As far as the first element is concerned, the difficulty to be solved is whether some financial categories that traditionally belong to the field of "investment" can be unified into the category of financial consumption. From the perspective of economics, "investment" and "consumption" are mutually exclusive concepts. Investment refers to an economic activity that sacrifices or gives up the value that can be used for consumption now to gain greater value in the future, while consumption refers to the exchange of social products to meet actual needs. The implication is that investment is risky, and it is only possible to gain greater value or be damaged; However, there is no possibility that consumption will depreciate just because of exchange, and consumption is another matter. Therefore, in the traditional concept, engaging in securities activities will be considered as "investment", while engaging in activities such as deposits and traditional insurance for individuals or families will be classified as "consumption". It may not be difficult for us to describe individuals with money in the bank or signing insurance contracts with insurance companies as consumers, but it is often difficult to treat investors as consumers [1 1]. In real life, China Banking Regulatory Commission and China Insurance Regulatory Commission have clearly recognized the concept of "(financial) consumer", but the securities industry still insists on using the concept of "investor".
But for the following two reasons, people who engage in traditional "investment" behavior actually belong to financial consumers: First, the boundary between traditional investment activities and consumption behavior has become increasingly blurred in modern financial society. "Even though there are theoretical differences between living consumption and financial consumption, the division between living consumption and financial consumption is gradually relative." {2} In modern society, families not only deposit money in banks, buy wealth management products, insurance products or receive similar financial services, but also tend to invest their assets in the capital market to optimize their family assets. The trend of family financial investment can be seen from the increasing popularity of investors in China stock market. Second, investors in the traditional sense are aimed at issuers of securities, but in the modern financial market, financial institutions usually exist between investors and issuers in the form of media. Investors engage in investment activities through these financial intermediaries, and investors are consumers of these intermediaries. "The distance between investors and investment targets has been extended and connected by a large number of intermediary financial products and services ... In the open market, market entities such as securities underwriters, securities brokers and securities investment consultants have intervened between investors and investment targets, and investors have obtained financial services from these market entities that play an intermediary role." {3} In this sense, the identities of investors and financial consumers do not conflict, but only reflect different legal relationships: the former reflects the investment relationship between the actor and the securities issuer, while the latter reflects the financial service relationship between the actor and the financial intermediary.
Therefore, as long as the recipients of financial services are financial consumers, there is no need to distinguish the categories of financial services. In fact, with the integration of financial institutions' operation, the cross-border of financial commodities and the diversification of financial consumption behavior, it is really difficult to clearly divide financial actors into investors, depositors or policyholders like traditional financial theory. Under the background of financial deregulation, financial business overlapping and innovation, the identity differences among depositors, insurance peers or investors are becoming more and more meaningless. The actor's choice of a financial service is also the process of choosing goods, and it is the consumer in the financial market [12]; Anyone who accepts financial services or buys financial goods becomes a consumer as opposed to a financial institution that provides services or goods.
In fact, in the above foreign laws that have clearly protected financial consumers, except the United States, most of them emphasize the cross-industry and cross-category nature of financial services and financial commodities. The Dodd-Frank Act of the United States does not protect financial consumers in the traditional securities field, which has its special reasons: First, the legislation of financial supervision in the United States has always been "crisis-oriented", and this Dodd-Frank Act was born in response to the financial crisis caused by the subprime mortgage crisis, so credit cards, savings, mortgages and other financial fields and consumers in these fields have become the focus of the Dodd-Frank Act. Second, American securities law has always focused on the supervision of capital market intermediaries, and there is no need to replace or supplement it with the protection system for financial consumers.
The second element is closely related to the third element. Although financial consumption involves all kinds of financial services, the continuous innovation of modern finance makes some financial goods or financial services have the characteristics of high risk and professional investment. For these high-risk financial consumer goods, the law generally stipulates the entry threshold for the recipients, either professional knowledge and consumption experience or economic and financial resources. This heterogeneity between financial goods or financial services seems to be the dividing standard between financial consumers and financial investors. But in fact, recognizing the heterogeneity between financial goods or financial services does not mean that the concepts of financial consumers and financial investors are opposite. Because, for those consumers who buy or accept high-risk financial goods or services, even if they are labeled as "financial investors", they cannot deny the existence of financial service consumption relationship with financial institutions. Taking high-risk financial instruments such as stock index futures as an example, it is actually a process for investors to choose futures companies and buy and sell stock index futures through futures companies. As investors, individuals buy financial services and financial instruments in financial funds. At this time, individuals are not only investors, but also consumers. Most buyers of financial investment products can be classified as financial consumers [13]. Of course, bringing investors into the category of financial consumers cannot deny the difference between professional actors and ordinary consumers who do not have professional knowledge and relevant economic and financial conditions, nor can they deny the difference in the degree of legal protection between these two subjects.
To sum up, this paper holds that financial consumers refer to natural persons or legal persons who establish financial service contracts with financial institutions, purchase financial commodities and accept financial services. Some of these consumers can be classified as financial investors (that is, professional investors among financial consumers) because they have their own financial expertise and considerable economic risk tolerance, and they buy or accept some high-risk financial goods or services. In other words, the relationship between financial consumers and financial investors is inclusive and inclusive (see the figure below). In addition, it should be emphasized that the protection mechanism of financial consumers and financial investors does not conflict. Looking at the extraterritorial law, the protection mechanism of financial consumers is generally reflected in the following aspects: first, the protection of financial consumers is independent of financial policies and prudential supervision, and special protection institutions are set up to protect consumers in various financial services as a whole; At the same time, strengthen consumer education and popularize financial knowledge. The second is to focus on curbing the fraud of financial service institutions in selling financial products, and emphasize the protection of consumers' right to know in the process of financial consumption. For example, South Korea, which adopts a comprehensive financial supervision model, has enacted the Law on Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets, focusing on the supervision of investment induction; Introduce all aspects of product risk warning obligations; Require financial investment companies to know some information about customers, including their capital status and investment experience, before luring them to invest; For non-professional investors, financial investment companies are required to consider the actual investment ability and risk tolerance of customers; The regulation of "uninvited telephone call (product promotion)" shall not infringe on the privacy of customers, and investment persuasion can only be carried out by telephone or face to face with the permission of customers. Third, establish a unified financial consumption dispute resolution mechanism. For example, the United Kingdom established a "financial supervision service system" under the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000. Financial supervision service company is an organization that specializes in handling consumers' complaints and disputes about financial institutions, and solves the problem that consumers have to find different complaint institutions because of different financial services; The dispute ruling made by the financial supervision service company is only one-way binding, that is, it is only binding on the complained financial institution, and consumers can still bring a lawsuit to the court if they refuse to accept it. In addition, the Financial Services Authority has an "investor compensation fund". If a financial institution goes bankrupt and cannot repay the assets of its customers (including depositors, investors or policy holders), the compensation fund will provide compensation. For professional financial investors, it also belongs to the category of financial consumers, so the above-mentioned relevant systems for the protection of financial consumers should also be applicable to financial investors; However, because financial investors are generally involved in high-risk financial products, it is necessary to regulate them in the financial investor protection system. For example, the investor suitability system is not replaced by the financial consumer protection mechanism, and the two go hand in hand. & ltbr/>； & ltbr/>；