本文讨论了在金融危机的背景下美国金融市场的分业监管模式。目前有两种起源于英国的监管改革的模式。第一种是设立一个统一的监管机构负责对金融业所有的主要部门进行监管。第二种被称为“双峰”式监管模式,其监管以两个机构为中心,其中一个负责对金融机构的安全和风险监管,另一个对金融机构的营业活动进行监管。本文首先介绍了对在英国对设立统一监管机构(金融服务局FSA)的争议,然后探讨单一监管机构(如FSA)的正当性。接着是对英国未采取“双峰”式监管的讨论。然后是对中央银行的角色的探讨,如将要提到的英国的英格兰银行。之后在英国建立单一监管机构的经验之下对美国监管改革进行评议。最后结论部分说明了“双峰”式所带来的改革如何优于单一监管模式。 This article discusses the segregated regulatory model of the U.S. financial markets in the context of the financial crisis. There are currently two modes of regulatory reform that originated in the United Kingdom. The first is to establish a unified regulatory body responsible for regulating all major sectors of the financial industry. The second is known as a “bimodal” regulatory model, with regulation centered on two agencies, one of which is responsible for the regulation of the security and risk of financial institutions and the other of the regulation of financial institutions’ operating activities. This article begins with a discussion of the controversy over the establishment of a unified regulator (FSA) in the UK and then the justification of a single regulator (such as the FSA). Followed by the British did not take “double peak ” type of regulatory discussion. Then there is a discussion of the role of the central bank, such as the Bank of England in Britain, to be mentioned. After the United Kingdom to establish a single regulatory body under the experience of regulatory reform in the United States to comment. The final conclusion shows how the “double peak” type of reform is superior to the single regulatory model.