近日，广东金融监管局接连发布两则行政处罚信息，剑指人身险行业银保渠道违规乱象。 中国太平洋人寿保险股份有限公司（下称"太平洋人寿"）广州中心支公司、新华人寿保险股份有限公司 （下简"新华保险"）东莞中心支公司及佛山中心支公司相继被罚，相关责任人亦同步受到处罚，凸显监 管层规范银保渠道、严打费用违规的坚定态度。 随着"报行合一"政策落地见效，人身险银保渠道费用得到有效压降。国家金融监督管理总局曾披露，人 身险银保渠道"报行合一"实施后。佣金费率较之前平均水平下降约30%。 但在实际操作中，银保专管员薪酬佣金的合理性、真实性难以精准辨别，给部分险企分支机构留下了违 规操作空间。上述业内人士进一步透露，"虚列银保专管员佣金、为合作银行承担营销费用"等行为，本 质上是险企变相支付额外费用、争抢银行渠道资源的手段，属于银保渠道中典型的"小账"违规，这类行 为不仅导致险企财务数据失实，掩盖真实经营状况，还会破坏市场公平竞争秩序，潜藏费差损风险，最 终可能损害消费者合法权益。 新华保险则有两家分支机构同时被罚，主要违法违规事实均为"虚列银保专管员佣金"。针对上述违法违 规行为，广东金融监管局对新华保险东莞中心支公司罚款25 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has issued warning letters to three securities firms due to various regulatory violations in their bond issuance and management practices [1]. Group 1: Financial Violations by Firms - Financial violations were identified at Caitong Securities, including inadequate internal control mechanisms for bonds, insufficient due diligence in underwriting, and failure to ensure the issuer's compliance with information disclosure obligations [2][6][7]. - Zhongtian Guofu Securities was found to have lax internal controls, non-compliance in underwriting, and inadequate management of entrusted projects, failing to analyze significant risk factors related to the issuer's financial data [8][9][14]. - Pacific Securities exhibited similar issues, including poor internal control over bonds, inadequate responses to quality control feedback, and insufficient tracking of core enterprises' operational conditions during the bond's duration [12][13][14].

2月13日，证监会连发三张"罚单"，对财通证券、中天国富证券、太平洋证券等3家券商，均采取警示函的行政监管措施。 | 处罚事由方面，3家券商均因债务业务违规。其中，债券内控问题和受托管理履职尽责不到位是3家券商的共性问题。 | | --- | 具体而言，财通证券方面，证监会表示，经查，发现财通证券存在三方面违规行为：一是债券内控机制执行不到位，个别项目内核制衡性不足，质控内核意 见跟踪落实不到位。 二是承销尽调不规范，个别项目对影响发行人偿债能力的财务会计信息等重大事项核查不充分。 三是受托管理履职尽责不到位，个别项目未对存续期影响发行人偿债能力事项进行充分关注，未能有效督促发行人履行信息披露义务。 证监会表示，上述情形违反了《证券公司投资银行类业务内部控制指引》（证监会公告〔2018〕6号）第五条第（五）项、第二十条、第六十一条，《公司 债券发行与交易管理办法》（证监会令第113号）第七条、第四十九条第二款，《公司债券发行与交易管理办法》（证监会令第180号）第六条第一款、第五 十八条，《公司债券发行与交易管理办法》（证监会令第222号）第六条第一款、第五十八条的规定。 根据《公司债券发行与交易管理办法》（ ...

多家券商同日领罚单。 具体来看，财通证券主要存在三项问题：一是债券内控机制执行不到位，个别项目内核制衡性不足，质 控内核意见跟踪落实不到位；二是承销尽调不规范，个别项目对影响发行人偿债能力的财务会计信息等 重大事项核查不充分；三是受托管理履职尽责不到位，个别项目未对存续期影响发行人偿债能力事项进 行充分关注，未能有效督促发行人履行信息披露义务。 2月13日，证监会连发三张"罚单"，财通证券、太平洋证券、中天国富证券因债券业务违规同日被出具 警示函。 从处罚情况看，三家券商均触及债券内控把关不严、受托管理履职尽责不到位等"通病"。其中，中天国 富证券还被指出存在簿记现场管理不规范，太平洋证券涉及个别ABS项目核查不充分。 在业内人士看来，债券业务已告别"规模至上"时代，监管部门持续压实中介机构"看门人"责任，对债券 业务合规性保持高度关注。 罚单聚焦多个共性问题 券商中国记者梳理2月13日证监会对财通证券、太平洋证券、中天国富证券出具的罚单发现，尽管违规 细节各有不同，但暴露出的问题高度趋同。 债券业务保持严监管态势 中天国富证券的情况与财通证券较为接近，其债券内控把关不严，体现在个别项目质控内核履职不到 位。 ...

多家券商同日领罚单。 2月13日，证监会连发三张"罚单"，财通证券、太平洋证券、中天国富证券因债券业务违规同日被出具警示 函。 从处罚情况看，三家券商均触及债券内控把关不严、受托管理履职尽责不到位等"通病"。其中，中天国富证券 还被指出存在簿记现场管理不规范，太平洋证券涉及个别ABS项目核查不充分。 根据《公司债券发行与交易管理办法》，为公司债券发行提供服务的承销机构、受托管理人，以及资信评级机 构、会计师事务所、资产评估机构、律师事务所等专业机构和人员应当勤勉尽责，严格遵守执业规范和监管规 则，按规定和约定履行义务。 在业内人士看来，债券业务已告别"规模至上"时代，监管部门持续压实中介机构"看门人"责任，对债券业务合 规性保持高度关注。 罚单聚焦多个共性问题 券商中国记者梳理2月13日证监会对财通证券、太平洋证券、中天国富证券出具的罚单发现，尽管违规细节各 有不同，但暴露出的问题高度趋同。 具体来看，财通证券主要存在三项问题：一是债券内控机制执行不到位，个别项目内核制衡性不足，质控内核 意见跟踪落实不到位；二是承销尽调不规范，个别项目对影响发行人偿债能力的财务会计信息等重大事项核查 不充分；三是受托管理履职 ...

太平洋海啸警报中心（PTWC）：瓦努阿图群岛地震没有海啸威胁。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has intensified regulatory actions against securities firms, issuing multiple penalties for compliance violations, particularly in brokerage operations [2][6]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - On February 13, 2023, several securities firms, including Caitong Securities, Zhongtian Guofu Securities, and Pacific Securities, received warning letters for violations related to bond business [2][3]. - Tianfeng Securities was fined a total of 25 million yuan for serious violations, alongside its former major shareholder, Contemporary Group, which also faced penalties [2][4]. Group 2: Violations and Penalties - The violations cited include inadequate internal controls over bond issuance, improper due diligence in underwriting, and failure to fulfill responsibilities in entrusted management [4]. - Specific issues at Pacific Securities included insufficient responses to quality control feedback and inadequate monitoring of the financial health of bond issuers [4]. Group 3: Broader Impact - A total of 16 securities firms have been penalized in 2023, with brokerage business violations being the most common issue [6][7]. - Examples of violations include poor management of marketing expenses, improper commission collection, and failure to register personnel as investment advisors [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) issued warning letters to three bond underwriting firms, namely Caitong Securities, Pacific Securities, and Zhongtian Guofu Securities, due to violations in their bond business operations [1]. Group 1: Violations Identified - Pacific Securities was found to have three main violations: inadequate internal control over bonds, insufficient attention to matters affecting the issuer's debt repayment ability during entrusted management, and inadequate verification of asset securitization project asset transfers [2]. - Zhongtian Guofu Securities also faced three violations: poor internal control over bonds, non-compliance in the issuance and underwriting process, and inadequate performance in entrusted management [3]. - Caitong Securities' violations were primarily related to the execution of internal control mechanisms and due diligence in underwriting, with insufficient verification of significant financial information affecting the issuer's debt repayment ability [3].

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has issued warning letters to Pacific Securities, Zhongtian Guofu Securities, and Caitong Securities due to violations in bond-related business practices [1][2][3] Group 1: Pacific Securities Violations - Pacific Securities exhibited inadequate internal control over bonds, with insufficient responses to quality control feedback and lack of closed-loop management [1] - The company failed to adequately fulfill its responsibilities in managing certain corporate bond projects, neglecting to monitor factors affecting the issuer's debt repayment ability during the bond's duration [1] - In some asset-backed securities (ABS) projects, the verification of asset transfers was insufficient, and there was a lack of ongoing tracking of core enterprises' operational conditions [1] Group 2: Zhongtian Guofu Securities Violations - Zhongtian Guofu Securities showed lax internal control over bonds, with some projects lacking adequate quality control oversight [2] - The company engaged in non-compliant issuance and underwriting practices, failing to sufficiently analyze and verify important risk factors such as fluctuations in financial data, related party transactions, and fund occupation situations [2] - There was inadequate fulfillment of responsibilities in managing certain projects [2] Group 3: Caitong Securities Violations - Caitong Securities did not effectively implement its bond internal control mechanisms, with insufficient checks and inadequate follow-up on quality control feedback [3] - The company’s due diligence in underwriting was not compliant, with insufficient verification of significant financial accounting information affecting the issuer's debt repayment ability [3] - Responsibilities in managing certain projects were not adequately fulfilled, with a failure to ensure the issuer met information disclosure obligations [3]

Core Viewpoint - The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) issued warning letters to three bond underwriting institutions, namely Caifeng Securities, Pacific Securities, and Zhongtian Guofu Securities, due to violations in their bond business operations [2] Group 1: Violations by Pacific Securities - Pacific Securities has three main violations: inadequate internal control in bond operations, insufficient response to quality control feedback on certain projects, and lack of ongoing monitoring of core enterprises' operational status in asset securitization projects [4] - The company failed to adequately focus on matters affecting the issuer's debt repayment ability during the entrusted management phase [4] Group 2: Violations by Zhongtian Guofu Securities - Zhongtian Guofu Securities was also cited for three violations: poor internal control in bond operations, non-compliance in the underwriting process, and inadequate performance in entrusted management [4] - The company did not sufficiently analyze and verify important risk factors such as financial data fluctuations and related party transactions [4] Group 3: Violations by Caifeng Securities - Caifeng Securities' violations primarily relate to the execution of internal control mechanisms and due diligence in underwriting [4] - The company failed to adequately verify significant financial accounting information affecting the issuer's debt repayment ability and did not effectively supervise the issuer's information disclosure obligations [4] Group 4: Regulatory Actions - The CSRC decided to take administrative regulatory measures by issuing warning letters to the three securities firms due to their violations [2]