民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)中英文對(duì)照外文翻譯文獻(xiàn)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(fēng)險(xiǎn)研究1典型民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)類型化劃分方法的反思風(fēng)險(xiǎn)二象性———不確定性與暴露，表明風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是客觀實(shí)在與主觀預(yù)期相背離的矛盾性關(guān)系，亦即因客觀存在的不確定性而誘致實(shí)在與預(yù)期相悖的機(jī)會(huì)和可能性。鑒于主觀認(rèn)識(shí)上的有限理性與客觀信息獲取的不完全性，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)制(riskregulation的意旨要求“主體”須尋求方法論上的突破來彌補(bǔ)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?yàn)椤啊愋突椒ǖ囊M(jìn)打破了‘抽象’與‘具體’在法學(xué)方法論上的二元對(duì)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(jìn)而有效地規(guī)制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。又，民間借貸樣式繁多、表征多樣，其背后隱藏的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)亦盡顯獨(dú)特性，因此，民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的法律規(guī)制需要以風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的類型化為基石，以保證風(fēng)險(xiǎn)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(xué)者已經(jīng)采用類型化研究方法對(duì)民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行研究。譬如，諸多學(xué)者認(rèn)為，正規(guī)金融是民間借貸不斷深化發(fā)展，并對(duì)其進(jìn)行規(guī)制的結(jié)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(duì)民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)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(fēng)險(xiǎn)劃分為信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)以及戰(zhàn)略風(fēng)險(xiǎn)等類型;亦有部分學(xué)者以民間借貸中存在的法律問題為依據(jù)，將民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分為利率風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、身份風(fēng)險(xiǎn)以及用途風(fēng)險(xiǎn);還有學(xué)者從私法與公法層面進(jìn)行類型化劃分，將其分為公法風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與私法風(fēng)險(xiǎn);從金融體制、金融調(diào)控與金融規(guī)制三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行研究等等。在更大程度上說，上述諸種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)類型劃分方法更多是建立在金融行業(yè)內(nèi)部特點(diǎn)的基礎(chǔ)之上。但重要的是要注意不同行業(yè)、學(xué)科有不同的思維方式、重點(diǎn)和價(jià)值選擇。在一定程度上，金融行業(yè)分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、管理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)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(cè)重于具體的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，雖然已經(jīng)打上了名稱，但沒有實(shí)際的打字，這是難以實(shí)現(xiàn)有效監(jiān)管的民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。針對(duì)金融行業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)類型的分類方法，本文僅針對(duì)巴塞爾市的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)類型進(jìn)行了劃分，以證明風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分類的觀點(diǎn)對(duì)非法學(xué)習(xí)帶來的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)監(jiān)管的問題和問題。從風(fēng)險(xiǎn)監(jiān)管的角度看，巴塞爾協(xié)議“將信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分為信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、聲譽(yù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和流動(dòng)性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)六種類型。然而，許多學(xué)者認(rèn)為，這種分類有一個(gè)更大的問題，他們認(rèn)為，經(jīng)營(yíng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)包括法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，并在一定程度上，流動(dòng)性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，包括進(jìn)一步，許多人認(rèn)為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的聲譽(yù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。因此，我們要把風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分為信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)三種類型。首先，從法律的角度看，法律更強(qiáng)調(diào)了非市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)監(jiān)管。因此，市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)可以排除在本文。其次是操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)定義的問題。在新巴塞爾資本協(xié)議中，操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的原始定義是一種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而不是一些市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，這種定義方法是模糊的，缺乏針對(duì)性。操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)定義的必然要求必須明確。不同機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的不同，但是，在指定范圍內(nèi)有較大的差異，它會(huì)進(jìn)一步加大經(jīng)營(yíng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的不確定性。退后一步，即使在金融機(jī)構(gòu)的操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的定義是一定的，但是“操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的銀行的定義可以在操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)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(shí)生活中對(duì)于違約的信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)表征的象征，同時(shí)，操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)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(fēng)險(xiǎn)。因此，可以將實(shí)現(xiàn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，在一般的行為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)類型，從而實(shí)現(xiàn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的有效監(jiān)管。很顯然，巴塞爾協(xié)議類型化的是將分為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)監(jiān)管立法部門的引入。當(dāng)然，我不否認(rèn)，巴塞爾協(xié)議類型化的金融風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分類，或許對(duì)內(nèi)部控制金融機(jī)構(gòu)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，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(fēng)險(xiǎn)劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或風(fēng)險(xiǎn)監(jiān)管方法稍差。正因?yàn)槿绱?，筆者將運(yùn)用法律思維方法對(duì)民間借貸的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行類型化、規(guī)范化，首先運(yùn)用法律對(duì)民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的主觀和客觀的關(guān)系分為2類主要風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)行為，然后構(gòu)建民間借貸主體分類差異登記和分類指導(dǎo)監(jiān)管耦合雙重嵌套風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)制機(jī)制，有效規(guī)范民間借貸主體的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。2民間借貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)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(fēng)險(xiǎn)從層次分析法，那么有必要研究如何進(jìn)行打字？應(yīng)該以什么樣的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)打字？典