我國證券投資顧問(事業)規範之問題探討─附論金融商品推介行為之規範設計

A Study on the Regulation of the Investment Advisers and the Financial Promotion Regime

江家儀(Chia-Yi Chiang)

指導教授 ： 曾宛如

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2010.01448

摘要

為因應現代金融商品不斷推陳出新，金融事業紛紛朝向多元經營等金融環境變遷所帶來之規範需求，我國於二○○四年七月一日成立行政院金融監督管理委員會，作為單一之金融監理機關，唯並未改變向來機構取向之金融監理模式。我國有關證券投資顧問事業之相關規範，亦沿襲機構管理，導致單一法規同時乘載具不同規範考量及需求之業務行為，且未區別二者之義務及責任設計，規範之實效性及必要性殊值懷疑；而同一行為，僅因行為人業別不同，即分別適用不同法令，亦存在規範不公平之闕失，亟需檢討改進。此外，我國證券投資信託及顧問法就投資顧問為廣泛定義，卻於規範主體及規範客體設有重重要求，規範上產生過猶不及之闕失，亦應予以檢討。

反觀比較法之規範，美國與我國相同，亦設有投資顧問之專法，儘管其就投資顧問亦下廣泛定義，唯美國基於言論自由及受託人本質等之考量，設有善意出版品之除外規定，僅一對一提供個人化投資建議之情形，始納入其投顧法之規範。至於規範主體方面，美國未設有任何條件限制，欲從事投顧業務之人，均可向SEC申請註冊登記，而有助於功能性監理之建構；而規範客體之認定，則較我國更具彈性而廣泛。

英國金融監理採取典型之功能管理，金融機構與金融法規均已整合，未設有投顧專法，亦未就投顧為定義。欲探究我國投顧事業於英國法上之規範情形，須自功能性之觀點，由投顧實際從事之業務行為本質出發。我國投顧事業所從事個人化之服務(包括全權委託投資業務及個人化之證券投資顧問業務)，可能該當FSA發布RAO所列受規範行為之類型，而落入英國一般性限制規定之規範；而非個人化之證券投資顧問業務，除可能該當受規範行為之情形，大多落入英國金融商品推介限制規定之規範範疇。我國證券投資顧問事業所從事之業務種類，實擴及金融商品推介之行為態樣。

我國可能採取之改革方向，如欲落實功能管理，以「業務行為」作為區別規範之標準，個人化之投顧業務與非個人化之投顧業務，似具性質上之區別，而應分別規範之。唯個人化之投顧業務與非個人化之投顧業務，實務上經常係難以劃分，同時提供者，由二者於客觀上均對投資人產生推介建議之效果觀之，其仍具有一定之同質性，而仍有整合其規範之可能。

最後，不論規範之設計上，就個人化之投顧業務與非個人化之投顧業務二者，分別予以規範，抑或整合規範，亦應就功能性之觀點，針對不同之業務種類，根據個別業務之特性及行為程度，細緻化其行為規範或道德要求之內容及程度。

關鍵字

金融監理模式；證券投資顧問(事業)；金融商品推介；言論自由；詐欺；忠實義務；適合性原則

並列摘要

With development of the financial environment, the Financial Supervisory Commission under the Executive Yuan, R.O.C. was established on July 1, 2004 as the single regulator to satisfy regulatory requirements. However, the financial supervisory regime of Taiwan, including the regulation of investment advisers, has remained institutional. It has resulted in inefficient and inappropriate supervision, such that different activities with diverse regulatory considerations and requirements are encompassed in one single regulation. Moreover, inconsistent regulation also results as a consequence of applying different regimes to similar activities based on different businesses. Although the Regulations Governing the Management of the Securities Investment Trust and Consulting Association has defined the parameters of investment advisers quite broadly, various requirements have been proposed regarding the regulatory subjects and regulatory objects.

In the U.S.A., the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 has defined the parameters of investment advisors as broadly as Taiwanese law; however, it has also included several exclusions to narrow its scope of regulation. For instance, the exclusion of bona fide publications has limited the scope to personalized services. Additionally, the regulatory subjects and objects are more flexible and extensive.

The financial supervision of the U.K. is functional. Both financial institutions and financial regulation have been integrated. Personalized services of the investment advisers can be categorized in the regulated activities listed in the RAO and thus regulated by the general prohibition of the FSMA 2000. Conversely, non-personalized services often fall into the regulation of the financial promotion regime. The activities that the investment advisers in Taiwan can engage in are expanded to financial promotion activities.

Considering the disparity between personalized services and non-personalized services, it is arguable that we should separate the regulation of the two services in order to conduct functional supervision. However, both personalized services and non-personalized services are often provided together, and thus distinguishing one from the other is not feasible. Since both services virtually share the similarity that they have advisory effects on investors, integrating the regulation of both services is possible.

Finally, whether or not the enactment of the regulation of both services is separate or integrated, differentiating the contents and extent of conduct rules based on the character of different activities is necessary.

並列關鍵字

financial supervision ； investment advisers ； financial promotion ； freedom of speech ； fraud ； fiduciary duty ； suitability

參考文獻

3. 游美月，我國金融監理一元化制度之研究，國立臺灣大學財務金融學研究所碩士論文，2005年1月。

7.杜怡靜，日本金融商品交易法中關於金融業者行為規範─兼論對我國法之啟示，台北大學法學論叢第64期，2007年12月。

1. 張家豪，論證券投資顧問事業之行為規範與民事法律責任，國立台北大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2008年1月。

16.曾宛如，現代資本市場規範之發展與趨勢，從英國金融服務暨市場法論金融服務之整合─以律師所受規範為例，收錄於公司管理與資本市場法制專論(二)，元照出版公司，2008年1月初版。

11.曾宛如，證券交易法原理，元照出版公司，2006年8月四版。