资产管理的法理基础与运行模式：美国经验及对中国的启示 (The Legal Basis and Operational Models of Asset Management: The US Experiences and Implications for China)

Abstract

Chinese Abstract: 中文摘要：《资管意见》的上位法依据争议很大，本质上是对资产管理的法理基础和运行模式存在分歧，在借鉴美国等境外经验时要注意实质重于形式。美国的投资公司是资产管理的主要载体，包括多种不同的组织形式，而投资顾问在提供咨询建议之外，也为客户管理资产，经常是资产管理的实际主体。投资顾问推动投资公司（共同基金）的设立，并负责资产管理，接受投资公司董事会和股东大会的监督。相比而言，我国的资产管理以信托契约型为主，较少采用公司等其他组织形式；美国采用“投资者—投资公司—投资顾问”架构，而我国是“投资者—管理人”架构；美国的投资顾问与我国的投资顾问在功能上迥异，因而我国不宜照搬美国《投资顾问法》；我国资产管理在组织形式上应当允许多元，但在行为监管上应当统一。

English Abstract: The Opinion on Asset Management has seen a heated debate on its legal basis, reflecting the differences of views on the underlying legal relationships of asset management and its models of operation. When examining overseas experiences, notably the US, one needs to focus more on substance than form. The main vehicle for carrying on asset management in the US is the investment company, which can take many different organizational forms. Investment advisors do not only provide investment advice, but more importantly, manage assets for their clients. Investment advisors promote the establishment of mutual funds and then provide asset management services under the supervision of the board of directors and shareholders meeting of the investment company. In contract, China’s asset management mainly takes the form of trust, and seldom uses other forms such as companies. While the mutual fund in the US adopts ‘investor-investment company-investment advisor’ structure, it is structured as ‘investor-manager’ in China. From a functional perspective, the US-style investment advisor is very different from the investment advisor in China. It is suggested that China should allow asset management to take a diversity of business forms but adopt a consistent standard for regulating functionally similar business activities.

Note: Downloadable document is in Chinese.

Keywords: 资产管理，投资公司，投资顾问，共同基金，比较研究, asset management, investment company, investor advisor, mutual fund, comparative study

JEL Classification: K22; G2; G22