Core Viewpoint - The investigation into Zhao Peng, a senior executive at Dajia Insurance Group, highlights significant governance challenges within financial risk management institutions, following the earlier case of Fu Fei, another executive involved in similar misconduct [1][4]. Group 1: Zhao Peng Incident - Zhao Peng, previously a prominent figure in the financial sector, is under investigation for alleged misconduct in deposit operations, including manipulating fund flows and accepting kickbacks [6][4]. - His background includes a law doctorate and roles in regulatory bodies, raising concerns about the integrity of regulatory oversight [4][5]. - As of July 2025, there have been no official updates regarding the investigation's progress, and Zhao remains unaccounted for [1]. Group 2: Fu Fei Case - Fu Fei, former deputy head of the Anbang takeover team, was convicted for corruption, including transferring assets below market value and accepting bribes [2][3]. - The court found that he misused his position to facilitate transactions that benefited specific companies, leading to significant financial losses [2]. Group 3: Governance and Oversight Issues - The dual compensation structure for Zhao Peng, who held positions in both banking and insurance, raises concerns about conflicts of interest and inadequate oversight mechanisms [8][9]. - The transition of regulatory figures into operational roles has exposed weaknesses in self-regulation and market accountability [10][11][12]. Group 4: Regulatory Responses - In April 2025, the Insurance Guarantee Fund implemented measures to enhance oversight, including appointing a special supervisory group to review major financial decisions [13]. - New regulations introduced by the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission aim to address systemic risks and improve governance structures [20][21]. Group 5: Financial Performance and Challenges - Dajia Insurance has faced significant operational challenges, including a six-year gap in annual report disclosures and a high vacancy rate in its healthcare services [16][14]. - Despite some positive indicators in premium income and profitability, the company struggles with investment performance, showing negative returns on certain funds [18]. Group 6: Market Position and Future Outlook - Dajia Insurance's privatization efforts have stalled, with previous attempts to transfer ownership failing and ongoing discussions yielding no substantial results [22][23]. - The company must address historical liabilities and governance issues to attract potential investors and ensure a successful transition to a more robust governance framework [23].

导读：我国存款保险在过去十年里的开创性贡献值得肯定，建议从三个方面进一步强化存款保险的市场 化、法治化、专业化风险处置作用 作者｜魏加宁「中国产业发展促进会学术顾问」 文章｜《中国金融》2025年第9期 2015年《存款保险条例》施行以来，中国人民银行履行存款保险职责，我国存款保险制度平稳有序运 行。2019年5月，人民银行设立存款保险基金管理公司，有效履行保费归集、风险监测、早期纠正、防 范挤兑等具有公共属性的职责，积极探索实践清产核资、资产管理等具有市场属性的职责。从制度设计 与完善、实践探索与创新等多个角度而言，我国存款保险在过去十年里的开创性贡献值得肯定。面对下 一阶段的挑战，建议从三个方面进一步强化存款保险的市场化、法治化、专业化风险处置作用。 推动存款保险法早日出台，为存款保险有效发挥金融安全网支柱作用奠定法律基础 《存款保险条例》确定了存款保险制度的基本框架和核心原则，并明确存款保险具备包括风险监测、早 期纠正、风险处置等风险防范、化解与处置的关键职能。然而，随着实践的深入，《存款保险条例》法 律位阶和法律效力偏低、部分制度设计和内容较为原则等问题，在一定程度上限制了存款保险在实践中 有效发挥金 ...

文章｜《中国金融》2025年第9期 作者｜孟辉「中国人民银行金融稳定局局长」 强化风险约束，开展早期纠正。我国存款保险制度采取"风险最小化"模式，即存款保险可以参与投保机 构风险防范、化解、处置的全过程，通过事前对风险的约束来降低事后的处置成本。2016年，存款保险 费率机制从基准费率过渡到风险差别费率，将费率标准与风险水平挂钩，通过"奖优罚劣"促进机构审慎 经营。2017年以来，存款保险发挥早期纠正职能，督促投保机构采取补充资本、控制资产增长、控制重 大交易授信、降低杠杆率等措施压降风险，并将风险适时通报金融监管部门和地方政府，增强工作合 力，已累计推动600多家机构风险得到初步化解。 发挥专业优势，支持风险处置。建立存款保险制度的一个重要初衷是完善银行的市场化退出机制。自 2019年起，存款保险基金开始参与风险处置，相继支持了包商银行、辽宁省部分城商行、辽阳农商行等 机构的风险化解，存款保险的市场化、法治化、专业化金融风险处置功能日益显现。特别是在存款保险 的深度参与下，包商银行成为新中国成立以来第一例银行通过"接管+收购承接+破产清算"方式退出市 场的成功案例，在此过程中，既最大程度保障了存款人权益，又 ...