證券交易所跨境連線交易之監理架構研究

Abstract

在證券市場的國際化及自由化下，資金移動去國界、企業跨境籌資及投資人進行海外投資成為趨勢，加上另類交易平台、投資銀行等新興中介業者的崛起，使證券交易所面臨嚴峻挑戰，亟思因應之道。跨境合作乃各國證交所重要的應變方式，臺灣證券交易所近年積極推動「國際連結」，希望藉此吸引國際投資人及企業注意，達到擴充台股規模及推動國際化之目的。 其中，跨境連線交易係由證交所主導的創新跨境交易方式，作為證交所跨境合作的進階類型而頗受重視，藉由降低本國證券商承作買賣外國有價證券複委託業務的成本並簡化程序，使本國投資人能得到更方便、快速且低價的海外投資服務，另一方面也使外國證券商及投資人更容易進入本國證券市場投資，有助於提升市場量能及流動性。跨境連線交易因可大幅提高市場間的連結程度，使兩地形同單一市場，故被譽為跨境交易的終極型態，近來尤於亞太地區盛行，包括台星通、澳星通、東協共同交易平台、滬港通及深港通等均為著例。跨境連線交易的類型廣泛，本文從跨境交易的原始類型—傳統複委託模式出發，依序介紹亞太地區較常見的遠端交易會員模式、東協共同交易平台模式、SPV對接模式及互設SPV模式，並以此為基礎檢視在我國現行法制下實施跨境連線交易時可能產生的問題。 本文將跨境連線交易的監理架構問題分為三層面，並以此開展討論：第一層面為外國證券交易所、我國或外國特殊目的子公司（SPV）及證券商的監理；第二層面為跨境市場不法行為的處理；第三層面為跨境監理合作的進行。 本文檢視三層面後，發現現行法制存在以下問題：其一，准入我國證券市場的法律依據方面，證券交易法及相關規則對於外國證交所、SPV及證券商之准入規定缺乏彈性；其二，證交所對於外國證券商或SPV的交易資格制度及其他監理事項之規定未臻完善；其三，臺灣證交所未能妥善處理自行設立並營運SPV的利益衝突問題。其四，證交法未明確賦予市場不法行為規定域外效力，且司法實務見解亦未能完全填補，而有跨境監理套利可能。其五，證交法第21條之1的跨境監理合作規定仍有待加強及釐清；其六，對於參與跨境連線交易之投資人保護尚需調整。針對上述問題，本文以澳星通、滬港通及深港通的經驗為中心，主要參考新加坡證券暨期貨法（SFA）及新加坡證交所規則、香港證券及期貨條例（SFO）及聯交所規則之相關規定，並輔以澳洲、中國、美國及國際證券監理委員會（IOSCO）之法制為補充。 本研究的主要結論及建議如下：第一層面上，應於證交法關於證交所及證券商准入我國市場之規定增訂豁免及授權條款；應於證交所章則引進遠端交易會員制度及跨境連線交易專章或單行規則，並在互惠基礎上制定核心交易原則或外國市場法規之遵循義務；應透過多層次安排解決法律上及商業上利益衝突，以合乎證交法第98條之立法本旨。第二層面上，應於證交法為跨境連線交易增訂第165條之4準用市場不法行為規定，明文賦予域外效力（效果標準及行為標準）；應在監理機關及證交所兩層次均加強跨境監理合作，簽訂備忘錄並善用監理官聯席會議。第三層面上，應重新檢視證交法21條之1，補充要件及判準並與其他法律調和，強化國際證券監理互助法制；應強化證交所的前端投保角色及投保中心的後端投保角色，並積極落實互惠性的跨境連線交易投保機制。

Owing to internationalization and liberalization, borderless funds transfer, cross-border financing and investing abroad become trends of modern capital markets. Also, the rise of alternative trading systems and investment banks attracts large numbers of institutional and retail investors to OTC markets. Facing these challenges, stock exchanges strive for reforms, including cross-border cooperation. Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWSE) has been actively promoting the 'international link' in recent years, hoping to expand the scale of Taiwan stock market and speed up the pace of internationalization. Cross-border trading linkage (“the linkage”), which is an innovative way of cross-border trading led by stock exchanges, is regarded as an advanced type of cross-border cooperation of stock exchanges. By reducing the cost and simplifying the process of overseas securities sub-brokerage business, investors can get easier, faster, more efficient and cost-effective service from domestic brokers. On the other hand, foreign investors and brokers are also able to directly trade securities listed on the domestic stock exchange, helping to boost the volume and liquidity of domestic capital market. In addition, the linkage is praised as the ultimate form of cross-border trading, for improving the connection between markets and making them to form a single market. The link is particularly popular in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the TWSE-SGX Trading Link, SGX-ASX Trading Link, ASEAN Trading Link, Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect and Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect. This study starts from the original type of cross-border trading- traditional sub-brokerage, and introduces the common types of the linkage in the Asia-Pacific region, including remote trading member mode, ASEAN Trading Link mode, SPV-to-SPV mode and Exchange-to-SPV mode. On the basis of these understandings, the problems that may arise in the implementation of the linkage under the current legal system are examined. In this study, the problems for supervisiory structure of the linkage is divided into three layers: the first layer is about the supervision for overseas stock exchanges, SPV subsidiaries and brokers; the second layer is about the treatment to cross-border market misconducts; the third layer is about the manner of cross-border supervisiory cooperation. The following problems are found: First, the Securities and Exchange Act ('the Act') and the relevant rules are lack of flexibility regarding the legal basis for access to Taiwan stock market. Second, the rules for trading qualification and other supervision matters of foreign securities brokers or SPVs are not good enough. Third, TWSE failed to properly handle the conflicts of interest arising from setting up a SPV subsidiary. Fourth, the Act does not explicitly specify the extraterritorial effect, which may induce cross-border supervisiory arbitrage. Fifth, Article 21-1 of the Act needs to be strengthened and clarified. Sixth, the protection of investors need to be adjusted. To solve these problems, Securities and Futures Act (SFA) of Singapore, SGX-ST Rules, Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) of Hong Kong and Rules of the HKEx are adopted for comparative research, supplemented by legal systems of Australia, China, US and IOSCO. The main conclusions and suggestions of this study are as follows: For the first layer, exemption provisions for accessing to the stock market should be added to the Act; also, remote trading member system, special chapter for the linkage and core trading principles should be added to TWSE rules; besides, multi-level arrangements should be adoped to resolve conflicts of interest. For the second layer, Article 165-4 should be added to the Act to expressly provide extraterritorial effect to market misconducts provisions; also, MOUs and supervisory colleges should be put to good use. For the third layer, requirements and standards of judgment should be adjusted or supplemented to Article 21-1, the role of TWSE and SFIPC for investor protection in the link should be strengthened and adjusted.