20世纪90年代之后，随着经济全球化的深入发展、金融创新工具的不断增多，金融风险层出不穷。三十年来，我国证券公司经历了迅速扩张、蓬勃发展的时期，也经受了综合整顿治理的改革。证券公司作为资本市场的主要参与者，在经济全球化、金融自由化趋势下，对其进行有效监管就显得格外重要。而如何对证券公司实施有效的监管成为了监管部门面临的重要问题。经过监管当局的不断探索，分类评级监管制度应运而生。中国证监会于2009年出台《证券公司分类监管规定》，标志着我国对证券公司的监管正式进入分类监管评级模式，即通过对证券公司进行评分分类，根据分类结果中证券公司的类别不同，实施差异化的监管措施，从而完善治理体系。本文从政府规制的研究角度，对我国现行的证券公司分类监管制度进行全面的评析，总结出制度存在的不足，并结合政府规制理论与我国证券公司监管实际提出若干制度完善建议。 本文共分为四章。 第一章，我国证券公司分类监管概述。分类监管其本质是一直规制手段。对我国证券公司分类监管经历了三个阶段：以业务范围为标准到以证券业协会评审为中心再到以监管评级为基础。分类监管的理论基础包括政府规制理论和激励型监管理论，其目的是为了合理分配监管资源，维护证券市场的稳定发展。 第二章，我国证券公司分类监管的评价标准。一套规制规则的确定和实施需要经过严格的分析和评估方能执行。分类监管的评价标准的内容主要包括：证券公司的风险管理能力、市场影响力和合规状况，其制定的过程需要格外关注信息收集、标准实施以及标准执行等方面。本章对评价标准的现状以及存在的问题进行分析，在介绍国内外金融机构分类监管评价标准的基础上，通过制定过程、标准内容两方面对我国证券公司分类监管的评价标准进行完善。 第三章，我国证券公司分类监管的评价程序。评价程序作为行政程序的一部分，应当符合行政程序的基本原则，即正当程序原则和行政裁量合理原则。本章首先对评价程序的现状进行论述，并在此基础上指出评价程序存在规定简略、权利救济途径不完善等问题。通过对我国商业银行、保险公司分类监管评价程序的介绍和借鉴，从应遵守原则、具体程序两个角度对我国证券公司分类监管的评价程序提出遵循正当程序原则和行政裁量合理原则、细化评价程序规定、增加证券公司参与评价程序的权利条款、完善专家评审委员会机制、扩大信息公开程序以及增加申诉规定等完善建议。 第四章，分类监管最终达到的目标，即如何合理分配监管资源。本章在了解目前监管资源分配现状的基础上，指出分配中存在的问题，并提出完善意见。我国证券公司监管资源分配主要体现在证券投资者保护基金缴纳的比例、检查频率的设置、证券业务的限制等方面。监管资源分配的现状直接反映出在分配监管资源时存在监管资源过于集中、检查设置存在缺陷两方面的问题。针对上述问题，本章在明确监管资源分配应当遵循的原则的基础上，为合理分配监管资源提出遵循分配正义原则、效益最大化原则和与其他手段有效衔接原则、细化分配资源的法律文件和具体措施的完善建议。

After 1990s, with the deepening of economic globalization and the increasing number of financial innovation tools, financial risks emerge in an endless stream. In the past thirty years, investment banks in China have experienced a period of rapid expansion and vigorous development, and have also undergone a comprehensive reform of governance. As the main participants of the capital market, how to implement effective supervision on investment banks under the trend of economic globalization and financial liberalization is particularly important. How to implement effective supervision on investment banks has become an important issue for the regulatory authorities. Through the continuous exploration of the regulatory authorities, the classification rating regulation system came into being. Chinese Commission issued the “classification regulation of investment banks” in 2009, marking China's regulation of the investment banks officially entered the regulatory classification rating model, which based on the investment banks according to the classification score, securities classification results in different categories, the implementation of differentiated regulatory measures, so as to improve the governance system. From the perspective of government regulation, this paper makes a comprehensive review of the classified supervision system of investment banks in China, summarizes the shortcomings of the system, and puts forward some suggestions for institutional improvement based on the theory of government regulation and the regulation practice of investment banks in China. This article is divided into four chapters. The first chapter is a summary of the classified regulation of investment banks in China. The essence of the classification is the means of regulation. The classified regulation of investment banks in China has gone through three stages: from the business scope to the Securities Industry Association review and to the regulatory rating. The theoretical basis of classified regulation includes government regulation theory and incentive regulatory theory. Its purpose is to allocate regulatory resources rationally and maintain stable development of investment market. The second chapter is evaluation criteria for the classified regulation of investment banks in China. In order to identify and implement a set of rules needs to go through rigorous analysis and evaluation. The contents of the evaluation criteria for classification supervision mainly include: the investment bank's risk management ability, market influence and compliance status, its development process need to pay attention to the collection of information, the implementation of standards and standards etc. This chapter analyzes the current situation and existing problems of the evaluation standards. Based on the introduction of the classification and regulation evaluation standards of financial institutions at home and abroad, the evaluation criteria for the classified regulation of investment banks in China are perfected through two aspects: making the process and content of standards. The third chapter is the evaluation procedure of the classified regulation of investment banks in China. As a part of the administrative procedure, the evaluation procedure should conform to the basic principles of the administrative procedure, that is, the principle of due process and the reasonable principle of administrative discretion. This chapter first discusses the status of the evaluation procedure, and on this basis points out that the evaluation procedure is simple and the way of right relief is not perfect. From the principles and specific procedures in two aspects of investment banks in China classified regulation evaluation procedures proposed to follow the principle of due process and reasonable administrative discretion principle, detailed evaluation procedures, increase the investment banks to participate in the evaluation process, improve the rights provisions of the expert jury mechanism, expand the information disclosure procedures and increase the appeal provisions improvement suggestions. The fourth chapter, the ultimate goal of the classification regulation, that is, how to rationally allocate the regulatory resources. This chapter, on the basis of understanding the current status of the distribution of regulatory resources, points out the problems in the distribution and puts forward some suggestions. The allocation of regulatory resources in investment banks in China is mainly reflected in the proportion of securities investor protection fund, the setting of frequency of examination, and the limitation of securities business. The current situation of the distribution of regulatory resources directly reflects the problems of two aspects, such as excessive concentration of regulatory resources and defects in inspection and setting in the distribution of regulatory resources. Aiming at the above problems, based on a clear allocation of regulatory resources should follow the principles, for the rational allocation of regulatory resources proposed to follow the principle of distributive justice, benefit maximization principle and other effective means of cohesion principle, legal documents, allocation of resources detailed and specific measures for improvement suggestions.