Novita' sul mercato dei sistemi di pagamento: Gli istituti di pagamento e gli istituti di moneta elettronica

La presente trattazione analizza le novità normative apportate dalle recenti direttive europee sui servizi di pagamento e sulla moneta elettronica (rispettivamente la direttiva 2007/64/CE, c.c. Payment Services Directive o PSD, e la direttiva 2009/110/CE, detta Electronic Money Directive 2 o EMD2). Al fine di incrementare la competitività dei servizi di pagamento, sono stati introdotti nuovi prestatori di servizi di pagamento, non bancari, gli Istituti di Pagamento (IP) e gli Istituti di Moneta Elettronica (IMEL), a cui è stata attribuita la possibilità di far ricorso al contratto di conto di pagamento per la gestione dei servizi di pagamento con possibilità di finanziamento agli utenti. La prima parte della presente trattazione è dedicata alla configurazione giuridica dei nuovi prestatori di servizi di pagamento, influenzante la diffusione dei pagamenti digitali e della moneta elettronica. La seconda parte è rivolta alla ricostruzione giuridica del conto di pagamento, contratto – tipo per la gestione in conto dei servizi di pagamento, ed all’analisi delle modalità di erogazione dei finanziamenti agli utenti. Le direttive predette hanno inoltre attribuito ad IP ed IMEL la facoltà di emettere le carte di pagamento a spendibilità generalizzata, ossia carte di debito e carte di credito. In quanto abilitati all’emissione di moneta elettronica, gli IMEL possono inoltre emettere i c.d. borsellini di moneta elettronica, cioè i dispositivi di memorizzazione e di movimentazione della moneta elettronica. Nella terza parte della trattazione vengono, pertanto, presi in analisi la natura di tali strumenti di pagamento e le differenze intercorrenti rispetto agli affini strumenti bancari. In particolare, ampio spazio è dedicato alla ricostruzione giuridica dei borsellini di moneta elettronica, la cui diffusione tra gli utenti potrebbe avere l’effetto di favorire la progressiva digitalizzazione dei pagamenti e la realizzazione della cashless society.

Mortgage securitization and its credit risk control

This dissertation concentrate on the mortgage securitization and its credit risk, which are criticized as the main causes of the financial crisis. From the point of the veiw of mortgage's evolution, the nature, structure and function of mortgage has been radically changed, yet the mortgage law did not give appropriate response to this market change. Meanwhile, the U.S legilslations facilitating the mortgage securitization also have rotten the legal foundations for mortgage market self-regulation and sustained development. In contrast, the EU covered bond system has kept financial stability for 200 years' time, and their statutory approach has been proved to be able to control the credit risk and incentive problems very well, in combination of market self-regulation and public regulation. So the future reform should be directed to strengthen the market's capacity of self-regulation and improve the public regulation. For the development of mortgage securitization in China, it is suggested to introduce the EU covered bond system for the reason of the equilibrium between funding efficiency and financial stability.

Credit-Default-Swaps and the 2008 Financial Crisis: An Inquiry into the Underlying Legal Origins and the European Union’s Regulatory Reforms

After the 2008 financial crisis, the financial innovation product Credit-Default-Swap (CDS) was widely blamed as the main cause of this crisis. CDS is one type of over-the-counter (OTC) traded derivatives. Before the crisis, the trading of CDS was very popular among the financial institutions. But meanwhile, excessive speculative CDSs transactions in a legal environment of scant regulation accumulated huge risks in the financial system. This dissertation is divided into three parts. In Part I, we discussed the primers of the CDSs and its market development, then we analyzed in detail the roles CDSs had played in this crisis based on economic studies. It is advanced that CDSs not just promoted the eruption of the crisis in 2007 but also exacerbated it in 2008. In part II, we asked ourselves what are the legal origins of this crisis in relation with CDSs, as we believe that financial instruments could only function, positive or negative, under certain legal institutional environment. After an in-depth inquiry, we observed that at least three traditional legal doctrines were eroded or circumvented by OTC derivatives. It is argued that the malfunction of these doctrines, on the one hand, facilitated the proliferation of speculative CDSs transactions; on the other hand, eroded the original risk-control legal mechanism. Therefore, the 2008 crisis could escalate rapidly into a global financial tsunami, which was out of control of the regulators. In Part III, we focused on the European Union’s regulatory reform towards the OTC derivatives market. In specific, EU introduced mandatory central counterparty clearing obligation for qualified OTC derivatives, and requires that all OTC derivatives shall be reported to a trade repository. It is observable that EU’s approach in re-regulating the derivatives market is different with the traditional administrative regulation, but aiming at constructing a new market infrastructure for OTC derivatives.