-
尊敬的吉宁书记、中国人民银行原行长小川先生、龚正市长，尊敬的王江、云泽、吴清、海峰、鹤新同志，尊敬的各位来宾： 大家好！ 非常感谢上海市委、市政府特别是陈书记、龚市长对金融事业和人民银行的关心和支持，非常荣幸担任本届论坛的共同轮值主席。经过多年努力，陆家嘴论坛已经成为具有很强国际影响力和市场传播力的交流平台。我代表人民银行，也代表主办方，向大家表示热烈的欢迎和衷心的感谢！ 在去年的陆家嘴论坛上，我报告了中国的货币政策立场和未来货币政策框架的演进。一年来，人民银行坚持支持性的货币政策立场，从数量、价格、结构等方面，出台了多项货币政策措施，有效支持了经济持续回升向好和金融市场的稳定。同时，我们完善货币政策框架，优化货币政策中间变量，培育政策利率，提升货币政策传导效率，丰富货币政策工具箱，做好政策沟通和预期引导。货币政策框架的转型是一个渐进、持续的过程，未来我们还将不断地做好评估和完善。 下面，我以“关于全球金融治理的若干思考”为主题，与大家做一个交流。全球金融治理是一个十分宽泛的话题。今天，我主要聚焦国际货币体系、跨境支付体系、全球金融稳定体系、国际金融组织治理四个问题，与大家分享几点看法。 第一个问题，关于国际货币体系。 从历史看，国际货币体系始终处于演进之中，国际主导货币的更替反映了国际格局的深刻变化和国家竞争力的迭代。17世纪，荷兰盾成为早期国际通用货币；18世纪末至20世纪上半叶，英镑成为国际主导货币；二战后，美元确立主导地位并延续至今。 国际主导货币具有全球公共品的属性，由一国主权货币来承担，与生俱来就存在一些内在的不稳定问题。一是当主权货币国自身利益与全球公共品属性发生矛盾时，主权货币国会更多考虑自身利益，影响对全球公共品的提供。二是主权货币国的财政和金融监管问题、内部经济结构性矛盾的不断累积，会以金融风险的形式向全球溢出，甚至演变为国际金融危机。三是当出现地缘政治冲突、国家安全利益考量甚至战争时，国际主导货币容易被工具化、武器化。 因存在上述问题，国际上对改革货币体系的讨论越来越多。过去十多年，国际货币体系变革的驱动力量，主要来自国际金融危机之后的经济金融层面，相关讨论也主要是在经济金融层面；当前新一轮的讨论，更多来自地缘政治层面。这些讨论大致有两个方向。 第一个方向，是如何弱化对单一主权货币的过度依赖和负面影响，形成少数强势主权货币的良性竞争和激励约束机制。国际货币体系向多极化发展，有助于推动主权货币国强化政策约束，提升国际货币体系韧性，更有效地维护全球经济金融稳定。欧央行行长拉加德女士最近有个演讲，她认为，基于多边合作的全球体系正在裂变，美元的主导地位不确定性上升，欧元有望在全球货币体系中扮演更重要的角色。 过去20多年中，国际货币体系的演进有两个重要特征。一是欧元于1999年诞生，目前在全球外汇储备中的占比约为20%，仅次于美元。二是2008年国际金融危机后，人民币国际地位稳步上升。人民币已成为全球第二大贸易融资货币；按全口径计算，人民币已成为全球第三大支付货币；在国际货币基金组织（IMF）特别提款权（SDR）货币篮子中的权重位列全球第三。 未来，国际货币体系可能继续朝着少数几个主权货币并存、相互竞争、相互制衡的格局演进。无论是单一主权货币还是少数几个主权货币作为国际主导货币，主权货币国都需要承担相应责任，强化国内财政纪律和金融监管，推进经济结构性改革。 讨论的第二个方向，是由一种超主权货币作为国际主导货币，讨论比较多的是IMF特别提款权（SDR）。人民银行前行长周小川先生就曾在2009年提出过这一问题。理论上，SDR能够较好地克服单一主权货币作为国际主导货币的内在问题，具有更强的稳定性，可以更好承担全球公共品的职能，调节全球流动性并实施危机救助，具有成为超主权国际货币的特征。 SDR成为国际主导货币，在政治层面上面临着国际共识和驱动力不足的问题，而且目前市场的规模、深度、流动性不足，发挥的作用比较有限。推动SDR成为国际主导货币，需要各成员国在政治层面凝聚共识，而在当前国际环境下，做到这一点并不容易。在操作层面，需要优化机制安排，逐步扩大SDR的使用。在分配和发行机制上，目前IMF分配SDR主要用于危机应对，多采取一次性大额发行的方式。未来，可增加常态化SDR发行并扩大发行规模。在使用范围上，积极推动私营部门和各类市场主体积极参与，在国际贸易、投融资活动中广泛使用SDR，发行以SDR计价的债券，提升SDR作为储备资产的作用，并建立适应大规模使用的SDR结算机制。 第二个问题，关于跨境支付体系。 跨境支付体系是全球货币资金运行的“动脉”，是促进国际贸易和投融资、维护金融稳定的重要依托，也是国际货币体系的重要支撑。国际货币体系向少数几个主权货币并存演进和数字技术的快速发展，将促进跨境支付体系的多元化发展；多元化的跨境支付体系反过来也将加速国际货币体系的变革。 近年来，传统跨境支付体系面临的问题逐渐凸显。一是传统跨境支付方式与新兴数字技术存在代差，效率低、成本高、普及性差等问题亟待改善。二是跨境支付需要协调不同的法律和监管框架、更多的利益相关者，国际合作有待加强。对此，G20等国际组织高度关注，专门制定了改善跨境支付的路线图。三是地缘政治博弈加剧，传统跨境支付基础设施容易被政治化、武器化，作为单边制裁工具使用，破坏国际经济金融秩序。 在这种背景下，全球希望改善跨境支付体系的呼声不断高涨，新兴支付基础设施和结算方式不断涌现，推动全球跨境支付体系朝着更加高效、安全、包容、多元的方向发展。这一趋势未来会持续增强。 一是跨境支付体系向多元化发展。币种方面，越来越多的国家和地区使用本币结算，促进更多货币的国际化使用，单一主权货币主导跨境支付的局面正逐步改变。渠道方面，除传统的代理行模式外，新兴跨境支付系统、区域性多边支付系统等陆续出现，结算渠道更加多样，跨境支付效率进一步提升。经过十余年的建设与发展，中国已初步建成多渠道、广覆盖的人民币跨境支付清算网络。 二是支付系统和生态的互操作性不断提升。更多国家和地区延长支付系统运行时间、采用国际通用报文、推进快速支付系统互联互通，提高跨境支付的效率、降低交易成本。以亚洲为代表的国家和地区通过二维码支付互联互通，大幅提高了零售支付生态的互操作性，极大便利了居民跨境支付。 三是新兴技术在跨境支付领域加速应用。区块链和分布式账本等新兴技术推动央行数字货币、稳定币蓬勃发展，实现了“支付即结算”，从底层重塑传统支付体系，大幅缩短跨境支付链条，同时对金融监管也提出了巨大的挑战。智能合约、去中心化金融等技术也将持续推动跨境支付体系的演进和发展。 第三个问题，关于全球金融稳定体系。 2008年金融危机前，国际社会主要依赖以IMF为主的全球金融安全网进行事中事后救助。危机之后，进一步强化了金融监管规则等事前防范机制。 一方面，多层次的金融安全网持续完善。在去年3月的博鳌亚洲论坛上，我就加强金融安全网建设作了演讲。在全球层面，近年来，IMF不断增强危机救助能力，强化政策监督职能，扩大政策监督范围。在区域层面，欧洲稳定基金、拉美储备基金、亚洲清迈倡议、阿拉伯货币基金等相继建立，成为相关地区金融稳定的重要支撑。在双边层面，美联储、欧央行等主要发达经济体央行通过货币互换机制，在危机时期向市场注入流动性。新兴市场本币互换合作也在稳步推进。目前人民银行与30多个国家和地区央行或货币当局签订双边本币互换协议，成为全球金融安全网的重要组成部分。 另一方面，基于监管规则的危机防范体系不断完善。金融危机后，国际社会对全球金融监管体系进行了一系列重大改革，包括发布《巴塞尔协议III》，增强银行机构的稳健性、强化对系统重要性金融机构的监管等。中国一直积极参与国际金融监管标准的制定与实施，是少数全面实施《巴塞尔协议III》的经济体之一；已建立系统重要性金融机构监管框架，中国系统重要性银行总损失吸收能力已全部达标；建立了存款保险制度，能为99%以上的存款人提供全额保障；出台并全面实施资管新规，影子银行风险大幅压降。 当前，全球金融稳定体系正面临一些新的挑战。 第一，监管框架仍然碎片化，甚至出现“竞争性逐底”的倾向。近来，《巴塞尔协议III》等国际监管规则的执行受成员国国内政治因素影响出现摆动，可能会带来监管套利，削弱全球金融稳定体系。国际社会应积极落实已议定的监管改革措施，防范监管套利和风险跨境传导。 第二，数字金融等一些新兴领域监管不足。比如，对于快速扩张的加密资产市场和气候风险相关的监管框架，全球监管协调不足，监管的取向大幅摆动并受政治的驱动太强；人工智能在金融领域的应用，缺乏统一监管标准。全球需要加强监管协同，补齐监管短板。 第三，对非银行中介机构的监管仍然薄弱。过去20年，非银行中介机构在全球融资中的比重大幅上升。这类融资稳定性较弱，透明度较低，杠杆水平不断上升，监管有待加强。 我们认为，以强有力的国际货币基金组织为核心，构建多元、高效的全球金融安全网，维护全球金融监管规则的一致性和权威性，是危机防范与化解的关键路径，也是应该继续坚持的方向。 第四个问题，关于国际金融组织治理。 二战后，国际社会从IMF和世界银行起步，逐步建立了多层次、多维度的国际金融组织体系，覆盖了国际政策协调、金融监管规则制定、多边开发机构等领域，成为开展国际金融治理的主要制度性平台，对于促进全球经济和贸易增长、维护全球金融稳定发挥着重要作用。 随着全球经济格局变化，IMF、世界银行等主要国际金融组织和一些区域性金融组织的份额和投票权长期缺乏实质性调整，新兴市场和发展中国家的占比明显低于在全球经济中的实际地位。国际社会还应关注，个别成员国奉行单边主义的政策取向，干预和影响了国际金融组织的治理和运作。国际金融组织需要与时俱进推进治理改革，动态反映成员国在全球经济中的相对地位，提高新兴市场和发展中国家的话语权和代表性，维护和践行真正的多边主义，提升治理效率。 在诸多国际金融组织中，IMF处于核心地位，在全球经济金融治理中发挥着重要作用。IMF是以份额为基础的国际金融组织。份额规模决定了IMF的危机救助能力，份额占比决定了成员国在基金组织的投票权和获取融资的规模。当前IMF的份额占比没有能反映成员国在全球经济中的相对地位。按照已达成的共识，尽快推动份额占比调整，是IMF完善治理、提升自身合法性、代表性的关键。 当前，全球经济面临高度不确定性。在完善治理结构的同时，主要国际金融组织应进一步强化经济监督职能，客观评估全球和各国面临的风险，积极引导各国坚定支持经济全球化和多边贸易体系。加强对各国的政策引导，强化宏观经济政策协调，维护国际金融体系稳定。 各位来宾： 完善全球金融治理，需要各方加强对话与合作。我们将坚持走改革开放之路、多边主义之路，积极发挥建设性作用，为构建更加公平、公正、包容、有韧性的全球金融治理体系贡献力量。 最后，预祝本届陆家嘴论坛圆满成功，谢谢大家！ 2025-06-25/gansu/2025/0625/2173.html
-
尊敬的吉宁书记、中国人民银行原行长小川先生、龚正市长，尊敬的王江、功胜、云泽、吴清、海峰同志，尊敬的各位来宾： 大家好！很高兴参加陆家嘴论坛。借此机会，我就坚定推进外汇领域深层次改革和高水平开放，积极服务经济高质量发展，和大家交流几点想法。 4月以来，国际经贸秩序遭受严重冲击，国际金融市场大幅波动。在党中央坚强领导下，我国加大宏观政策逆周期调节力度，有力有效应对外部冲击，外汇市场在复杂严峻形势下运行总体平稳。今年以来，人民币汇率双向波动、弹性增强，人民币对美元汇率升值1.6%，对一篮子货币总体稳定；我国外贸保持较强韧性，经常账户顺差处于合理均衡水平；跨境投资更趋活跃，外资净增持境内债券处于较高水平，近期买入境内股票也有所增多。 未来，我国外汇市场仍有条件保持平稳运行。一是经济运行将延续回升向好态势。我国正加紧实施更加积极有为的宏观政策，把发展的战略立足点更多放在扩大内需、做强国内大循环上，同时培育壮大新质生产力，将有力促进经济稳中向好。近期多个国际组织和投行上调了2025年中国经济增长预期。二是国际收支将保持基本平衡。我国坚持对外开放不动摇，加大稳外贸稳外资政策力度，有序扩大金融市场开放，这些因素有助于促进跨境资金均衡流动。三是外汇市场韧性将持续增强。参与主体更加成熟理性，企业外汇套期保值比例和货物贸易项下人民币跨境收支占比均提升至30%左右，应对汇率波动的能力显著增强。近年来我们也积累了丰富的风险应对经验，虽然外部环境不确定、不稳定因素依然较多，我们有能力有信心保持外汇市场稳健运行，保持人民币汇率在合理均衡水平上的基本稳定，为经济高质量发展营造良好环境！ 女士们，先生们！ 习近平总书记强调，要坚定不移办好自己的事，坚定不移扩大高水平对外开放，以高质量发展的确定性应对外部环境急剧变化的不确定性。我们将统筹发展和安全，坚持深化外汇领域改革开放，推进外汇领域治理体系治理能力现代化，建立健全“更加便利、更加开放、更加安全、更加智慧”的外汇管理体制机制，坚定不移走中国特色金融发展之路，为我国经济高质量发展提供更加有力的外汇支持。 第一，在“更加便利”方面，不断完善“越诚信越便利”的外汇政策体系，积极提升外汇服务实体经济质效。我们将加强外汇管理改革创新，赋予诚信合规主体更高便利度，持续提升跨境贸易和投融资便利化水平。一是以科创企业、中小企业为重点做好金融“五篇大文章”，积极支持新质生产力发展，强化对重大战略、重点领域、薄弱环节的全链条外汇服务。二是稳步推进银行外汇展业改革，全面优化事前尽职调查、事中差异化审核、事后监测报告的管理框架，实现提高效率和防控风险的有机结合。三是建立外汇管理政策评估机制和外汇生态评估机制，以是否符合国家战略定位、是否符合地方发展实际、是否取得惠企利民的改革实效为标尺，不断增强政策“含金量”，让群众和企业有更多获得感。 第二，在“更加开放”方面，推动外汇领域高水平制度型开放，助力建设更高水平开放型经济新体制。我们将加强改革整体谋划和系统集成，统筹推进人民币国际化与资本项目高质量开放，强化本外币一体化管理，营造市场化、法治化、国际化一流营商环境。一是深化直接投资外汇管理体制改革，缩减外商直接投资外汇登记流程和资金使用负面清单，稳步支持企业参与产业链供应链国际合作。二是稳慎拓展金融市场互联互通，优化合格境外投资者制度，便利外资金融机构来华投资兴业。三是推进外债管理改革，优化额度管理，缩减外债资金使用“负面清单”，有序开展外债登记由银行办理。四是深化外汇市场发展和对外开放，完善外汇市场产品体系，扩大境内外汇市场参与主体，持续优化企业汇率风险管理服务。五是因地制宜支持区域开放发展，探索自贸试验区外汇管理政策集成式改革创新，积极支持海南自由贸易港、粤港澳大湾区等重点区域建设。 第三，在“更加安全”方面，加强外汇市场“宏观审慎+微观监管”两位一体管理，维护外汇市场稳定和国家经济金融安全。我们将坚持底线思维，强化开放监管能力和风险防控能力，促进高质量发展和高水平安全的良性互动。一是坚决防范外部冲击风险，强化跨境资金流动监测预警，加强宏观审慎管理和预期引导，保持人民币汇率在合理均衡水平上的基本稳定，保持国际收支基本平衡。二是全面加强外汇领域监管，推动外汇监管方式向主体监管转变，高压打击外汇领域违法违规活动，提升外汇领域新型违法犯罪识别打击能力。 第四，在“更加智慧”方面，妥善运用人工智能、大数据等科技手段，提升外汇管理数字化智能化水平。我们将加强“智慧外管”建设，为群众和企业提供更加智能高效、安全便捷的外汇服务，同时不断提升风险识别和业务监管的智能性、精准性、有效性，以先进的科技手段为外汇管理赋能。 女士们，先生们！ 当前，世界百年变局加速演进，面对外部环境急剧变化，我们将认真贯彻落实4月25日中央政治局会议精神，坚持目标导向和问题导向，聚焦市场需求，积极推出多项支持性政策，助力稳就业、稳企业、稳市场、稳预期。 一是多措并举支持外贸企业发展。进一步深化贸易外汇业务管理改革，实施扩大跨境贸易高水平开放试点、鼓励银行将更多贸易新业态主体纳入贸易便利化政策、优化外贸综合服务企业外汇资金结算、便利诚信的承包工程企业境外资金集中管理等便利化政策，支持贸易创新发展。 二是积极推进跨境投融资便利化。在全国实施支持科研机构吸引利用外资、扩大科技型企业跨境融资便利、缩减资本项目收入使用负面清单等便利化政策，更好支持国际经贸合作和人员往来。在全国推广跨国公司本外币一体化资金池政策，便利跨国公司集团资金归集使用。开展绿色外债政策试点，鼓励符合条件的企业借用外债用于绿色项目。完善境内企业境外上市资金管理，统一本外币管理政策，便利募集资金调回境内使用。近期将新发放一批合格境内机构投资者（QDII）投资额度，有序满足境内主体境外投资合理需求。 三是在自贸试验区实施一揽子外汇创新政策。包括优化新型国际贸易结算、扩大合格境外有限合伙人（QFLP）试点等10项便利化政策，积极支持自由贸易试验区提升战略。 女士们，先生们！ 加快建设上海国际金融中心，是党中央作出的一项重大战略部署，对服务构建新发展格局、推动经济高质量发展具有特殊重要意义。近年来，上海国际金融中心建设成效显著，上海已发展为我国金融市场体系最全、金融机构种类最多、金融开放程度最高的城市。 今年以来，我们持续加大对上海国际金融中心建设的支持力度。前一段时间，中国人民银行、金融监管总局、国家外汇局、上海市人民政府联合印发了《上海国际金融中心进一步提升跨境金融服务便利化行动方案》。近期，中国人民银行、国家外汇局批复了上海自贸试验区自由贸易账户功能升级方案，以及临港新片区离岸贸易金融服务综合改革试点工作方案。 下一步，我们将继续加强高质量政策和服务供给，支持各类主体更加安全、便捷、高效参与国际竞争与合作，不断增强上海国际金融中心的竞争力和影响力。 最后，祝本次论坛取得圆满成功！谢谢！ 2025-06-25/gansu/2025/0625/2172.html
-
深圳入境消费持续高增长，假日经济打造深港“双向奔赴”消费盛宴 2025年1-5月，深圳入境消费市场持续火热。境外人士在深非现金支付交易7109.5万笔、97.4亿元，同比分别增长31%、37%。其中，港人仍然是来深消费主力，且热情持续高涨，其交易笔数、金额分别占比68%、60%，同比分别增长25%、27%。 “五一”小长假期间，深圳入境消费迎来爆发式增长。境外人士在深非现金支付交易248.9万笔、2.83亿元，同比增速分别高达64%、58%，展现出强劲的假日消费动能。其中，港人非现金支付交易笔数、金额分别占比75%、76%，同比分别增长66%、56%。 入境消费群体日趋多元，深圳对东南亚市场的吸引力与日俱增 2025年1-5月，韩国、美国、新加坡位列深圳入境消费市场前三大客源国，合计贡献了超4成消费额，分别占比17%、13%、13%。俄罗斯和马来西亚紧随其后，各占8%的市场份额。加拿大、澳大利亚、日本和英国消费者则分别贡献了6%、5%、5%和4%的消费额。 消费潜力方面，东南亚游客在深消费增速“领跑”。2025年1-5月，老挝、泰国游客在深消费额同比分别激增125倍、17倍。节假日期间，这一趋势也同样明显。“五一”小长假，泰国、印尼游客在深消费额同比飙升14倍、9倍。端午假期，泰国、柬埔寨游客在深消费额同比分别暴增25倍、17倍，展现出强劲的增长势头。 迈向国际消费之都，深圳购物、美食、文旅融合发展 港人来深消费主要集中在商超购物和餐饮美食两大领域，2025年1-5月合计消费占比超7成。交通出行则成为港人来深消费的主要“增长点”，消费额同比增长40%，远超其他行业。 外国人也同样热衷于来深购物，2025年1-5月相关消费额同比增长28%。 节假日期间，境外人士的文旅消费需求持续释放。其中，“五一”、端午假期的旅游娱乐类消费笔数增长最快，同比分别增长29%、40%。 推动离境退税提质增效，入境消费潜力不断释放 在提升境外人士消费体验的同时，深圳也在推动跨境消费提质升级。在全国首批推行离境退税“即买即退”政策、率先推出离境退税“一单一包”便利化模式，深圳已成为全国唯一海陆空全类型离境退税口岸的城市，以先行先试的创新实践不断提升境外人士在深消费的便捷性、满意度和获得感。 2025年1-5月，深圳市离境退税商品销售额同比增长超2.1倍，其中，“即买即退”商品销售额同比增长超20倍。离境退税的系列便利措施不仅为商圈消费积极赋能，也有力支持了深圳国际消费中心城市的建设。 2025-06-25/shenzhen/2025/0625/2158.html
-
为进一步促进跨境投融资便利化，支持租赁业在天津高质量发展，近日，在国家外汇管理局的支持和指导下，天津市分局对资本项目支持租赁业发展政策进行集成优化，并编制了典型案例，便利租赁企业高效合规办理租赁业务。 资本项目支持租赁业发展政策集成主要包括四项内容：一是允许融资租赁类公司境内收取外币租金；二是支持金融租赁公司向其设立的项目公司进行外币直接借款；三是实施融资租赁公司外债便利化试点；四是支持融资租赁企业开展离岸租赁业务。 下一步，天津市分局将持续秉承“金融为民”服务理念，指导辖内银行和企业进一步用好资本项目支持租赁业发展的政策措施，充分释放政策红利，巩固拓展政策的规模效应，助力天津租赁业高质量发展。 附件：国家外汇管理局天津市分局资本项目支持天津租赁业高质量发展政策集成及典型案例 2025-06-25/tianjin/2025/0625/2819.html
-
为深入贯彻中央经济工作会议精神，践行“外汇为民”理念，6月18日，武威市分局联合农业银行武威分行开展“送政策、提方案”专场宣讲活动，与企业负责人开展深入交流，有效传递外汇便利化政策，帮助企业树立汇率风险中性理念，推动“入企送策”走向深处。 座谈中，企业负责人详细介绍了企业文化、发展战略、现有外汇业务、面临的经营难题以及未来的发展规划等情况。武威市分局在了解到企业经营情况及结算特点后，积极向企业宣讲了优质企业贸易外汇收支便利化、汇率避险等外汇政策，帮助企业厘清其外汇风险敞口，鼓励企业用好用活政策，充分提升自身结算便利化程度，降低面临的汇率风险敞口。农业银行武威分行以辖区典型案例宣讲了便利化政策、汇率风险中性理念，并提出了合理的避险方案，有效提升企业汇率避险意识。 下一步，武威市分局将继续以“便民利企”为导向，加大汇银联合走访力度，鼓励资源与宣传向县域企业倾斜，推动外汇服务从“窗口”延伸到“厂门口”，同时密切关注涉汇主体场实需对接进展，主动询问、及时响应企业服务需求，为地方开放型经济注入新动能。 2025-06-19/gansu/2025/0625/2170.html
-
为推动深入贯彻中央八项规定精神学习教育走深走实，6月18日，嘉峪关市分局外汇管理科党支部开展党日活动，教育引导支部广大党员干部坚持问题导向，严防违规吃喝等不正之风。 持续学习领会习近平总书记关于加强党的作风建设的重要论述和《锲而不舍落实中央八项规定精神，以优良党风引领社风民风》等重要文章，从思想上固本培元、筑牢根基，引导全体党员深刻认识违规吃喝的政治危害，对照查摆、从严守纪，自觉抵制不良习气和违规吃喝歪风。同时围绕“推进作风业务双提升”开展专题研讨，督促支部全体人员牢记政治机关定位，旗帜鲜明讲政治、令行禁止守纪律，以作风持续改进推动外汇管理履职能力不断提升。对标业务考核指标体系，组织开展重点工作推进情况“年中回头看”，拾遗补缺，带动全年工作稳中有进。 2025-06-25/gansu/2025/0625/2171.html
-
为贯彻落实好党中央、国务院关于稳外贸稳外资的各项工作部署，及时了解中韩（盐城）产业园企业对外汇管理工作的满意程度，准确掌握企业相关意见建议及政策诉求，6月19日下午，盐城市分局联合盐城经济技术开发区管委会举办中韩（盐城）产业园企业座谈会暨外汇政策宣讲会。盐城市分局副局长耿耿、盐城经济技术开发区副主任董玲玲、中韩（盐城）产业园近40家企业代表参加此次会议。 会上，盐城市分局就汇率避险管理、跨境贸易投融资高水平开放试点等政策进行宣讲解读。会议现场气氛活跃，宣讲人员现场解答参会企业提出的业务问题，耿耿副局长对外汇政策要点及管理导向进行提示总结。 下一步，盐城市分局将继续推动外汇政策宣讲工作，进一步畅通外汇政策传导渠道，有效提升外汇管理服务实体经济水平，助力盐城开放型经济高质量发展。 2025-06-26/jiangsu/2025/0626/1090.html
-
2024年中国国际收支报告 2025-03-29/chongqing/2025/0329/3195.html
-
2025-06-23https://www.gov.cn/yaowen/liebiao/202506/content_7028797.htm
-
Distinguished Party Secretary Chen Jining, Former PBOC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, Mayor Gong Zheng, Deputy Director Wang Jiang, Minister Li Yunze, Chairman Wu Qing, Vice Minister Hu Haifeng, Administrator Zhu Hexin, and dear guests, Good morning! I would like to thank Shanghai Municipal Committee of the CPC and Shanghai Municipal People’s Government, especially Party Secretary Chen Jining and Mayor Gong Zheng. Thank you for your care and support for the financial work and the People’s Bank of China (PBOC). It is a great honor for me to be the co-chairperson of this year’s Lujiazui Forum. After years of efforts, the Forum has grown into a communication platform with significant global influence and wide market reach. On behalf of the PBOC and other hosts, I would like to express warm welcome and sincere gratitude to everyone. At last year’s Forum, I discussed China’s monetary policy stance and the evolution of monetary policy framework down the road. Over the past year, the PBOC has adopted an accommodative monetary policy stance and rolled out multiple monetary policy measures. The aggregate and structural policy tools have effectively supported the sustained economic recovery and financial market stability. At the same time, we have improved the monetary policy framework, optimized the intermediate monetary policy variables, cultivated policy rates, enhanced monetary policy transmission efficiency, diversified monetary policy toolkit, and strengthened policy communication and expectation guidance. The transformation of monetary policy framework is a gradual and ongoing process, and we will continue to conduct assessments and make refinements in the future. Now, I would like to share with you my observations on global financial governance. This is a very broad topic. So I will focus on four issues: international monetary system, cross-border payment system, global financial stability system, and the governance of international financial organizations. I. On the International Monetary System Throughout history, the international monetary system has never stopped evolving. The replacement of global dominant currencies reflects the profound change in the international landscape and the iteration of national competitiveness. In the 17th century, the Dutch Guilder became the early international currency. From the late 18th century to the first half of the 20th century, the British pound was the dominant currency globally. After the World War II, the U.S. dollar established its dominance and has retained its status up till now. As a global public good, the international currency, if dominated by the sovereign currency of a single country, has inherent instabilities. First, a sovereign currency issuer tends to prioritize its own interests over the supply of global public goods when its own interests conflict with the attribute as a global public good. Second, fiscal and financial regulatory issues of a sovereign currency issuer and the accumulation of structural problems in its domestic economy may generate financial risks with spillover effects, or even escalate into a global financial crisis. Third, in times of geopolitical tensions, national security concerns, or even wars, the global dominant currency tends to be instrumentalized or weaponized. The above problems have driven growing global discussions on the reform of international monetary system. Over the past decade, the driving forces behind the shifts in the international monetary system stemmed primarily from the economic and financial dimensions in the wake of the global financial crisis, and hence the discussions were centered on economic and financial developments. The discussions this time around, however, are mainly driven by geopolitical issues. Broadly speaking, there are two lines of argument. The first one is on how to weaken the excessive reliance on a single sovereign currency and its negative impacts, foster healthy competition among a few strong sovereign currencies, and put in place incentive-restraint mechanisms. A multipolar international monetary system can prompt sovereign currency issuers to strengthen policy constraints, enhance the resilience of international monetary system, and more effectively safeguard global economic and financial stability. Madam Lagarde, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), noted in her recent speech that the global order based on multilateral cooperation is fracturing, with uncertainty about the dominant role of the U.S. dollar, and the changing landscape could open the door for the euro to play a greater international role. Over the past two decades, the evolution of international monetary system had two key features. The first was the creation of the euro in 1999. The euro now accounts for around 20 percent of global foreign exchange reserves, second only to the U.S. dollar. The second was the steady rise of the RMB’s international status after the global financial crisis in 2008. The RMB has already become the world’s second largest trade finance currency. Calculated on a comprehensive basis, the RMB has become the world’s third largest payment currency. Besides, the weight of the RMB in the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) currency basket ranks third. Going forward, the international monetary system is likely to continue its evolution towards a system where a few sovereign currencies coexist and compete with checks and balances. Be it a single sovereign currency or a small group of sovereign currencies serving as the global dominant currency, the sovereign currency issuers should assume their responsibilities by strengthening domestic fiscal discipline and financial regulation, and advancing the structural reform of the economy. The second line of argument is on a super-sovereign currency serving as the global dominant currency, and discussions have been largely focused on SDRs. Dr. Zhou Xiaochuan, former governor of the PBOC, once raised this issue in 2009. Theoretically, SDRs can effectively overcome the inherent problems of a single sovereign currency as the global dominant currency. It offers greater stability in currency value and is better positioned to function as a global public good, as it can help manage global liquidity and facilitate crisis response. The SDR has the attributes of a super-sovereign currency. Having said that, we still lack political consensus and will globally, if the SDR were to become a global dominant currency. Moreover, insufficient market scale, depth and liquidity have limited the role of SDRs. Turning SDRs into a global dominant currency requires member countries to build political consensus, which is not easy, given the current international landscape. Optimizing operational arrangements is also needed to gradually expand the usage of SDRs. In terms of allocation and issuance mechanisms, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) issues SDRs mainly as part of crisis response and mostly in the form of a large one-off allocation. In the future, the IMF can issue SDRs regularly and expand the size of issuance. Regarding the scope of use, we need to encourage private sector and market entities to use SDRs in international trade, investment and financing, and to issue SDR-denominated bonds. We need to enhance the role of SDRs as a reserve asset, and establish the SDR settlement mechanism adaptable to large-scale usage. II. On the Cross-Border Payment System The cross-border payment system serves as the artery of global funds flow. It is a keystone for facilitating international trade, investment and financing, and for safeguarding financial stability. It is also a vital pillar of the international monetary system. The evolution of the international monetary system towards coexistence of a few sovereign currencies and booming digital technologies will promote the diversification of the cross-border payment system, which will, in turn, accelerate the shifts in the international monetary system. In recent years, problems faced by the traditional cross-border payment system have loomed large. First, there is a generational differences between traditional cross-border payments and emerging digital technologies. Problems of low efficiency, high costs, and poor penetration demand urgent resolution. Second, cross-border payments require coordination among different legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as among different stakeholders. Therefore, we need to enhance international cooperation. G20 and other international organizations attach great importance to promoting cross-border payments, and formulated a roadmap to enhance cross-border payments. Third, the geopolitical rivalry has escalated. The traditional cross-border payment infrastructures can be easily politicized, weaponized, and used as unilateral sanction instruments, thus undermining the international economic and financial order. Against this background, there have been growing calls for improving the cross-border payment system. New payment infrastructures and settlement methods are continuously emerging, driving the global cross-border payment system onto a more efficient, secure, inclusive and diverse trajectory. This trend will continue to strengthen. First, the cross-border payment system has become more diversified. In terms of currency usage, an increasing number of countries and regions are using local currencies for settlement, promoting the international use of a broader range of currencies. Cross-border payments dominated by a single sovereign currency are undergoing gradual changes. As for payment channels, the rise of new cross-border payment systems and regional multilateral payment systems, along with the traditional correspondent bank model, has diversified settlement channels and further improved the efficiency of cross-border payments. After over a decade of construction and development, China has basically established a cross-border RMB payment and clearing network featuring multiple channels and wide coverage. Second, the interoperability of payment systems and payment ecosystems continues to improve. More countries and regions have extended the operating hours of their payment systems, adopted internationally standardized messaging formats, and promoted the interconnection of fast payment systems. These efforts have enhanced the efficiency of cross-border payments and reduced transaction costs. Countries and regions exemplified by Asia have made substantial progress in enhancing the interoperability of retail payment ecosystems through the interconnection of QR code payments, greatly facilitating cross-border payments by their residents. Third, new technologies are used in cross-border payments at a faster pace. Underpinned by new technologies such as blockchain and distributed ledger, central bank digital currencies and stablecoins are thriving, making possible the simultaneous processing of payment and settlement. The development has fundamentally reshaped the traditional payment landscape, and significantly shortened the cross-border payment chain. It, however, has also posed great challenges to financial regulation. Technologies, such as smart contracts and decentralized finance, will further promote the evolution and development of cross-border payment systems. III. On the Global Financial Stability System Before the 2008 financial crisis, the international community mainly relied on IMF, which is at the center of the Global Financial Safety Net (GFSN), for crisis response during and after crisis. After the 2008 financial crisis, ex ante prevention mechanisms such as financial regulatory rules were further strengthened. On the one hand, the multi-layer financial safety net has continued to improve. I gave a speech on strengthening the financial safety net at the Boao Forum for Asia in March last year. At the global level, in recent years, the IMF has continuously enhanced its crisis response capabilities in times of crisis, strengthened its policy surveillance functions, and expanded the scope of policy surveillance. At the regional level, the European Financial Stability Facility, the Latin American Reserve Fund, the Chiang Mai Initiative in Asia, and the Arab Monetary Fund have been established successively, serving as important supports for financial stability in their respective regions. At the bilateral level, central banks in the major advanced economies such as the U.S. Federal Reserve and the ECB have injected liquidity into the markets during crisis through currency swap arrangements. The local currency swap cooperation among emerging markets has also progressed steadily. The PBOC has signed bilateral currency swap agreements with central banks or monetary authorities in over 30 countries and regions. These swap arrangements have become an important part of the GFSN. On the other hand, the crisis prevention system based on regulatory rules has been continuously refined. After the 2008 global financial crisis, the international community overhauled the global financial regulatory system through a number of major reforms, including issuing Basel III, enhancing the robustness of banking institutions, and strengthening the supervision of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs). China has been actively involved in the formulation and implementation of international regulatory standards, and is one of the few economies that have fully implemented Basel III. China has developed a regulatory framework for SIFIs, and its systemically important banks have all met the total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) requirements. China has put in place a deposit insurance scheme capable of providing full protection for more than 99 percent of depositors. It has also issued and fully implemented regulations on asset management, which has significantly reduced the risk of shadow banking. Currently, the global financial stability system is faced with some new challenges. First, the regulatory framework remains fragmented. There is even a propensity to “race to the bottom”. In recent years, due to domestic political headwinds, some countries have wavered in their implementation of international regulatory rules, such as Basel III. It may lead to regulatory arbitrage, and undermine global financial stability system. The international community should proactively implement the agreed regulatory reform measures, thereby preventing regulatory arbitrage and cross-border transmission of risks. Second, the regulation on emerging areas, such as digital finance, remains insufficient. For example, global regulatory coordination is incommensurate with the quick-expanding crypto asset market, and coordination on climate risk-related regulatory framework is yet to be improved. Regulatory stance swings widely, and is highly prone to political influence. A harmonized regulatory standard on the adoption of artificial intelligence in the financial sector is also absent. The international community needs to strengthen coordination and bridge the gaps in regulation. Third, the regulation on non-bank intermediaries remains lax. In the past two decades, the weight of non-bank intermediaries in global financing has risen significantly. Funding through non-bank intermediaries is relatively unstable and less transparent, yet the leverage is rising, which calls for enhanced regulation. We believe that the key path to crisis prevention and resolution is to establish a diversified and efficient GFSN with a powerful IMF at its core, and to ensure the consistency and authority of global financial regulatory rules. This is also the path that we must follow through. IV. On the Governance of International Financial Organizations After the World War II, starting with the founding of the IMF and the World Bank, the international community gradually built up a multi-tiered and multi-dimensional system of international financial organizations, covering areas such as international policy coordination, financial regulatory rule-making, and multilateral development. These organizations have become major platforms for international financial governance, and they play an important role in promoting global economic and trade growth as well as safeguarding global financial stability. While global economic landscape keeps changing, quotas and voting power haven’t seen any material adjustments for a long time in major international financial organizations, such as the IMF and the World Bank, as well as in some regional financial organizations. As a result, emerging markets and developing countries are significantly underrepresented, and this is incommensurate with their actual weight in the global economy. Moreover, the international community should also be well aware of the fact that a few member countries pursue unilateralism, and they have meddled in the governance and operation of international financial organizations. International financial organizations need to keep pace with the times and advance governance reforms to reflect in time the relative positions of member countries in the global economy and enhance the voice and representativeness of emerging markets and developing countries. International financial organizations should safeguard and practice true multilateralism, and improve governance efficiency. Among all the international financial organizations, the IMF is at the core, and it plays a vital role in global economic and financial governance. The IMF is a quota-based international financial organization. The size of quotas determines the IMF’s crisis response capacity in crisis, while quota shares determine member countries’ voting power in the IMF and the amount of financing they have access to. The current quota shares can not reflect the relative positions of member countries in the global economy. An immediate quota share realignment in line with the consensus reached is crucial for the IMF to improve governance and enhance its legitimacy and representativeness. The global economy is now facing heightened uncertainty. While improving their governance structures, major international financial organizations should further reinforce their roles in economic surveillance. They should assess objectively the risks facing the world and individual countries, and offer guidance to member countries to cement their support for economic globalization and the multilateral trading system. They should also strengthen policy guidance for member countries and enhance macroeconomic policy coordination to keep the international financial system stable. Dear guests, Improving global financial governance requires more frequent dialogues and stronger cooperation among all parties. Staying committed to reform and opening-up and upholding a path of multilateralism, we will work actively to play a constructive role in helping foster a global financial governance system that is more equitable, fair, inclusive, and resilient. To conclude, I wish the Forum a full success. Thank you. 2025-06-18/en/2025/0618/2309.html