避險基金管制之研究－系統性風險和投資人保護

Hedge Fund Regulation: Systemic Risk and Investor Protection

姜宥汝(Yu-Ju Chiang)

指導教授 ： 汪信君

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.02181

摘要

避險基金運用風險較高的投資策略，並多與大型金融機構有往來，可能引起系統性風險，一九九八年的LTCM事件即為一例，尤其近年來該產業穩定成長，亞洲新興市場的發展亦不容小覷，漸成為學術界與各國主管機關所關注的對象。以往避險基金處於輕度的管制環境中，是否有必要對之進行加強管制，本文擬從系統性風險之控管與避險基金投資人之保護兩方面進行探討；再者，歐盟於二○一○年公布另類投資基金經理人指令，美國亦有Dodd-Frank法，兩者以系統性風險之控管與投資人之保護為目的，要求避險基金經理人為登記與資訊揭露，然該管制手段是否可達管制目的，權衡對避險基金之影響等因素後是否合適，此亦為本文討論之重心；最後，借鏡兩大立法，檢討我國有關於私募基金之管理。
本文第貳章將先介紹避險基金之基本概念，第參章則由系統性風險和投資人保護兩面向，探討避險基金進行加強管制的必要性，並歸納出判斷管制手段適切性的標準，第肆章進入另類投資基金經理人指令與Dodd-Frank法的討論，以經理人登記制度為始，歸納學說對於該制度的批評，分析在判斷標準的適用下，該制度之缺陷即應為如何之改善，具體而言，經理人登記制度為後續資訊揭露要求的基礎，主管機關在掌控基金經理人之人別後，始可加諸其他規定，因此該制度以強制性為宜，第伍章進一步探討資訊揭露要求，資訊揭露乃主管機關用以監控系統性風險之主要手段，而經理人應提供之資訊內容、資訊更新頻率應如何方為適宜，本文從判斷準則和管制目的分析之，最後，第陸章總結經理人登記制度和資訊揭露制度對於管制目的達成之有限性，並以避險基金之未來發展、研究方向作結。

關鍵字

避險基金 ； 系統性風險 ； 投資人保護 ； 經理人登記制度 ； 資訊揭露

並列摘要

Hedge funds like to use the investment strategies which have relative high risk, and have connection with large financial institution. These characteristics of hedge funds put them in the position that is easier to cause the systemic risk. For example, the impending collapse of a hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, threatened the stability of international capital market in 1998. As this industry has grown steadily in the last decade, regulators pay more and more attention in hedge funds.
Hedge funds had been lightly regulated investment vehicles and the question is whether regulators should impose more regulation on hedge funds. This article will discuss this question from two approaches, the monitor of systemic risk and investors’ protection. In 2010, Europe Union released Alternative Investment funds Manager Directive (AIFMD). And Dodd-Frank Act was also signed into U.S. federal law by President Barack Obama in this year. Both AIFMD and Dodd-Frank Act try to monitor the systemic risk and protect investors by using hedge fund adviser registration and information disclosure. This article will focus on two questions: whether the regulation can achieve the regulation purpose and are applicable to hedge funds after considering all the conditions. And by analyzing AIFMD and Dodd-Frank Act, this article can examine the regulation environment in our country.
To begin with, chapter II introduces the basis conception of hedge fund. Second, chapter III debates the necessary of imposing more regulation on hedge fund, and concludes the criteria which can be used on judging application of regulation. Third, starting from hedge fund adviser registration, chapter IV will discuss the regulation of AIFMD and Dodd-Frank Act and use the criteria mentioned above to examine the application of the regulation. This article also pays attention on the information disclosure which was basic on manger registration. By the information hedge fund advisers gave, regulators can understand market and securities which hedge funds engaged in, and monitor systemic risk. Chapter V will use the same criteria to discuss the information that hedge fund advisers should offer and the frequency of reporting. Finally, chapter VI will make a conclusion about the regulation of hedge fund, including the future development of this industry.

並列關鍵字

Hedge Fund ； Systemic Risk ； Investor Protection ； Manager Registration ； Disclosure

參考文獻

3. 林泔薇、吳心怡、陳建妤、吳博聰（2008）。〈透視對沖基金－全球主要國家與我國證券市場比較（上）〉，《證交資料》，553 期，頁 6-61。

4. 林泔薇、吳心怡、陳建妤、吳博聰（2008）。〈透視對沖基金－全球主要國家與我國證券市場比較（中）〉，《證交資料》，554 期，頁 26-49。

5. 林泔薇、吳心怡、陳建妤、吳博聰（2008）。〈透視對沖基金－全球主要國家與我國證券市場比較（下）〉，《證交資料》，555 期，頁 40-59。

2. 林雅玲（2007）。《私募公司債-比較我國與美國制度主要因素之差異》。國立政治大學法律學系碩士班學士後法學組，台北。

3. 林黎華（2012）。《避險基金之研究》。國立臺北大學法律學系博士論文，新北市。