Hong Kong's Regulation Of Market Remains Lax
Chinese companies with dubious business practices are flooding the stock market here to raise cash. Yet Hong Kong's regulatory standards lag behind other major markets, raising the risk of damage to investors and to the city's reputation as a global financial center.
Even as officials here say they want to toughen up regulation, Hong Kong just skipped an opportunity to do so, say critics. The government decided it would leave oversight of new stock listings in the hands of the stock-market operator -- a for-profit company that makes money from each listing and is itself listed -- rather than handing the task to an independent regulator.
The move comes at a time of rising interest in Chinese companies among U.S. investors.
Many U.S. investors believe that companies trading in Hong Kong are higher quality investments than those trading in mainland China. But several companies recently listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong been hit with allegations of improprieties. Hong Kong is also struggling to fend off Shanghai's ambitions to become China's main capital market, while facing stiff competition from other Asian markets such as Singapore. Hong Kong now risks falling further behind financial centers such as New York and London, where corporate governance is being enhanced and shareholder rights protected, say corporate-governance watchdogs.
"At a critical juncture, the Hong Kong government has not taken the bold move and brought about reforms. Instead, they've responded to short-term lobbying by vested interests," says Jamie Allen, secretary general of the Asian Corporate Governance Association.
Hong Kong officials defend the decision. The current regulatory regime is "a formula to facilitate the market development of Hong Kong," says the secretary for financial services, Frederick Ma, adding that the government is "under no pressure to please any party."
The government established a committee to study how to improve regulation of its stock market in 2002, after officials at stock market-operator Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing caused a near-panic with comments about their plans to tighten delisting requirements.
The committee found a conflict in allowing the exchange to vet applications for listings and to earn money from such listings -- which accounted for nearly a fifth of its revenue in 2002. The operator has "a disincentive to allocate resources to enforcement which is costly and produces no revenues," the committee said in its report, which urged the government to hand oversight of the exchange to the city's independent regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission.
Corporate-governance advocates in Hong Kong point out that stock markets in the U.S. such as the New York Stock Exchange generally police themselves and their member firms but are overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also sets and enforces standards for publicly traded companies.
Unlike the NYSE, the Hong Kong exchange has no power to levy fines against companies that violate rules of the stock exchange. In most cases, the Hong Kong exchange can only impose the penalties of censure and public criticism. In extreme cases, the exchange can delist a company.
The current arrangement will change next year, when the Securities and Futures Commission will take over enforcement of a handful of listing rules, such as those governing financial reporting, from the exchange. The switch will also for the first time subject violators of listing rules to criminal prosecution and fines of as much as $1.5 million. But critics note that such powers will apply to only a few listing rules and argue they would need to cover all of them to be effective.
Hong Kong already has looser rules for listed companies than the U.S. to begin with: They report their earnings semiannually instead of quarterly and have four months after the end of their fiscal year to issue an annual report, instead of three. Hong Kong-listed companies also are protected from class-action lawsuits brought by investors, even if they violate securities laws.
The Hong Kong government initially supported the recommendation that governance of the stock exchange be transferred to the Securities and Futures Commission. But it backpedaled after lobbying by some of the biggest companies on the exchange, including HSBC Holdings, Hong Kong's largest bank, and CLP Holdings, one of Asia's biggest electric utilities.
Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing says it wasn't involved in the decision. "This was a decision the government made, not us," says a spokesman. Officials at the Securities and Futures Commission, whose main role is to regulate securities brokers, declined to comment. Stocks are owned by 40% of Hong Kong's 6.8 million citizens.
The question of whether the exchange will scrutinize applications for new listings closely enough has grown more pressing as big Chinese companies with poor track records have begun lining up for listing here.
Merrill Lynch forecasts that Chinese initial public offerings this year will raise $15 billion world-wide, more than double the $7 billion raised last year. Among the big Chinese stock issues expected to hit the Hong Kong exchange soon are: a $5 billion offering from China Construction Bank, one of the country's four large state-owned lenders, and a $2 billion IPO from state-owned China Netcom, a fixed-line operator.
Meanwhile, several Chinese companies that have listed shares in Hong Kong, or are preparing to do so, have run into problems. China Minsheng Banking Corp., China's only nominally private bank, recently had to postpone its planned $1 billion IPO in Hong Kong after it was revealed that the bank faked a shareholder meeting prior to listing shares in Shanghai in 2000.
China Life Insurance, the country's biggest life insurer, was recently hit with a lawsuit seeking class-action status by U.S. investors who claim the company failed to disclose several accounting irregularities ahead of its $3.46 billion stock listing in New York and Hong Kong in December -- which was the world's biggest share offering in 2003. China Life was recently investigated by China's National Audit Office over accounting irregularities, though no punishment resulted from the probe. The SEC is also looking into the matter.
"The real losers here are the investing public," says David Webb, a Hong Kong-based shareholder advocate. "Hong Kong still has a long way to go to meet international best practices."
香港错失强化监管的机会
香港的政界和商界领袖们极力夸耀说，香港是亚洲最重要的资本市场之一。但最近港府却决定不提高对证交所的监管强度，此举有可能削弱香港作为一个有效监管市场在融资企业心目中的可信度，并使投资者面临难以承受的风险。
加大对企业的审查力度从未像今天这样紧迫过。香港证交所最近发生的几桩上市交易都引发了争议，其中尤以中国大陆企业的上市交易引发的争议为大，有人指控在这些公司的上市进程中存在欺诈和错误陈述，这使投资者处于孤立无助的境地。
但香港政府却于3月26日宣布，本地的证券市场运营商香港交易及结算所有限公司(Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd., 简称：香港交易所)将保留其作为香港证交所主要监管者的角色，并继续负责审查准备在港上市企业所递交的申请。
这一决定与某港府任命的委员会所提出的建议背道而驰，该委员会在提议中敦促香港政府将证交所的监管权转交给与香港证交所近在咫尺的香港证券及期货事务监察委员会(Securities and Futures Commission, 简称：香港证监会)。
亚洲企业监管协会(Asian Corporate Governance Association)的秘书长杰米?阿伦(Jamie Allen)说，如果是由电讯盈科(PCCW)来负责监管电信业，或是由汇丰银行(HSBC)来规范银行业，人们会怎么说？人们会说这是利益冲突。由香港交易所来监管上市公司也是这么回事。
亚洲企业监管协会是一家旨在促进亚洲公司治理的独立机构。
香港财经事务及库务局局长马时亨(Frederick Ma)在解释维持证交所监管方式大体不变这一决定时说，没有任何一种制度是完美的，他认为港府的这一决定有理由香港市场的发展。马时亨在回应外界的批评时还说，港府没有必要取悦于任何方面。
港府任命的这个委员会在其报告中说，让香港交易所这家以盈利为目的的公司来承担起证券市场运营和监管的双重职责不可避免地会产生利益冲突。香港交易所本身也在香港证交所上市，而且它既有权决定企业是否能在香港证交所进行首次公开募股，同时又可从每笔上市交易中获取利润。 这份报告强调说，作为一家受利益驱使的上市公司，香港交易所显然希望获准上市的企业多多益善，因为上市费在该公司收入中占有相当大的比例（2002年为18%），而这会妨碍它将公司资源用于费力不讨好的监管执法工作。
这份政府委员会评估报告的产生同2002年香港股市市值大幅缩水事件有关。当时在一日之间有200只股票大幅下跌，上市公司100亿港元（相当于13亿美元）的市值就这样消失得无影无踪。引发股市抛盘的是香港交易所的一项声明，声明中称，计划加强上市公司退市方面的执法力度。在大张旗鼓的宣传后，香港交易所又撤销了自己的这项决定，此事彰显出该机构在审批企业上市过程中的武断作风。
香港政府最初支持将证交所监管权移交给香港证监会的建议。但在企业大大力游说下，港府又改变了初衷。
香港交易所否认它参与了港府的决策过程。香港交易所的发言人斯科特?赛普(Scott Sapp)说，这项决定是由港府作出的，与港交所无关。
港府最近还作出一个重大决定，取消了一项要求投资银行在承销上市公司新发股票之前，需首先证实这些公司所提交申请材料的真实性的建议。投行人士为反对此建议四方游说，他们称，这样会导致投资银行的负担过重。
公司治理监督机构以及支持该要求的股东称，政府的反复无常意味著，香港失去了提高本地股市可信度的机会。
批评者们称，香港若维持现状，则有可能毁掉其作为世界一流资本市场的名誉。更有甚者，他们称，香港有可能会落后于纽约、伦敦等世界金融中心，如今这些地区为改善公司治理、保护股东权益作出了不少努力。
批评者们认为，要想保证在香港股市上市的公司质量，只有一个办法，即将市场的运营者和管理者完全分离开来。他们以纽约为例，纽约市场的监管部门是美国证券交易委员会(Securities and Exchange Commission, 简称SEC)，同市场的运营者纽约证券交易所(New York Stock Exchange)是完全独立的两个机构。
港府委员会的这份报告在结论中称，如果香港希望实现其成为中国首要的金融资本中心并跻身全球前五大股市的既定目标，那么这些关乎市场质量的问题必须得到解决，而且改善已是迫在眉睫。
众多研究显示，投资者愿意为治理环境良好的公司支付更高股价；有鉴于此，港府对于公司治理问题的漠不关心令投资界许多人都感到费解。管理咨询公司麦肯锡公司(McKinsey & Co., Inc.)所进行的一项研究发现，亚洲投资者愿意付出最高25%的溢价来购买治理规范的企业股票。
港府作出保留香港交易所监管职责这一决定时，恰逢香港和当地股市处在一个关键时期。此时的香港腹背受敌，一方面要为阻止上海成为中国主要资本市场而苦苦挣扎，另一方面还要面对来自新加坡等亚洲其他主要市场的竞争。与此同时，随著越来越多的中国大陆企业在港上市，对香港市场上市企业的经营透明度和管理质量问题也日益引起人们的关注。
投资银行美林公司(Merrill Lynch & Co.)预计，中国大陆企业今年将在全球通过首次公开募股筹集150亿美元，是去年募股总额70亿美元的两倍多。预计近期就将有大规模的大陆公司IPO登陆香港股市：中国四大国有银行之一的中国建设银行(China Construction Bank, CCB.YY)准备在香港市场发行总价值50亿美元的股票；政府拥有的固定电话运营商中国网络通信有限公司(China Netcom Ltd., 简称:中国网通)将募股20亿美元；另外，平安保险(Ping An Insurance)将通过IPO筹集15亿美元。
许多大陆上市公司都是负债累累，财务纪录不佳且存在会计作假行为。亚洲企业监管协会秘书长阿伦说，早晚会有某家大型大陆公司出现内部问题并在香港市场爆出丑闻，这只是个时间问题。
已经有一些在港上市或是准备上市的大陆公司出现问题了。中国人寿保险股份有限公司(China Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (china), 2628.HK, 简称：中国人寿)最近遭到美国投资者的集体诉讼，指控该公司在去年12月于纽约和香港股市进行价值34.6亿美元的双重上市前，没有披露若干会计违规行为。
前不久，中国民生银行股份有限公司(China Minsheng Banking Corp. Ltd., 600016.SH, 简称：民生银行)不得不推迟其10亿美元的在港上市计划，此前该行暴露出曾在2000年于上海证交所上市前编造股东大会决议并伪造公司文件的丑闻。
马时亨特别指出，港府决定为一些上市监管规定提供法律支持，自2005年起，这些规定将交由香港证监会来监督执行。如此一来，违反上市规定的公司有可能会受到刑事诉讼，并被处以最高1,000万港元的罚款。
然而，批评者指出，只有少数上市规定受到司法保护，如有关上市公司财务报告的规定。他们说，所有的上市规定都应该有法律作后盾。大多数上市规则仍由香港交易所监督执行，而该机构仅有权对违规企业进行问责、公开批评，最为严重的也只是将违规公司摘牌。
股东权益的倡导者大卫?维博(David Webb)说，公司退市与保护股东利益毫无关系。他指出，香港投资者在上市公司财务违规时根本就是束手无策，找不到丝毫法律上的依据向违规公司进行追索。维博指出，与美国不同，香港投资者无法向企业提起集体诉讼。由于许多香港企业在全球拥有业务，因此他们不喜欢对本地股东负责，而政府对此也表示支持。
香港股市在当地经济中占据举足轻重的地位，而具有讽刺意味的是，股东受到的保护却是微乎其微。香港股市市值约为5.5万亿港元，是香港全年本地生产总值(GDP)的四倍。而且在680万香港市民中，有40%作为散户投资者参与股市，这样的参与率在亚洲排名第一。
State Street Global Advisers的亚洲首席执行长文森特?杜汉默(Vincent Duhamel)说，全球其他的金融中心在推进股东权益保护方面比香港力度要大，速度也要快得多。State Street Global Advisers管理著港府在1999年建立的盈富基金。
不过杜汉默等人认为，香港投资者对于当地股市监管松散的现状也负有一定责任。香港投资者素来以视市场为赌场而著称。香港证监会近来针对散户投资者展开的一项调查显示，香港股东对于他们所投资公司本身的兴趣并不大。调查发现，91%的香港股市投资者从不在股东大会上投票。57%的人对于自己投资公司的高级管理层状况一无所知，只有36%的投资者在购买新上市股票时会考虑该公司的背景和声誉。而且，只有9.8%的香港市民投资共同基金，因为大多数人认为共同基金过于保守。
香港最大的散户投资网站之一鸿财网(SHK Online)的行政总监陈伟萱(Douglas Chen)说，在香港投资并不复杂，这里的大多数人都是双手合什祈祷著纵身跳入股市，期待著能够获得40%的回报。
杜汉默说，香港仍是全球寥寥几个股东说话份量不足的大型金融中心之一。他说，在大多数地区，股东正变得愈来愈苛刻，维护自己权益的态度也愈来愈强硬。他还指出，香港证监会作为关键的监督机构却只能监管证券经纪商，而不是市场主要的参与者──上市公司。
近期为阻挠政府将监管职责移交香港证监会而参与游说的大型上市企业包括，香港最大的银行汇丰控股(HSBC Holdings)和亚洲最大的电力公共事业公司中电控股有限公司(CLP Holdings Ltd., 0002.HK, 简称：中电控股)。
汇丰在向政府提交的文件中对转移上市监管权力的建议发起了攻击。汇丰称，虽然香港交易所作为上市监督机构同时还是上市公司可能会出现一些潜在的利益冲突，但这并不足以说明这种冲突确实存在。汇丰对于刑事制裁也表示反对，称对刑事制裁的威慑作用表示怀疑。
观察人士称，这些公司之所以会反对改变监管机构是因为内，这可能会要求上市公司对股东更为负责，并需遵守更严格的公司治理规定。而且，如果更多公司上市管理规定得到法律支持，一旦公司管理人士违反法规，则有可能面临更严厉的制裁。
财经事务及库务局局长马时亨说，香港政府对于其为数不多的政策调整决定比较满意，目前不打算重新审视股市的监管规定。维博对此的评价是太糟糕了，因为香港股市与全球典范市场之间的差距还很大
