民間借貸風險中英文對照外文翻譯文獻

民間借貸風險中英文對照外文翻譯文獻TheStudyofPrivateLendingRisks1ThetypicalreflectionoffolklendingrisktypingmethodRiskduality,uncertaintyandexposure,suggeststhattheriskisthecontradictionbetweenobjectiverealityandsubjectiveexpecteddeviatingrelationship,whichinducedbytheuncertaintyofobjectiveexistenceiscontrarytoexpectationofopportunitiesandpossibilities.Inviewofthesubjectiveunderstandingontheincompletenessofboundedrationalityandobjectiveinformation,riskregulation(riskregulationwillrequirethe"subject"shouldbetoseekthebreakthroughofmethodologytomakeupforcongenitaldeficiencyofsubjectiveandobjective,typedresearchmethodistheoptimalchoice.Thereasonhasthisfunction,because"'typedmethodintroducedbrokethe"abstract"and"specific"onthemethodologyoflawofbinaryopposition,andquicklybecameamediation"thatconnectsthetwo.Tobespecific,typedhasthefunctionofabstractconcrete,concreteabstractioncangetthroughthesubjectiveandobjective"andthesecondpulse",toreducetheobjectiveandsubjective,thuseffectivelyregulationrisk.Again,folklendingthetypeisvarious,characterization,itshiddenrisksalsorevealstheuniqueness,therefore,thelegalregulatingoftheprivatelendingriskneedtorisktypesintoacornerstone,toensurethattherisksystem,completenessandeffectivenessofregulation.Fromthepointofthepresentstudy,manyscholarshaveusedthetypedmethodswascarriedoutontheprivatelendingrisks.,forexample,manyscholarsbelievethattheformalfinanceisthedeepeningdevelopmentoffolklendingandtheresultofregulation,investigateitsroot,inmonetaryfinancingways,therewerelittledifference.Therefore,typedontheprivatelendingrisksintheprocessofdivision,candrawlessonsfromtheregulationofBasel2,dividetherisksofprivatelendingforcreditrisk,operationalrisk,marketriskandstrategicrisktypes;Alsohavesomescholarsbasedonlegalissuesexistingintheprivatelending,privatelendingriskscanbedividedintoriskofinterestraterisk,identityandUSESrisk;Andscholarsfromtheprivatelawandpubliclawleveltypeddivides,itsriskisdividedintopubliclawandprivatelawrisk;Fromthefinancialsystem,financialregulationandfinancialregulationtostudythethreeaspectsandsoon.Inalargerextent,theaboveallkindsofriskclassificationmethodismorebasedonthecharacteristicsofthefinancialindustry.Itisimportanttonote,however,differentsectors,disciplineshavedifferentwaysofthinking,focusandvaluechoice,toacertainextent,theriskofthefinancialindustryclassificationstandard,managementstandardisnotcompletelyaccordwiththerequirementofriskbeenregulatedinlaw.Typicalfolklendingtypedpartitionmethod,mostofthemfromtheAngleoffinanceorthefinancialsectorrisk,morefocusedonthespecificrisks,althoughhavetypedinthenameof,butnorealityofthetyping,whichisdifficulttorealizeeffectiveregulationofprivatelendingrisks.Inviewofthefinancialsectorrisktypesofclassificationmethod,thisarticleonlyinBaselonthedivisionofrisktypes,forexample,toprovetheriskclassificationfromtheviewpointofillegallearningbringriskregulationofthetroublesandproblems.Fromtheperspectiveofriskregulation,theBaselagreement"willbedividedintocreditrisk,marketrisk,operationalrisk,legalrisk,reputationriskandliquidityrisksixtypes.Bymanyscholars,however,thiskindofclassificationhasalargerquestion,theythinkthatoperationalrisksincludelegalrisks,andtosomeextent,liquidityrisk,marketrisk,includingfurther,manypeoplethinkofsensitivityofreputationrisk.Therefore,weshouldputriskisdividedintocreditrisk,marketriskandoperationriskthreetypes.Firstofall,fromthepointofviewoflaw,thelawemphasizesmoreonnon-marketriskregulation.Therefore,themarketriskcanberuledoutinthispaper.Followedbyquestionsaboutoperationriskdefinition.InthenewBaselcapitalaccord,theoriginaldefinitionofoperationalriskistheriskotherthansomeofthemarketriskandcreditrisk,thisdefinitionmethodisfuzzy,lackofpertinence.Sincetheoperationriskistheriskofmarketriskandcreditrisk,theinevitablerequirementofmarketriskandcreditriskdefinitionmustbeclear.Differentinstitutionstocreditriskandmarketrisk,however,therearelargedifferencebetweentherangeofdesignated,itwillfurtherincreasetheuncertaintyofoperatingrisk.Takeastepback,evenifthedefinitionofoperationalriskwithinthefinancialinstitutionsiscertain,however"thebank'sowndefinitionofoperationalriskmaybedifferentintheregulatorydefinitionofoperatingrisks(regulatorydefinitionmightbemorewidely)".Inasense,inreallifeforbreachofpromiseisthesymbolizationofcreditriskcharacterization,atthesametime,theoperationriskisalsoamanifestationoftheperson'sbehavior,bothcanbereflectedinthebehavior,andbothcanbecalledbehavioralrisk.So,canwillbetherealizationrisk,operationriskandcreditrisk--,underthegeneralofbehavioralrisktypes,thusrealizetheeffectiveregulationofrisk.ItisobviousthattheBaselagreementtypedyeswillbedividedintotheriskregulationinstitutionsforriskregulationandtheintroductionofthelegislativebranchofriskregulation.Ofcourse,IdonotdenythattheBaselagreementtypedontheriskclassificationoffinance,perhapsfortheinternalcontroltherisksoffinancialinstitutions,meaningisveryprofound.However,fromtheperspectiveoflaw,financeorthefinancialsectortotypedtherisksofprivatelendingdivisionstandardormethodforriskregulationisslightlyinferior.Becauseofthis,theauthorwilluselegalthinkingmethodsofprivatelendingrisksaretyped,andregulation,thefirstuseoflawonthetheoryofsubjectiveandobjectiverelationshiptoprivatelendingriskisdividedintomainriskandriskbehavioroftwotypes,andthenbuildthefolklendingsubjectclassificationdifferenceregistrationandclassificationguidanceregulationcouplingdoublenestedriskregulationmechanism,toeffectivelyregulatethefolklendingsubjectriskandtherisk.2ThestandardoflawundertheviewoffolklendingrisktypedandtypeanalysisAsmentionedabove,sincethelegalregulatingoftheprivatelendingriskfromleveltypedanalysisoflaw,thenitisnecessarytostudyhowtomaketyping?Shouldbetypedasthestandardwithwhat?Typicalofthelaw"therelationshipbetweensubjectandobject"analysismethodisthebestchoice.Fromthelawof"therelationshipbetweensubjectandobject"thinkingmethodtoobtaintheprivatelendingriskdeconstructionasthemainbodyandobjectrisk,thencombinedthesubjectandobjectriskconsiderations,itsspecificperformanceasfollows:first,thelawisclearrightandobligationisthemostfundamental,mostthecoreelementsofthelawandtherightsandobligationsaretobesubjecttoornottotaketoimplementtheaction,andbasedon"theadjustmentobjectoflawisbehavior"aswellasthemainbodyisequaltoitsstatementsandexpressionsofaseriesofbehavior,andbehaviorisindispensabletotheriskanalysisblindlyelements,furthermore,istheinnermeaningofexternalexpressionandimplementation,losethebehaviorofthesubjectmustbepale,orevennon-existent,realitysubjectcannotlittle.Second,thelegalrelationshipincludingthesubject,object,content,behaviorandintellectualproperty,etc.)andthreeaspectsofcontent,hasbeenholdingthelegalthinkingofthe"relationshipbetweensubjectandobject"method,andthesubjectandobject,whichisthecoreofthelegalresearch,stressedwithoutthereisnosuchthingasthesubjectandobjectoflegalnorms;Willtherelationshipbetweenthelegalrelationshipasthepluralsubjectandbehavior.Basedonthetwopoints,theauthordividedtheprivatelendingriskasthemainbodyofriskandriskbehavioroftwotypes,andwithintheframeworkofprivatelendingrisktypedeliberativecontentsandthecausesofprivatelendingrisks,andthenrealizestheprivatelendingrisktypedlegalregulation.Folklendingrisks.”Identityisvitalforthejudgmentoftherisk,theriskofidentitydifferentmayleadtothenatureoftherisk,theriskliabilityisdifferent,evendecidedtoriskexistence"inprivatelendingactivities,behaviorsubjectsincludenaturalpersons,legalpersonsandotherorganizations,andinthedifferentlendingactivities,differentmainbodyplaysadifferentrole,canbeeitherborrowersandlenders,yeskeyisanintermediary,andriskBearwillalsovary.Intermsofourcountryfolklending,folklendingsubjectriskmainlyreferstothefolklendinglegalrelationship,becausethepeopleborrowingbetweenmainbodyandleadtotheriskofinadequate,thefolklendingsubjectbecauseofthelackoflegalbusinesslicensesisengagedinthebusinessoflendinganddeposit-takingbusiness,withalegalqualificationbutbeyondthescopeofbusiness,etc.,andthepossibilityofadverselegalconsequence.Itsmainperformanceforprivatelendingintermediarywindrisksandlendingbetweennon-financialcompaniessubjecttwotypesofrisk.PrivatelendingintermediarymainriskFirstly,thenaturaltypebodydiscomfort,theriskofprivatelendingthemiddlemen.Doesnotinvolvethethirdpersonofthecivillendingbetweennaturalpersonisallowedbylaw,butnowmostfolklendingbythefamiliarpeopleborrowing,lendingevolvedintobetweenstrangerswhotypenaturalfolklendingagentgenerates,andinformallendingnaturalintermediarytowardspecialization.Amongthem,alotofnaturalpersonnointermediariestolimititsbusinessonthegeneralintroductionoflendingorborrowingforrange,butintheabsenceoffixedinaccordancewiththeprocedurestoapplyforlegallicense,illegalengagedinabsorbdepositsandissueloansandotherfinancialbusiness,easytocausetheinadequatesubjectriskproblems.Second,thetypeoflegalpersonprivatelendingintermediarybodyrisk.Inrealpractice,folklendingmiddlemanpresentinstitutions,thetrendof,however,thecurrentlawsandregulationshavenotbeentoeffectivelyconfirmthelegalstatusofprivatelendingagencies,therightsandobligationsisalsoalackofproperregulations,irregularitiesisveryserious,leadtoprivatelendingrisksoccur.Riskofnon-financialcorporatelendingbetweenthemainbodyfirst,generalborrowingmainbodybetweentheindustryandcommerceenterpriserisk.Nationalbanonborrowingbetweenenterprisesandenterprises,ifeachothertoborrowmoneyandcontractinterest,thecourtvisualsituationtoconfiscationofinterestinaccordancewiththelaw,totheotherpartyshouldbefinedequivalentofbankinterest,therefore,easylendingbetweenenterprisesduetoalackoflendingintheenterprisequalificationandfolklendingrisk.Second,folklendinginstitutions,thetrendof"thefolklendingsubjectincludingundergroundBanks,pawnshops,auctionhouses,smallandmedium-sizedenterprisefinancingcompanies,smallandmedium-sizedenterpriseloancompanies,assetappraisal,somebasicbankwillalsobecomeoneofthemainbodyoffolklending".Therefore,thefolklendingsubjecthaslimitedqualifications,notallofthecivilsubjectcanbecomemainbodyoftherightsanddutiesoftheprivatelending.So,inthefolklendinglegalrelationship,theprincipalmaybearthecorrespondingrisksduetoitsowninadequate.Folklendingriskregardlessofthefactsorlegalactionsarelikelytocause,changeandeliminatethelegalrelationship,andhavecertainlegalconsequences.Aredissimilar,innerconcepts,ideas,withoutlegalconsequences,"becauseIjustduetoexpressthemselves,juststepintoreality,Ididnotentertherangeswayedbylawmakers?Forthelaw,inadditiontomybehavior,Iamnotsavingin”.Hegelsaid,shallbearlegalconsequencescanbetopeople'sbehavior.Anybehaviorinevitablyleadtoconsequences,butnotanybehaviorleadstolegalconsequences.Privatelendingriskistopointtointheimplementationofprivatelending,riskcausedbyactofmisconductorbiased.Itisimportanttonotethatbecauseofthefolklendingpracticesofmisconductorbiasedandtherisk,notreferringtothefolklendingriskallthebehaviormainbody,buttoproducepotentialriskscausedbyborrowingrisk,beartheunfavorablelegalconsequencesthatmayleadtorisksubjectbehaviorcausedbytherisk.Privatelendingtypicalbehaviorriskisdividedintoprivatelendinginterestrateagreedovertheprovisionsofthestatestandardofrisk,riskposedbyillegalengagedinfinancialbusinessandmaliciousborrowingtherisk,etc.ContractbeyondthestandardsofthestateinterestratescausedbyriskaccordingtotheviewsofMarxism,"usuryinessenceitisakindofeconomicphenomenon,itsownhasitsinherentlawofdevelopment”.Illegalengagedinfinancialbusinessriskcausedbyillegalengagedinfinancialbusinessriskistopointtobytheoffenderisnotinaccordancewiththestatutoryproceduresapprovedbytherelevantdepartments,tothesocietyisnotinthenameofanyparticularobjectofillegalfund-raising,illegalabsorbingpublicdepositsorabsorbpublicdepositsindisguisedforms,illegalloansandotherillegalbehaviorandshouldbeartheriskoffinancialbusiness.民間借貸風險研究1典型民間借貸風險類型化劃分方法的反思風險二象性———不確定性與暴露，表明風險是客觀實在與主觀預期相背離的矛盾性關系，亦即因客觀存在的不確定性而誘致實在與預期相悖的機會和可能性。鑒于主觀認識上的有限理性與客觀信息獲取的不完全性，風險規(guī)制(riskregulation的意旨要求“主體”須尋求方法論上的突破來彌補主觀與客觀的先天不足，類型化研究方法不失為最優(yōu)選擇。之所以有此功能，是因為“‘類型化’方法的引進打破了‘抽象’與‘具體’在法學方法論上的二元對立，并迅速成為連接兩者的中介”。具體而言，類型化具有抽象具體化、具體抽象化的功能，可打通主觀與客觀的“任督二脈”，縮減客觀與主觀的背離，進而有效地規(guī)制風險。又，民間借貸樣式繁多、表征多樣，其背后隱藏的風險亦盡顯獨特性，因此，民間借貸風險的法律規(guī)制需要以風險的類型化為基石，以保證風險規(guī)制的體系性、完備性及有效性。從目前的研究來看，許多學者已經采用類型化研究方法對民間借貸風險進行研究。譬如，諸多學者認為，正規(guī)金融是民間借貸不斷深化發(fā)展，并對其進行規(guī)制的結果，究其根源，在貨幣資金融通方面來講，兩者幾無差異。因此，在對民間借貸風險進行類型化劃分的過程中，可借鑒《新巴塞爾協(xié)議》的規(guī)定，將民間借貸的風險劃分為信用風險、操作風險、市場風險以及戰(zhàn)略風險等類型;亦有部分學者以民間借貸中存在的法律問題為依據(jù)，將民間借貸風險分為利率風險、身份風險以及用途風險;還有學者從私法與公法層面進行類型化劃分，將其分為公法風險與私法風險;從金融體制、金融調控與金融規(guī)制三個方面進行研究等等。在更大程度上說，上述諸種風險類型劃分方法更多是建立在金融行業(yè)內部特點的基礎之上。但重要的是要注意不同行業(yè)、學科有不同的思維方式、重點和價值選擇。在一定程度上，金融行業(yè)分類標準、管理標準與風險監(jiān)管的要求并不完全符合法律規(guī)定。典型的民間借貸類型劃分方法，大多是從金融或金融部門的角度出發(fā)，更側重于具體的風險，雖然已經打上了名稱，但沒有實際的打字，這是難以實現(xiàn)有效監(jiān)管的民間借貸風險。針對金融行業(yè)風險類型的分類方法，本文僅針對巴塞爾市的風險類型進行了劃分，以證明風險分類的觀點對非法學習帶來的風險監(jiān)管的問題和問題。從風險監(jiān)管的角度看，巴塞爾協(xié)議“將信用風險分為信用風險、市場風險、操作風險、法律風險、聲譽風險和流動性風險六種類型。然而，許多學者認為，這種分類有一個更大的問題，他們認為，經營風險包括法律風險，并在一定程度上，流動性風險，市場風險，包括進一步，許多人認為風險的聲譽風險。因此，我們要把風險分為信用風險、市場風險和操作風險三種類型。首先，從法律的角度看，法律更強調了非市場風險監(jiān)管。因此，市場風險可以排除在本文。其次是操作風險定義的問題。在新巴塞爾資本協(xié)議中，操作風險的原始定義是一種風險，而不是一些市場風險和信用風險，這種定義方法是模糊的，缺乏針對性。操作風險是市場風險和信用風險的風險，市場風險和信用風險定義的必然要求必須明確。不同機構對信用風險和市場風險的不同，但是，在指定范圍內有較大的差異，它會進一步加大經營風險的不確定性。退后一步，即使在金融機構的操作風險的定義是一定的，但是“操作風險的銀行的定義可以在操作風險監(jiān)管的定義不同（監(jiān)管的定義可能更廣泛）”。從某種意義上說，在現(xiàn)實生活中對于違約的信用風險表征的象征，同時，操作風險也是人的行為的一種表現(xiàn)，既可以體現(xiàn)在行為，都可以稱之為行為風險。因此，可以將實現(xiàn)風險、操作風險和信用風險，在一般的行為風險類型，從而實現(xiàn)風險的有效監(jiān)管。很顯然，巴塞爾協(xié)議類型化的是將分為風險監(jiān)管機構和風險監(jiān)管立法部門的引入。當然，我不否認，巴塞爾協(xié)議類型化的金融風險分類，或許對內部控制金融機構的風險，意義是非常深刻的。然而，從法律、金融或金融業(yè)的角度看，民間借貸的風險劃分標準或風險監(jiān)管方法稍差。正因為如此，筆者將運用法律思維方法對民間借貸的風險進行類型化、規(guī)范化，首先運用法律對民間借貸風險的主觀和客觀的關系分為2類主要風險和風險行為，然后構建民間借貸主體分類差異登記和分類指導監(jiān)管耦合雙重嵌套風險規(guī)制機制，有效規(guī)范民間借貸主體的風險和風險。2民間借貸風險類型與類型分析的法律規(guī)范如上所述，由于法律規(guī)范的民間借貸風險從層次分析法，那么有必要研究如何進行打字？應該以什么樣的標準打字？典