臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：由比較法觀點論金融機構之適當性義務
書刊名：軍法專刊
作者：陳肇鴻 引用關係
作者(外文)：Chen, Chao-hung
出版日期：2011
卷期：57:2
頁次：頁75-98
主題關鍵詞：推介適當性；妥適性；適合性；行為規範；比較法；投資顧問；連動債；結構債；衍生性金融商品；結構型產品；Suitability；Appropriateness；Conduct of business；Comparative law；Investment advice；Structured notes；Derivatives；Structured products
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:36
  • 點閱點閱:63
本文之主要目的，在經由比較法的研究，來檢討我國法下金融機構銷售結構型商品 之適當性義務之規定以及若干問題。於金融海嘯之後，主管機關有透過行政命令課以金 融機構若干程度之適當性義務，然而，由比較法的立場，我國之現行規範之適用範圍相 當狹礙，且就用適用之法律關係上未更細緻地區別不同的法律關係，同時，現行規範亦 未更明確界定適當性之標準。本文以為，可由風險的分類的角度出發更進一步細緻化產 品適當性的問題，就結構型商品，並應同時建立更專業完整之合約審閱之機制，以明確 化適當性的標準以供金融機構遵循，以利能更有效達成適當性義務之目的，並建構更完 整且有效率之投資人保護機制。
The purpose of this article is to examine the suitability rules regarding structured products under Taiwan law from a comparative law perspective. After the global financial crisis, Taiwan has imposed specific suitability obligations on financial institutions when they promote derivatives and structured products. However, the suitability rule is only placed in administrative regulations and its scope is also limited. In addition, Taiwan law does not distinguish different types of relationships between a financial institution and a client. Furthermore, the biggest challenge to the suitability rule is to define the meaning of 'suitable'. This article argues that the starting point is the analysis of risks uitability. However, the analysis of return aspect should not be ignored. As to product due diligence, regulators must further venture into the review of documentation and offer more detailed guidelines to financial institutions in order to serve the purpose of the suitability rule and create an efficient mechanism for investor protection.
期刊論文
1.林玫君、馮聖中(20070600)。英國金融服務消費爭端解決機制之探討。臺灣金融財務季刊，82)，49-80。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.陳肇鴻(20080800)。ISDA總契約、利率交換與消費者保護法--評高等法院96年金上字第3號判決。律師雜誌，347，65-76。  延伸查詢new window
3.陳肇鴻(20100800)。由比較法觀點論金融機構客戶之分類。軍法專刊，56(4)，78-100。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.杜怡靜(20051200)。論對金融業者行銷行為之法律規範--以日本金融商品販賣法中關於「說明義務」及「適合性原則」為參考素材。臺北大學法學論叢，57，269-328。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.廖伯鈞(20100600)。初探二○○八年德國新保險契約法--以保險人諮詢建議義務為中心。法學新論，23，115-133。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.杜怡靜(20100300)。投資型保險商品關於說明義務與適合性原則之運用--臺北地院九十六年度保險簡上字第六號及臺北地院九十七年度再易字第一號判決。月旦民商法雜誌，27，130-141。  延伸查詢new window
7.杜怡靜(20091200)。金融商品交易上關於說明義務之理論與實務上之運用--對連動債紛爭之省思。月旦民商法雜誌，26，50-66。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.林育廷(20090400)。論金融專業人員之信賴義務。東吳法律學報，20(4)，213-249。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.陳肇鴻(20090600)。論結構債之法律關係及指定用途金錢信託之法律性質。軍法專刊，55(3)，111-133。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.王志誠(20100800)。銀行銷售金融商品之義務及責任--規範原則與實務爭議。月旦法學，183，182-207。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.Benson, M. J.(2001)。Online Investing and the Suitability Obligations of Brokers and Broker-Dealers。Suffolk U L Rev，34，395-413。  new window
12.Black, B.(2003)。Economic Suicide: The Collision of Ethics and Risk in Securities Law。U Pitt L Rev，64，483-527。  new window
13.Bondi, B. J.(2009)。Securities Arbitrations Involving Mortgage-backed Securities and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations: Suitable for Unsuitable Claim?。Fordham J Corp & Fin L，14，251-279。  new window
14.Cervantes, Y.(2008)。Fin Rah! ... A Welcome Change: Why the Merger Was Necessary to Preserve US Market Integrity。Ford-hain J Corp & Fin L，13，829-862。  new window
15.Cohen, Stephen B.(1971)。The Suitability Rule and Economic Theory。Yale L. J.，80，1604-1635。  new window
16.Poser, N. S.(2001)。Liability of Broker-Dealers for Unsuitable Recommendations to Institutional Investors。BYU L Rev，1493-1571。  new window
17.Rapp, R. N.(1998)。Rethinking Risky Investments for that Little Old. Lady: A Realistic Role for Modem Portfolio Theory in Assessing Suitability Obligations of Stockbrokers。Ohio NUL Rev，24，189-277。  new window
18.Reinsch, R. W.、Reich, J. B.、Balsara, N.(2004)。Trust Your Broker?: Suitability, Modern Portfolio Theory, and Expert Witnesses。St. Thomas L. Rev.，17，173-199。  new window
19.Roberts, L.(1996)。Suitability Claims under Rule 10b-5: Are Public Entities Sophisticated Enough to Use Derivatives?。U Chi L Rev，63，801-835。  new window
20.Manns, J.(2009)。Rating Risk after the Subprime Mortgage Crisis; A User Free Approach for Rating Agency Accountability。North Carolina Law Review，87，1011-1090。  new window
21.Haines, J. D.(2007)。The Markets In Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID): Investor Protection Enhanced by Suitability Requirements。Comp Law，28(11)，344-345。  new window
22.Langevoort, D. C.(1996)。Selling Hope, Selling Risk: Some Lessons for Law from Behavioral Economics About Stockbrokers and Sophisticated Customers。Calif. L. Rev.，84，627-701。  new window
23.Madison, A. D.(1999)。Derivatives Regulation in the Context of Shingle Theory。Colum Bus LRev，272-328。  new window
24.Sienko, D. C.(1995)。The aftermath of Derivar tiyes Losses; Can Sophisticated Investors Invoke the Suitability Doctrine against Dealers under Current Law。DePaul Bus LJ，8，105-132。  new window
25.Finney, A.、Kempson, E.(2008)。Consumer Purchasing and Outcomes survey。  new window
26.Geckeier, P. M.(1996)。Municipal Derivatives Use and tiie Suitability Doctrine。Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L.，49，285-314。  new window
27.Gedicks, F. M.(2005)。Suitability Claims and Purchases of Unrecommended Securities: An Agency Theory of Broker-Dealer Liability。Ariz StLJ，37，535-588。  new window
28.Cunningham, L. A.(2002)。Behavioral Finance and Investor Governance。Wasti & Lee Rev，59，767-837。  new window
圖書
1.Avgouleas, Emilios(2005)。The mechanics and regulation of market abuse: A legal and economic analysis。Oxford University Press。  new window
2.Moloney, N.(2010)。How to Protect Investors: Lessons from the EC and the UK。Cambridge, UK ; New York。  new window
3.Wood, P.(2008)。Law and Practice of International Finance (University ed.)。London。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：828（臺灣：820，外國：8） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2459241 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68253558
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上