本文之主要目的，在經由比較法的研究，來檢討我國法下金融機構銷售結構型商品之適當性義務之規定以及若干問題。於金融海嘯之後，主管機關有透過行政命令課以金融機構若干程度之適當性義務，然而，由比較法的立場，我國之現行規範之適用範圍相當狹礙，且就用適用之法律關係上未更細緻地區別不同的法律關係，同時，現行規範亦未更明確界定適當性之標準。本文以為，可由風險的分類的角度出發更進一步細緻化產品適當性的問題，就結構型商品，並應同時建立更專業完整之合約審閱之機制，以明確化適當性的標準以供金融機構遵循，以利能更有效達成適當性義務之目的，並建構更完整且有效率之投資人保護機制。

The purpose of this article is to examine the suitability rules regarding structured products under Taiwan law from a comparative law perspective. After the global financial crisis, Taiwan has imposed specific suitability obligations on financial institutions when they promote derivatives and structured products. However, the suitability rule is only placed in administrative regulations and its scope is also limited.
In addition, Taiwan law does not distinguish different types of relationships between a financial institution and a client. Furthermore, the biggest challenge to the suitability rule is to define the meaning of 'suitable'. This article argues that the starting point is the analysis of risks uitability. However, the analysis of return aspect should not be ignored. As to product due diligence, regulators must further venture into the review of documentation and offer more detailed guidelines to financial institutions in order to serve the purpose of the suitability rule and create an efficient mechanism for investor protection.