had globally grown dramatically and gained a good reputation among theorists before the sub-prime crisis. The crisis calms the panic of securitization and it has been blamed as the main cause of the crisis. In China, securitization emerged in the early 1990s and has gained a rapid enlargement in recent years as the types of securitized assets and the volume of securities have both multiplied. In spite of the impact of the crisis, asset-backed securities still increased in 2008 in China. With the crisis goes gradually, the industry urges to develop securitization again. The purpose of this article is to give a comprehension on the market value and the normative underpinning of the transactions in the background of sub-prime crisis and to analyze the pros and cons of transactions with a view to developing China’s asset securitization market and establishing our securitization law.ChapterⅠ"Overview of Securitization" sets the stage and consists of three sub-parts. The first part briefs the development of securitization in the U.S., indicates the causes, other than the unique legal structures of transaction, which contribute to the rapid growing, summarizes the development of transactions in continental Europe and in Asian emerging markets, and compares the difference between these markets and the U.S. Considering the different performance of securitization in the U.S. and in other markets, the article has the idea that the transactions is not the only reason causing the crisis. The second part focuses on how the securitization works. The structures of securitization transactions are many and varied. This paper focuses on the structure that is commonly viewed as being prototypical, especially on the conformation of SPV and the credit enhancement. The last part examines the fabrics of MBS, ABS and CDOs transactions and emphasizes on the last, which has the most complex structures, the complicated conflicts among the parties and is the main cause of the crisis. At the end, the whole business securitization, which is a hybrid, is explored.ChapterⅡexamines the market value of transactions and is divided into three sub-parts. PartⅠoverviews the Modigliani-Miller Theorem (the Irrelevance Proposition), the Trade-off Theory and the Pecking Order Theory, the three leading theories in corporate financial academy, then probes the advantages and disadvantages of financing through securitization, debts financing(secured or unsecured),and equity financing, and concludes that securitization transaction can offset some shortcomings of other financing. PartⅡexplains the efficiency of securitization. The greatest benefit of securitization is its cost saving for the originators attributable to disintermediation, specialization and economies of scale, and fundamentally the originators’ asymmetry improvement. PartⅢanalyzes the conflicts of the participants and the potential systemic risks caused by the transactions. With the reference of the foreign scholarships, the article addresses the core question:the agency conflicts and the difficulty to align the incentives of participants, then explores the adverse effects of the originate-to-distribute model, which could lead to market systemic risk, the lack of securities’ liquidity, and the complicated relations in transactions. At the end, the author gets the conclusion that the complexity of the transaction determines whether it has market efficiency.ChapterⅢdiscusses the normative underpinnings of securitization law and overviews the foreign legislative practices. Why do we need special legislations for securitization? How to legislate for it? This chapter is devoted to answering these questions. The chapter falls into two parts. The first part addresses the illegality of securitization according to the traditional law, which indicates the necessity of special legislation. In the U.S., the motivation of the originators to initiate the transactions is to avoid ’the Bankruptcy Tax’. Because of the widespread of ’the Bankruptcy Tax’ in different jurisdictions in spite of the different burden degree, the author gets the conclusion that avoidance of ’the Bankruptcy Tax’ is the main motivation for the originators to set out the transactions. With this conclusion, the second part of this chapter then discusses the acceptability of the originators’ avoidance of ’the Bankruptcy Tax’ and draws the conclusion that the traditional path of legislation is to approve only some types of transactions. The legislations in U.S., continental Europe and Asia have all followed this path.ChapterⅣexamines the regulative challenge the traditional law faces after the sub-prime crisis. This chapter includes three sub-parts. After the overview of the sub-prime crisis, the article addresses the lessons from the subprime mortgage meltdown, including why disclosure fails to function, whether the originate-to-distribute model causes serious loan-requirement falling due to the originators’ moral hazards, why the rating agencies fails to anticipate the downgrades and why the market-discipline approach is insufficient. With reference of other scholars’ advises, the author thinks that the main ways to regulate the market risks caused by securitization transactions would be to reduce the moral hazards resulting from the originate-to-distribute model and take measures to cope with credit ratings’ inaccuracy.ChapterⅤgives advises on the construction of China’s securitization law. After overview of China’s securitization practice and the statues applicable to transactions, the article concludes that the existing institutions can not provide the legal foundation for transactions, is contradicted with the requirements of the market efficiency, and is in lack of strict regulation against market risks. For the construction of China’s securitization law, the author argues that a correct understanding of the pros and cons of developing securitization market at present is the premise and the basis of current legislation; fairness and efficiency are the principles in the institution’s construction; correct positioning the role of government and respect for the market should continue to be required in institution’s construction due to our long-term planned economy history. Considering the reality of our current financial market, the author advices the promoting of the securitization of future receivables to broaden the firms and the public sectors’financing markets; with regard to financial assets securitization, we should be very prudent in promoting in order to avoid market systemic risks. In the legislative model, we can draft a basic law, which provides the foundation of transactions, and some other special rules for resolving the unique issues pertaining to individual type of transactions. In the mean time, establishing appropriate regulations is necessary to avoid the market risks, as well as to ensure the regulatory efficiency.更多还原