The article is a pilot attempt of comprehensive research of China’s banking regulation and supervision reform in the post-crisis era. It is found that risks associated with the «too big to fail» banks still cannot be contained that to a certain extent is offset by a wider array of regulatory aspects, their miniaturization, and more stringent supervisory standards compared with Basel III. On the other side, non-regulated segments of the financial sector pose higher risks. More broadly, regulatory reform in China comes close with fundamental principles of international reform of banking regulation. Based on research findings relevant recommendations are developed for the Russian banking sector.
Creation of the great controlling system on the base of the Central bank of Russian Federation realizing of monitoring activity of the financial market, including private pension funds, allows lowering the risk of non-repayment of pension savings of citizens, creating reliable investment base for development of state economy, increasing stability of pension system.
This article is devoted to the analysis of the Russian taxation system of hedge derivatives. The special attention is given to the problems of the separation of hedge and speculative «schematic» transactions for the purpose of tax incentives for the former and restriction of the latter. Complexity of derivatives is constantly increasing, the companies have the possibility to adjust every instrument to their individual needs. All these processes impede the establishment of the standardized classification of derivatives. Additional problems arise from the lack of a unified terminology in Russian legislation and of the systematic approach to the regulation of the derivatives market.
The article analyzes the activity of the Management of public savings banks (rus. UGSK) not only a structural subdivision of the State Bank of Russian empire, but also directly controlled by the Ministry of finance independent agency during the World War I.
The article reviews current debates over Russia’s central bank policies, particularly, the publications by Ksenia Yudaeva and Sergey Glazyev in «Voprosy economiki» (№ 9, 2014). It is argued that policy recommendations by Sergey Glazyev would not be sufficient for increasing investment component of GDP, and boosting bank lending to industrial enterprises. More radical policy measures conducive to the change of financial paradigm would be required.