我國自動化投資顧問法制之改革—以英國法為借鏡

自動化投資顧問服務（Automated Investment Services）的出現打破過往財富管理僅限於資產高淨值消費者的結構，同時亦為市場中所有參與者帶來一個新的選擇。然而新興技術的出現，難免與傳統環境產生衝突，尤其在受高度監理的金融服務產業，是否適用現行法規即是一大爭議，該以何種形式實踐於市場甚或市場是否需要自動化投資顧問服務，更是產、官、學界所需共同探討的議題。金融監督管理委員會作為主管機關站在維護投資人權益之立場，是否能在監理業者行為的同時顧及人民使用自動化投資顧問服務之需求，以及鼓勵業者經營自動化投資顧問服務之創新、自由發展之權利，實有疑問。再者，新興金融科技服務該如何監理（以及監理尺度之拿捏）與該服務之效益與風險，對於主管機關、業者以及消費者而言都存在太多未知數，此時，主管機關作為領導者所扮演之角色顯得格外重要。觀諸我國自動化投資顧問服務於2017年發展至今，使用人數與資產管理規模甚微，監理規範亦是僅針對同業公會內部約束之自律規範，故建構一套完善法制架構且找尋到利於普通大眾使用的服務模式即為本文研究之重點。觀察英國為促進金融科技之發展，在法規層面以原則性規範取代繁瑣的細部規定，在符合上位條件下業者得依據市場以及自身需求發展多樣化的商業模式。在政策層面鼓勵外資與技術進入扶持國內金融科技業者，亦啟動多項金融創新計畫，如設立監理機關與業者共同合作且風險可控的金融監理沙盒制度、針對自動化投顧服務成立專為扶持提供服務之業者測試演算法並給予監理回饋的專責小組。從上述做法中可以看出，英國監理機關與業者間不全然是監督者與被監督者的關係，而是透過相互合作的模式平衡保障投資人之權益與創新服務之發展。本文認為我國對於自動化投顧服務之監理可效仿英國模式。其一，金管會僅作原則性立法，細部規範交由業者自行依其需求為之。其二，金管會之態度應轉向與業者互相合作而非站在上位監理者之角色強制要求業者必須遵守嚴格限制，具體作法比如降低申請創新實驗之門檻與減輕業者所需承擔之義務。其三，鑑於普惠金融之目標以及我國人民有使用財富管理之需求，金管會應當設立專責單位扶持經營或有意經營自動化投顧服務之業者發展。其四，完善使用自動化投資顧問服務消費者之投資人保護措施。最後，本文希望能重新審視自動化投資顧問服務之監理主體，甚至探討是否重構監理模式之必要性。

關鍵字

自動化投資顧問；金融科技；監理沙盒；理財機器人；普惠金融

並列摘要

The emergence of Automated Investment Services has broken the structure that wealth management services was limited to High-net-worth individuals in the past. At the same time, it also brings a new choice for all participants in the financial market. However, the emergence of new technologies inevitably conflicts with the traditional environment, especially in the highly supervised financial services industry, whether the current laws and regulations are applicable is a big dispute. What kind of forms should be put into practice in the market or whether the market needs Automated Investment Services is a topic that the industry, government and academia need to discuss together. From the standpoint of safeguarding the rights and interests of investors, the Financial Supervisory Commission in Taiwan (FSC), as the competent authority, can takes into accounts the needs of the people for the use of Automated Investment Services, and encourage the innovation and free development of automated investment advisory services. The most important thing is that there are too many unknowns about how to supervise the emerging financial technology services (and how to control the supervision scale) and the benefits and risks of the services for the competent authorities, operators and consumers. At this time, the role of the competent authority as a leader is particularly important. In view of the development of Automated Investment Services in Taiwan since 2017, the number of users and the scale of assets under management (AUM) are very small, and the supervision standard is only a self-discipline standard for the internal constraints of trade associations. Therefore, it is the focus of this paper to construct a set of perfect legal framework and find the service mode that is beneficial to the general public. In order to promote the development of financial technology (FinTech) in the United Kingdom, the rules and regulations replace the complicated detailed provisions with the principle norms. Under the conditions of the upper level, the operators can develop diversified business models according to the market and their own needs. At the policy level, foreign investment and technology are encouraged to enter the UK's FinTech industry, and a number of financial innovation programs have also been launched, such as the establishment of a financial regulatory sandbox system in which the supervision authorities cooperate with the industry and the risk is controllable, and a Advice Unit to test algorithms and give supervision feedback to the operators who provide services for the Automated Investment Service. It can be seen that the relationship between the supervisory authority and the industries in the UK is not entirely the relationship between the supervisor and the supervised, but a mutual cooperation model that balances the protection of investors' rights and the development of innovative services. This paper believes that the supervision of Taiwan's Automated Investment Service can follow the British model. First, the FSC only legislates in principle, and details are left to the companies themselves to act on their own needs. Secondly, the attitude of the FSC should turn to cooperating with the industry instead of being in the role of supervisor at the upper level, which requires the enterprises to abide by strict restrictions, such as reducing the threshold of applying for innovative experiments and alleviating the obligations of enterprises. Third, in view of the goal of Inclusive Finance and the need of the Taiwaness people to use wealth management services, the FSC should set up a special unit to support the development of those who operate or intend to operate Automated Investment Services. Fourth, improve the investor protection measures for consumers who use Automated Investment Services. Finally, this paper hopes to re-examine the supervision subject of Automated Investment Services, and even explore the necessity of reconstructing the supervisory mode.