| 摘要: | 衍生性金融商品投機、避險及高槓桿之特徵，使其快速地贏得投資大眾喜愛，但也因具備以上特性使衍生性伴隨著高風險，如信用風險、市場性風險、系統性風險等，而2000年初時美國對店頭衍生性金融商品之監管不足，導致金融市場深陷於高風險之中，並釀成2008年全球金融危機，此一危機嚴重衝擊各國金融市場，因此各國紛紛推動新的監理政策以加強對衍生性金融商品之控管。隨後G20各國領袖便在2009年之高峰會議針對店頭衍生性商品控管進行討論並達成共識，就符合一定條件的店頭衍生性金融商品須於合適的交易所或電子交易平台交易，另外尚須集中結算、向交易資訊儲存庫申報等，就上述決議內容，美國及英國均開始著手推動建置相關作業，而我國亦不例外。因此，本文便將以美國、英國及我國為例比較金融危機前後對於衍生性金融商品監理規範上的變化。
金融危機後各國除致力於金融監理之改革外，也開始進行金融轉型計畫，發展金融科技商品，但金融科技創新速度極快，且新型之金融科技商品常遊走在法律邊緣，造成法規範難以有效監管，對金融市場之安全與交易秩序帶來影響。因此面對逐漸興起之證券型代幣公開發行（Security Token Offering, STO），近幾年各國紛紛擬定各項政策欲加以監管。就美國及英國對STO之監管規範而言，並未特別針對STO設立新規範，而是依現行規範來管轄，其將STO認定為現行法規下之證券、特定投資或金融工具，藉此納入法規管轄範圍。相比之下，我國則與英美不同，未完全依據既有之法規來規範STO，而是另外發展出一套新機制，根據金管會於2019年發布之「證券型代幣發行相關規範」草案，便採取分級管理方式，將以新臺幣3,000萬元為分界，3,000萬元以下者得豁免申報義務，3,000萬元以上者則是先送至監理沙盒進行測試。
綜觀美國、英國及我國，可發現不論是金融監理架構、衍生性金融商品監理規範或是對STO之規範均截然不同，故本文將以比較法方式分析美國與英國歷年來之監理制度，並探討該兩國制度之優缺點，希冀藉此得給予我國未來監理制度與相關規範發展上有效之建議。
The speculative, hedging and high-leverage characteristics of derivative financial instruments make it quickly win the favor of the investing public. However, due to the above characteristics, it is accompanied by high risks such as credit risk, market risk, systemic risk, etc. In the early 2000s, the lack of oversight of store-derived financial instruments in the United States (hereinafter referred to simply as the “U.S.”) caused the financial market to be trapped with high risks and resulted in the 2008 global financial crisis, which severely impacted financial markets in various countries. Therefore, countries around the world have promoted new supervisory policies to strengthen the control of derivative financial instruments. Afterwards, leaders of G20 countries discussed and reached a consensus on the control of store-derived financial instruments at the 2009 summit, and that is for the derivative financial instruments to meet certain conditions and be traded on a suitable exchange or electronic trading platform. In addition, they shall be settled centrally and be reported to the transaction information repository, etc. Regarding the abovementioned content of resolution, the U.S. and the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to simply as the “U.K.”) both started to establish related operations, and Taiwan is no exception. Therefore, this thesis will compare the changes of supervisory regulations on derivative financial instruments of the U.S., the U.K., and our country before and after the financial crisis.
After the financial crisis, aside from focusing on the reform of financial supervision, countries have also begun to enter into a financial transformation plan and develop financial technology commodities. However, the speed of Fintech innovation is extremely fast, and new Fintech products are often on the borderline of legal requisites, which makes it difficult to be effectively regulated and affects the security and order of transactions of the financial market. With the rise of Security Token Offerings (hereinafter referred to as “STO”), countries around the world have drawn up various monitoring policies. Take the supervisory regulations towards STO of the U.S. and the U.K. for example, they do not set new regulations on STOs but supervise in accordance with current regulations. They categorize STOs as security, specified investment or financial instruments under current regulations in order to include it under the jurisdiction of current laws. In comparison, our country is different from the U.S. and the U.K., since Taiwan does not regulate STOs entirely according to existing regulations but developed an alternative new system. According to the draft of Related Regulations on Security Token Offerings issued by the Financial Supervisory Commission R.O.C. in 2019, it adopts a hierarchical management approach with NT$ 30,000,000 as the boundary. Those with an amount below NT$ 30,000,000 will be exempted from the reporting obligation, and those with an amount above NT$ 30,000,000 will be sent to the supervisory sandbox for testing first.
From a thorough analysis of the U.S., the U.K., and Taiwan’s system, it can be seen that there is a huge difference taking into account the financial supervisory structure, derivative financial instrument supervisory regulations or STO regulations. This thesis analyzes the supervisory systems of the U.S. and the U.K. over the years in a comparative method, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the systems of both countries, hoping to contribute effective recommendations to Taiwan’s future supervisory system and the development of related regulations. |
