保薦人失職 Webb轟證監

保薦人失職 Webb轟證監

【Appledaily 報 2010年07月28日 訊】證監會前日炮轟保薦人處理新股的盡職審查工作未達標，網上股評人 David Webb旋即批評，指證監會在事件上責無旁貸，因證監早於 2006年在業界壓力下，放棄加強招股書責任制的改革工作。

促改革招股書責任制
Webb昨日撰文指出，證監早於 06年 9月，放棄准許在市場買入新股的投資者基於招股書有欺騙成份而提出訴訟的建議，證監亦不願意刪除新股認購人要證明自己是依賴招股書資料才可興訟的條款，但澳洲、新加坡或英國都沒有「證明你讀過」的要求。

Webb表示，證監當年受業界壓力而放棄改革，未能對保薦人、核數師、估值師及上市公司董事的工作施加阻嚇作用，如果證監想認真改善保薦人的工作質素，則應重提 06年放棄的改革工作，以加強阻嚇力，政府亦要配合修例。此外，政府應要推動有關集體訴訟的工作，否則大部份投資者根本無能力提出訴訟。證監前日表示，在雙重存檔制度下，截至今年 3月底止半年度，審核 68宗上市申請中，有 60宗要提出意見，另有 2宗出現嚴重缺失，保薦人的盡職審查工作未達標。除招股書責任問題， Webb認為，上市公司核數報告不可靠亦值得市場關注，政府應該立法改善情況。

The SFC and prospectus liability

7th July 2010 http://webb-site.com/articles/prospectus1.asp

The SFC yesterday announced its latest dual filing update, complaining about a deterioration in the standard of draft prospectuses submitted in listing applications. If the SFC is picking up a deterioration on the drafts, then it is a fair bet that the overall standard of final prospectuses has been declining too - because we can't expect regulators to detect every piece of sloppy due diligence by sponsors or every questionable piece of accounting.

However, some of the blame for the deterioration must lie at the SFC's door, for failing to reform the laws on prospectus liability to increase the deterrent for bad work by sponsors, reporting accountants, valuers and everyone else involved in the prospectus, including not least the applicant and its directors, of course. In Aug-2005 the SFC proposed reforms to the law on prospectus liability, but in 2006 these were abandoned under pressure from the industry.

Prospectus liability
On 22-Sep-06 the SFC announced that it had abandoned a proposal (Proposal 9 in the Consultation Paper on reforms to the prospectus regime) to allow secondary market purchasers to bring claims for fraud in IPO prospectuses. The entire price discovery process in the secondary market relies on the truth of the prospectus, and subscribers in the IPO have a right of recourse (subject to the limitation below), but anyone who purchases shares in the market from that subscriber, even on the first day of trading, is on their own, as if the prospectus did not exist. The subscriber who sells on day 1 is of course free and clear, and will not claim if the issuer subsequently collapses in a smoking heap of fraud, while the secondary buyer can't sue the seller because no representation was made by him in the market when he sold.

Another SFC proposal that was abandoned was Proposal 10, to remove the requirement for subscribers to prove that they actually read and relied on the prospectus when making a claim for fraud. Now, how many people can prove what they read yesterday, let alone what they read months or years ago? Do they have any witnesses? Of course not. Again, the relevant fact is that the IPO was priced on the basis of the prospectus and nothing else, and enough people read enough of it for the market to set that price. If the prospectus then turns out to be fraudulent, no victim should have to prove that he himself read it. It should be enough to show that if the document had been known to be false, then the shares would not have fetched the price they did in the primary or secondary market. The SFC could not find any such "prove that you read it" requirement in Australia, Singapore or the UK.

For these reasons, plus the lack of a class action system, no IPO sponsor has ever been sued by an investor in HK, as far as we know,

Currently the only deterrent to poor due diligence work comes from the SFC, which may fine or discipline sponsors, or reach no-fault settlements with them. The largest to date is the HK$30m no-fault settlement in 2005 with ICEA Capital Ltd in the case of Euro-Asia Agricultural (Holdings) Co Ltd. Another case involved Deloitte & Touche Corporate Finance Ltd, which "voluntarily refrained" from sponsoring listings for 9 months after a no-fault no-payment settlement in 2006 relating to its work on the listing of Codebank Ltd, which still holds the record for the shortest listing before imploding.

If the SFC is serious about improving the quality of sponsor's work, then it needs to improve the deterrent by moving ahead with the proposals it abandoned in 2006, and the Government must table legislative amendments to achieve this. Secondly, the Government must move ahead with the proposals of the Law Reform Commission for a class action system in HK, otherwise most investors will never be able to afford to go to court, as each individual claim is too small to justify the millions in potential costs for a battle which could go the Court of Final Appeal.

Auditors have no duty of care to shareholders
Apart from reforming prospectus liability, there is also the problem of the unreliability of audit reports after the company has listed.

In Jul-06, a brave individual investor attempted to bring a court action against Ernst & Young, the auditors of Gold Wo. The Court of First Instance had no choice but to quote the House of Lords case Caparo Industries plc v Dickman and Ors (1990), in which the auditors were held not to owe a duty of care to shareholders of the company, let alone to future shareholders who may buy in the market. Their only duty was to the company itself. The HK case was accordingly "doomed to fail" and was struck out in its entirety.

It is frankly ridiculous that no investor can rely on the audit report in the annual report when deciding to invest, or to remain invested. Only legislation can change this, as Deputy Judge Ian Carlson said:

"What [the plaintiff] seeks is the sort of consumer protection which is available in some of the state jurisdictions of the United States...That position has not been arrived at in Hong Kong."

Again, the Government should legislate on this, so that auditors carry the can for sloppy work. That doesn't escape the directors who are responsible for financial statements, but it would also impose a duty of care on auditors to do their job properly, and if they knew that they had that duty, they might be a bit more careful in their work.

Webb-site.com, 2010

青心直說：中港股市變造市溫床

青心直說：中港股市變造市溫床

Appledaily.com 胡孟青 2010年07月14日

去年阿爺要振興經濟，自動波放水；今時銀行收水，資金散水，上證綜指由舊年 8月 4日 3478高位，反覆跌至今年 7月 2日低位 2319，足足唔見咗 33%，跌得耐自不然以為利淡盡頭是利好，隨時一個半個理由都可以被視為轉角市抄底博反彈，一而再再而三，股民已被國策挾持，明知阿爺邊有咁容易放生樓市，都一廂情願喪炒一番，總好過一潭死水。

之不過「中國人係要管嘅」，尤其是中國嘅官員更應該受規管，因為佢哋掌握晒關鍵嘅第一手國策內幕，而呢啲消息都係國家機密，足以影響投資市場，有必要小心處理。

官員吹風冇王管
就好似今年 5月 17日，內地媒體爭相報道國家發改委正牽頭相關部委，出台一項更嚴厲房地產調控政策。但《華夏時報》於 22日至引述發改委人士聲明：「此消息純屬張冠李戴。」其間淨係隻雅居樂（ 3383）都跌咗一成。

無獨有偶， 6月 21日發改委又喺網站上發表鄭重聲明，指相關部門人士從未向媒體發表過研究電價調整嘅言論，仲話網路報道不實，但又唔見有人追究失實報道，股民卻已再次因錯估形勢而中伏。

最新一則係自上周已傳得甚囂塵上嘅內房宏調鬆綁傳聞，一時話取消第三套房限貸，唔夠勁就加料嚟多個引述住建部副主任秦虹講話，當中港股民齊歡唱同慶賀之際，至出嚟話人錯誤解讀佢嘅意思。內地咁多部委咁多官員，求其搵個講句都會影響股市，跟傳聞上車唔識快閃，隨時被玩謝冇仇報。

中港股市已經變成一個大賭場，賭政策取向、賭數據、賭中央心意，市場欠內幕就索性有人自製煙幕，直情係市場操控行為，今次見唔少大行分析員急不及待出嚟鬥快叫人上車買中資股。

連中資股大好友摩通都講到明，話幾個主要板塊都有政策風險，大行都睇得咁謹慎，小股民又豈容盲目樂觀。

證監罰工商東亞前要員

2010年07月06日 Appledaily.com

證監會 08年向工商東亞融資及證券公司罰款 3800萬元後，昨日再向工商東亞融資前負責人薛兆坤採取紀律處分，禁止他重投業界，為期 4個月，今年 6月 29日至 10月 28日生效。證監發現，工商東亞於 04年擔任一間上市公司的保薦人時，曾參與《證券及期貨（穩定價格）規則》不容許的穩定價格行動，薛身為負責人員，建議進行上述行動，違反相關規定。資料顯示，工商東亞在 04年沒為主板上市公司安排上市，只負責安排創業板公司浪潮國際（ 596）上市。證監早於 08年就同一個案向工商東亞融資及證券罰款及採取紀律處分。薛兆坤今次同意證監紀律處分。

關保傑 5年內禁返業界
另證監亦禁止工商東亞證券（現稱東盛證券）前負責人員關保傑重投業界，為期 5年，並罰款 22.8萬元。關氏在工商東亞擔任自營交易員期間，操作以其妹夫名義開立的秘密賬戶，但沒有向工商東亞披露。他亦通過上述秘密賬戶，向工商東亞買入股份為自己賺取利潤，構成嚴重的利益衝突，違反《操守準則》第 6項一般原則（利益衝突）。