볼커룰 시행규정안이 한국의 은행에 미치는 영향 및 그 대책 (The Impact on Korean Banks of Proposed Rules Implementing the Volcker Rule and Potential Responses)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 은행법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 은행법연구 / 5권 / 1호 / 43 ~ 90페이지
· 저자명 : 박규찬

초록

흔히 볼커룰로 불리는 도드-프랭크 법 제619조 및 제620조는 1956년 미국 은행지주회사법(Bank Holding Company Act of 1956)에 제13조를 추가하여 다음의 사항을 규제한다. 즉, 모든 은행법인(banking entity)은 자기계정 트레이딩(proprietary trading) 뿐만 아니라 헤지펀드(hedge fund)나 사모펀드(private equity fund)의 소유지분을 취득·보유하거나 후원(sponsor)하거나 일정한 관계를 가지는 것을 금지한다. 다만, 일정한 허용된 영업(Permitted Activities)의 경우에는 그 적용이 면제된다. 2011.10.11~12.에 OCC, FRB, FDIC, SEC가 볼커룰 시행규정안(이하“시행규정안”)을 공고하였고, CFTC는 2012.1.11.에 그 시행규정안을 따로 공고하였다. 볼커룰의 발효일은 2012.7.21.이다. 다만, 발효일 이후 2014.7.21.까지 2년의 경과기간이 있다(시행규정안 §31(a)). 이 경과기간과 관련하여 Fed는 2011.2.9.자로 “금지된 자기계정 트레이딩 또는 사모펀드 또는 헤지펀드 영업을 수행하는 법인에 대한 경과기관에 관한 최종시행규정(Final Rule for Conformance Period for Entities Engaged in Prohibited Proprietary Trading or Private Equity Fund or Hedge Fund Activities)”을 채택한 바 있다. 이 최종시행규정에 대하여는 그 적용방법에 관하여 많은 문의가 있었고 이에 따라 2012.4.19.에 FRB, CFTC, FDIC, OCC, SEC 등의 규제기관은“금지된 자기계정 트레이딩 또는 사모펀드 또는 헤지펀드 영업을 수행하는 법인에 대한 경과기관에 관한 지침(Statement of Policy Regarding the Conformance Period for Entities Engaged in Prohibited Proprietary Trading or Private Equity Fund or Hedge Fund Activities)”을 발표하고 2년의 경과기간 동안에 자기계정 트레이딩 및 규제대상 펀드 투자 영업이 있는 은행법인은 적절하고(appropriate) 성실한 노력을 다하여(in good-faith efforts) 업무를 수행함으로써 경과기간이 끝날 때까지는 동 은행법인이 수행하는 모든 자기계정 트레이딩과 규제대상 펀드 투자 영업이 미국 은행지주회사법 제13조의 요건을 준수하도록 하였다. 성실한 노력(in good-faith efforts)의 내용은 경과기간이 끝나는 시점까지는 미국 은행지주회사법 제13조를 모두 준수할 수 있도록 동법 제13조 및 규제기관들의 최종 시행규정을 감안하여 구체적인 이행계획을 개발하고 이행하며, 최종 시행규정이 정하는 보고의무, 장부기록의무 등을 이행하는 등이다. 규제기관은 은행법인에게 1년씩 3번까지 이행경과기간을 연장해 줄 수 있고(시행규정안 §31(a)(3)), 비유동성 펀드 투자(investment in an illiquid fund)에 대해서는 한 번에 한하여 5년간의 연장이 허용된다(시행규정안 §31(b)(2)). 따라서 이론상 2017.7.21.까지 연장가능하다. 볼커룰은 우리나라의 은행영업에 큰 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상된다. 이에 본고에서는 우리나라 은행에 대한 볼커룰의 구체적인 규제내용과 문제점을 알아보고 그 대책도 생각해본다.

영어초록

The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted on July 21, 2010. Generally, sections 619 and 620 of the Act are known as the "Volcker Rule". Section 619 adds a new section 13 to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 which generally prohibits banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund ("covered fund"), subject to certain exemptions. Section 13 also provides for non-bank financial companies that engage in such activities or have such interests or relationships to be subject to additional capital requirements, quantitative limits, or other restrictions. The FDIC, FRB, OCC, and SEC (the "Agencies") jointly issued the Proposed Inter-agency Rule ("the Rule") implementing the Volcker Rule on October 11 and 12, 2011. The CFTC also separately issued the rule implementing the Volcker Rule on January 11, 2012. The Rule is to come into effect on July 21, 2012 with a 2-year conformance period. Regarding the conformance period, the Federal Reserve Board announced the statement on April 19, 2012 clarifying that an entity covered by Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act has the full two-year period unless the Board extends the conformance period. According to the statement, during the conformance period, banking entities should engage in good-faith planning efforts, appropriate for their activities and investments, to enable them to conform their activities and investments to the requirements of section 619 and final implementing rules by no later than the end of the conformance period. In the case of Korean banks, they must now assess how the Rule regulates banks' activities and investments first and then make preparations for the comprehensive extra-territorial effects of the Rule. In this article, I first review and summarize the content of the Rule and then go on to examine various issues which the Rule raises. I have also tried to identify several measures that Korean banks could take in response.
With respect to the extra-territorial effects of the Rule, even though there are several exemptions Korean banks may resort to, those requirements are too strict. Even in cases where such exemptions may apply, Korean banks are required to adhere to comprehensive reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance obligations imposed by the Agencies. The goal of the Rule is to secure U.S. banks' safety and soundness and the stability of the U.S. financial system. However, certain extra-territorial effects of the Rule, as well as the complicated additional requirements imposed by the Agencies have nothing to do with those goals. To prepare for the adverse effects of the Rule against Korean banks, the latter may shut down their U.S. branches, subsidiaries or agencies in order to ensure that the Volcker Rule does not apply to them. Indeed, Deutsche Bank has already dropped its U.S. Bank status accordingly. Korean banks may similarly believe that they will be able to prevent their subsidiaries from falling within the scope of the Volcker Rule by pushing that subsidiary or entity outside of the relevant banking entity. They might also consider aggressively taking advantage of the exemptions given by the Rule. However, in the latter case, they would, in any event, be forced to reduce the activities or investments of the relevant banking entity accordingly. In summary, whatever path Korean banks take, it may simply not be possible for them to avoid the adverse effects of the Volcker Rule on their current activities and investments. As a result, I argue that the Korean government must make significant efforts, including filing appeals through diplomatic channels, to prevent Korean banks from being unduly adversely affected by the Rule.

참고자료

· 없음