我国证券交易所市场中的“适当性规则”探析

发布时间：2018-04-23 20:21

本文选题：适当性规则 + 证券公司　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：适当性规则的适用范围本身并没有清晰的外延，而我国现有的适当性规则散乱于各自律性规范和部分部门性规范的情况，使得界定这一范围并非易事。值得注意的是，上交所的《暂行办法》以及证券业协会的《指引》均未穷尽适当性规则的适用范围，那么哪些情况尽管没有被列举，但是仍然应当适用该规则，哪些情况应当排除出该规则的适用范围？在回答这一问题时，笔者认为风险性和投资者的信赖理应成为判断标准。适当性规则的相关方主要包括投资者、证券公司及证券监管者。从适当性规则的诞生和不断完善的过程来看，投资者始终是该规则的保护对象。本文着重论述了证券公司作为适当性规则义务人的正当性问题，结合现有的天然联系论、优势损害论、法律关系论以及强制干预论，笔者认为证券公司并非出于公益性而承担适当性义务，而是出于其专业性，而专业性是其盈利手段。证券公司越是被投资者相信具有专业性，所背负的投资者信赖也就越重，盈利的可能也就越大，这种盈利可能性增大的对价正是高标准的适当性义务。出于盈利的目的，，证券公司竭尽所能地宣扬自身的专业性，正是这一宣扬本身包涵了适当性义务。目前，我国证券市场中的“适当性规则”其具体内容主要包括准入条件、投资者分类制度、证券公司的权利和义务、投资者的权利和义务以及保障措施几方面。笔者通过分析认为，在我国，准入条件的设置具有现实必要性，然而准入条件与适当性规则的本质不符也是事实，就此笔者认为应当将适当性规则并入金融管理的相关法律中，并且把准入性的条款放在适当性规则外的其他金融管理条款中，即制定统一的金融管理法律是解决这一问题最终的、也是最有效的手段。另，就证券公司与投资者权利义务的规定上，笔者指出利益平衡规则应成为我们一以贯之的理念。具体需要处理好适当性规则与买者自负规则之间的关系，完善投资者救济将投资者保护落到实处，同时要考虑对证券公司给予正向激励，避免过度保护中小投资者以挫伤证券公司制度执行的积极性。我国现有的适当性规则就保障措施的规定上存在着保障人定位上的偏差。鉴于证券公司的种种自利之举以及其素质堪忧的现状，将证券公司内控作为保障适当性义务实施主要手段的有效性令人怀疑，证券监管者应当发挥更大的作用。就现有适当性规则的完善方面，笔者认为需要从立法和实践两方面进行探索。就适当性规则民事责任的建立上，基于以下几点考虑，笔者认为制定投资者适当性义务民事责任的时机并不成熟：一、我国对证券欺诈已然规定了相应的民事责任，若证券公司违反适当性义务的行为达到了证券欺诈的程度，那么可以直接适用禁止欺诈客户的规则；二、我国适当性规则的建立尚在探索中，规则完善度较低，在证券公司尚缺乏明确行为指引的情形下急于给其安排民事赔偿，将使其无所适从且不堪重负；三、从可实现性来看，完善现有的监管措施、纪律处分、行政处罚更具有可操作性。因为无论是法院、投资者还是证券公司都缺乏利用投资者适当性规则上的经验。在实践层面，我国证券市场中的投资者了解产品风险、签署风险揭示书的过程十分潦草的事实，将导致出现这样的尴尬局面，即投资者实际上并不了解金融产品或服务的风险，然而给证券公司留下了其已然了解的铁证。因而需要避免投资者签字的绝对效力。具体可以从指定风险揭示书的统一文本、对整个推介说明过程留下其他证据、以特别声明的方式提醒投资者注意以及在具体裁判中灵活处理允许例外情形存在等方式实现。
[Abstract]:The scope of the application of the rules of appropriateness is not a clear extension itself, and the existing rules of appropriateness in our country are scattered in the rules of law and part of the departmental norms. It is not easy to define this scope. It is worth noting that the provisional measures of the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the guidelines of the Securities Association have not exhausted the appropriate rules. The scope of application, which is not enumerated, but still should apply the rule, which should exclude the scope of the application of the rule? When answering this question, the author thinks that the risk and the trust of the investor should be the criterion of judgment.
The relevant parties of the rules of appropriateness mainly include investors, securities companies and securities regulators. From the birth and continuous improvement of the rules of appropriateness, the investor is always the object of protection of the rules. This paper focuses on the positive problem of the securities company as an appropriate rule of duty, combining with the existing natural contact theory. The theory of potential damage, the theory of legal relations and the theory of compulsory intervention, the author thinks that the securities companies do not take the appropriate obligation for the public welfare, but are out of their professionalism, and the professionalism is their profit means. The more the securities companies are believed to be professional by the investors, the more trust the investors bear, the greater the possibility of the profit. The increase in the possibility of an increase in profitability is a high standard of appropriateness. For the purpose of profit, the securities companies do their best to publicize their professionalism. It is this advocating that it itself contains the appropriate obligation.
At present, the specific content of the "appropriateness rule" in the securities market of our country mainly includes the conditions of access, the system of investor classification, the rights and obligations of the securities companies, the rights and obligations of the investors and the safeguard measures. It is also a fact that the nature of the rules of appropriateness is not consistent. In this regard, I think that the rules of appropriateness should be incorporated into the relevant laws of financial management, and the provisions of the admittance should be placed in other financial management clauses outside the appropriate rules, that is, the formulation of a unified financial management law is the ultimate and most effective means to solve the problem. In terms of the rights and obligations of securities companies and investors, the author points out that the rule of balance of interests should be a concept that we should concentrate on. It is necessary to deal with the relationship between the rules of the appropriateness and the buyer's self negative rules, to improve the investor relief to put the investor protection into reality, and to consider the positive incentives to the securities companies. In order to avoid excessive protection of small and medium investors in order to contend the implementation of the securities company system, the existing appropriateness rules in our country have a bias on the guarantee of the safeguards. In view of the self-interest of the securities companies and the present situation of their poor quality, the internal control of the securities company is taken as the main guarantee for the implementation of the appropriateness obligation. The effectiveness of the means is doubtful, and the securities regulator should play a greater role.
In terms of the improvement of the existing rules of appropriateness, the author thinks that it is necessary to explore the two aspects of legislation and practice. On the basis of the following considerations, the author thinks that the time for establishing the civil liability of investor's appropriateness and obligation is not mature. Responsibility, if the securities company violates appropriate obligations to achieve the degree of securities fraud, then the rules prohibiting fraudulent customers can be directly applied. Two, the establishment of the rules of appropriateness in our country is still in the exploration, the rules are relatively low, and the securities companies are eager to arrange civil compensation under the lack of explicit guidance of the securities companies. Three, from the perspective of feasibility, it is more operable to improve the existing regulatory measures, disciplinary measures and administrative penalties, because both the court, the investor and the securities company lack the experience of using the rules of investor Appropriateness. In the actual practice, the investors in the securities market of our country understand the product. Risk, the very scrawl of the process of signing the risk disclosure book, will lead to an awkward situation that investors do not actually understand the risks of financial products or services, but leave the securities firm with the iron evidence that they have already understood. The unified text of the book leaves other evidence for the whole process of introducing the description, reminding the investors in a special statement and flexibly dealing with the existence of exceptions in a specific referee.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.287

【相似文献】