Choosing Among Authorities for Consumer Financial Protection in Taiwan: A Legal-Theory-of-Finance Perspective

Chang-hsien Tsai
{"title":"Choosing Among Authorities for Consumer Financial Protection in Taiwan: A Legal-Theory-of-Finance Perspective","authors":"Chang-hsien Tsai","doi":"10.1017/9781108612821.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From a political economy perspective, this book chapter uses the Taiwanese case study to shed light on the significant questions about how best to design economic “safety valves”, especially on the periphery of the financial system. These issues are raised in the seminal paper by Professor Katharina Pistor of Columbia Law School, “A Legal Theory of Finance” (“LTF”): Would courts, regulators, or other agents be best placed to act as a safety valve and empowered to initiate interventions for retail investors or financial services consumers in times of economic distress? This chapter unfolds as follows: Part I deals with the question of whether the substantive aspect of the rule of changed circumstances is applicable in such circumstances as financial crises, bearing in mind the issue of whether courts are suitable bodies to create safety valves for consumer financial protection. Part II discusses the emergence of the procedural aspect of the rule of changed circumstances, a variation of its substantive form and the legislation introduced following the Global Financial Crisis. It then offers a political economy analysis of whether the Financial Supervisory Commission (“FSC”), which is the sole financial market watchdog in Taiwan, would be a better choice than courts to create safety valve waivers of law on the periphery of the financial system. Part III, from the LTF and political economy perspective, assesses why the FSC intervened in the structured notes debacle and its regulatory aftermath in Taiwan. To conclude, this paper advocates creating an independent agency such as a Taiwanese version of the the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to act independently of the FSC and exclusively control its own rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement of consumer financial protection measures in Taiwan. This body would be better placed to offer the legal flexibility of safety valves within the financial system. In short, the structured notes saga illuminates the power relationships within the Taiwanese financial system, illustrating how law is applied under pressure.","PeriodicalId":246136,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Enforcement of Consumer Laws (Topic)","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Enforcement of Consumer Laws (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108612821.009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From a political economy perspective, this book chapter uses the Taiwanese case study to shed light on the significant questions about how best to design economic “safety valves”, especially on the periphery of the financial system. These issues are raised in the seminal paper by Professor Katharina Pistor of Columbia Law School, “A Legal Theory of Finance” (“LTF”): Would courts, regulators, or other agents be best placed to act as a safety valve and empowered to initiate interventions for retail investors or financial services consumers in times of economic distress? This chapter unfolds as follows: Part I deals with the question of whether the substantive aspect of the rule of changed circumstances is applicable in such circumstances as financial crises, bearing in mind the issue of whether courts are suitable bodies to create safety valves for consumer financial protection. Part II discusses the emergence of the procedural aspect of the rule of changed circumstances, a variation of its substantive form and the legislation introduced following the Global Financial Crisis. It then offers a political economy analysis of whether the Financial Supervisory Commission (“FSC”), which is the sole financial market watchdog in Taiwan, would be a better choice than courts to create safety valve waivers of law on the periphery of the financial system. Part III, from the LTF and political economy perspective, assesses why the FSC intervened in the structured notes debacle and its regulatory aftermath in Taiwan. To conclude, this paper advocates creating an independent agency such as a Taiwanese version of the the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to act independently of the FSC and exclusively control its own rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement of consumer financial protection measures in Taiwan. This body would be better placed to offer the legal flexibility of safety valves within the financial system. In short, the structured notes saga illuminates the power relationships within the Taiwanese financial system, illustrating how law is applied under pressure.
台湾消费者金融保护的权力选择:金融法理视角
从政治经济学的角度来看,本书的这一章使用台湾的案例研究来阐明有关如何最好地设计经济“安全阀”的重要问题,特别是在金融体系的外围。哥伦比亚大学法学院的Katharina Pistor教授在一篇开创性的论文《金融法律理论》(“LTF”)中提出了这些问题:法院、监管机构或其他代理机构是否最适合充当安全阀,并有权在经济不景气时对散户投资者或金融服务消费者进行干预?本章展开如下:第一部分处理的问题是,情况变化规则的实质性方面是否适用于金融危机等情况,同时考虑到法院是否是为消费者金融保护创造安全阀的合适机构。第二部分讨论了情况变化规则的程序方面的出现、其实质形式的变化以及全球金融危机后引入的立法。然后,本文对台湾唯一的金融市场监管机构——金融监督管理委员会(FSC)是否比法院更好地选择在金融体系外围设立法律豁免安全阀进行了政治经济学分析。第三部分,从LTF和政治经济学的角度,评估FSC干预台湾结构性票据崩溃的原因及其监管后果。综上所述,本文主张建立一个独立的机构,如台湾版的美国消费者金融保护局,独立于FSC行事,并专门控制自己的规则制定,监督和执行台湾的消费者金融保护措施。这个机构将更有能力在金融体系内提供安全阀的法律灵活性。简而言之,结构性票据事件揭示了台湾金融体系内部的权力关系,说明了法律是如何在压力下适用的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信