期货交易火爆 政府忧心如焚

China's Futures-Market Boom Creates Headaches in Beijing

The Chinese government has been trying for months to prop up its markets. Now, the wrong one is soaring.

China's three futures exchanges -- in Shanghai, Dalian and Zhengzhou -- are hosting the country's hottest but least heralded trading. Benchmark contracts for food and metal products have rocketed, a worrying prospect for a government eager to control rising consumer prices and keep foreign and Chinese speculators at bay.

Indeed, Beijing's attempt to subdue the soaring futures market illustrates the balance it's trying to maintain between market forces and political imperatives -- whether that means controlling the exchange rate or directing investment to particular markets.

"The government is worried, but it is also committed to an open market," says Wang Jian, a futures expert and government adviser at Beijing's University of International Business and Economics.

In the past two months, for example, the copper contract deliverable in April 2004 has climbed 31%; other key contracts have posted sharp gains. Trading volumes so far this year are more than double the total for all of 2002. After cutting margins -- the minimum required investment -- to spur trading, regulators announced Friday that they are raising margins two percentage points to 7% to cool things down. Copper and aluminum margins were the exceptions.

The market rally is sensitive not simply because speculators are finding ways to swamp China's futures exchanges, which are officially off-limits to foreign investors. The bets also disclose something that Beijing isn't eager to highlight: It has become quietly content with modest inflation as a way to relieve upward pressure on its currency, the yuan. Inflation would increase the cost of key materials, lifting the price of its exports and possibly muting accusations by the U.S. and others that China uses the weak yuan as an unfair trade advantage.

Beijing's balancing act is a delicate one. If it allows prices for staples such as cooking oil to rise sharply, public anger could spread. China's leaders recently prohibited news reports of rising grain prices for fear they would spark hoarding, say officials at the Beijing Youth Daily and the national Workers' Daily. At the same time, authorities have ordered local governments to increase grain reserves to deal with potential shortages.

The sizzling futures trade is complicating other government initiatives. Beijing is trying to pump up its stock and bond markets so it can list cash-strapped state companies and the government can borrow more money. But China's stocks are plumbing nine-month lows, despite Beijing's decision to allow foreign institutional investors to trade Class A shares, once reserved for Chinese.

And China's credit markets haven't made it easy for the government to finance its budget deficit this year. Some doubt that Beijing can meet its $77 billion domestic fund-raising target: Investors have shunned treasury-bond offerings, apparently because they don't pay sufficiently high coupon rates.

Like few other pockets of the economy, China's futures markets can offer an instructive view of consumer psychology. Though contracts traded on overseas markets can drive Chinese prices for metals and grains, domestic markets can assume a life of their own during uncertain times. Wild price swings can become self-fulfilling prophecies in spite of tight controls.

Beijing has worked to minimize such risks. In the early 1990s, about 60 futures exchanges dotted the country, and investors bid up everything from metals to mung beans. By 1998, China's regulators had pared the number of exchanges to three and rolled out trading measures, such as high margin requirements, to damp speculation.

These days, China's futures trade has settled into a more appropriate reflection of market realities. China's economic growth has pushed up demand and prices for raw materials, as the building and auto sectors boom. Because China represents an increasingly larger slice of global commodity sales, that demand is helping to price futures contracts overseas as well as domestically.

But speculators also have returned to the fray. In contrast with past rallies, many overseas investors are piling in as well, say market participants. Some foreigners are setting up domestic trading companies that exist only in name to help funnel funds to the futures markets, and later move profits overseas or into other parts of the Chinese economy, such as property.

"It's very common," said one Shanghai analyst, who has advised a Japanese client on the shell-company practice. "Many [foreign investors] are in the market already and many more are ready to come."

So-called hot money poses another danger. For every dollar, yen or euro that arrives in China, the central bank sells yuan to keep the exchange rate steady. Those short-term note sales to Chinese banks result in more money flowing into the economy, feeding industries that some fear may be overheating. Though the number of foreigners in China's restricted futures markets is supposed to be relatively small, they are adding punch to prices, which some think will drop as suddenly as they rose.
期货交易火爆 政府忧心如焚

中国政府数月来一直在采取措施刺激市场，但是现在，出乎他们的本意，一个不在他们目标之内的市场却异常火热。

在中国的上海、大连和郑州三家期货交易所里，如火如荼的期货交易比中国其他任何市场的交易都要火爆，但几乎没有人为之喝彩：虽然基准粮食和金属产品期货合约价格一路飙升，但政府对其走势令却忧心忡忡--政府希望能控制物价走势，并遏制住国内外投机商的活动。

在过去两个月里，2004年四月交割的铜期货价格飙升了31%，同一交割月的橡胶期货暴涨了47%，而2004年五月大豆期货合约也劲升44%。

今年迄今为止的成交量已经达到2002年全年数字的两倍多。监管部门以前为刺激期货市场曾下调开户额门槛，而现在，为了给这股热浪降温，监管方又将除铜期货和铝期货外的交易保证金比例上调两个百分点，达到7%。

北京对外经贸大学(UIBE)期货专家、担任政府顾问的王健说，政府对这一现象非常担心，但政府仍在寻求建设一个开放的市场。

期货市场的这波上涨行情很值得关注，这不只是因为国内外投机商正在中国期货市场上兴风作浪--按规定，中国期货市场不允许外国投资者参与。

它还透露出中国政府不愿为人知的信息：为缓解人民币汇率承受的压力，它已对适度通货膨胀悄然默许。通货膨胀将导致主要原材料价格上涨，出口商品价格将相应上升，从而有可能让那些指责中国利用弱势人民币制造竞争优势的国家（其中包括美国）闭嘴。

这种求取平衡的技巧是非常难以拿捏的。如果政府允许食用油等日用品价格大幅上涨，有可能引发公众的普遍不满。据《北京青年报》和《工人日报》的人士说，前不久政府禁止报导有关粮食价格上涨的消息，因为担心那样会激发大量囤集粮食的举动。另一方面，中央也要求各级政府增加粮食储备，以防范可能出现的粮食短缺。

如火如荼的期货交易使政府在其他方面采取的措施大打折扣。中国一直试图大力发展股票和债券市场，希望藉此使缺乏资金的国有企业有更多机会上市融资，政府自己也有更大的筹资空间。但眼下，虽然政府已允许外国机构投资者涉足A股股票交易，中国股市还是跌到了9个月低点。

信贷市场的现状也使政府今年筹集资金弥补财政赤字的难度加大了。由于国债利率不够高，投资者对它兴趣不大，这使外界对政府是否能实现在国内发行价值770亿美元的债券的目标产生了疑问。

和其他少数几个经济领域一样，期货市场可以作为窥视消费心理的窗口。虽然海外市场的期货交易会影响中国金属和粮食期货的价格，但在充满不稳定因素的情况下，国内市场也会表现出自身的运行规律。即使有严格的管制措施，期货市场疯狂的价格动荡仍有可能演变为现货市场的价格狂潮。 中国政府一直在设法控制这种风险。上世纪90年代初，全国分布著大约60个大大小小的期货交易所，交易的品种从金属到绿豆林林总总，不一而足。为打击投机活动，1998年中国将期货交易所砍到只剩3家，并推出了限制交易的各种规定，如高额保证金制度等。

近来，中国期货市场的交易已能在一定程度上反映市场的实际情况。建筑和汽车领域的经济增长推动了原材料需求和价格上升。而随著中国在全球商品交易中的份额越来越大，国内需求同样也助长了海外市场期货价格的升势。

但这时，投机商也再次光顾。市场人士说，与过去几次上涨行情不同的是，这次海外投资者也加入进来。一些外国人在中国成立了交易公司，名义上是为帮助期货市场融资，但随后他们就会将所获得的利润转移到海外，或再投入到中国其他经济领域，如房地产市场等。

一位曾帮助日本客户办理"借壳"交易事宜的上海分析师说，这种现象非常普遍。已有许多外国投资者在期货市场上隐身活动，而且还有很多人正准备加入。

市场上这种"热钱"的流动带来了新的风险。对于进入中国的每一美元、日圆或欧元，中国央行都会向商业银行卖出相应额度的人民币短期票据以维持汇率稳定，由此，经济体系中的资金供应也相应增加，一些人认为，这将导致一些行业出现过热。虽然中国期货市场上外国投资者的相对比例并不大，但他们的参与增加了价格动荡的风险，一些人认为，期货市场的价格将会涨得容易降得快。

深圳金牛期货(Gold Bull Futures)的黄崇彦说，一旦这些（外国）投资者赚到了钱，他们就会拍拍屁股走人。

GDP增势迅猛 股市倦意连连

As GDP Booms, the Market Yawns

The large numbers came in the form of the gaudy 7.2% jump in annualized gross domestic product growth reported for last quarter and Bank of America's $47 billion deal to buy FleetBoston Financial, both of which lent power to stock-market bulls' insistence that the economic expansion and animal spirits were strengthening in tandem.

The round numbers, trivial as they may appear, were 1050 for the Standard & Poor's 500 and, to a lesser degree, 9800 for the Dow Jones Industrials. These levels, particularly 1050 on the S&P, have acted as areas of friction for the market's advance in the past.

Petty stuff, it might seem. But with the overall forward thrust of the market slowing as indicated by ebbing upside volume, the numbers became a short-term fixation of traders as the indexes failed to tack on much additional upside following the blowout GDP data reported Thursday.

In the end, the S&P 500 gained 21 points, or 2.1%, for the week, but stalled precisely at the 1050 mark, which also represents the closing high for the index during this rally phase, set Oct. 16. The Dow added 218 points, or 2.3%, to nose above 9800 to 9801. The Nasdaq breezed to another leading performance, climbing 66 points, or 3.6%, to 1932.

Nearly all of those gains were in place prior to the GDP numbers, an indication that the market has priced itself for a certain measure of economic cheer, much of it reflected in the earnings season now winding down.

That feisty GDP growth rate was already manifest in the 5.6% revenue increase and 17% operating earnings advance indicated by the three quarters of S&P 500 companies that have reported results thus far. The market awaits the earnings encore, which will have to come in a world of somewhat lower GDP expansion and, most likely, lower productivity growth.

The Nasdaq persists in confounding widespread calls (some of them aired here) that it should soon cede leadership to less racy, more traditional segments of the market. But the prospects for that happening without the overall market first suffering a serious setback are pretty scant, given the forces driving both the Nasdaq and the broad market itself.

Stocks have been rising because sentiment has brightened, liquidity is overflowing, earnings have rebounded from depressed levels and momentum is again addictive. On every score, the high-test tech stocks of the Nasdaq benefit disproportionately from such conditions. So, for the entire market to stay strong without the Nasdaq leading, or at least participating fully, would be akin to laughing without smiling.

The strong GDP numbers and the flurry of merger deals that fortified the market last week aid another factor that helps the Nasdaq disproportionately: They make investors more comfortable rationalizing full-to-expensive stock valuations. As long as investors can lean on the "things are getting better" line to keep stock prices aloft, the fancy multiples they carry won't matter. Until they do.
With Halloween passed, the market has made it through its toughest seasonal period unscathed. September and October are historically the worst for stock returns, but since the end of August the Dow is up 4.1% and the Nasdaq ahead by 6.7%.

The market's impressive year-to-date run has prompted some talk about how the seasonal patterns are now shifting to act as tailwinds. For instance, in years when stocks were up through the first 10 months, there's virtually no precedent for a substantial decline through November and December. And, of course, the needle has been stuck on the part of the bulls' record that expounds on the historical market strength in an election year.

All true. But note that this year the old, dog-eared seasonal patterns haven't exactly worked too well. Not only did September and October fail to put a scare into investors, but those who heeded the famous advice to "Sell in May and go away," is now returning to find they have forgone some nice profits.

So, if the market continues to plow ahead without regard for stout valuations and decelerating growth, it'll be because of late-arriving cash comes from fresh buyers and the widespread willingness to believe -- not because of the calendar.

THE MUTUAL-FUND MARKET-TIMING scandal that's hit Marsh & McLellan's Putnam division is prompting plenty of questions. How could a fiduciary have tolerated fund managers flipping their own funds? Why weren't they dismissed when the issue surfaced three years ago? And will the expected securities fraud charges stick?

Among stock watchers, the question is appropriately a more mercenary one: At what point is Marsh Mac a buy?

It's a good question to ask when a company is being pelted daily by nasty headlines, sinking both its reputation and its share price. Think back to the summer of 2002 when Citigroup was fending off regulatory attacks on its research practices. What resonates now isn't so much the details of that scandal as what a nifty buying opportunity it created for Citi at 27, $20 below the current price. The lesson there is to be a buyer of a stock when the "headline risk" seems most severe.

It's not yet clear that point has been reached for Putnam and Marsh. The stock is down 16% since Sept. 2 to a recent 42.75, with the overall market up a bit. Putnam represents about 19% of the company's expected pretax earnings for this year and next, according to Morgan Stanley. The rest is insurance brokerage (67%) and Mercer consulting (14%).

By that extremely rough measure, the market has already severely discounted the earnings power of Putnam. Excluding Putnam's contribution entirely, Marsh is now valued around 16.5-times expected 2004 earnings from the other businesses, below the market's multiple.

Of course, all of Putnam's earnings power and all of its $270 billion in managed assets aren't going away. But billions are, as the steady beat of announcements from pension funds withdrawing money attest. Outflows were steady even before the scandal, for performance reasons.

The brand has no doubt been damaged, but it's perhaps less likely that the retail funds, sold via brokers, will experience mass flight. It's worth asking, as some investors reflexively pull assets from Putnam, where will they go? What fund companies will end up untouched by this broadening regulatory sweep?
Brian Meredith, analyst at Banc of America Securities, calculates that for every $5 billion in net outflows this quarter from Putnam, Marsh's 2004 projected earnings of $3.20 a share fall by one cent. Applying the depressed multiple of Janus Capital (another timing scandal player) to Putnam, Meredith reached a sum-of-the-parts valuation of 49 for Marsh shares -- almost 15% above the current level, but not yet compelling enough to jump at, in his view.

In a worst-case scenario, Meredith figures that if Putnam is worth zero (which it most definitely is not) then the fair value for the rest of Marsh is "at least $38 or $39 per share."

Headline risk may continue to knock the stock lower still. But if it trades with a "three handle," no doubt the smart money would be on the bid side.

ALMOST FROM THE MOMENT AOL acquired Time Warner, for the New Economy equivalent of some overpriced magic beans, the AOL name has been a reminder of all that investors had to regret about that pairing.

But, in fitting irony, now that the company has excised AOL and once again become Time Warner, an underappreciated turnaround at the AOL division could make the stock an interesting bet.

Start with the fact that AOL's $1 billion in current-year free cash flow is almost certainly the most undervalued pool of Internet earnings in the market today. Look at any other candidate -- InterActiveCorp, Yahoo!, United Online or even cable companies -- and you find that the market is willing to put a 10-20-times multiple on free cash flow, says Kaufman Brothers analyst Mark May.

With a current share price of 15.25 for Time Warner, the market is ascribing very little or no value to AOL's business.

The bearish retort, of course, is that subscribers to AOL's dial-up service are stampeding to broadband and that cash flow will only decline. Yes and no. It's true that subscriber losses probably will continue, but because of the division's variable costs, the service can remain quite profitable while they leave. And a Time Warner shareholder, who met with company executives recently, believes that within 18-to-24 months, the number of new digital subscribers will begin to outnumber the defecting dial-up customers. That's the crucial challenge.

Meanwhile, this investor notes, online advertising continues to bustle along at a nice growth clip and the core Time Warner media divisions are finally working closely with the humbled AOL folks to create more attractive online content. Also important is the change in tone from above. Under CEO Richard Parsons, Time Warner seems fixated on delivering for the Street and shedding the old image of over-promising.

May, who had a Buy on the stock while it went from 11 to 16 this year, before switching to a Hold, just recently recommended that clients buy it again. He figures that several factors could make the stock a better risk-reward bet. These include a possible advantageous cable asset swap with Comcast and a sale of the music division. It's not entirely a tidy story, given uncertain old-media advertising trends, a continuing SEC probe into old AOL accounting and attendant shareholder lawsuits. But those risks, and more, are arguably well-embedded in the stock price.

WITH SO MANY OF THE OBVIOUS PLAYS played out after the market's long-running revival, traders' attention has turned to some apparent mispricings in obscure securities. But even with little-known arbitrage situations, sometimes an anomaly can come to be the norm.

Take the Cablevision-linked securities known under the symbol XCT. These shares, which were issued by a trust in October 2001, pay $2.34 in annual dividends. And, just over a year, each share will be exchanged for a share of Cablevision class A.

On first glance and at a recent price of 21.74, the shares look like a neat Cablevision proxy with an 11% yield. For anyone interested in betting against the crowd that the controlling Dolan family might build some value with its announced spinoff of the satellite business, this might seem the shrewd way to do it.
But according to folks who study such situations, the premium of XCT to Cablevision common, now just about $2, pretty much exactly accounts for the added cash income that will be collected. Chalk another one up for the efficient-market hypothesis.

Another situation that's traveling the chatter wire involves the two share classes of homebuilder Lennar. The class B shares, with 10 votes each, trade around 86.50, $5 less than the class A, which carry just one vote each. They're otherwise identical.

Some traders have been eyeing the Lennar relationship and playing the arbitrage, owning the B and shorting the A.

But the circumstances don't seem to support an immediate closure of that gap. For one thing, the B shares were issued just six months ago as a way to allow members of Lennar's controlling family to sell shares if they wished. They're far less liquid.

Lennar is a heavily traded name, owing to the momentum-riding long traders and legions of short players focused on the controversial housing sector. Those traders need the more liquid stock. Also, the A shares are in the S&P 400 Mid Cap index, meaning that index funds and others benchmarked to it will own them.

There's no visible catalyst to eliminate the gap, meaning the spread players may not be paid soon. But for any bold investors who want to own a little bit of Lennar, already up 75% this year, the B shares are the slightly better bet.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NO value in obvious investment vehicles. Investors have been busily grabbing the more intuitive plays on gold -- futures and mining stocks -- now that the metal has surged toward $400.

Whether this rise is attributable to the sinking dollar, a surge in nominal economic growth, percolating inflation risks or a repatriation of Middle Eastern wealth, there's a growing sense that gold is re-emerging as a crucial asset class. Newmont Mining's spurt to a 52-week high last week on fevered volume is only one recent indicator of this shift.

A forthcoming instrument from Merrill Lynch will make it substantially easier for investors to get exposure to gold, without the need for a futures account or space in a warehouse.

Called Trakrs, the product is technically a cash-settled futures contract. But the important details for investors are that it can be bought in a regular securities account and will deliver the exact economics of owning gold outright.

Due to begin trading Dec. 1 on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Trakrs will follow the spot price of gold while delivering an added return to match the lease rate, collected by gold owners who "rent" out the metal. Though no physical delivery of gold will come to Trakrs holders, the underlying futures will involve the responsibility for delivery. More information is available at www.trakrs.com.

SCOTT PETTIT, WHOSE COMMENTS ON Tractor Supply were cited here last week, is an analyst for Avondale Partners in Nashville. His firm was incorrectly referred to as Avalon Partners.
GDP增势迅猛 股市倦意连连

对上周的股市来说，基本面上重大数据带来的动力显然遭遇到技术面的整数关口阻力。

上周的重大数据表现在：第三季度国内生产总值(GDP)折合年率增幅高达7.2%，美国银行(Bank of America)斥资470亿美元收购FleetBoston Financial。这两个数字为股市看涨派人士提供了理由，他们坚持认为经济的快速扩张与股市人气的高涨是一致的。

这里所指的整数似乎不太重要：标准普尔500指数的1050点及道琼斯工业股票平均价格指数的9800点关口，后者的重要性更低。特别是标准普尔500指数的1050点关口，过去一直是该指数攀升过程中的阻力区域。

尽管上述股指点位的重要性似乎有限，但上涨股成交量的减少显示股市总体涨势有所放缓，鉴于上周四公布强劲的GDP数据后，相关股指未能大幅走高，因此它们成了交易员们的短期关注目标。

标准普尔500指数上周涨21点，正好止步于1050点这一关口，涨幅2.1%，这一点位也是股市此轮上涨过程中的最高收盘点位之一，相当于10月16日收盘水平。道琼斯指数上周涨218点，突破9800点后收于9801点，涨幅2.3%。那斯达克综合指数则再次领涨，该股指攀升66点，收于1932点，涨幅达3.6%。

不过，这些涨幅在GDP数据公布前几乎已全部实现，这表明股市已在一定程度上将经济数据的好转考虑在内，经济状况的好转大多已在收益季节中得到体现。 第三季度GDP的强劲增长可从标准普尔500指数成份股公司今年头三个季度公布的业绩报告中明显看出：这些公司的收入增长了5.6%，营运利润增幅达17%。市场等待上市公司再现新一轮强劲的收益报告。在GDP增幅较低，尤其是在生产力增幅较低的情况下，强劲的公司业绩报告就愈发显得重要。

尽管有传言称，那斯达克指数引领市场走高的主导地位将很快让位于更具传统经济意义的主要指数，但那斯达克指数还是保住了上涨势头。不过，鉴于积极因素对那斯达克和整个市场均产生推动作用，因此，除非整体股市大幅下挫，否则所谓传统经济的主要指数的表现强于那斯达克的机会相当渺茫。 在人气改善、流动资金充足、公司收益反弹，以及市场上涨动力再度活跃等因素的支持下，股市近来持续走高。而那斯达克市场每一次都能从这些正面消息中获得更大的上涨动力。有鉴于此，股市总体走强，而领涨的不是那斯达克市场（或表现不充分）的情况不会出现。

强劲的GDP数据和上周的数桩并购交易使得投资者在高价位买进股票时更加心安理得，只要投资者认为情况正在好转，并继续推升股价，那么所持股票的本益比再高也不足为忧。而投资者的乐观情绪对那斯达克市场的推动作用更为显著。

随著万圣节的过去，股市也得以安然度过最为艰难的时期。9月与10月份通常是美国股市表现最差的阶段，但今年的情况发生了变化，道琼斯指数自8月底以来已上涨了4.1%，而那斯达克综合指数同期则飙升了6.7%。

股市今年迄今走势强劲，这促使部分市场人士认为，与以往周期性的走势不同，股市今年可望持续走高。例如，在以往股市于前10个月走高的年度，还没有出现过后2个月大幅下挫的情况。

上述情况均属实。但应当注意的是，往年的周期性因素并未在今年完全发挥作用。非但9月与10月份没有出现往常的下跌走势，甚至于连那些采纳"在5月份抛售股票，此后离场观望"的投资者目前也重返了股市，这些投资者发现自己已错过一些获利良机。

因此，如果股市不顾估价较高以及指数涨势放缓的事实而继续大幅上扬，那么这将表明，促使股市上涨的原因在于新买家所带来的资金以及投资者普遍看好后市的信念。

SEC强烈抨击纽约证交所疏于监管

SEC Blasts Big Board Oversight Of 'Specialist' Trading Firms

The Securities and Exchange Commission, in a confidential report, blasted the New York Stock Exchange for failing to police its elite floor-trading firms and for ignoring blatant violations in which investors were shortchanged by millions of dollars in trades involving more than two billion shares over the past three years.

The 40-page report, dated Oct. 10 and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, is a severe rebuke of both the floor-trading firms, known as "specialists," and the self-regulatory structure that monitors the Big Board floor. It paints a picture of a floor-trading system riddled with abuses, with firms routinely placing their own trades ahead of those by customers -- and an in-house regulator either ill-equipped or too worried about increasing its workload to care. And it concludes that when the NYSE does act on investor abuses, the exchange often does little more than admonish the specialists in a letter or slap them on the wrist with a light fine.

The SEC staff "is concerned that the NYSE's disciplinary program is viewed by specialists and specialist firms as a minor cost of doing business, and that it does not adequately discipline or deter violative conduct," the report says. It adds that the floor-trading firms "have no meaningful compliance programs for reviewing their specialists' compliance" to various trading rules.

The SEC report says that about 2.2 billion shares were improperly traded over the past three years, costing investors $155 million. In the context of overall Big Board trading activity, the improper transactions cited by the SEC involved less than 1% of the shares traded during the period -- equivalent to about 1? days' typical trading volume.

The report cuts to the heart of public trust in the 211-year-old exchange -- the world's biggest, and one of the last that still matches buyers and sellers with human traders. And it comes as the Big Board is reeling over the pay-related ouster of Chairman Dick Grasso and is being criticized for how it conducts business.

The findings are likely to bolster those who argue that the NYSE's regulatory arm should be taken out from under the exchange's control. And it is sure to raise further questions by investors over whether the specialist system should be scrapped in favor of an electronic-trading model embraced by most other exchanges. Fidelity Investments and some other institutional investors have called for an end to specialists, which are charged with assuring that trading is orderly for specific stocks. This week, the NYSE's interim chairman, John Reed, will propose major changes in the exchange's governance, including an overhaul of the NYSE's board, in a bid to reduce conflicts of interest.

The NYSE, which was given 15 days to respond to the report, declined to comment on it or to say whether it had responded to the SEC. The Big Board also said it would be inappropriate to speak about a confidential SEC inspection report "that was provided to The Wall Street Journal by someone who acted unethically." The SEC also criticized the Journal for publishing the report.

SEC Chairman William Donaldson, who headed the Big Board in the early 1990s, has been critical of the exchange's governance over the past several months, saying he wants to see some separation of the NYSE's regulatory and business operations. However, Mr. Donaldson hasn't called for a complete split of the regulatory and market operations and has suggested that the NYSE's specialist system should continue to operate alongside newer, electronic marketplaces.

An SEC spokeswoman declined to comment on the report and wouldn't discuss Mr. Donaldson's reaction to its contents.

The SEC's conclusions also could raise questions among critics about whether the NYSE underfunded its regulatory arm at the expense of hefty pay for senior executives such as Mr. Grasso, who was ousted as CEO and chairman following a public outcry over his $187.5 million retirement nest egg. At the request of the SEC, the NYSE recently assigned 25 to 30 enforcement lawyers and 20 market-surveillance analysts to cases. The exchange's market-surveillance group also will hire nine additional staff members and is getting a $3 million annual budget increase.

Prepared by the SEC's office of compliance, inspections and examinations, the report recommends overhauling everything from the way the Big Board monitors its trading floor to how it sanctions those who violate the rules. According to the report, the SEC began its investigation after an April 17 article in the Journal about an NYSE investigation into whether specialists traded ahead of customers.

Possible Action

Now, the SEC's enforcement division is looking into the issues raised in the inspection report to determine whether to bring an enforcement action against the Big Board for failing to fulfill its self-regulatory duty, according to people familiar with the matter. Such a move would be only the second time in recent memory that the SEC has taken action against the NYSE for failing to adequately police its floor. In 1999, the SEC found that the NYSE failed to enforce compliance with federal securities laws and NYSE rules in the case of a non-Big Board brokerage firm, Oakford Corp., which the SEC accused of participating in an illegal-trading scheme. Two weeks ago, the SEC took action against the Chicago Stock Exchange for lax oversight.

The SEC itself has faced pressure for more vigorous enforcement recently. In the past year, the securities-industry watchdog has lost ground to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who launched his own probes of overly enthusiastic Wall Street research and improper trading at mutual funds.

More than any other exchange, the NYSE relies on humans to oversee trillions of dollars in investor trading each year on its floor. Specialists match buyers and sellers of stock, sometimes providing capital from their firm's account to complete a trade and keep the markets orderly. As specialists have increasingly turned to trading for their own accounts as a source of profits, more attention has been focused on the question of whether they are using their inside knowledge of the market to gain at the expense of their customers.

The SEC report comes as the NYSE continues its own probe into specialist trading. The Big Board recently alleged that the five largest specialists may have shortchanged investors by more than $100 million over three years through improper trading. The NYSE is sending out unvarnished data on trades to the specialists who in turn will analyze the data and come back to the exchange to argue which trading was proper and which wasn't.

Under investigation by the NYSE are LaBranche & Co.; Fleet Specialist, a unit of FleetBoston Financial Corp.; Bear Wagner Specialists LLC, which is minority-owned by Bear Stearns Cos.; Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, a unit of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; and Van der Moolen Specialists USA, a unit of Van der Moolen Holdings NV.

Spokespeople or senior executives from LaBranche and Bear Stearns didn't return calls for comment. A senior executive from Van der Moolen Specialists declined to comment. Spokesmen for Goldman and Fleet Specialists also declined to comment.

The NYSE's investigation, which began last fall in response to a foreign-listed company's complaint about trading in its stock, had inched along for months until, at the behest of the SEC, it was broadened to include several trading violations.

The SEC's confidential findings "reveal serious deficiencies" in the NYSE's surveillance and investigative procedures, including a habit of ignoring repeat violations by specialist firms. The NYSE had "no meaningful surveillance," allowing inappropriate behavior to continue and causing "significant" customer harm, the report said. When the exchange did detect violations the response was weak, the SEC said, and "inadequate to deter future violations."

Catalogued in the SEC report are a series of inappropriate actions by specialists over the past three years that went unchecked and unpunished. Dozens of individual specialists routinely violated exchange rules by trading for their own accounts ahead of customer orders, giving investors inferior prices to those they gave themselves and inappropriately stepping between buyers and sellers, the report says. In at least one area, the SEC says, the NYSE followed an unwritten policy that "a maximum of five violations could be referred" to the investigative division in any one-week period.

Customers lost out on $128 million over the three-year period because specialists traded ahead of 1.9 million customer orders representing 1.6 billion shares, the SEC said. "Trading ahead" occurs when a specialist takes advantage of an attractive price and completes a trade for the firm's own account before one placed by a customer.

Specialists also cost investors another $27 million during the same three-year period by "interpositioning," or failing to match orders, 253,785 times in transactions totaling 332 million shares. Instead, the specialists stepped between the buyer and seller -- purchasing the shares and often reselling them moments later -- for a small profit. The cost to investors could grow as the probe continues, the SEC suggests in the report.

The SEC's staff also identified another violation in which specialists "freeze" their so-called display book of orders. That's when specialists prevent electronic orders that arrive through the NYSE's "Designated Order Turnaround" system from immediately reaching the floor to be executed, even as other orders continue to be filled. Most customers are unaware of this practice. The SEC said specialists were inappropriately using "freeze mode" to trade ahead of certain customers and avoid obligations under a rule requiring that all orders be executed at the best price. The SEC has directed the NYSE to file a rule change to provide for enforcement of this violation.

The management of the specialist firms is partly to blame for the alleged trading abuses, the SEC says. These practices persisted in part because the specialist firms lacked internal compliance programs, instead relying primarily on the exchange's weak surveillance and examination programs as their compliance tool, the report said.

'Numerous Violations'

The NYSE often ignored blatant examples of improper behavior. For instance, in 2001 and 2002, the NYSE's "Member Firm Regulation" division examined each specialist firm and found "numerous violations of trading rules" including trading ahead and repeat offenses by some firms' specialists who had committed identical violations in prior years. The Big Board referred some violations to its investigative division, but many others were ignored, the SEC said.

Instead of trying to determine the extent of a firm's violation, the regulatory division routinely closed cases "even when the examinations included evidence of recidivist conduct," according to the SEC report. Take the NYSE's examination of Van der Moolen, which found, among other trading violations, 21 instances of trading ahead by specialists in a two-hour period in 2002 and 14 trading-ahead violations over a 2? hour period in 2001. The regulatory division didn't expand its investigation to determine if more violations had occurred and simply referred the 35 violations to the investigations department, according to the SEC report.

The NYSE investigative arm also failed to take proper action, the SEC said, by not thoroughly investigating cases and often taking more than a year to make a determination about a firm's conduct. The division would often focus on a sample that was too small to determine whether violations had occurred, the report said, and then close cases or send ineffective letters to firms that had sometimes committed serious rule violations.

Moreover, instead of reviewing all violations separately, the division often aggregated multiple violations for a single firm. That was the case with Spear Leeds, which was bought by Goldman in 2000, and cited for dozens of violations in 2000 and 2001, according to the SEC. The exchange's investigative unit found that Spear Leeds had violated several order-handling rules and noted that the firm "had similar violations in prior examinations." The division sent the firm a letter of admonishment and closed the case, the SEC said.

The exchange did spot some serious violations by specialists over the years, but the SEC said the response was often to close cases without taking action or to send a letter to the firm. From January 2001 to June 2003, the SEC says, NYSE imposed a total of $604,000 in fines against specialists and specialist firms for both minor rule violations and other improper conduct. Included in that total was $8,500 in fines levied against the firms for 462 trading-ahead violations found by NYSE investigators in 2001 and 2002. The firms weren't required by the NYSE to return the illegal profits.

The NYSE now is taking action to address the problems. In addition to adding enforcement attorneys and market-surveillance analysts to cases, the NYSE agreed to "ensure that its regulatory budget is fully funded to meet all regulatory needs." The exchange will also file a proposed rule with the SEC that governs the use of "freeze mode" and agreed to put in place a system to inhibit specialists from trading ahead of customer orders. In the report, the NYSE notes that some violations already have "significantly decreased."

In early October, SEC staff members met with Mr. Reed, the NYSE's interim chairman, to discuss the report and ways in which the SEC could improve its oversight and disciplinary functions. The staff told the exchange to refer all important trading-rule violations directly to the NYSE's enforcement division, rather than to its investigative division. The SEC also is recommending that the regulatory division develop and adopt procedures to review "the adequacy of specialist firm compliance programs" and refer all repeat violators for formal disciplinary action. And the SEC wants the exchange to create a surveillance system that detects any orders that remain unexecuted.

In addition to criticizing whoever leaked the report, an NYSE spokesman said in a statement: "It is equally inappropriate for The Wall Street Journal to disclose at this early stage of an iterative inspection process. Disclosure now also compromises a confidential regulatory proceeding and damages the rights of the specialist firms and their personnel before any charges have been filed or any defenses offered.

"Moreover, by making confidential regulatory information public, the disclosure may chill future inspections; may compromise the NYSE's surveillance, investigative and enforcement processes; and may interfere with our Enforcement Division's ability to bring the specialist investigation to a timely and effective resolution that serves the public interest."

The spokesman added that that the NYSE is committed to effective regulation of the market and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure investor confidence.

Sore Subject

The SEC often has locked horns with the exchange over how to fix the perceived inadequacies. In 1998, for example, the SEC found that the exchange's tools to police trading-ahead violations were inadequate. While the exchange took some steps to fix the problem, it resisted the SEC's recommendation to do more. NYSE managers, according to the report, argued that doing more would increase the workload for its investigators. In 2002, the exchange rejected the SEC's request that it adjust its regulatory program to ensure that specialists weren't freezing their display book for more than 30 seconds, choosing instead to use a 60-second parameter.

With increasing automation at the Big Board, it should take less time to complete a trade, the SEC argued. Longer time frames can permit more trading abuses. But the exchange's regulatory staff told the SEC that producing reports using the broader parameters wasn't likely to identify any additional specialists who had violated rules. "The NYSE stated that many of the specialist firms have merged with existing firms and that many of the specialists who may have violated the law have since retired," the SEC said in the report. And the exchange said it might not have the resources to generate surveillance reports using historical trade data.

The NYSE frequently issued "admonition letters" after finding violations, rather than starting enforcement cases. In an investigation into trading-quote violations by Van der Moolen, the Big Board's investigative division consolidated 16 referrals of improper activity by the firm over 20 months and issued an admonition letter for violating the rule.

The investigative division didn't launch probes into the individual specialists that were responsible for the violation and didn't investigate the 2,300 "alerts" -- indicating possible trading violations -- that were generated but not reviewed, the report said. Furthermore, the SEC said that when the NYSE uncovered additional alleged violations, the NYSE dismissed them as "cumulative" and then stopped reviewing quote violations generated for Van der Moolen for a "grace period" of three months.

One NYSE surveillance system issued 640 alerts in 2001 and 2002, but the SEC said a more comprehensive system would likely have triggered more than 8,000 alerts in that time. Of the 640 alerts that were found, NYSE analysts concluded that 494 were violations. But in many cases, the SEC said, "analysts inappropriately concluded that a violation did not occur." For example, the SEC said, analysts concluded that a violation hadn't occurred because even though a specialist traded ahead of a customer order, he or she did so within the 60-second parameter, which also applies to trades made with the firm's own capital.

For five years, the SEC has been pushing the NYSE to narrow that 60-second window. But the SEC noted in its report that "managers appeared to be concerned primarily with the impact on the analysts' workload as a consequence of reducing the time parameter, not on the fact that the increase in alerts was highlighting increased patterns of illegal trading by NYSE specialists." Earlier this summer, the SEC told the Big Board to cut the time frame to 10 seconds from 60 seconds.

NYSE officials seemed to play down the SEC report in a conference call last month to discuss the widening of the specialist probe. Edward Kwalwasser, the Big Board's regulatory chief, said in the call: "We have received an oversight report that went into a lot of different things and we received it yesterday so it hasn't taken us anywhere." Mr. Kwalwasser Sunday declined to comment through a spokesman.
SEC强烈抨击纽约证交所疏于监管

证券交易委员会(The Securities and Exchange Commission, 简称：SEC)在一份机密报告中以激烈措辞批评了纽约证交所(New York Stock Exchange, 简称：NYSE)，称其对几大场内交易公司疏于监管，对公然违反有关规则的交易行为视而不见，致使投资者过去3年在逾20亿股股票的交易中损失了数亿美元。

《华尔街日报》(The Wall Street Journal)对这份长达40页、日期为10月10日的报告进行了评阅，该报告对场内交易公司（即特设经纪商）和纽约证交所的自我监管机制提出了严重指责。报告描述了一个充斥违规行为的场内交易系统，场内交易公司通常将自己的交易置于客户的交易之前，而内部的监管部门要么装备不足，要么过分担忧增加工作量，因而疏于管理。报告总结称，纽约证交所在对欺骗投资者的行为采取行动时，通常只是对场内交易公司发出一个警告信，或者施以小额罚金而不痛不痒地进行惩罚。 报告称，SEC官员担心：纽约证交所的惩戒措施被场内交易公司看作是小小的业务成本，不能充分地惩戒或阻止违法行为。报告称，场内交易公司没有实质性措施评估它们特设经纪商是否遵守各种交易规定。

这份SEC报告称，大约22亿股股票在过去3年中被不当交易，导致投资者损失1.55亿美元。在纽约证交所总体交易活动中，SEC指出的不当交易数量占同期股票交易数量的不到1%，相当于大约5.5天的通常交易数量。

报告切中公众对这个有211年历史证交所的信任的要害。纽约证交所是世界上最大的，也是最后一些仍然通过交易员人力将买卖双方联系在一起的证交所之一。目前，纽约证交所在因为薪酬问题而驱逐董事长迪克?格拉索(Dick Grasso)之后度日艰难，而且因为业务经营方式而受到批评。

这些发现可能会支持那些声称纽约证交所的监管部门应脱离纽约证交所的人。该报告注定也将使投资者进一步提出有关是否应该放弃特设经纪商制度，而采用其他大部分证交所采用的电子交易模式的问题。Fidelity Investments和部分其他机构投资者已经呼吁结束场内交易特设经纪商制度，这些特设经纪商的职责是确保个股交易的有序进行。本周，纽约证交所的临时董事长约翰?里德(John Reed)将提议对证交所的治理结构进行大规模变革，包括对纽约证交所董事会进行大的改组，以减少利益冲突。

纽约证交所将在15天期限内对报告做出反应。纽约证交所拒绝对报告置评，也拒绝透露是否已经对SEC作出反应。纽约证交所还说，谈论保密性的SEC调查报告是不适当的，将报告提供给《华尔街日报》的人缺乏职业道德。SEC也批评《华尔街日报》发表这个报告。

SEC的结论，不禁使批评家们提出这样的问题：纽约证交所是否因向格拉索(Grasso)等高层管理人士提供了巨额薪酬，而造成无法为监管部门提供足够资金。格拉索1.875亿美元的退休补偿遭遇公众强烈不满，他已经辞去了证交所首席执行长兼董事长的职务。应SEC的要求，纽约证交所最近指派了25-30位执法律师以及20位市场监督分析师。该交易所的市场监督机构还将增聘9名工作人员，而且每年的预算将增加300万美元。

SEC发言人拒绝就报告置评，并且没有谈及该委员会主席唐纳森(Donaldson)对报告内容的反应。

这份由SEC下属的遵循检查办公室(OCIE)撰写的报告建议，从纽约证交所监控场内交易的途径至制裁违规者的方式等方方面面均应彻底检查。这份报告称，在《华尔街日报》4月17日载文报导纽约证交所调查专业机构在交易中是否优先于普通投资者之后，SEC即展开了调查。

据消息人士透露，SEC的执法部门目前正在审视调查报告中发现的问题，以决定是否因纽约证交所未能履行自我监管职责而对其采取强制监管。

与其他交易所相比，纽约证交所在监督场内投资者每年数万亿美元的交易时更多依赖于人力。专业机构撮合股票的买卖双方，有时会动用公司自身的帐户资金以完成一笔交易，保持市场秩序井然。随著专业机构越来越多地开始为自身帐户交易以获取利润，有关他们是否利用所掌握的市场内幕使客户蒙受损失而从中获利的问题，也就越来越受到关注。

SEC公布此份报告时，纽约证交所对专业机构交易的调查还在继续。纽约证交所最近指出，五大专业机构在3年中通过不正当交易可能骗取了投资者逾1亿美元的资金。这几家公司的发言人和高层管理人士不是没有回复记者要求采访的电话，就是拒绝置评。

SEC的机密调查，暴露了纽约证交所监督和调查程序存在的严重缺陷，其中包括对专业机构一再违规的视而不见。报告称，纽约证交所的监督毫无意义可言，这才使得不恰当行为持续存在，并对投资者造成严重伤害。SEC称，即便在纽约证交所确实发现违规行为的情况下，其作出的回应也是无力的，不足以杜绝今后的违规。

中国股市上扬，蓝筹股领涨

China Shares End Up On Blue-Chip Buying, HK Stock Gains

China's shares closed higher Tuesday on active buying in blue chips and local shares with dual listings in Hong Kong. The advance marked the third straight session of gains for the key Shanghai index after it slipped to near its lowest levels for 2003 last week.

The Shanghai Composite Index, which tracks both A and B shares, ended 1.9% up at 1389.55. The smaller-capitalized Shenzhen Composite Index gained 1.6% to close at 375.21.

"Investors favored blue chips with solid fundamentals on the belief that they are the targets of qualified foreign institutional investors," said Chen Zhe, an analyst at CITIC Securities in Shanghai.

Blue chip Baoshan Iron & Steel's A shares jumped 7% to 6.41 yuan ($1=CNY8.28), Shanghai Automotive's A shares surged 5.3% to CNY13.81 and China Merchants Bank's A shares rose 3.4% to CNY10.19.

Shanghai Baosteel Group Co., which includes Baoshan Iron, said Tuesday it expected group sales to hit CNY120 billion yuan in 2005, paving the way for it to be among the top three steelmakers in the world by the end of this decade.

Local shares with dual-listings in Hong Kong also rose strongly after Hong Kong shares ended at a fresh 27-month closing high Monday.

Guangzhou Shipyard International's A shares soared 5% to CNY5.89 and Sinopec Yizheng Chemical Fibre's A shares hit their 10% upside limit to end at CNY5.02. Both are also listed in Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, a central bank injection of funds into the money market eased concerns China Yangtze Power's giant initial public offering will choke liquidity, analysts said.

The People's Bank of China made an offering of reverse repurchase agreements to the country's money market Tuesday, adding CNY20 billion in short-term funds.

Market participants said they have been worried the subscription period for Yangtze Power's CNY10 billion IPO this week would lock up large amounts of funds.

Yangtze Power is the listing vehicle of the massive Three Gorges Dam project, and is issuing 2.33 billion shares at CNY4.3 each. The subscription period for the share sale started Monday and finishes Wednesday.

Bucking the general upward trend was barley maker Xinjiang Hops, whose A shares hit their 10% downside limit to end at CNY13.49 in thin trade after the company said Tuesday it had lost contact with its chairman.

Shijiazhuang Dongfang Thermoelectric's A shares gained 3% to CNY6.12 on news that Canadian investment company Harper & Harper Ltd. plans to buy a controlling stake in its parent company.

Harper & Harper signed a letter of intent to buy a 75% stake in Shijiazhuang Dongfang's parent firm. The stake is currently owned by the Shijiazhuang municipal government, an official at the listed company told Dow Jones Newswires.

Looking forward, analysts said China shares may face profit-taking pressure after three consecutive sessions of gains, with the resistance level for the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index pegged at 1400.

Analysts said there talk in the market that Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors are increasing their holdings in blue chips, taking the view that China's bourses have hit bottom and that most shares are cheap at current valuations.

While its stock market is 12 years old, China only this year allowed foreign investors to buy into the main yuan-denominated A-share market under a strict QFII scheme.

In Shanghai's A-share market, trading volume increased to CNY15.5 billion from CNY6.4 billion Monday. Volume in the Shenzhen A-share market surged to CNY6.7 billion from CNY2.8 billion Monday.

In Shanghai's B-share market, trading volume fell to $67.5 million from $71.5 million Monday. Volume expanded to HK$1.2 billion from HK$1.1 billion in the Shenzhen B-share market.

A & B Share Indexes

Tuesday Previous Change(Pts)

Shanghai Exchange A Shr 1453.52 1426.23 +27.29

Shanghai Exchange B Shr 111.67 112.66 -0.99

Shenzhen Exchange A Shr 389.83 383.05 +6.78

Shenzhen Exchange B Shr 271.52 275.64 -4.12
中国股市上扬，蓝筹股领涨

中国股市周二收盘上扬，投资者积极买进蓝筹股和同时在香港上市的本地股票。这是上证综合指数连续第三个交易日上涨，上周该指数曾下滑至接近2003年低点的水平。

上证综合指数收盘涨1.9%，至1389.55点。深圳综合指数涨1.6%，收于375.21点。

中信证券(Citic Securities)驻上海的分析师陈哲表示，投资者看好基本面强劲的蓝筹股，他们相信这些股票是合格境外机构投资者的投资目标。

蓝筹股宝钢股份(Baoshan Iron & Steel)的A股上涨7%，至人民币6.41元(1美元=人民币8.28元)；上海汽车(Shanghai Automotive)的A股上涨5.3%，至13.81元；招商银行(China Merchants Bank)的A股上涨3.4%，至10.19元。

宝钢股份的母公司上海宝山钢铁集团(Baosteel Group Co.)周二称，预计2005年集团销售额将达到1,200亿元，为在本年代末跻身于世界前三大钢铁公司铺平道路。

在香港市场双重上市的中国股票也强劲上扬，周一香港股市收于27个月新高。

广船国际(Guangzhou Shipyard International)的A股上涨5%，至5.89元，仪征化纤(Sinopec Yizheng Chemical Fibre)的A股达到10%的涨停板，收于5.02元。这两家公司同时在香港上市。

分析师说，同时，央行向货币市场注入资金，也缓解了市场对长江电力(China Yangtze Power)大规模首次公开募股将导致流动资金衰竭的担忧。

中国人民银行(People's Bank of China)周二向货币市场提供逆向回购协议，补充200亿元的短期资金。

市场人士称，他们一直担心本周长江电力的认购期将冻结大量资金。

长江电力是三峡大坝项目的上市实体，此次将以每股4.3元的价格发行23.3亿股股票。认购期自周一开始至周三结束。

但啤酒花(Xinjiang Hops)却逆市跌停，啤酒花A股收盘跌10%至人民币13.49元，交投清淡。该公司周二称，已经与董事长失去联系。

东方热电(Shijiazhuang Dongfang Thermoelectric)A股涨3%至6.12元，原因是有消息称，加拿大投资公司汉搏和汉搏有限公司(Harper & Harper Ltd.)计划收购东方热电母公司的控股权。

汉搏和汉搏有限公司已经签署了收购东方热电母公司75%股权的意向书。东方热电的一位管理人士对道琼斯通讯社(Dow Jones Newswires)表示，这部分股权由石家庄市政府掌握。

分析师们预计，在经过了连续3个交易日的上涨之后，市场可能遭遇获利回吐压力，上证综合指数的阻力位在1400点。

分析师称，市场上有传闻称，考虑到中国股市已经触底，而且大多数股票的价格偏低，合格境外机构投资者(Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors, QFII)正在加大对蓝筹股的投资。

虽然中国股市经过了12年的发展，但直到今年，中国政府才允许外国投资者在严格遵守QFII机制的情况下投资中国以人民币计价的A股股市。

上海A股市场成交额从周一的64亿元激增至155亿元。深圳A股市场成交额则从28亿元放大至67亿元。

上海B股市场成交额从周一的7,150万美元降至6,750万美元；深圳B股市场成交额则从11亿港元升至12亿港元。

麦德龙计划5年内在中国新开40家店铺

Metro to Invest $695 Million In 40 More Stores in China

Metro AG plans to spend about �600 million ($695 million) opening 40 more stores in China during the next five years, Chief Executive Hans-Joachim Koerber said.

The German retailer and wholesaler's aggressive expansion plan, unveiled last year, comes as other global retailers, such as Carrefour SA of France and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of the U.S., announce plans to open stores in China to tap the country's rapidly growing middle class.

Mr. Koerber doesn't consider the likes of Carrefour and Wal-Mart competition, however, as they cater mainly to individual customers, while Metro focuses on business customers, such as restaurants and hotels.

Metro employs a membership system. Only members are officially allowed to shop in its stores, and becoming a member requires a business license. Metro has a unique concept, and so has no real competitors in China, Mr. Koerber said.

Metro, which has invested �300 million in 18 stores in China since it opened its first outlet in Shanghai in 1996, said the base of operations for its new stores in the north of the country will be Beijing, while Guangzhou will be the base in the south.

Mr. Koerber said he expects Metro to become profitable in China within three years, despite the cost of expansion.

Counting stores in China open for more than two years, Metro already has been profitable, he added.

Metro's net sales in China last year totaled �583 million, out of global sales of �51.5 billion.

Mr. Koerber said Metro has no plans to start a retail business in China to serve individual customers, though it has retail and wholesale operations in Europe.
麦德龙计划5年内在中国新开40家店铺

德国零售和批发巨头麦德龙(Metro AG, G.MTO)的首席执行长Hans-Joachim Koerber周一称，该公司计划未来5年在中国投资6亿欧元新开40家店铺。

法国家乐福(Carrefour S.A., F.CAR)和美国沃尔玛连锁公司(Wal-Mart Stores Inc., WMT)等其他国际零售商先后宣布了在中国新开店铺的计划以开发中国急速增长的中产阶级市场，麦德龙因此制定了雄心勃勃的扩张计划。中国媒体去年曾对该计划进行过大量报导。

但Koerber并不认为家乐福和沃尔玛等公司是竞争对手，因为他们主要面向个人消费者，而麦德龙的客户集中于饭店和宾馆等商业消费者。 另外，麦德龙实行会员制，只有会员才可以在店内购物，而要成为会员就必须出示营业执照。

当一小批外国记者问及中国快速发展的零售市场的激烈竞争时，Koerber称，麦德龙有独特的理念，所以它没有一个真正的竞争对手。

自从1996年在上海开设第一家店铺以来，麦德龙已经在中国投资3亿欧元，开设了18家店铺。麦德龙称，中国北方新店铺的运营基地将设在北京，南方新店铺的运营基地将设在广州。

Koerber称，他预计包括扩张店铺的费用在内，麦德龙将在3年内在中国实现盈利。

他还说，仅仅计算那些在中国运营两年以上的店铺，麦德龙已经实现盈利。 Koerber说，如果像他们这样在中国发展业务，开始肯定会亏损。但是他们不担心这个，因为他们是长期的投资者。他们非常想发展在中国的业务，并且首要目标是市场占有率和销售量。

根据该公司的声明，麦德龙去年在中国的净销售额总计5.83亿欧元，全球销售额为515亿欧元。

Koerber称，麦德龙没有在中国开设面向个人消费者的零售店铺的计划，尽管麦德龙在欧洲有零售和批发两种业务。

尽管Koerber指出，麦德龙派出了管理人员管理物流公司，但Koerber说，麦德龙在中国外包了大量的物流业务，该公司没有计划自己经营这些物流业务。

Koerber说，公司首先必须清楚什么是核心业务，麦德龙的核心业务不是物流，而是零售和批发业务。

Koerber还说，麦德龙在中国只有锦江集团(Jin Jiang (Group) Co.)一个合资伙伴，即使将来对于外资连锁店的上市限制取消了，麦德龙也不会单干。

Koerber称，锦江集团是未来一个非常可靠的合作伙伴，因此没有必要作出改变。也许当他们寻找新的投资的时候，麦德龙会作出改变，但是目前麦德龙对于双方的合资企业信心十足。

Koerber指出，随著麦德龙在中国的扩张，该公司每年将雇用2,500名新员工，目前该公司有5,000名员工。

花旗集团完成对西尔斯子公司的收购
Citigroup Completes Acquisition Of Sears Credit Card Business


Citigroup Inc . (C) completed the $31.8 billion acquisition of Sears Roebuck & Co.'s (S) Credit Card and Financial Products business, opening the door for the nation's biggest financial services company to start nursing the struggling unit back to health.

In a press release Monday, New York-based Citigroup said the purchase price included a 10%, or $2.9 billion, premium on Sears private label and bankcard credit card receivables of $28.6 billion, and $300 million for other assets, business facilities and employees. The deal also included $10.4 billion in securitized debt and other liabilities.

Earlier in the year, Sears's credit-card operations were plagued by rising delinquencies, which threatened the efforts by the Hoffman Estates, Ill., company to revitalize its ailing retail business.

Sears decided to drop the business in March and started an auction that drew wide interest from players like Bank One Corp. (ONE), Barclays PLC (BCS) and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM). However, those bidders dropped out or didn't bid aggressively, leaving Citigroup as the leader.

Aside from the acquisition, Citigroup and Sears also entered into a multiyear marketing and servicing agreement across a range of each company's businesses, products and services.

"Through our strategic alliance with Citigroup, customers will experience uninterrupted levels of service and enjoy a broader array of financial products in the future," Sears Chairman and Chief Executive Alan Lacy said in the press release.

Separately, Citigroup said it plans to buy Forum Financial Group, which provides fund administration services, for an undisclosed amount.

The acquisition will include Forum Financial's operations in Portland, Maine, Warsaw, Poland and Bermuda. Forum's 400 employees will be integrated into Citigroup but remain based in those five locations.

Citigroup said the acquisition, which is slated to close by year-end, will provide sustained growth opportunities for its global transaction services group.

Citigroup officials couldn't immediately be reached to provide additional information about the purchase price and impact of the acquisition on its business.
花旗集团完成对西尔斯子公司的收购

花旗集团(Citigroup Inc., C)完成了斥资318亿美元收购西尔斯(Sears Roebuck & Co., S)的信用卡和金融产品业务Credit Card and Financial Products的交易，至此全美最大的金融集团重振原西尔斯旗下这个勉力挣扎的信用卡子公司业务的努力正式开始。

花旗集团在周一发布的新闻稿中称，收购价中包括10%，约合29亿美元的溢价，此次收购协议中的西尔斯自有品牌和银行卡信用卡的应收帐款总计286亿美元，此外还有3亿美元的资产、业务设施和雇员。该交易还包括承担104亿美元的证券化债务和其他债务。

除了上述收购协议外，花旗集团和西尔斯还达成了一项为期数年的营销和服务协议，内容涉及两家公司的业务、产品和服务等诸多方面。

西尔斯的董事长兼首席执行长Alan Lacy在一份新闻稿中表示，通过和花旗集团建立的战略同盟，顾客在未来将享受到不间断的服务和广泛的金融产品。

欧盟扩大不应妨碍竞争自由
The enlarged EU must be free to compete

The European Union is about to be transformed. In just a few months 10 new countries, many of which have won their freedom from the old Soviet bloc, will join. As prime ministers of one future and one current EU member state, we are certain that the enlarged Europe will be not just bigger but also better for all its citizens.

In the Europe of 25, there will be no first- and second-class members, no masters or apprentices. The "class of 2004" will, from day one, be considered equals. Existing members must show the newcomers from the start that their opinions will be heard and respected.

We should not expect the new members to form a single bloc. Like the EU's current member states, sometimes their interests will coincide, sometimes they will differ. Indeed, current and future member states participated on an equal footing at the convention on the future of Europe. When they divided, it was on issues of policy and substance, not according to how long countries had been members.

The new members have demonstrated that they are forward-looking and reform-minded. Most, such as Estonia, have made a remarkable and speedy journey from communist domination to independence, from command systems to market economies, in little more than a decade.

Governments across Europe know that they must embrace economic reform. The extraordinary achievement of the former communist countries - often involving painful sacrifices - offers lessons for us all.

This background also influences the new members' views on the right balance between the Union and its member states. Eight of the accession countries only recently regained their independence from the Soviet bloc. Malta and Cyprus achieved their independence from Britain in the 1960s. While the countries are eager to play a full part in the European enterprise, they are also anxious to preserve their national autonomy. Who can blame them?

Estonia and Britain, from very different backgrounds, have come to similar conclusions on many of the issues currently facing the EU. We both believe that the highest priority for Europe now is enhancing its competitiveness. This is what the Lisbon agenda for economic reform is all about. The EU has set itself the ambitious goal of becoming the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.

The impressive growth of the US economy in recent years, and the increasing strength of China and other Asian countries, makes this a tough challenge. Meeting it will require sustained efforts across the EU, in particular on reform of labour markets. Today, European economies too often provide secure jobs for some only by denying opportunities to others. We need to make difficult decisions. But the experience of Estonia and the UK shows that the long-term benefits of such reforms are great. And the goal of increased employment is a social duty as well as economic common sense.

What is also clear is that yesterday's solutions are not the answers to today's challenges. Harmonisation, for example, worked well when we needed to overcome obstacles to a properly functioning single market. With this market soon to boast 500m consumers, our business community would hardly welcome a return to the pre-1992 world - a forest of 25 or more different sets of national rules.

But at a time when we need to make Europe's economies more responsive and nimble, harmonising tax or welfare systems would be a giant step in the wrong direction. Making everyone follow the same tax rules would quickly diminish Europe's competitiveness by killing jobs and stifling growth.

Far better to allow every country to set its own taxation and welfare provisions. European countries need the freedom to innovate, to create bold and unconventional solutions. We must maintain that freedom, and encourage that creativity. It is essential for Europe to prosper in this age of globalisation.

In principle, too, taxation should be a matter of national sovereignty. Elections are often fought over how to tax, and how to spend the money that is raised. If this were centrally prescribed, political life in each member state would lose an essential part of its meaning. Taxation would no longer be able to reflect the preferences of the voters. The new member states did not shrug off the Soviet yoke for that.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that several member states, old and new, do not support any move to extend qualified majority voting to the area of taxation. Our two nations are among them and we shall continue to defend this position in the intergovernmental conference. It is right for European competitiveness, right for subsidiarity and right for democracy.


Europe is about to realise a dream. After half a century of division the continent is to be reunited. It is a welcome return for some, and a new challenge for us all. We have a historic opportunity and we must seize it. We are ready to do our utmost to ensure that the enlarged Europe is more dynamic, more competitive, more innovative and closer to the citizen. All member states, old and new, big and small, must work together for that cause. Juhan Parts is prime minister of Estonia. Tony Blair is prime minister of the UK
欧盟扩大不应妨碍竞争自由

欧盟(EU)的面貌即将改变。仅数月后，10个新成员国将加入欧盟，其中多个国家是从前苏联集团赢得自由的。作为欧盟未来成员国及现任成员国的总理和首相，我们确信，扩大后的欧盟不仅范围更大，而且对所有成员国的公民更有利。

在由25国组成的新欧盟中，将没有一等成员和二等成员之分，也没有师徒之分。欧盟的"2004届"将从第一天起就被视为平等成员。现有成员国必须从一开始就表明，新成员国的意见将得到倾听和尊重。

我们不应期望新成员国形成一个单一的集团。与欧盟现有成员国一样，新成员国有时兴趣相投，有时兴趣相异。的确，现有成员国和未来成员国是在平等的基础上参加欧洲未来会议(Convention on the Future of Europe)的。即便它们有分歧，也是体现在政策问题和内容问题上，而不是基于它们加入欧盟的时间有多久。

新成员国已证明了自己的远见和对改革的关注。爱沙尼亚等多数新成员国显著而迅速地摆脱了共产主义的支配而迈向独立，并从指令经济体系转变为市场经济体系，而这一切只用了10年多一点的时间。

欧洲各国都认识到，政府必须进行经济改革。前共产主义国家取得了非凡成就，但其间往往伴随着痛苦的牺牲，这为欧洲所有国家都提供了教训。

在这一背景下，新成员国如何看待欧盟及其成员国之间的适当平衡也会受到影响。在新加盟的国家中，有8国最近才从前苏联集团重获独立。马尔他和塞浦路斯则于上世纪60年代从英国赢得独立。尽管这些国家渴望全面参与欧洲的事业，但它们也热切希望保持民族自治。谁又能为此责怪它们呢？

尽管爱沙尼亚和英国的背景大相径庭，但两国对欧盟目前面临的许多问题都得出了相似的结论。我们都认为，欧洲现在最需优先考虑的问题是提高竞争力。这正是针对经济改革的里斯本议程(Lisbon agenda)的全部内容。欧盟为自己设定一个远大目标，即成为全球最富竞争力和最具活力的知识经济体。

但是，随着美国经济近年来显著增长，中国及亚洲其它国家实力日益增强，欧盟要实现上述目标将面临艰巨挑战。迎接这一挑战需要欧盟全体国家的持续努力，尤其是在劳动力市场的改革方面。今天，欧洲各经济体往往只为一些人提供稳定的工作，而不为另一些人提供就业机会。在改革劳动力市场方面，我们需要做出艰难的决定。但爱沙尼亚和英国的经验均表明，从长远来看，这类改革具有重大益处。而且，增加就业这个目标既是经济常识，又是社会责任。

同样清楚的是，昨天的解决方案无法应对今天的挑战。例如，当我们需要克服妨碍单一市场正常运转的障碍时，协调可以发挥良好的作用。随着欧盟市场即将拥有5亿消费者，欧洲商界决不会欢迎重回1992年前的欧洲--一个25套甚或更多不同国家规则体系林立的欧洲。

但此刻我们需要欧洲各经济体反应更迅速，行动更敏捷，因此如果协调税收或福利制度，将是沿错误方向迈出的一大步。要求所有国家都遵循同样的税收规则将扼杀就业机会，抑制增长，从而迅速降低欧洲的竞争力。




有一个高明得多的方法，即允许各成员国制定自己的税收和福利规定。欧洲国家需要创新的自由，需要创造大胆和非传统解决方案的自由。我们必须维护这种自由，并鼓励这种创造。欧洲必须在这个全球化的时代繁荣兴盛。

另外，征税在原则上属于国家主权问题。如何征税及如何支出税款常常是选举中争论的问题。如果这也由欧盟集中规定，那么各成员国的政治生活就会丧失其基本意义。征税就不再能体现选民的优先选择，新成员国也就等于没有摆脱前苏联规则的束缚。

因此，欧盟几个新老成员国不支持采取任何行动，将有效多数票表决机制扩展到税收领域，这样做也就不足为怪了。我们两国也持这种意见，我们将继续在政府间会议上捍卫这一立场。无论是对欧洲的竞争力，还是对辅从原则和民主而言，这都是恰当之举。

欧洲即将实现自己的一个梦想。经过半个世纪的分裂后，欧洲大陆将重新统一。对一些欧洲国家来说，这是令人愉快的回归；而对所有欧洲国家来说，这是一个新的挑战。我们面临一次历史性机遇，我们必须抓住这个机会。我们准备竭尽全力，确保扩大后的欧盟更生机勃勃、更富有竞争力、更富有创新性、更贴切公民。欧盟所有成员国，无论新老、大小，都应为这一事业共同努力。