Basel III和Solvency II 對法國銀行系統的影響 / Following the 2008 financial crisis and the 2010 European Sovereign crisis, regulators and supervisors were urged to improve and reinforce the regulation of the banking system in order to prevent and assist banks from failing and provoking a system-wide crisis. Similarly some measures have been taken to regulate and reinforce the insurance industry in the EU. Basel III accords have been set up as an emergency measure and response to the financial crisis that hit the world in 2008 following a liquidity crisis that has started in 2007. Basel II framework had never been made to resist a system wide crisis and was not anymore effective in regulating the banking industry following the important deregulations that happened in the 2000s. Similarly to Basel, the primary goal of Solvency II is to prevent (with a 99.5% probability or 1 chance over 200) a company from ceasing payments and/or going bankruptcy. It has therefore introduced a complete framework relying as well on three pillars which have been adapted to the constraints and specificities of the insurance industry. Bank-insurances which are companies offering both insurance and banking services are therefore subject to both regulations. Moreover despite increasing their offerings, bank-insurer have to adapt to a complex maturing environment. The future of their business strongly depends upon their strategic choices regarding growth, profitability and mandatory compliance to regulation. They need to start and/or accelerate their transformation strategy in order to take into account this changing environment. The regulations are becoming more binding and therefore questioning the model of a global bank (as the banks have to increase their level of required capital). Despite these challenges, they still have an important role to play on the French Market.

本文旨在探討美國因應金融全球化的調適之道。由於美國首屈一指的金融大國地位，所以美國不只是被金融全球化所侷限，甚至能反過頭來型塑金融全球化的走向，本文藉助「比較歷史研究途徑」的指引展開研究，試圖勾勒出金融全球化與美國金融政治交互建構的完整過程。 美國應對金融全球化的調適主要有四項發展。在國內層面，美國推動了金融自由化，主要是反映在業務項目和地理區位兩方面。業務項目的去管制是要廢除要求銀行與證券分業的Glass-Steagall Act，地理區位去管制是要廢除限制銀行跨州經營的McFadden Act。在國際層面，為了穩定金融體系同時又要保障美國金融利益的海外運作，美國一方面推動訂定了Basle Accord，提升了資本適足標準，將美國自身的資本標準國際化。另方面，為了不讓金融機構的海外放款陷入危機，美國藉由IMF執行金援抒困的任務，將美國政府金援抒困的角色國際化了。 藉由區分國際與國內層次，以及權威管制與協調機制的不同調適方式，就可建構出四種不同調適樣態，這四種樣態在執行難度與調適速度上會有所不同，美國應對金融全球化的四項發展正好提供了此四種調適樣態的經驗支持。「國際層次－權威管制」的方式最快，「國際層次－協調機制」的方式次之，「國內層次－協調機制」的方式又次之，速度最慢的是「國內層次－權威管制」。這四種調適樣態結合起來，共同展現了美國對金融全球化的因應。