99 article referred to the need for the existing business model specification mainly has two, one is just the market practice laws and regulations, a although there is a major change, but with the epistatic conflict, through the specification of existing business transformation "straight but not me". Trust companies should focus on the long-term capital -- to the trustor and trustee seeking long-term, stable returns. In fact, this idea in Japan has been proved to be feasible by the trust company should stick to certain specific industries, keep track of, make its own characteristics. Only on a specific industry, said the trust company to such as the 99 article, "vigorously develop the real equity investment". In fact, the trust relationship, the trustee is not necessarily to the trustor or beneficiary commitment can not return, the trust company should actively promote the relevant laws amendments, make capital preservation properties related to product compliance, develop new varieties of products. No matter whether the industry admitted that the trust company day is really not a few years ago better, this is not only reflected in the exposed the growing problems of products, is also reflected in the trust company the tightening of investment strategy, also reflected in the regulators increasingly conservative industry policy. It has been seven years since 2007, the implementation of the "new two rules", the entrusted assets growth rate has begun to decline, the trust company to a transition period. The transformation is that two years all trust companies put most words, business transformation, model transformation, but an unavoidable problem is, at the end of the transition where? There seems to be no a trust company said that the complete answer, regulators in April 8th by the China Banking Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the No. [2014]99 No. 99") has made a preliminary idea.
99 article original intention: from restriction to explore. 99 article third part when it comes to "clear the direction of transformation", but this part of the logic is not the first proposed the transformation direction again planning path, but the specification of the current part of the "unreasonable" business (actually constrained for some business), and then put forward some exploratory ideas, from this point of view that specification is the main, is required of all trust companies need to do, and do not have the mandatory exploration. The constraint of the right, but not the strong. 99 article referred to the need for the existing business model specification mainly has two, one is the transaction management trust business of regulation is to "clear the participation main body responsibility". Clear channel is actually required class business responsibility. No. 99 paper, risk management and risk taking two are completely separated, the undertaking of risk responsibility main body needs in the form of contract clearly (practice in general is the principal), the trustee ("provides the channel side") transaction risk management of project. This provision is actually the previous class of channel business regulation makes a systematic combing, clear responsibility. From the business type, at present our country channel business, similar to the Japanese trust in the specific use money in trust, and in the "Capital Preservation Trust" said Japan, such a business is not the principal compensation provides special, such provisions in line with international practice; send out from the legal, risk by the trustee. Borne by the client, itself is currently the "trust law" provisions of the content, practice itself, just put the practices of laws and regulations, so the standard is not clear direction of the essence of transformation. Two is the requirement to strengthen the credit class of capital trust business supervision. The change of the idea of supervision is more important, this paper directly referred to the "substance over form in accordance with the level of risk and capital requirements and the principle of matching risk capital constraint to strengthen the credit business". At present, such products are generally "rigid cash" culture, mentioned in essence heavier than form principle is meant in the capital constraint to consider this factor. If yes, will mean that the supervision ideas more pragmatic (because it is the money end market demand determines the format), but at the same time, before the supervision department stressed that "not illegal promised return" is weakened to a certain extent. Two measures, one is just the market practice laws and regulations, a although there is a major change, but with the upper law conflict, through the specification of existing business transformation "straight but not me".
You are here：