Finansų įstaigų priežiūra: tendencijos ir alternatyvos

Straipsnyje aptariami pagrindiniai finansų įstaigų priežiūros tikslai ir priežiūros rūšys, išskiriami priežiūros objektai, analizuojamas priežiūros veiksmingumo klausimas. Trumpai apžvelgiama įvairiose šalyse sutinkama priežiūros modelių įvairovė ir priežiūros tarnybų plėtra. Straipsnyje mėginama įvertinti svarbiausius bendros visų finansų įstaigų priežiūros tarnybos sukūrimo privalumus, atsižvelgiant ir įgalimus nepageidaujamus tokio žingsnio padarinius. Nagrinėjamas bendros finansų įstaigų priežiūros tarnybos steigimo Lietuvoje reikalingumas.The article analyses the development of financial supervision in European countries. The general trend in recent years was to establish a single national financial services regulator covering a broad range of financial services activities and spanning both prudential and conduct of business regulation. Single regulator in the UK, called Financial Services Authority, was established in the year 1997. Single national services regulators exist in Hungary, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Norway and Sweden. Latvia (Finansu un Kapitāla Tirgus Komisija) joined this list last year and Estonia (Eesti Finantsinspektsioon) in 2002. In all cases a single regulator is responsible for the supervision of credit institutions, insurance companies and securities market participants. There is no financial supervision model that is optimal for every country in all circumstances, in part, because financial markets are developing differently in various countries. Moreover, just as there are different central banking models around the world, there are different integrated regulators. They exist ino various shapes and sizes. They cover different combinations and functions, with different sets of powers and responsibilities. There is no single blueprint for a single regulator. The article analyses the rationale for setting an integrated national financial services regulator, as well as the main criticisms that have been advanced against the single regulator model. The authors conclude, that after weighting benefits and costs of a single regulator model, the proposed model is the most suitable supervision model, ensuring the most efficient supervision in Lithuania