因應LIBOR退場之政府作為模式比較

Abstract

LIBOR為常見於決定金融商品契約價格或利息的基準利率，當全球最通用之基準利率LIBOR即將於2021年底退場，無非應依契約自由原則由契約當事人事前協議可替代LIBOR之參考基準利率，而不應由政府介入LIBOR轉換。然而，本文觀察到各國政府於LIBOR退場之末(2021)年，各國介入LIBOR轉換之程度與態樣迥異，或有像美國紐約以制訂新法介入LIBOR轉換者，或有像是歐盟與英國因既存之基準利率規範背景而須修法者。相形之下，亞洲國家像是日本、及主要金融市場所在國香港與新加坡，均未見主管機關制訂立法介入LIBOR轉換，只是以行政指導方式為之。我國政府目前因應LIBOR退場之作為類似後者，主管機關介入程度更淺，僅是籲請業界自律組織自訂計劃加以因應而已。\n本文比較前述政府因應LIBOR退場介入程度有別之態樣與其原因，透過研究制訂LIBOR轉換立法等積極作為之國家的立法源由，突顯我國政府之作為近似日本、香港、新加坡等亞洲國家，即受LIBOR退場影響之程度與範圍不足以正當化制訂立法介入LIBOR轉換，採取與彼等相仿的柔性作為不難理解。

LIBOR is a commonly used benchmark rate in the global financial market but is going to be phased out by the end of 2021. In principle, the market should be able to react to the LIBOR cessation spontaneously, which means that contract parties have to negotiate beforehand and replace LIBOR with an agreed alternative benchmark rate. However, regulators in New York, UK and European Commission actively engaged in the LIBOR transition by enacting or amending their legislation or regulation, while no such legislative actions had been adopted by Asian financial hubs, such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. Taiwan regulator’s response to the Libor cessation is similar to its counterparts in Asian financial hubs.\nThis article analyzes the reasons for different levels of regulators engagement in LIBOR transition and suggests that the impact of LIBOR cessation in Taiwan is too small to justify enacting LIBOR transition legislation. It is understandable that our government, like those Asian countries, had adopted soft approaches in response to the permanent cessation of LIBOR.