Legal Analyses on the Suitability Obligation in the Sale of Investment Products - Additive Critiques on the Draft of Article 31 of the Financial Service Act in Taiwan

[[abstract]]二○○八年九月十五日，美國三大投資銀行之一之雷曼兄弟控股集團宣佈申請破產保護，引爆連串之金融海嘯。美國大型金融集團，咸因持有雷曼兄弟之連動債，而深陷一千餘億美元之暴險中。所幸於美國、歐洲或日本，連動債之銷售對象僅限於機構投資人或對金融商品具專門智識之投資人，且對每一投資單位，均有最低額度之限制，多少提高進入障礙，於投資風險發生時，該些投資人亦具備相當之風險承受能力。然於台灣，連動債之銷售對象為一般之散戶投資人，因其商品結構複雜，非一般投資人所易理解，縱銷售機構對投資人已善盡風險告知義務，並提供投資人產品說明書及風險預告書，其內容仍非一般投資人所得理解，使不具風險承擔或消化能力之散戶投資人於懵懂下對該投資商品趨之若鶩，致於類似雷曼兄弟事件發生時，蒙受極大損失。準此，問題為：金融商品之銷售者，於銷售特定金融商品時，倘已依法履行告知義務，就交易或投資標的之特性、風險及法令限制對投資人說明，是否即足保障投資人？抑或，於金融商品種類繁多結構複雜難懂，投資人縱受告知亦不足完全理解投資標的之特性與風險，或投資人無以判斷特定商品是否適合自己之今日，金融商品之銷售者，尚應對投資人負有評估其對特定金融商品之投資是否妥適之義務，亦即依所謂「適合性原則」，推介商品之義務？金融交易發達國家幾採後者。是故，於判斷特定金融商品是否適合特定投資人需要時，其所據為何，乃將適合性原則納入金融商品銷售者義務前所首須釐清者。本文主自比較法觀點對適合性原則之內涵及該義務履行時金融商品銷售者所依循之判斷基準為探討並復還檢視金融服務法草案第三十一條及相關法規之內容，最末略抒建言。[[abstract]]In September, 2008, one of the largest investment bank in the U.S.—the Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection. Major financial institutions possessing Lehman’s structured notes have been entangled in the exposure of approximately 100 billion U.S. dollars. Fortunately, in U.S., Europe of Japan, structured notes, with the threshold regarding the minimum amount of purchase, are sold merely to institutional or sophisticated investors. This setting, more or less, restricts market entrance so as to ensure market participants’ capability and capacity in risk assumption. In Taiwan, nevertheless, such complicated-in-nature products are permitted to market to unsophisticated individual investors whose proficiency and knowledge with respect to such products remains limited even though having read the prospectus and other disclosure documents related to risks involved. Without considering their own capacity of risk bearing, investment objectives and financial status, unsophisticated investors are likely to suffer the loss beyond their maximum tolerance. Hence, the issue facing the financial regulators is: In the case of intricate investment subjects like the structures notes, does simply imposing the duty of risk disclosure suffice the protection of unsophisticated investors; or, in addition to the duty of disclosure, financial institutions marketing such labyrinthine products are of the obligation to assess and determine whether an investment subject is suitable for each particular investor in accordance with their financial status, experience of past investments, investment objectives and capability of risk bearing. Nations and Regions with relatively stable financial markets like the U.S. and the European Union both embrace the later position. Although Article 31 of the Draft of Financial Service Act in Taiwan contains also financial institutions’ suitability obligation during the recommendation and marketing of investment products, its context is relatively rough and provides limited shelter for investors comparing to similar legislations in the U.S. and the European Union,. This paper attempts to propose recommendations for the supplement and amendments of Taiwanese Draft through the comparative legal studies