摘要
澳大利亚共同基金立法起初确立了"二元主体"的运作结构,但是,二者在职权运用过程中产生的内在张力使共同基金难以实现其为投资者谋求高额利润回报的愿景。1998年修改后的法律引入的"一元主体"结构取代了原有的运作模式:仅由基金管理人对基金的运作承担受托义务,资产保管人则退出了受托义务关系。尽管新的运作结构试图克服责任不清的弊病,然而事实表明任何试图通过淡化资产保管人受托义务并详列其法定义务与责任的做法并不可取。如今正值我国《证券投资基金法》修改,澳大利亚修法的经验与教训值得我国在确定共同基金运作模式时作为重要的参考与借鉴。
Australian common funds legislation established dual body operating structure initially.However,it failed to generate high returns on investment for investors.One body structure replaced the previous dual body structure after the law was amended in 1998.Institutional managers take responsibility for the operation of institution.Although the new operating structure attempts to avoid the problem of vague responsibility,any attempts to understate asset keeper＇s responsibility is unacceptable.And hence,the experiences and lessons of Australian amendment might be taken as reference when we set common fund＇s operating mode.
出处
《财经科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2012年第4期27-35,共9页
Finance & Economics
关键词
共同基金
基金管理人
资产保管人
受托义务
Common Fund
Institutional Manager
Asset Keeper
Entrust Obligation
