도드-프랭크법 제정 전후의헤지펀드 관련 규제의 변화

Abstract

Since the world experienced the effects of the global economic crisis triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2007 in the USA, many countries have made efforts to find ways to reform their financial systems, mostly by implementing new laws in such a way that similar problems in the future can be prevented in advance. The passing in the USA of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the "Act") is a great example of these efforts. Although it is still controversial whether or not short-selling by hedge funds was the main cause of the recent global economic crisis, hedge fund regulation is sure to be among the key elements of the Act. The US government's shift toward government regulation rather than self regulation, however, stems from its belief that panic selling by hedge funds of their assets to meet redemption requests caused the rapid fall of asset prices including stocks at the time of the crisis, that the lack of transparency in relationships between large financial institutions in the USA and Europe and the hedge funds under their influence hindered government authorities from monitoring effectively and/or efficiently their systemic risks, and that the proliferation of hedge funds in recent years has increased the need for the means to improve protection for investors as opportunities for individuals to invest in hedge funds have increased, albeit indirectly. Considering that hedge fund related issues that have emerged in the USA may also arise in Korea as the introduction of hedge funds in Korea is expected fairly soon, analyses on legislative and/or other trends in the USA are seen to be helpful in finding ways of providing further protection for investors in Korea. From this perspective, this study compares hedge fund regulations before and after the passing of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 in the USA and discusses the changes. Part II analyzes hedge fund related provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Adviser Act of 1940. Part III lists hedge fund regulations before and after the passing of the Act and the differences that were made, and it also discusses regulations on investment advisory services under the Volker rule, including registration requirements, the custody (of client assets) rule, requirements for the Comptroller General to submit reports on hedge fund investment advisory firms, and the Rule's provisions on oversight of such services. The author provides a conclusion to the study in Part IV.