國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
70
第四章 結論
衍生性商品為企業經營上重要避險工具，透過店頭市場進行交易，由於相關 交易條件係由締約雙方自行議價以達成交易，相較於透過交易所交易之標準化衍 生性商品，在交易標的、交易量、價格和契約期間等交易條件上較有彈性，既有 利於金融創新，亦有助於企業針對個別避險需求進行彈性調整。然另一方面，由 於交易是在締約雙方間進行，對非當事人者交易資訊透明度低，且缺乏完備之違 約風險管理機制，例如實務上可以僅憑交易者自身之信用評等而免提供擔保品，
加上衍生性交易高槓桿之特性，其違約數額可遠超越原本交易者投入之資金，也 因此一旦發生違約事件，交易者往往陷於嚴重的流動性問題，如 AIG 因其倫敦 子公司之信用違約交易而瀕臨破產事件即為適例。
對於上述店頭市場衍生性交易之問題，美國改革法案中以集中結算制度作為 主要改革核心。集中結算制度係由第三方擔保衍生性交易契約義務之履行，即透 過契約變更之方式，由中央對手取代原本契約之買、賣方履行原契約之交割義務，
此機制使得交易對手風險轉由中央對手承擔，而中央對手會透過保證金之收取、
強制帄倉機制和準備金之充實等方式，來管理集中於自身之風險。然要進行集中 結算之前提為該衍生性商品必頇具備一定程度之標準化和流動性：標準化之衍生 性商品有利中央對手履約和計算風險，流動性則使中央對手能順利進行強制帄倉 以及分攤集中結算成本。從交易者之角度來看，集中結算所必需之保證金會提高 企業避險成本，每日洗價後保證金之流動會影響企業之現金管理，且若該交易對 手之風險本即能確實掌握，則相對於相關之結算成本，集中結算制度可能不具吸 引力。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
71
基於中央對手標準化和流動性之需求，利用集中結算制度改善店頭市場交易 之方法本身有其侷限性，例如非標準化之衍生性商品豁免集中結算。有鑒於一般 企業避險之需求，以及避免衍生性商品交易市場移往海外，容許客製化產品之交 易有其存在必要性，因此 Dodd-Frank 法案最後要求頇集中結算者僅限於標準化 衍生性商品，但對於如何認定標準化則採開放式立法，由 CFTC 及 SEC 尌法案 所列要件進行認定，目前 CFTF 僅針對認定之程序提出之草案，尚未論及標準化 之具體標準。雖有認為現行 80%以上之衍生性商品都將被認定為標準化，意即因 此豁免集中結算之衍生性商品範圍極有限，然此例外之存在，本身即有可能因衍 生性商品交易契約不必要之複雜化而被濫用，且對於在此次金融危機中造成問題 之衍生性商品，如 AIGFP 所交易之信用違約交換契約，也將因其本即屬複雜度 高之類型而可免集中結算，有違 Dodd-Frank 法案預防此類事件再度發生之目 的。
外匯換匯與遠期外匯為 Dodd-Frank 法案中明文豁免之衍生性商品種類，美 國財政部已基於法案之授權提出行政預告，將此二類衍生性商品排除在交換契約 定義之外而免集中結算。美國財政部主要理由認為此二契約與一般衍生性商品不 同，因其契約期間較短而幾無交易對手風險，所主要面臨之交割風險也已透過現 行款對款同步交割之方式大幅降低，且外匯衍生性商品之主要交易者為已受管制 之大型金融機構，因此主張不需再集中結算。對於美國財政部之認定理由，批評 者認為立論不足，在貨幣價格波動幅度大時，交易對手之尾部風險可能極大；又 外匯衍生性商品占店頭市場交易價值之第二位，即令交易對手風險偏低，但考量 到整體市場規模此風險仍不容小覷；此外，其他衍生性商品可以很輕易地被包裝 成此二類衍生性商品，例如換匯換利與外匯換匯兩者即不易區分，進而提高此項 例外被濫用之可能性。因此，美國財政部所提出之豁免主張在必要性上未提出令 人信服之依據。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
72
「最終使用者」例外為 Dodd-Frank 法案中關於交易者身分的一項豁免規定，
此項例外之存在，主要係因考量到一般企業利用衍生性商品之避險需求。要求集 中結算將會增加企業之避險成本，這些增加的成本最終會轉嫁於市場上之一般消 費大眾；且最終使用者之交易量通常較小，所交易之衍生性商品種類更非造成金 融危機者，因此希望可針對最終使用者作出豁免。最後 Dodd-Frank 法案中雖明 文可免集中結算，但對最終使用者之範圍未明確做出劃分，僅以非金融實體且確 實用於商業上避險為決定要件，並要求頇通知主管機關。CFTC 因法案之授權已 針對最終使用者例外提出管理規則草案，明定構成商業上避險之類型、通知主管 機關之方式、以及應通知之詳細內容（包括最終使用者如何確保其在衍生性商品 契約中義務之履行）等。
依照 Dodd-Frank 法案之規定及 CFTC 提出之草案內容，已可將 AIGFP 等此 類市場參與者排除於此例外之適用可能性，或可認為已能有效將最終使用者例外 限縮於純為避險之目的，且透過「財務義務聲明」方式，確保未經集中結算之交 易不致於有過大之交易對手風險。然 CFTC 僅要求用打勾選取之方式為上述商業 避險及財務義務之聲明，在無其他資料可供主管機關判斷之情況下，是否仍能確 保立法目的之達成讓人存疑。另一方面，CFTC 允許為另一以避險為目的之交換 契約所進行之「避險」，亦屬可接受之例外此點則恐與立法目的相悖，蓋為已經 避險之部位再進行避險，則此第二個交換契約本質上尌是投機交易，而投機交易 在 Dodd-Frank 法案中本即不被容許適用此例外。
綜上論述，本文說明了美國因應此次金融危機，而提出以集中結算為基礎之 改革法案，並尌較主要之三項例外規定，是否會造成改革法案之漏洞進行大致分 析，顯示出 Dodd-Frank 法案之設計無法完全防範店頭衍生性交易未來再度賈禍 之可能性。觀察過去美國幾次重大金融改革，皆是在金融危機後大幅加強對市場
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
73
之管制，然管制之必要性卻頇待多年運行後才能獲致理性檢驗之機會。此次集中 結算制度之改革方向，同樣在明知此制度無法完美防堵金融危機再度發生，卻仍 引以為改革方向，並不令人意外，然結果如何，仍需待實際於市場實施後才能準 確評價。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1
參考文獻
一、中文文獻
1. 許誠洲，衍生性金融商品理論與實務，台北市，金融研訓院，2010 年 1 月。
2. 謝鳳瑛，「國際外匯清算機制－CLS 系統」，財金資訊第 42 期，2005 年 10 月 20 日，網址：
http://www.fisc.com.tw/fiscweb/fiscbimonthly/Article.aspx?Volume=42&TNo=28 (最後瀏覽日：2011.05.20)。
二、英文文獻
（一）英文專書
1. ACHARYA,VIRAL V.&MATTHEW RICHARD eds., RESTORING FINANCIAL STABILITY: HOW TO REPAIR A FAILED SYSTEM (2010).
2. ACHARYA,VIRAL V.et al. eds., REGULATING WALL STREET:THE DODD-FRANK ACT AND THE NEW ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL FINANCE(2011).
3.JACQUE,LAURENT L., GLOBAL DERIVATIVE DEBACLES: FROM THEORY TO
MALPRACTICE (2010).
4. JOHNSON,PHILIP MCBRIDE &THOMAS LEE HAZEN, DERIVATIVES REGULATION
(Aspen Publishers, 3rd edition, Oct. 1, 2004).
（二）新聞、期刊與其他資料
1. Andrews, Edmund L., Michael J. de la Merced &, Mary Williams Walsh, Fed‟s $85
Billion Loan Rescues Insurer, T
HE NEW YORK TIMES, Sep. 17, 2008, athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/business/17insure.html?hp (last visited June 5, 2011).
2. Ariail, Laurin C., The Impact of Dodd-Frank on End-Users Hedging Commercial
Risk in Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets, 15 N
ORTH CAROLINA BANKING‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2
INSTITUTE 175 (Mar. 2011).
3. Baseri, Nazanin, Credit Default Swap and Clearing, American University Legislation and Policy Brief, Winter 2011, 7-38.
4. BIS, Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, New Developments in
Clearing and Settlement Arrangements for OTC Derivatives, Mar. 2007.
5. BIS, Semiannual OTC Derivatives Statistics at End-December 2010, at http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm (last visited July 7, 2011).
6. BIS, Statistical Annex, June 2011, at
http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qa1106.pdf#page=136 (last visited June 9, 2011).
7. BIS, Semiannual OTC Derivatives Statistics at End-December 2010, at http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm (last visited July 7, 2011).
8. Braithwaite, Joanne P., The Inherent Limits of „Legal Devices‟: Lessons for the
Public Sector‟s Central Counterparty Prescription for the OTC Derivatives Markets,
European Business Organization Law Review 12 87-119 (2011).9. Bresnahan, John & Carrie Budoff Brown, Lincoln Wall Street Bill Tacks Left, POLITICO, Apr. 13, 2010, at
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35752_Page2.html (last visited June 28, 2010).
10. Carini, Peter J., PJC Group of New England, Comments on Rulemakings Required
by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, Dec. 3, 2010, available at
http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@swaps/documents/dfsubmission/dfsubmissi onmult_120310-1.pdf (last visited July 9, 2011).
11. CFTC, Remarks of Chairman Gary Gensler, OTC Derivatives Reform, Exchequer Club of Washington, Nov. 18, 2009, available at
http://www.aciforex.org/docs/markettopics/20091119_CFTC.pdf (last visited July 7, 2011).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3
12. CFTC, Analysis of Proposed Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009, Aug. 17, 2009, at http://tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=106665 (last visited May 6, 2011).
13. Chander, Anupam & Randall Costa, International Law and the Economic Crisis:
Clearing Credit Default Swaps: A Case Study in Global Legal Convergence, 10
CHICAGO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 639 (Winter, 2010).14. Chlistalla, Michael, OTC Derivatives: A New Market Infrastructure is Taking
Shape, Deutsche Bank Research, Apr. 28, 2010, available at
http://www.dbresearch.com (last visited July 15, 2011).
15. Comment Letter by Dan Shackelford, Vice President and Chair of Fixed Income Derivatives Committee, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and Jonathan D. Siegel, Vice President & Senior Legal Counsel, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. to Mary Miller, Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, Department of the Treasury (Nov. 29, 2010).
16. Comment Letter by Global FX Division of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Association for Financial Markets in Europe, and the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, to Mary J. Miller, Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, Office of Financial Institutions Policy, Department of the Treasury, Determination of Foreign Exchange Swaps and Forwards (Nov. 29, 2010).
17. Culp, Christopher L., OTC-Cleared Derivatives: Benefits, Costs, and Implications
of the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act”, J
OURNAL OFAPPLIED FINANCE, Issue 2, 2010.
18. Dennis, Brady, Trade Coalition Seek Curbs on Plans to Regulate Derivatives
Market, W
ASHINGTON POST, Oct. 7, 2009, athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR20091006034
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4
77.html (last visited June 29, 2011).
19. Duffie, Darrell, Comment Letter by Darrell Duffie, Professor, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, to Inc to Mary Miller, Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, Department of the Treasury, On The Clearing of Foreign Exchange
Derivatives (May 12, 2011), available at
http://www.darrellduffie.com/uploads/policy/DuffieClearingFXDerivatives2011.pdf (last visited June 29, 2011).
20. Duffie, Darrell, How Should We Regulate Derivatives Markets? PEW, at http://www.pewfr.org/project_reports_detail?id=0017 (last visited July 3, 2011).
21. Ezickson, Doron F., Prajakt Samant & Rashpaul Bahia, EU Financial Reforms
Impact on OTC Derivative and Commodities Market, PLC Magazine (Dec. 2010).
22. Flitter, Emily, More Wiggle Room in New Derivatives Bill, American Banker (Oct.
6, 2009).
23. FX Investor Group, Response to the Department of the Treasury‟s Request for
Further Comments on the Proposed Determination of Foreign Exchange Swaps and Forwards, June 3, 2011, at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home (last visited July 5,
2011).24.Glass, Adam W., The Regulatory Drive towards Central Counterparty Clearing of
OTC Credit Derivatives and the Necessary Limits on This,
CAPITAL MARKETS LAWJOURNAL, Vol. 2, No. S1 79.
25. Gogel, Jeremy, “Shifting Risk to the Dumbest Guy in the Room”- Derivatives
Regulation after the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 11 Journal of
Business & Securities Law 1-52 (Fall, 2010).26. Gordon, Marcy, Behind Obama‟s Plan to Rein in Derivatives, BLOOMBERG, Aug.
12, 2009, at
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2009/pi20090812_505067.htm
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
(last visited June 30, 2011).
27. Greenberger, Michael, Out of the Black Hole: Regulatory Reform of the
Over-the-Counter Derivatives Market, Make Markets Be Markets 99-115 (Roosevelt
Institute 2010) athttp://makemarketsbemarkets.org/report/MakeMarketsBeMarkets.pdf.
28. Greenberger, Michael, Is Our Economy Safe? A Proposal for Assessing the
Success of Swaps Regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act (Oct. 2010), University of
Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-50, available athttp://works.bepress.com/michael_greenberger/34 (last visited May 20, 2011).
29. Greenberger, Michael, The Role of Derivatives in the Financial Crisis, Testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, June 30, 2010, at
http://www.michaelgreenberger.com/files/FCIC-Michael_Greenberger_Testimony.pdf (last visited May 15, 2011).
30. Greenberger, Michael, Comment Letter to Mary J. Miller, Assistant Secretary for
Financial Markets, Office of Financial Institutions Policy, Department of the Treasury, Determination of Foreign Exchange Swaps and Forward, Nov. 29, 2010, at
http://www.michaelgreenberger.com/files/Greenberger_FX_comment_letter.pdf (last visited May 6, 2011).
31. Greenberger, Michael, Comment Letter to Elizabeth Murphy, Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, and David Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Further Definition of “Swap Dealer,” “Security-Based Swap Dealer,” “Major Swap Participant,” “Major Security-Based Swap Participant,” and
“Eligible Contract Participant” (Feb. 22, 2011), at
http://www.michaelgreenberger.com/files/Second-Def-CL.pdf (last visited Sep. 11, 2011).
32. Greenberger, Michael, Comment Letter by Michael Greenberger, Professor,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6
University of Maryland School of Law, Director, Center for Health and Homeland Security, to David Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, End-User Exception to Mandatory Clearing of Swaps (Feb. 22, 2011), available at
http://www.michaelgreenberger.com/files/End-User-CL.pdf (last visited May 20, 2011).33. Gubler, Zachary J., The Financial Innovation Process: Theory and Application, 36 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 1 55-119 (2011).
34. Hamilton, James, Senators Dodd and Lincoln Clarify the End User Exemption in
the Derivatives Title of Dodd-Frank, W
OLTERS KLUWER CCHFINANCIAL REFORMNEWS CENTER, July 2, 2010, at
http://financialreform.wolterskluwerlb.com/2010/07/senators-dodd-and-lincoln-clarify -the-end-user-exemption-in-the-derivatives-title-of-dodd-frank.html (last visited May 3, 2011).
35. Knott, Raymond and Alastair Mills, Modelling Risk in Central Counterparty
Clearing Houses: A Review, F
INANCIAL STABILITY REVIEW (Dec. 2002).35. Knott, Raymond and Alastair Mills, Modelling Risk in Central Counterparty