| Abstract: | 近年「媒金分離」、「產金分離」與「金金分離」等金融政策，成為臺灣常提及之概念。美國法上分離政策，經過規模限制、關係人交易限制、業種分離、業種重新允許結合與再次限制等不同階段演變，最終匯聚在金融控股公司型態。此一結論現為各國金融組織主流管制型態。然而該結構也出現眾多問題：包括過於繁複、金融業者性質與風險轉變、商品定性與管制困難、及金融機構規模過大問題，特別是「大到不能倒」的救援困境。而這也正是二○一○年後美國重新引入Volcker Rule的原因。臺灣在此問題上，一方面面對類似變遷，但另方面也出現本地特有的想法與挑戰。準此，美國法上的處理，特別是法條上概念比較法上的溯源、金融控股公司結構下跨業經營所衍生的問題與挑戰、及相關概念與背後理論，對臺灣而言均有理解的必要，並希望能藉此就臺灣在金融分離政策的操作上，產生一定的借鏡。
In recent years,“separation of banking and commerce”,“separation of banking and media”, and“separation among banking institutions”are all recurring keywords when referring to financial regulation in Taiwan. However, matching concepts in comparative banking law, even imperfect ones, are less often discussed. Using the notions and legal rules developed in the United States as the benchmarks, this Article examines and analyzes these related concepts—in form or of function—and their uses in the United States.The general“firewall”policy in American banking law has gone through several stages, including branch restriction, related-party transaction regulation, separation of commercial and investment banking, breakdown of the Glass-Steagall Wall, and the re-introduction of Volcker Rule by the Dodd-Frank Act as a keystone in mending the fallout of 2008 financial crisis. On the surface, these changes evolve and converge toward the structural design of any financial holding company. However, this organizational form has created unexpected challenges to modern financial regulation, including lack of transparency, obscuring the role as an intermediary and trading opponent, over-complex product design, and excessive size of financial conglomerates, which causes wealth concentration, political unease, as well as“too big to fail”when happened. This is exactly the background of the returning of Volcker Rule in 2010.However, Taiwan not only faces a similar structural threat brought by financial holding companies as what is in the U.S., but also encounters its local idiosyncrasy when crafting its version of“separation policy.”To respond to this intricate nature of this issue, this Article investigates the historical developments in the banking law in the United States. The hope is that these experiences would serve as a useful reference for Taiwan’s handling of this myriad of concepts. |
