P2P借貸及股權模式群眾募資(即所謂金融回報型群眾募資)在過去五年間快速地成長，被認為係使中小企業及新創公司可有效率籌資之工具。為維持其制度之功能-籌資之效率性，在對籌資公司或平台之規範強督不宜過高，以降低其法規遵循成本。惟由於投資P2P借貸及股權模式群眾募資伴隨許多種類之風險，故在降低對籌資公司或平台之法規遵循負擔時，投資人保護之問題亦不可忽視，如何在此二者間達成平衡，為監管上之重要議題。
本文首先介紹在P2P借貸或股權模式已有發展或正在發展之美國、英國以及日本之規範概況。其次，在我國法部分，先就我國之股權模式群眾募資規範之發展為介紹，並參照比較法之規範為評析。其後，則就我國若引進P2P借貸制度，在我國既有法制如銀行法上可能碰到之問題及規範方向為分析。
在股權模式部分，櫃買中心在2014年1月開始營運功能相似之創櫃板。於2015年，金管會宣布證券經紀商經主管機關核准後，可經營股權性質群眾募資平台(後稱民營平台)，二者均受櫃買中心所發布之法規命令所規範。創櫃板與民營平台在功能及規範上有其相似之處，當二者在未來採雙軌並行時，可能有市場區隔及風險控制不足與櫃買中心在主導創櫃板同時，亦作為民營平台之監管者之利益衝突等問題。再者，在各自制度之問題上，二者亦有共通之處。關於投資人保護部分，第一，投資人可否適用相關規範為救濟，除證交法之反詐欺條款外，目前尚不明確。其次，關於投資限額之規範，則有計算與驗證限額之方式與轉售限制之規範必要性及周邊問題等之討論。關於籌資公司，則有籌資限額規範之寬嚴問題及僅可發行普通股之規範等之討論。在平台業者之規範，在民營平台部分，有關於平台業者准入規範、名義股東制度之可行性、單一業務經營及重大禁止行為等問題之討論。
在P2P借貸制度部分，關於我國法制，本文認為在各該模式是否使平台甚而借用人有構成銀行法收受存款之問題未能被釐清之前，P2P借貸制度恐無法被順利引進，可能須透過銀行法之修正，並輔以主管機關之解釋始能解決此一問題。關於對P2P借貸平台之規範，P2P借貸平台是否被定位為金融機構之一環，亦可能影響其應遵循之法律或規範為何。惟本文認為為促進P2P借貸平台之發展，即使主管機關將其定位為金融機構之一環，亦需適當設置例外，藉此可避免繁重之法規遵循成本讓使P2P借貸之制度失其設計之原意。關於貸與人之保護，在救濟途徑、投資限額、風險之評估與預告、中間帳戶之監管、資訊揭露、平台是否應提存準備金及設置意外準備基金、貸與人是否適用存款保險制度以及平台倒閉時對流通在外借款之處理機制等，亦應設置相關規範，惟亦應注意貸與人保護與上述平台法規遵循成本之平衡問題。在法規之規範方式上，本文則認為P2P借貸之商業模式可能乃與傳統借貸之商業模式有所落差，而平台之定位亦可能與傳統金融機構有所不同，故認為宜單獨就P2P借貸修訂專法或至少由主管機關單獨訂定法規命令，較為妥適。 / P2P lending and equity crowdfunding (so called “financial return crowdfunding,” FR crowdfunding for short), having grown rapidly in the last 5 years, are considered as an efficient vehicle for funding small and medium enterprises as well as start-ups. For maintaining the function of FR crowdfunding that is the efficiency of raising fund, it’s not appropriate to put strong regulations on the enterprises needing fund and the platforms of FR crowdfunding. However, because investing in FR crowdfunding associates with several types of risks, while reducing the burdens of the enterprises or platforms on compliance with the regulations, the issue of investor protection also cannot be ignored. How to balance between these two topics mentioned above is an important issue on the regulations of FR crowdfunding.
Firstly, this article introduces the regulations on FR crowdfunding in U.S., Britain and Japan where P2P lending or equity crowdfunding has developed or is developing. Secondly, in the regulation of Taiwan, the article presents the regulation on equity crowdfunding of Taiwan first and make some comments, referred to the foreign regulations mentioned above. Afterwards, the article analyzes the problems, encountered on the existing laws, such as the Banking Law, and studies how to regulate P2P lending, if P2P lending is introduced to Taiwan.
In the section of the equity crowdfunding, Taipei Exchange (GreTai Securities Market) started Incubation Board for Startup and Acceleration Firms (GISA) in January 2014 whose function is similar to that of the equity crowdfunding platforms. In 2015, Financial Supervisory Commission declared that securities brokers are permitted to operate platforms of equity crowdfunding (called private platforms hereinafter) once the securities brokers are authorized by the competent authority. Both GISA and private platforms are regulated by the regulations issued by Taipei Exchange. The functions and the regulation structures of GISA and private platforms are similar. When GISA and private platforms operate in a double-track way in the future, there are some problems like the insufficiency of market segmentation and risk control. Because upon the regulations, Taipei Exchange also supervises the private platforms, there exists a problem of interest conflict. Moreover, the regulations of GISA and private platforms also have common issues. About the protection of investor, firstly, whether the remedy regulations of other laws could apply for the investors of GISA and private platforms, except for the anti-fraud regulation of Securities and Exchange Act, is not clear so far. Secondly, there are also some discussions on the regulation of investment cap like the approach to calculate and verify the cap, the necessity of the measure of resale limitation, etc. About the enterprises raising fund on the GISA or private platforms, there are some discussions on whether the cap of raising fund should be higher and whether those enterprises should be permitted to offer preferred stock to raise fund, etc. About the platform, concerning to the regulations on the private platforms, there are some discussions on the industry access regulation, the feasibility of nominee structure, the operation of single business and the acts prohibited by the regulation, etc.
In the section of the P2P lending, the article notes that before the problem, whether the borrowers or the platforms under different business models be considered as doing the business of accepting deposits under the Banking Law, could be clarified, it’s afraid that P2P lending cannot be introduced to Taiwan smoothly. This problem could be solved by the amendment of the current Banking Law or by the legal interpretations issued by the competent authority of Banking Law. About the regulations to the P2P lending platforms, whether the P2P lending platforms are considered as a financial institution affects which laws or regulations the P2P lending platforms might obey. However, for promoting the development of P2P lending, the article thought even if P2P lending platforms are considered as a financial institution, it’s necessary to set exceptions appropriately on it. By doing that, the purpose of P2P lending might not be destroyed by the heavy burden of compliance of regulations.
About the protection of lenders, the regulations on P2P lending should include the issues on remedies of P2P lenders, investor investment cap, rating and precaution of risk, the supervision on the account of fund raised from lenders, information disclosure, whether the platforms should deposit reserves and set contingency fund, whether P2P lenders are protected by the deposit insurance, and the mechanism to deal with the loans still outstanding in case of the platform failure. However, the issue of balancing the lenders protection and the cost of regulatory compliance of the platforms still need to be considered. About how to regulate P2P lending, the article thinks that the business model of P2P lending is different from traditional lending model and that the P2P platforms are also different from the traditional financial institutions. Consequently, the article thinks that it’s appropriate to make laws or regulations singly for P2P lending.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0101651010 |
| Creators | 趙毓馨 |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0029 seconds