论文部分内容阅读
理性投资者标准与美国普通法上的欺诈存在密切关系。在普通法上,重大性判断存在主观与客观两个标准,理性投资者标准源于客观的重大性标准。在TSC案之前,联邦法院对于是否运用理性投资者标准认定重大性存在争议。在TSC案及以后的判决中,最高法院确立了一个客观的较高要求的理性投资者标准。从各级法院的判决与一系列非重大性抗辩中可以看出,理性投资者具备特定的知识与能力。理性投资者预设与传统金融学的“理性经济人假说”具有一致性,得到有效市场假说的支持,也是法院考虑集团诉讼的便利、减少诉讼负担等因素的结果。当然,美国部分学者也对于理性投资者标准提出了批判,认为实际中的投资者具有非理性、追求道德等方面的特征。美国法上的理性投资者标准对中国证券法具有一定的启发意义。
There is a close relationship between rational investor standards and fraud in the United States common law. In common law, there are subjective and objective criteria for determining materiality. The criteria for rational investors stem from objective and material criteria. Prior to the TSC, the federal courts were controversial about the importance of using the standard of rational investors. In the TSC case and subsequent judgments, the Supreme Court established an objective, high-demand rational investor standard. From the judgments of all levels of courts and a series of non-material defenses, it can be seen that rational investors possess specific knowledge and abilities. The rational investors’ presupposition is consistent with the “rational economic man hypothesis” of traditional finance and supported by the effective market hypothesis. It is also the result of the courts considering the convenience of group litigation and reducing litigation burden. Of course, some scholars in the United States have also criticized the standard of rational investors, believing that investors in the real world are irrational and pursue morality. The rational investor standard in American law has certain enlightenment to China Securities Law.