원문에서 자동 번역됨 · 원문 읽기 (English)
바젤 III가 전통 은행에 미치는 모든 영향과 그것이 그림자 금융 부문의 성장 및 위험 프로필에 어떻게 영향을 미치는지 여전히 이해하려고 노력 중입니다. 때로는 위험을 단순히 옮기는 것처럼 느껴집니다. 다른 분들도 자본 요건 때문에 특정 유형의 대출이나 활동이 규제 대상 기관에서 크게 이동하는 것을 목격하고 계신가요? 그렇다면 가장 우려되는 주요 규제 사각지대는 무엇인가요?
It's not just a feeling; the capital requirements absolutely push certain activities, especially less liquid or higher-risk lending, out of the regulated banking sector. Traditional banks get tighter on capital, and the demand for that lending doesn't disappear, it just finds a new home with fewer regulatory burdens, often in the shadow banking system. It's a clear trade-off.
·2dThat's an interesting point about just shifting risk. I'm wondering, do you think the shadow banking sector is actually more efficient in some of these areas, or is it purely about avoiding regulation and capital requirements?
เห็นด้วยเลยครับว่าเหมือนเป็นการย้ายความเสี่ยงจริงๆ พอธนาคารที่ถูกกำกับเข้มงวดขึ้น กิจกรรมบางอย่างก็ไหลไปที่ Shadow Banking แทน ซึ่งอาจจะยิ่งทำให้ภาพรวมความเสี่ยงของระบบซับซ้อนขึ้นไปอีก
Traderforum · 한국어