The regulatory sandbox is a special regime provided by regulators and super- visory authorities to market participants for testing their innovative business models, while temporarily reducing certain regulatory requirements. It is a very recent topic and so far its impact has not been sufficiently empirically tested. However, the empirical evidence may be crucial for the authorities hesitating to adopt their regulatory sandboxes. The main contribution of this thesis is the empirical testing of the effect of the sandbox on the investments into FinTech in three European countries, using the Synthetic control method. The yearly aggregate amounts and numbers of FinTech investments were selected as mea- surable indices of the FinTech sector development. The most significant results show that in the United Kingdom, the aggregate yearly amounts invested into FinTech grew considerably compared to the values of the synthetic control unit, after the sandbox introduction. For the other two tested countries (the Nether- lands, Denmark), no significant outcomes were observed due to insufficiency of data. In the theoretical part, this thesis gathers information about the existing regulatory sandboxes in European countries. Also, the author seeks to outline the main legal issues related to the regulatory sandbox...

高頻率交易在近年已漸成為全球趨勢，在世界各主要交易所的交易型態中都占有相當的比例。高頻率交易雖因係非僅有單一策略型態的套利行為，而目前尚未有明確之定義，然簡言之，其係指於毫秒等級的微小時間內，利用複雜的計算機運算系統挾帶速度優勢來進行迅速探測出市場上股票或期貨微小的價格差異並從中套利之交易模式。高頻率交易的特性是「交易頻繁，但每次獲利微薄」，且通常是當沖交易。然而，此種立基於快速撮合的逐筆交易制度以及資訊軟硬體設備進步而生之新型交易模式，除能帶來增加交易市場流動性、促進市場活絡等優點以外，亦藏有使股市因無意向成交而產生劇烈波動或造成市場秩序不公平等風險，如著名的美國2010年閃電崩盤即為一例。 我國證券市場的交易制度幾經更迭，現行所採之集合競價的撮合間隔時間一路從20秒降至現行的5秒，然仍遲未採行各國趨勢之逐筆交易制度。現任證交所董事長施俊吉對此也於2016年12月13日受訪時指出，集合競價交易方式已屬老式且落伍，逐筆交易已水到渠成，運作尚有賴券商業者大力配合。只要券商準備好即可隨時啟動。 證券交易市場首重公平性，此於我國證券交易法立法目的即可觀之。我國雖因未採行逐筆交易制度，目前尚未面臨高頻率交易之挑戰，然於可預見之未來，我國實施逐筆交易制度後，高頻率交易的產生以及比重無可避免地將有隨之增加之可能。此時我國證券交易市場所將面臨的，即高頻率交易究竟有無促進市場效率、抑或破壞市場公平性；以及我們又該如何將之規範以兼顧市場整體利益與投資人保護等考驗。 本論文以現行我國交易制度的發展動向為脈絡，並以未雨綢繆之角度初探高頻率交易此一議題，藉參考他國就此交易模式之制度與規範方向，自我國現行證券交易法之制度下進行檢視及討論，藉此試提出於我國推行逐筆交易後，發生高頻率交易時之相關配套建議以及對投資人的保護措施，做為我國日後實際推行逐筆交易制度與高頻率交易時之參考依據。 / High-frequency trading (HFT) has become a global trend in recent years. It accounts for a considerable proportion in the world's major exchanges. HFT is not only a single strategy for the type of arbitrage behavior; hence, there is still no clear definition of it. But in short, it refers to a type of algorithmic trading characterized by "frequent transactions with minute profit". Despite the benefit of increasing the liquidity of market and promoting market activity, it also has some disadvantages such as interfering the market order and the risk of unfairness. The well-known case, Flash Crash, of America in 2010 is so one example of HFT. The securities market trading system of Taiwan, Call Auction, has changed several times. The interval of the auction collecting and matching time has been all the way from 20 seconds down to the 5 seconds in current. But the final goal, Trade by Trade Matching transaction, has not yet been adopted so far. In December of 2016, the current chairman of Taiwan Stock Exchange said that Call Auction transaction is now old-fashioned and outdated, Trade by Trade Matching transaction has become a matter of course. Trade by Trade Matching transaction is just right around the corner, and it’s ready to launch as long as the brokers are ready. Fairness is the first priority in securities market. While Taiwan has not yet adopted the Trade by Trade Matching transaction and has not yet faced the challenges of HFT, Taiwan will no doubt implement it in the foreseeable future, and therefore the possibility of the appearance and the proportion of HFT in our market will be increasing. At the same time, HFT will be faced with whether it will promote market efficiency or undermine the fairness of the market. How should we regulate it and how to protect the interests of investors and the overall benefit of our market will also become our tests. This thesis takes the development trend of current trading system in Taiwan as a starting point and probes into the issue of HFT from the view of precaution. By referring to the trading system and regulations toward HFT of other countries, this thesis try to propose relevant suggestions and protection measures for investors and appropriate regulations of market after the implementation of Trade by Trade Matching transaction and the embracement of HFT in Taiwan.

Under de senaste åren har finanssektorn förändrats och en bidragande faktor är teknisk innovation. Teknisk innovation kan utveckla tillhandahållandet av finansiella tjänster som finansiella aktörer såsom banker erbjuder till sina kunder. En jurisdiktion kan främja utvecklingen av finansiella tjänster, antingen genom en finansiell sandlåda eller en innovationshubb. En finansiell sandlåda är en säker miljö där banker och bolag vars verksamhet endast består av teknisk innovation (FinTech-bolag), kan testa sina oreglerade affärsmodeller. Testutrymmet kontrolleras av en tillsynsmyndighet. För närvarande har över 50 jurisdiktioner upprättat en finansiell sandlåda och flera europeiska länder har redan en sandlåda i drift eller överväger att införa en. Flera olika EU-institut, som exempelvis Europeiska kommissionen och Europaparlamentet, är positiva för att införa en reglering av finansiella sandlådor på EU-nivå. Finansiella sandlådor är endast utformade som nationella finansiella sandlådor. Syftet med denna masteruppsats är att utreda huruvida EU behöver reglera finansiella sandlådor och i så fall om regelverket bör antas som ett direktiv eller en förordning. Slutsatsen av denna uppsats är att finansiella sandlådor behöver regleras även om vissa medlemsstater inte vill upprätta en egen nationell sandlåda. En anledning till varför finansiella sandlådor är behövliga i EU är för att de främjar konkurrensen mellan olika finansiella aktörer. Dessutom är finansiella sandlådor ett tillfälle för nya marknadsaktörer såsom FinTech-bolag att växa. Väljer EU att inte reglera finansiella sandlådor kommer det att hämma den fria rörligheten för finansiella tjänster. Den mest effektiva lösningen för EU hade varit att anta ett direktiv om harmoniserade nationella finansiella sandlådor. Genom att anta regelverket som ett direktiv får medlemsländerna själva bestämma vilka bestämmelser som ska implementeras i den nationella lagstiftningen. / In recent times, the financial market has changed and a contributing factor is technological innovation. Technological innovation can develop the provision of financial services which companies such as banks offers their consumers. There are two ways a jurisdiction can promote the development of financial services; either through a regulatory sandbox or an innovation hub. A regulatory sandbox is a safe environment where banks and companies who only works with technological innovation (FinTech-companies) can test their unregulated business models. The environment is controlled and monitored by a supervisory authority. Regulatory sandboxes are available in more than 50 different jurisdictions, and an increasing number of European countries are either thinking of establishing one or have already done it.   Within the European Union, some organisations such as the European Commission and the European Parliament have expressed their willingness to regulate regulatory sandboxes at Union level. For now, sandboxes can only be set up as a national regulatory sandbox. The purpose of this master’s thesis is to investigate whether the Union needs to regulate regulatory sandboxes and if so, should the Union introduce a directive or a regulation on harmonized national regulatory sandboxes.    The investigation of this thesis shows that regulatory sandboxes are needed even though some Member States are unwilling to establish one. Regulatory sandboxes are needed in the Union because it furthers the competition between companies offering financial services. Regulatory sandboxes also help new entrants such as FinTech-companies to grow. If the Union does not regulate regulatory sandboxes, it will hinder the free movement of services. The best outcome for regulation, would be if the Union adopted a directive on harmonized national regulatory sandboxes. The regulation should be adopted as a directive because it facilitates Member States in determining which provisions should be implemented in national legislation.

Sedan den finanskris som uppstod år 2008 har ökade krav ställts beträffande säkerhet ochstabilitet inom den finansiella sektorn. Av den orsaken har etablerade aktörer, vilka omfattas avde alltmer extensiva regelverken, påförts ytterligare krav avseende exempelvis tillsyn ochlikviditet. De ökade säkerhetskraven har, i sin tur, tvingat berörda aktörer att agera merrestriktivt beträffande finansiell innovation och vid utvecklandet av nya finansiella lösningar. Den tekniska utvecklingen har möjliggjort för uppkomsten av nya typer av betaltjänster ochprodukter. Det har resulterat i att etablerade finansiella aktörer, under det senaste decenniet, harmött nya utmaningar i form av en ökad konkurrens från fintechbolag vilka, vid sidan avbefintliga regelverk, har utvecklat innovativa tjänster och produkter specialiserade inom ettspecifikt led inom kundkontaktskedjan. Med anledning av ikraftträdandet av det andrabetaltjänstdirektivet omfattas även fintechbolag av de bestämmelser som reglerarbetaltjänstmarknaden. Genom införandet av regelverket utökas omfattningen till att äveninbegripa leverantörer av kontoinformationstjänster och betalningsinitieringstjänster, så kalladetredjepartsleverantörer. Syftet med det andra betaltjänstdirektivet är bland annat att främjakonkurrens samt att effektivisera den finansiella marknaden. Samtidigt får inte den finansiellastabiliteten äventyras på bekostnad av ifrågavarande ändamål. För att främja finansiell innovation har vissa nationella tillsynsmyndigheter vidtagit olikaregleringsrelaterade åtgärder, såsom exempelvis en regulatorisk sandlåda, en innovationshubbeller ett innovationscenter. Med åtgärderna avses att med olika medel tillvarata den potentialsom fintech har att erbjuda finansmarknaden. Regleringsrelaterade åtgärder, vidtagna pånationell nivå, måste emellertid utvecklas och förhållas till gällande regelverk och får inte sättakonsumentskyddet på spel. I förevarande uppsats behandlas huruvida såväl det andra betaltjänstdirektivet som nationelltvidtagna regleringsrelaterade åtgärder förmår att främja tredjepartsleverantörersinnovationsförmåga på betaltjänstmarknaden, särskilt med beaktande av deras möjligheter attkonkurrera på den finansiella marknaden, utan att det sker på bekostnad av det finansiellasystemets stabilitet och säkerhet.

金融科技在近年來已成為企業界與學術界所討論的顯學，但如何有效兼顧監理、法令遵循與促進產業發展，並因應創新商業模式，設計出法規與監理措施，已成為一道難題。基於上述背景，監理沙盒的概念與制度應運而生。我國版的金融監理沙盒，已於2018年1月31日公布。然而，除了金融科技創新，其他產業同樣有創新的必要，在面臨既有法規的限制，同樣有所掣肘。金融科技以外的領域，是否有類似「監理沙盒」的機制，在不分產業別的狀況下，應用在創新的實驗？日本在2014年1月20日起施行的「產業競爭力強化法」，用於創新技術或服務的「企業實證特例制度」及「灰色地帶消除制度」兩項機制，即為不限金融科技領域，適用於各個產業的沙盒制度。 本研究透過檢視日本產業競爭力強化法，深究其內容及機制的優缺點，與推行實績及具體的兩個個案後，據以反思我國是否可透過參考「灰色地帶消除制度」、「企業實證特例制度」的運作，與各產業內的潛在創新者更緊密合作，以有利於未來當主管機關面臨創新與法規的衝撞時，掌握對於各產業的影響。回歸我國法制，本研究針對「金融科技發展與創新實驗條例草案」，包括立法目的、概要，條例中的申請及審查、監督及管理，及實驗期間法令之排除適用及法律責任豁免等議題進行研析，並針對日本推動新事業活動特例措施，與我國金融科技發展與創新實驗條例，進行比較。同時亦將監理沙盒模擬演練的過程中，針對演練的架構、步驟、實際狀況、回饋與心得，提出歸納成果，並針對業者與主管機關進行協商與溝通的階段，歸納出具有邏輯性與合理性的執行步驟與方法論，做為當業者在準備階段與主管機關往返溝通與提案時的參考。 本研究認為，當創新與科技在與金融結合時，創新服務與法規監管的本質不同，所造成的緊張與衝突在所難免，也因此更應該體認到數位時代下主管機關對於法規調適與鬆綁之必要性。在臚列我國於發展第三方支付立法的經驗作為前車之鑑，及剖析日本產業競爭強化法的制度與實績作為他山之石後，本研究認為新創事業無論在籌備階段、實驗階段、營運階段，對於法規的特例需求的確不同於一般事業。因此政府應秉持以下三項原則予以協助：(一)法規對新創企業應更友善且主動輔導、(二)抱持產業永續發展的思維看待新創產業、(三)消費者權益維護與企業營運必須兼顧。 本研究的另一研究結果為，經過個案模擬演練的操作後，歸納並提出七個執行步驟，並建議業者可針對此七個步驟進行腦力激盪與預先演練模擬，在有限的時間內以最高的效率備齊相關文件，以減少審核等待期。最後，本研究認為，業者與主管機關在議題協商時須充分考量有關於創新、業務、消保、法遵等四個面向的議題，且以公私協力的前提下，隨時調整並良性溝通。而主管機關更應加速金融科技的法規革新速度，並適度鬆綁不適用的法規，創造一個對於新創產業相對友善的法規環境，協助新創業者在業務上的發展，使我國能在金融科技戰場上決勝。 / In recent years, financial technology, aka FinTech, has become a significant study discussed by industries and academics. However, how to effectively manage supervisory, compliance with laws and promote industrial development, and how to design regulatory and supervisory measures in response to innovative business models have become a big challenge. Based on the abovementioned facts, the concept of Regulatory Sandbox came into being. Taiwan’s Act on Financial Technology Innovations and Experiments was released on January 31, 2018. Besides FinTech, innovation is equally necessary and indispensable for other industries that also restrained by the limitations of the existing laws and regulations. Are there any mechanisms similar with Regulatory Sandbox for those innovators in other industries? Japan released the Act on Strengthening Industrial Competitiveness on January 20, 2014, which provided two mechanisms, Special System for Corporate Field Tests and System to Remove Gray Zone Areas, for innovative technologies and services for all industries. This essay targets Japan’s and Taiwan’s Acts on Financial Technology Innovations as research objectives, discusses the investigations in both countuires, and provides suggestions for future works. Firstly, this study explores the strengths and weaknesses of its contents and mechanisms by examining Japan’s Act on Strengthening Industrial Competitiveness, and aims at extending the practical angle to Taiwan for the future when facing the conflict between innovation and regulation. Secondly, the essay aims at studying Taiwan’s Act on Financial Technology Innovations and Experiments, and comparing the differences between Japan’s and Taiwan’s Acts. Finally, by observing the results of sandbox simulation exercises, this study elaborates implemental procedures, and logical methodologies as a reference for practitioners to communicate with and submit proposals to the authorities during the preparatory phase. Due to the nature difference of innovation technology and financial supervision, it is considered that the tensions and conflicts are inevitable. Therefore, it is more necessary to amend the existing regulations or even deregulate for start-up. Furthermore, by learning from Taiwan's experience in developing third-party payment legislation and Japan's legislations and actual practices released, this study obtains that deregulation and coordination from government agencies considered highly important to startup operators in every stage. In terms of industry development, further suggestions are concluded in this research for government agencies, including (1) laws and regulations should be more friendly for new start-up, (2) to maintain the sustainable development of start-up industries and operators, and (3)-to achieve balance between the protection of consumer rights and business continuity. After conducting sandbox case simulation exercises, this essay proposes seven procedures for start-up to efficiently go through with internal brainstorming while in preparation stage under a limited time. The last part of the study sets out four topics for practitioners and the competent authorities that are related to innovation, business, consumer protection and law compliance when negotiating the regulatory issues during experiments, hoping to provide a solid methodology beneficial to FinTech practitioners.