1、Prof. Dr. iur. Lars Kl?hn, LL.M. (Harvard), Munich/Jun.-Prof. Dr. oec. publ. Lars Hornuf,M.A. (Essex), Trier/Ass. iur. Tobias Schilling, Ma?tre en droit (Aix-Marseille), Munich1德國小投資保護法案中眾籌條例內容，后果，批評，建議Prof. Dr. iur. Lars Kl?hn, LL.M. （哈佛大學 ）, 2015頁碼 :16-19德國聯邦議院于 2015 年 4 月 23 日采用了小投資者保護法案 ，該法案將在未來

2、幾周 內生效。有效保護投資者始于投資者做出投資決策。最重要的是，從投資者測試說明的 眾籌和眾投的風險和個人投資者的知識差距來看， 保護是有望得到改進的。 這些測試可以實 現數字化 ,并承諾明顯改善簽名或確認要求的效力。因此,立法者應該終止投資法中第3條，并且替換， 或者至少應該是通過由德國聯邦金融監管局（BaFin）與學者和從業人員的合作開發的投資者教育測試來補充認購和確認要求來確定眾籌對投資者的風險。3）認購限制投資法 第 3 條中的警告通知，簽名或確認要求僅僅只是小投資者保護法案 中眾 籌和眾投保護中的提到的一點。 第二點是 投資法 第 3 條中的認購限制。 立法者跟隨美國 政府的發展道路

3、， 但是又放棄了， 理應如此， 推出市場總認購限制這條規則起初是很難得到 加強的，其次，它能夠大大限制了投資者通過投資組合多樣化管理風險的能力。雖然其他的法律體系建立了這個規則， 但是引入認購限制不是一個不言自明的規則， 從 規制理論就可看出， 這是一種堅硬的家長式統治形式。 它限制投資者自我保護的自由。 此類 規則是外國資本市場監管的原則。在證券監管中指導原則，就比如Louis Loss，美國資本市場監管的有經驗的人，已經尖銳地指出那樣：每個投資者“都有權使自己很為一個傻子” 。在法律體系中基于個人自由的強硬家長式的規則需要特殊的理由。然而,也有幾個很好的理由 ,尤其是在眾投中，這個需求符合

4、眾籌市場；當它獲取投資者資金的時候，它與發行 人披露的低質的信息相關； 也與高風險的投資， 特別是對于創業公司； 投資者低估風險的傾 向，市場泡沫發展中的危險相關。因此 ,對小投資者保護法案基本管理特點的批判，這個罪名是不成立的。除了一 些細節：首先，是認購限制的量。如果有人想給一個項目或者一個公司投資 1000 歐元，那 么有意投資人士必須披露他的資產和收入。 很難預測有多少投資人士實際上會這么操作。 假 設有不少投資者因為害怕他們的財務數據泄露而拒絕這樣做 , 那么這個 1000 歐元的認購限對以上眾投市場的制不管是對市場還是對上面提到的平臺之間的競爭都是一個重大的障礙。調查揭示投資超過

5、1000 歐元的投資者只占了德國眾投市場中所有投資者的15.4%。但他們對市場總量貢獻了很大的比例， 達到 76% 如果未來他們只能夠投資 1000 歐元或更少 ,市場 會受到重大不利影響。新規定還刪除了對網站門戶專門吸引來的那些想要投資超過1000 歐元的投資者的激勵。眾投門戶 Investment 就是一個例子，一般規則是要求最低認購為1000 歐元。研究表明，相比較于典型的小投資者，通過 Investment 網站門戶投資創業公司的投資者們都接受過良好 的教育，也更有經驗。假如，他們的專業知識是評估發行人的一個因素，那么這將會有一個 令人看好的原因， 那就是 Investment 門戶上

6、群體的智慧會特別高。 在小投資保護法 下， 為了摒棄最低認購要求和專注于投資者， 這個門戶加大了刺激力度， 因為較低的認購量無須 仔細檢查投資的發行者。 另外， 德國創業公司只能得到優先的風險資本。因此，這不能排除 這個事實： 因為最大認購限額， 即使通過投資者， 值得支持的公司將會得到很少甚至得不到 資本（也就是說無法達到融資門檻） 。創業公司和整個經濟將會在這個融資中收益。 因此 , 立法者應該提高限度，這樣 ,投資者可以在投資法下投 1000 到 5000 歐元而無須顧忌他 們的收入和資產。小投資者保護法 的另一個弱點在于認購限度運用于每一個投資者， 而不管這個投資 者是散戶還是專業的。

7、 只有公司實體， 比如：法人，豁免于這條規定。 這條規定涵蓋過廣了。因為， 認購限制適用于可以自力更生的投資方，比如：風險投資基金和商業 （而不是合 伙企業或自然人） 。這條規定涵蓋過廣的另一點就是，不管這個公司實體是否有資格作為一 個成熟的投資者， 這條規定都將它排除在外。 可以肯定的是散戶投資者不太可能逃脫得了認 購限制，比如：有限責任公司 （Unternehmergesellschaft （haftungsbeschr?nkt） 建立這樣一個 實體的成本太高了， 年度會計需求太繁瑣。 但是，最好的解決方案是使所有專業的客戶豁免， 證券交易法 （第二段第二句）中關于這個概念的定義不應該在很

8、大程度上調整,而是需要用在眾籌上面，這樣就可以在豁免中獲取典型的商業和風險資本。4）廣告 關于投資廣告的規定表明德國立法者做出了驚人的轉變。根據小投資者保護法草案 要求，只能在枚舉類型事件下， 才允許做投資廣告。 尤其是， 當它出現在報紙或者是媒體中， 至少偶爾談及到商業和經濟話題 （小投資者保護法案草案 第 12 段，第二條）通過這一規 定，立法者旨在防止大型廣告活動破壞投資信息表的影響， 這樣使投資者做出明智周全的與 投資相關的風險評估，因此，在綜合考慮方方面面后作出投資決議。但是， 西德連邦議會采 用的小投資者保護法 并沒有包含任何廣告限制除了德國聯邦金融監管局警告通知要求和擴大的執法力

9、度來禁止某些類型的投資廣告。 相反 , 以前會禁止大多數的廣告比如： 在電子媒體上的廣告不能超過 210 個以前在媒體上出現的詞， 至少有一個關注點偶爾放在商 業和經濟話題上但是現在很多廣告只需有個 “警告” 的鏈接標記標明是有警告通知一個 單獨的文檔就可以了。立法者在此為沒有經驗的投資者提供了直截了當的方法,而不是讓廣告走向愿意深入研究由投資信息表提供的信息的投資者。 除此之外， 這也沒有遭遇確認偏見， 也軟化投資信息 表想要達到的效應，以及簽名要求。 通過授權德國聯邦金融監管局 (德國聯邦金融監管局 ) 禁止某些類型的投資廣告， 立法者竭力找到一個靈活的手段來解決最極端情況下的不公平的 或

10、欺騙性的廣告。Prof. Dr. iur. Lars Kl? hn, LL.M. (Harvard), Munich/Jun.-Prof. Dr. oec. publ. Lars Hornuf,M.A. (Essex), Trier/Ass. iur. Tobias Schilling, Ma?tre en droit (Aix-Marseille), Munich1The Regulation of Crowdfundingin the German Small Investor Protection ActContent, Consequences, Critique, Suggestio

11、nsP:16-19The German Bundestag has adopted the Small Investor Protection Act on 23 April 2015,which will enter into force in the coming weeks.Effective investor protection commences before the investor makes the investment decision.Improvement can be expected, above all, from investor tests illustrat

12、ing the risks ofcrowdfunding and crowdinvesting and the gaps in the individual investor pesr sonalknowledge.60 These tests could be implemented digitally and promise distinctly improvedefficacy over the mere signature or confirmation requirement. The legislator therefore shouldstrike 15 para. 3 and

13、4 Investment Act and replace or at least complement the subscriptionand confirmation requirement by an investor education test developed by the German FederalFinancial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) in cooperation with scholars and practitioners toclarify for investors the risks of crowdinvesting.3)

14、Subscription LimitsThe warning notice in combination with the signature or confirmation requirement under 15para. 3 and 4 Investment Act is only one leg of the investor protection in crowdfunding andcrowdinvesting introduced by the Small Investor Protection Act. The second leg is thesubscription lim

15、its under 2a para. 3 Investment Act. Here, too, the legislator follows thepath taken by the US government, but foregoes, rightly so, the introduction of a market-wideaggregate subscription limit a rule that, firstly, is difficult to enforce and, secondly, cansignificantly restrict the investors abi

16、lity to manage risk through portfolio diversification.61Although well-established in other legal systems, the introduction of a subscription limit isnot a self-evident rule.62 Seen from regulatory theory, it is a form of hard paternalism.63 Itlimits the freedom of the investor on the justification o

17、f protecting the investor from himself.This type of rule is foreign to capital markets regulation in principle. Rather, the guiding principle in securities regulation, as Louis Loss, the nestor of US capital markets regulation, already put it so pointedly, is that every investor“has themake a fool o

18、f himself”. Strongly paternalistic rules require special justification in alegal system based on individual freedom.65 There are several good reasons, however, that this requirement is met with respect to the crowdfunding market:66 the low quality of the information that issuers disclose when procur

19、ing investor money, the high risk of the investment, particularly for start-up companies, the tendency of investors to underestimate risk,67 as well as the danger of market bubbles developing, above all in crowdinvesting.Thus, there is no case for substantial criticism of the basic regulatory featur

20、es of the SmallInvestor Protection Act, but there is a case as to some details: This would be, first of all, theamount of the subscription limits. If someone would like to invest more than ? 1,000 in aproject or company, the potential investor must di sclose his assets and income. How manyinvestors

21、will actually do this cannot be seriously predicted. Assuming that not a fewinvestors decline to do so for fear of losing confidentiality oftheir financial data68, thesubscription limit of ? 1,000 will be a significant obstacle, and be such both for the marketand for the competition between platform

22、s mentioned above. The survey of thecrowdinvesting market above revealed that investors investing more than ? 1,000 constituteonly 15.4 % of all investors in the German crowdinvesting market.69 They contribute a verysignificant portion of the market volume, however, namely 76 %. If they were able to

23、 investonly ? 1,000 or less in the future, the market would suffer a significant adverse impact.The new regulation also removes any incentive for the portals to specifically solicit investorswho want to invest more than ? 1,000. An example is the crowdinvesting portal Innovestmentthat, as a general

24、rule, required a minimum subscription of ? 1,000.70 A study has shown thatinvestors investing in start-up companies through Innovestment are better educated and moreexperienced in comparison to typical small investors.71 Assuming that their expertise was afactor in evaluating the issuer, there would

25、 be reason to be optimistic that the level of swarm intelligence on the Innovestment portal would be particularly high. Under the Small Investor Protection Act the incentives increase for this portal to discard the minimum subscription requirement and instead to focus on investors that because of th

26、e lower subscription amounts do not bother to closely examine the issuer of the investments. Additionally, German start-up companies have access to only a limited amount of venture capital.72 It therefore cannot be ruled out that companies worthy of support will receive little or even no capital bec

27、ause of the maximum subscription limits (namely when the financing threshold cannot be achieved), even though investors, start-ups and the economy as a whole would profit from a financing taking place. The legislator therefore should raise the limit that investors can invest under 2a Investment Act

28、irrespective of their income and assets from ? 1,000 to ? 5,000.A further weakness of the Small Investor Protection Act is that the subscription limits apply toevery investor irrespective of whether the investor is a retail or professional investor. Onlycorporate entities, i.e. legal persons, are ex

29、empted from this provision. This provision isclearly both over- and underinclusive.It is overinclusive because the subscription limits apply to investors who can clearly fend forthemselves like venture capital funds and business angels, unless they are corporate entities(and not partnerships or natu

30、ral persons). The rule is underinclusive because it excludes anycorporate entity regardless of whether it qualifies as a sophisticated investor. To be sure, it isnot very likely that retail investors will bypass the subscription limits by setting up, e.g., anEntrepreneur Company with limited liabili

31、ty (Unternehmergesellschaft(haftungsbeschr?nkt)73 the sole purpose of investing. The costs of establishing such an entity(which cannot be obtained without a notary) are too high, and the annual accountingrequirements are too burdensome. However, the preferable solution is to create an exemptionfor a

32、ll professional clients, whereby the definition of this concept in 31a para. 2 sentence 2 Securities Trading Act should not be transferred wholesale but reviewed and adapted for crowdfunding so that typical business angels and venture capital funds come within the Exemption.4) AdvertisementThe provi

33、sions concerning the investment advertising demonstrate an astonishing turnaroundby the German legislator. According to the Draft Small Investor Protection Act advertisementfor investments would have been permitted only in the enumerated cases, in particular if itoccurred in the press or in media”wi

34、th at least an occasioconcentration also on discussingbusiness and economic topics and it the advertisement is made in connection with such adiscussion ”1(2 p ara. 1 no. 2 Investment Act in the version of the Draft Small InvestorProtection Act). By this provision the legislator aimed to prevent that

35、 large-scaled advertisingcampaigns undermine the effects intended with the investment information sheet to enable investors to make an informed assessmento f risks associated with the investments and, thus,to take investment decisions in full knowledge of the facts.74 The Small Investor ProtectionAct as adopted by the Bundestag, however, does not include any advertising limitations - except the requirement of warning notices and the expanded