论文部分内容阅读
券商资产管理合同中的保底条款往往被认定为违反法律禁止性规定而无效,实践中券商与客户往往会选择担保方式间接保障委托人资产安全。这种担保方式不符合《担保法》,与担保形式的法定主义及物权法定原则相悖,往往也被认定为无效。券商资产管理实践中出现的非典型担保正是为了融通资金而由当事人在实践中自行创立的,在性质上属于金融创新,体现了当事人的真实意思的表示。在我国融资渠道不畅、融资方式单一、融资难度加大、融资风险增加的大背景下,委托理财合同项下的担保有其存在合理性。监管层应认可其法律效力,但在当事人没有办理相关法律手续的情况下,如没有交付担保物或没有办理登记,则该担保不能对抗第三人。
Broker asset management contract in the bottom guarantee clause is often found to be in violation of the law prohibits the provisions of ineffective, in practice, brokers and customers tend to choose the guarantee method indirectly protect the client asset safety. This type of guarantee does not comply with the “Guarantee Law,” which is contrary to the statutory form of legal security and the statutory principle of property rights and is often found to be invalid. The atypical guarantee that emerged in the practice of the securities firm assets management is the expression of the true meaning of the parties that is founded by the parties in practice in order to get through the funds. Under the background of poor financing channels, single mode of financing, more difficult financing and more financing risks, there is a reasonable guarantee for the guarantee under entrusted wealth management contract. Regulators should recognize its legal effect, but in the absence of the parties to the relevant legal formalities, if the guaranty is not delivered or not registered, then the guarantee can not fight a third party.