종합금융투자사업자의 기업신용공여 허용에 관한 연구-증권업과 은행업의 분리-

Abstract

A Recent amendment of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act has caused controversy. This amendment defined a concept of investment banking in Korea and allowed several investment banks to do corporate loans. The central bank oppose this amendment, for it might trigger shadow banking; However, investment banks argue that it might contribute to activate the financial market in Korea. This study is about the validity of this amendment. In particular, this study argues that this amendment which enlarges a scope of investment banking is not out-of-date. Since the global financial crisis in 2008, USA tends to return to the Glass-Steagall Act, but establishing a relationship between IB and CB is not more than a political choice. In fact, Europe still maintains universal banking system in which investment banks are not separated from commercial banks. Furthermore, Korea is free from problems of shadow banking or system risk, for Korean capital market is not big enough to cause TBTF. Recent studies of Industrial Organization which said that separate regulations of IB and CB are not efficient can be a just cause for this amendment. As a result, this amendment is in line with universal banking, the initial state of banks, so it is necessary to find efficient regulations to cover both IB and CB. The amendments is expected to contribute development of Korean financial market.