政府處理西元2005年結構債事件之回顧與檢討─以法律層面為中心

Abstract

金管會於2004年7月1日成立後，適美元有連續升息趨勢，該會鑑於國內債券型基金持有甚高部位之逆浮動結構債，研判若未處理，可能造成投資人大量贖回，致引發國內投信基金之流動性風險，甚至引起系統性風險，乃以行政指導方式要求國內投信業者應於2005年12月底以前，移出債券型基金所持有之結構債，如不遵行，則金管會將不會同意投信業者募集或追加募集基金之申請；金管會並提出所謂之三大鐵律─「基金受益人不得受有損失」、「如有損失，應由投信股東承擔」、「須遵循現行法令」─為業者移出結構債時應遵循方針。 金管會要求國內投信業者移出債券型基金所持結構債，係以「美元有連續升息趨勢，將引發國內債券型基金甚至國內基金之流動性風險、系統性風險」為前提，惟此前提是否存在，似有疑問。本文將整理並分析相關數據，以對此一前提存在之可能性提出質疑。 此外，縱此一前提確有存在之可能，金管會之行政指導是否合宜？且其要求投信業者限期移出債券型基金所持結構債，是否合於行政法上之比例原則？而其所提出之三大鐵律，是否妥當、合法？本文亦將整理並分析相關事實、數據，說明前述行政指導、限期移出、三大鐵律等確有失當之處。 「前事不忘，後事之師」，本文提出之質疑及檢討，其目的不在指責主管機關，而在藉此提醒主管機關未來進行任何財務金融相關決策時，應有更周全的考量。併此敘明。

Duly after its establishment on July 1, 2004, FSC became aware of a trend that the U.S.D interest rate would be promoted continuously(‘USD IRPC’), and since the domestic bond funds(‘DBF’) held a great quantity of Structure Notes, FSC judged that if it did nothing to response, USD IRPC may result in a large number of investor redemptions, which would cause domestic investment trust companies(‘DITC’) a liquidity risk, and even lead to their systemic risk. So FSC required that DITC should follow FSC’s administrative guidance to move all the Structure notes out of the DBF before the end of 2005(‘Move out’). And FSC would not approve the DITC’s apllication to raise a new fund or enlarge the scale of existed funds, if they did not follow FSC’s requirement. FSC also asked the DITC to follow the three so-called iron laws─'beneficiaries of the Funds shall not be subject to a loss.', ' The shareholders of DITC should bear the loss, if any.', 'DITC must follow the current law.'─ when moved the Structure Notes out of the DBF. The precondition of FSC’s requirement above was “The USD IRPC incident would trigger off a liquidity risk and ,more, a systemic risk to DBF even the domestic investment fund ”. But it is questionable about the existence of that precondition. This paper will collate and analyse the relavant data to challenge the possibility of the existence of said precondition. In addition, even it were possible for said precondition’s exsistence, whether FSC's administrative guidance is appropriate? Whether it follows the Principle of Proportionality in Administrative ACt when required DITC to move Structure Note? And whether they are legal and appropriate of FSC’s three iron laws? This paper will also collate and analyze the relevant facts, data, to indicate FSC’s mismanagement of the aforementioned administrative guidance, the Move Out and the three iron laws. 'Past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future', this paper presents the challenge and review, the purpose is not accused of the competent authority, but to remind the authorities should be more thoughtful consideration when making any future financial-related decisions.