銀行業總體審慎監理之研究—以我國監理措施為例

Abstract

「審慎監理」是金融監理最重要之核心工作。傳統金融監理考量的是「個體」審慎監理，認為只要維持金融體系內每一金融機構健全經營，即可確保金融之穩定，因此金融監理專注於個別金融機構財務與業務之安全與穩健（safe and sound）。惟隨著金融市場的快速發展，尤其伴隨資訊科技進步所帶來的金融創新，與全球化浪潮所推動的自由化與國際化，都已使得金融體系、金融市場、金融機構與金融商品的結構產生快速且顯著的改變，其綿密、複雜度與關聯性，不僅大幅增加金融監理的困難，更凸顯傳統的金融監理僅著重於個體審慎監理已有所不足。以放款的成長為例，就個別銀行言，放款量增加原則上對該銀行的發展或許是正面的，但如予以加總就整體金融體系觀察，則尚需考量實質經濟成長情形、放款成長是否集中於特定授信資產，即對於對整體市場之影響及對金融永續發展非必然屬正面，「總體審慎監理（macro-prudential supervision）」觀念乃逐漸被引入。2008年全球金融海嘯後，金融監理如何導入總體審慎監理或如何加強總體審慎監理，更已成為國際金融組織與各國金融主管機關重要新課題。 總體審慎監理的重點是在金融體系整體，並將金融體系視為一體，總體審慎監理的目的在避免或限制系統性風險。總體審慎監理與個體審慎監理雖在監理目標與方法上存有差異，惟兩者在金融監理上必須同時存在且互補。根據國際清算銀行分析，總體審慎監理可依風險可能來源而包括二個面向之意涵，一是時間面向（time dimension），指銀行在景氣好時，通常會集體擴張信用而過度承擔風險，此即順景氣循環問題(pro-cyclicality）；二是跨機構面向（(cross-sectional dimension)），係指在特定時間體系內各金融機構因相同暴險或因之間相互連結，致可能產生的連鎖影響。

雖然2008年金融海嘯，始促使各國重視並使用總體審慎監理工具，國際清算銀行在2010年於BASELⅢ正式導入總體審慎監理思維與政策工具，以降低銀行體系的系統性風險及順景氣循環問題，例如，使用槓桿比率、要求保留緩衝資本、針對信用擴張要求銀行提列抗景氣循環緩衝資本、要求系統重要性銀行計提額外資本要求等，事實上，許多國家使用總體審慎監理工具處理系統性風險已有相當長的時間，包括規定貸放比(LTV)、動態提存損失準備等；又對於一項工具是否屬總體審慎監理工具，尚需考量其使用目的、且係以防範系統性風險為導向者，始能屬之。因此，總體審慎監理工具並非僅限國際清算銀行巴塞爾銀行監理委員會於BASELⅢ所提出的總體審慎監理工具。 我國近年來亦配合國際金融監理潮流，持續導入總體審慎監理，除參照BASELⅢ修正銀行資本適足性管理規範外，亦針對國內金融與經濟情勢，陸續採取強化總體審慎監理措施，近期重要措施例如：對於銀行不動產授信風險採取規定貸放比及提高風險權數等審慎監理措施、推動逐年增提備抵呆帳措施、及完成建置我國店頭衍生性金融商品交易資訊儲存庫系統等。

“Prudential Supervision” is the core task of current financial supervision. Traditional financial supervision focuses on prudential supervision for “individual” financial institutions, which perceives that if the safety and soundness of the financial status and operation of each financial institution within the financial system is kept, the financial stability will be secured. However, along with the rapid development of financial markets, especially the financial innovation related to the improvement of information technology and the global trend of liberalization and internationalization, the structure of the financial system, financial markets and financial institutions has changed significantly. Its density, complexity and correlation not only greatly increase the difficulty of financial supervision, but also reveal the deficiency of traditional financial supervision, which only focuses on micro-prudential supervision. Take the growth of loans as an example, for an individual bank, the growth of loans is usually positive for the development of the bank. However, if we consider the entire financial system regarding the growth of total bank loans, we have to take into account the growth of real economy, and if the growth of loans concentrates on specific assets. Thus the growth of loans might not certainly positive for the entire market and the sustainability of financial development. Therefore, the idea of macro-prudential supervision has been gradually developed. After the global financial tsunami of 2008, how to implement or strengthen macro-prudential supervision has been an important initiative for international financial organizations and national financial regulators. The focal point of macro-prudential supervision is on the integral financial system, and treats it as a whole. The purpose of macro-prudential supervision is on deterring or limiting systemic risk. Even though there are differences between macro and micro prudential supervisions in terms of purpose and targets, the both must be co-existed and complementary. According to the analysis of the Bank of International Settlement (thereinafter the “BIS”), macro-prudential supervision may include two dimensions of meanings referring to the sources of risks. One is the time dimension, which means that banks usually collectively expand credits and therefore undertake excess risks during a good time. That is so-called pro-cyclicality. The other is the cross-sectional dimension, which means the chain effects which may be caused by financial institutions’ interconnectedness or their common exposures during a specific period. The global financial tsunami of 2008 has pushed countries to place importance on macro-prudential supervision and use it as a regulatory tool. The BIS officially introduced the idea and tools of macro-prudential supervision in the BASEL III in 2010 to reduce banks’ systemic risk and deal with the problem of pro-cyclicality, such as a leverage ratio, a capital buffer requirement, requiring banks to appropriate counter-cyclical buffers against credit expansion, and introducing capital surcharges for systemically important banks. In fact, many countries have implemented tools of macro-prudential supervision for a long time. Those tools include the loan-to-value ratio and dynamic loan loss provisioning. To decide if a measure is a tool of macro-prudential supervision, we should consider its purpose and if it is oriented towards preventing systemic risk. Therefore, the scope of macro-prudential supervision is not limited to the tools of macro-prudential supervision introduced in the Basel III of the BIS. Taiwan has been in line with the trend of international financial supervisory standards to continue introducing tools of macro-prudential supervision. Besides following the Basel III to amend its requirements on the capital adequacy of banks, Taiwan also strengthens measures of macro-prudential supervision to address domestic financial and economic situation. Recent important measures include requiring loan-to-value ratio and higher risk weight on real estate loans, gradually increasing loan loss provision, and completing the establishment of the repository database of the over-the-counter financial derivatives transactions, etc.