作者是 王冠一 29-10-2010 (週五)
美國有兩名投資者入禀法院，控告摩通及匯控兩家大銀行，於2008年開始透過累積大量短倉，操縱白銀期貨市場，不合法地賺取數以十億的利潤。商品期貨委員會(CFTC)調查專員Bart Chilton剛於聽證會上提出，市場參與者確實利用重複及欺詐手段曲線控制銀價，要求立法賦予更大權力進行監管。翌日訴訟個案便曝光，時間上甚為巧合。
來自紐約的Peter Laskaris是其中一名原告，他控訴兩家銀行於白銀市場打籠通，買賣前互通消息，進行內幕交易；同時恃大行兇，坐擁數量不合比例的大倉去影響市場價格，不合法地透過人為操縱去壓低銀價，牟取數以億計的利潤。入禀狀又稱，兩家銀行於08年8月時，合共持有85%的銀市淨短倉，在09年首季更持有金額達79億美元的貴金屬衍生合約。控訴書亦提出，於公眾投訴兩家銀行持倉量偏高，政府於09年3月介入調查後，銀價便由跑輸金價變成跑贏金價，足以反映銀價存在操縱情況。另一原告Brian Beatty於康乃迪克州入禀，指摩通違反壟斷法，非法操控市場，證據是08年8月14日及15日，銀價由14.86美元挫至12.23美元，單日跌幅達18%。
事實上，白銀市場遭操縱的指控，並非新鮮事。1985年，CFTC曾經起訴德州的肯特兄弟(Hunt Brothers)聯同其他人士，於1979及1980年非法操縱白銀市場，人為地推高銀價，但肯特兄弟一直否認控罪，最終肯特兄弟於1989年同意繳付1000萬美元罸款，並承諾不再於商品市場進行買賣，作為和解條件。CFTC過去36年調查過接近40宗操縱市場案件，只有在1998年1宗與電力期貨相關的案件能成功入罪，其餘均私下和解，因為要證明有操縱價格的企圖，並不容易。
兩家銀行拒絕回應官司事件，市場亦認為能成功入罪機會不大，但CFTC可以藉此機會擴大監管權力，譬如為坐盤逾1年的合約數量設置上限，減少欺詐及操縱的機會，未嘗不是一件好事。白銀於過去兩年走勢有如過山車，08年初突破向上，升破21美元後驟跌5美元，但在CFTC發表調查報告前又回升至接近20美元，之後於不足5個月內在10月跌穿9美元，去年才冉冉上升。本周白銀曾逼近25美元，創20年新高，今年累升逾40%，升幅多出金價的21%近倍，可見風高浪急。
不過，市場認為銀價被低估，因為現水平僅較08年高位高出約3美元，與迭創紀錄高位的金價比較，仍具追落後條件。CFTC若成功立例監管，亦可避免白銀遭人為壓價重演，再加上白銀實際上供不應求，由於可以廣泛應用於工業，白銀去年需求逾8.89億盎斯，遠超供應量的7.1億盎斯。白銀被視為綠色金屬，可用於水和空氣的潔淨過程，又適用於發展迅速的太陽能源發電，故後市備受看好，有其理據。
不過投資白銀切忌貪勝不知輸，除了因市場深度不足，容易波動及受到操縱外，銀價的起伏亦受經濟的盛衰影響。環球經濟若欣欣向榮，白銀可以看高一線，但經濟逆轉的話，其保值能力卻會被金價比了下去。若調查發現8月底開始飆升的銀價存有人為操縱成份，亦須提防銀價會出現大幅度調整。
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
蒙能 (276) 魯連城遭譴責
Orientaldaily.com 28.10.2010
港交所（388）上市委員會公開譴責蒙古能源（276）及其執行董事魯連城及翁綺慧，指其違反《上市規則》，指公司在○七年刊發的公告，作出的陳述並不準確，對公司股東及投資大眾造成誤導。上市委員會並要求魯連城及翁綺慧須參加有關合規及企業管治的培訓24小時。
一度是股民至愛的「神仙股」蒙古能源，○七年八月及九月刊發三份公告，其中九月十日的公告表示，已與「中國石油總公司……一家經營石油及天然氣與分配業務的主要國有企業」訂立合作意向書。
被指公告誤導
港交所指，中國石油總公司（China Petroleum Group Corporation）與中國石油天然氣股份（857）的母公司中國石油天然氣集團（CNPC）相似。
蒙古能源有關公告刊發後，多份本港及中國報章，報道公司與「中石油」訂立意向書。○七年九月十日至十一日，公司股價由6.57元上升約16%至7.65元，成交量增幅達13.79倍。
公司最後在九月十八日，才刊發澄清公告，表示「蒙古能源在該等公告中並沒有作出對方與香港或其他地區之上市公司有任何關連之提述」。
.
港交所（388）上市委員會公開譴責蒙古能源（276）及其執行董事魯連城及翁綺慧，指其違反《上市規則》，指公司在○七年刊發的公告，作出的陳述並不準確，對公司股東及投資大眾造成誤導。上市委員會並要求魯連城及翁綺慧須參加有關合規及企業管治的培訓24小時。
一度是股民至愛的「神仙股」蒙古能源，○七年八月及九月刊發三份公告，其中九月十日的公告表示，已與「中國石油總公司……一家經營石油及天然氣與分配業務的主要國有企業」訂立合作意向書。
被指公告誤導
港交所指，中國石油總公司（China Petroleum Group Corporation）與中國石油天然氣股份（857）的母公司中國石油天然氣集團（CNPC）相似。
蒙古能源有關公告刊發後，多份本港及中國報章，報道公司與「中石油」訂立意向書。○七年九月十日至十一日，公司股價由6.57元上升約16%至7.65元，成交量增幅達13.79倍。
公司最後在九月十八日，才刊發澄清公告，表示「蒙古能源在該等公告中並沒有作出對方與香港或其他地區之上市公司有任何關連之提述」。
.
按當年佢朋友蕭若元在其網台講過, 陳振聰當年跟大蝠症券班高層大鱷懂豉們,
狂炒隻懵能276, 俾果班莊家(詳情見 http://stockmarketmanipulaters.blogspot.com/ 搏客網)舞弄夾死, 人地大莊由每股幾仙托上十幾元, 然後引入陳振聰等懵能fans幫莊接棒, 跟住股價插水跌到佢呀媽都唔認得!
被斬倉? 咁陳振聰重邊有現金打官司上訴呢!
奸有奸輸! 賊仔有大盜略佢! 陳振聰得報應? 而你估懵能276班飽食遠揚的大莊幾時有報應? 江湖聞說其中有一件最叻整同事爭權及嘜收的笑面虎就鼠佐去冬阿Baby李旗下檔冬盛京幾雜團呃食, 另一條暗莊執行燒授懂豉還盤據於大蝠頭專昅行家批股試盤期front running沽空人家隻野打人心囗舞高弄低做人世界.
奸有奸輸! 賊仔有大盜略佢! 陳振聰得報應? 而你估懵能276班飽食遠揚的大莊幾時有報應? 江湖聞說其中有一件最叻整同事爭權及嘜收的笑面虎就鼠佐去冬阿Baby李旗下檔冬盛京幾雜團呃食, 另一條暗莊執行燒授懂豉還盤據於大蝠頭專昅行家批股試盤期front running沽空人家隻野打人心囗舞高弄低做人世界.
周顯(當年與蕭若元打莊炒爆隻979的股壇莊家)17.7.2013於蘋果報寫:
“陳振聰暴得大財，又快速蝕光大部份錢，兼且身陷囹圄，我打個比喻：這好比是一個10歲娃娃，捧住大把黃金滿街走，不單如此，還希望打劫金舖，下場不言而喻，先就是錢遭人騙光，跟着因為打劫要坐牢。不久前，有老闆對我說：「我想做單轟轟烈烈的大炒，像當日蒙古能源（276），有甚麼方法？」。我的回答是：「你首先要找到一個又有錢又傻的，像當年的陳振聰，騙他說，要他做莊家，炒股票，發大財，由這傻蛋來負責把股價炒高幾十倍，那你就可以乘機出貨了。」。我對於陳振聰事件的評語是：他的專業技能在於淘古井，而不是做生意、玩財技、打官司。他應該倚仗其專業知識，去找另一台古井，那是駕輕就熟的易事，於今卻把錢財錯放在股票，把精力錯放在打爭產官司，這叫做「資源錯配」，因而身敗名裂，其也必乎！”.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
中鐵建 (1186) 虧損41.5億, 胡孟青睇到眼火爆, 問證監會做乜Q
睇到眼火爆, 咁舞弄個市都得? 26.10.2010胡孟青在有線電視節目中問, 證監會點解次次都唔去捉鬼咁視若不見? 證監會班官吏混飯食呀? 中鐵建 (1186) 不會是一夜間沙特輕軌項目虧損41.5億人民幣, 點解25.10.2010會在公佈虧損41.5億人民幣前一刻會有特異功能人仕突然發功勇猛撩高散貨? 由$10.6暴升至$11.6散貨高收? 當公佈虧損41.5億後 26.10.2010股價已大跌至$9.6開市! 幾靈通?
邊個咁叻咁岩竟然會在25.10.2010剛剛公佈前一刻咁勇猛操縱撩高爆升散貨? 又會高位大沽空? 咁有特異功能接得發達訊息還能撩高才散貨? 舞功高強! 膽識過人!
個工程項目不會是一夜之間虧損41.5億人幣! 點解中鐵建之前無發盈警? 之前業績報告又無撥備警告? 班超世界級高薪證監會官吏點解次次都唔去捉鬼咁視若不見? 股民用血汗錢付交易徵費奉養的證監會班官吏混飯食呀?
26/10/2010 08:47
邊個咁叻咁岩竟然會在25.10.2010剛剛公佈前一刻咁勇猛操縱撩高爆升散貨? 又會高位大沽空? 咁有特異功能接得發達訊息還能撩高才散貨? 舞功高強! 膽識過人!
個工程項目不會是一夜之間虧損41.5億人幣! 點解中鐵建之前無發盈警? 之前業績報告又無撥備警告? 班超世界級高薪證監會官吏點解次次都唔去捉鬼咁視若不見? 股民用血汗錢付交易徵費奉養的證監會班官吏混飯食呀?
26/10/2010 08:47
《國企紅籌》中鐵建（１１８６）沙特輕軌項目虧損４１﹒５億人幣
《經濟通通訊社２６日專訊》中鐵建（０１１８６）（滬：６０１１８６）公布，有關於去年２月簽訂，於沙地阿拉伯進行的沙特麥加薩法至穆戈達莎輕軌項目。有關項目在實施過程中，因實際工程數量比簽約時預計工程量大幅增加，加上業主對項目今年運能需求較合同規定大升，業主負責的地下管網和徵地拆遷嚴重滯後，以及業主為增加新的功能大量指令性變更使部分已完工工程重新調整等因素影響，導致項目工作量和成本投入大增，計劃工期出現階段性延誤。 由於項目社會影響重大，並受兩個政府高度關注，為確保主體工程按期完工滿足業主於今年１１月開通營運的要求，中鐵建今年下半年加大了投放力度完成工作。截至今年９月底止，綜合完工程度為７９﹒５％。
公司指，按９月底匯率計算，該項目合同總收入預計為１２０﹒７億元（人民幣．下同），預計總成本則為１６０﹒６９億元，涉及損失３９﹒９９億元，計及１﹒５４億元財務費用，該項目總虧損４１﹒５３億元。按會計期間劃分，第三季則確認虧損３６﹒０５億元。
中鐵建表示，已向業主遞交變更及索賠資料，業主承諾在項目結束後成立專門委員會，商談相關索賠及補償問題。由於第三季要錄得３６﹒０５億元虧損，因此對公司期內利潤造成重大影響。如果於全年業績報告前，索償事宜仍未獲得批准，預計對公司全年業績亦產生重大影響。
中鐵建申請今早復牌。（ｊｗ）
.Sunday, October 24, 2010
中大學生王俊堯個老婆值唔值一層樓或十手匯豐股份?
中大一年級學生王俊堯稱女友要他有錢買樓才會下嫁, 住公屋都唔好! 連一年級學生都急著要有幾百萬元去金屋藏嬌繁殖繁殖, 邊個重會寒窗苦讀? 中文大學的課本真的是書中多多顏如慾乎?現年 19歲的中文大學工商管理系一年級生王俊堯 23.10.2010 在由香港青年協會主辦真情對話分享會發言:「我女朋友前排同我講，你買唔到樓我唔嫁你。」, 鄭汝樺回應時話：「你返去真係要同你女朋友傾吓，結婚係咪一定要買樓呢？」她表示，學生若要買樓，但能力有限，可選擇離市中心較遠的私人樓宇或購買二手居屋，「如果你個價值觀就係結婚一定要買樓，你可能真係少咗好多選擇，但就多咗好多磨擦」。王俊堯與女友拍拖一年多，其女友母親說：「佢話冇樓就唔好嫁，住公屋都唔好。」
蘋果報評鄭汝樺冷言相向. 我說非也! 其實, 鄭汝樺為王俊堯留點顏面不好意思說出真話, 真相是她只 ”嫁給層樓” 而不是嫁給愛情呀笨蛋! 沒有樓就無山盟海誓的先決條件喎! 住公屋都係獨立單位減少婆媳相處磨擦, 佢唔嫁租公屋的喎! 就證明是資產多寡的先決條件! 乜唔係買樓等於賣身給地產商二三十年的長債? 乜唔係租到公屋等於無負債而有屋住, 並且等於政府無限期每月資助幾千元好過中獎票嗎?
年年巨額公帑資助各大學奉養大群超世界級高薪的教職員, 平均每個大學生用公帑幾十萬元! 而大學教育出的大學生不感恩思慮回遺社會, 而只想如何迫使公帑分給他們去買樓買個老婆?
今天個女友要有樓才嫁, 明天可能要有巨礸介及飛去巴黎渡蜜月及要在五星酒店Ball Room包場擺五十圍酒才嫁, 後天唔想迫巴士就要有私家車才嫁; 要證明自己係香港嬌嬌女拒做家務無賓慵服侍又唔嫁; 然後, 要有十手匯豐股份作奶粉保證才肯生一個仔……. 咁公帑一一資助得幾多先? 今天的各香港大學及媒體不教導學生靠知識勤努工作去創造社會財富, 而是鼓催謀劃蠶食公帑以自肥為榮! 多悲哀無恥文化界!
王俊堯既然養唔起人家, 就勿誤人個嬌嬌女! 我建議不如過檔俾我. 我哽佢. 我有樓, 樓有會所, 我八十啦, 還能吃幾年? 好快層樓咪全歸她啦! 幾年就有層樓的回報率好好啦! 幫我生一個仔我承諾給她十手匯豐股份. Good deal right?
乜班世界級高薪的留美大學教授無教香港班大學生, 香港的公帑唔係用來救濟螞民, 而是要用來買美債的呀! 好似向黑社會交保護費咁. 君不見月前香港增持美國國債咁花旗屍IA在港爪牙就立即變面不再熱撐五區變相公投啦! 若你香港公帑唔用來不停增持美債, 佢就派多些金融海盜到香港發迷債發衍生產品禍輪牛熊証等等呃啦! 讓香港股民血肉長城構建香港官吏所謂的金融中心政績!
(轉貼自: 財經記者網 www.voy.com/114137/)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
借春宵散貨的莊家 by 周顯
借春宵散貨的莊家
by 周顯 2010年6月15日 http://realforum.zkiz.com/thread.php?tid=5478
說一個小故事給大家聽。話說炒股票做莊，把股價炒高易如反掌，但要把炒高後的股票賣出，難度就很高了，這叫「exit is always the problem」。
有一個市場莊家，當然也是大款名流之類，有一天，忽然想找女人。他的身家總也有十億八億吧，要找女人，當然不會像普羅「淫民」般，到旺角「襟鐘仔」，或到深圳向西村找髮花，而是找了一個明星。究竟這明星有多「明」？答案是一夕春宵的代價是300萬，就是這個級數。
完事之後，這位女星當然對這位中年有為的男子大具好感，畢竟，付得起300萬的人不少，但肯付出的卻不多。試想想，如果一晚是300萬，同他交往一年半載，八位數字是肯定能得到的。
不知是誰先開口的，總之，莊家給了女星一個股票號碼，對白是：「唔好買咁多，少少地玩下好啦。」女星口頭答應了，結果，自己身兼且全家人身，買下了八位數字。
喂，咁好的男人，咁好的機會，不身，豈非好笨？這還不算，她告訴了她的友好，估計購買的數額是數倍於她。
結果很明顯，八位數字變成了六位數字(我沒寫錯，是8變6)。據說，莊家在這段期間，一共搞了七八個女星，都是中女之流，即是「肉價」既高，身家也厚之類，就這樣，賣出了估計是兩億元的股票。
這故事有兩條註腳：
1. 現在流行的「靚模」並非他的對象，因為「靚模」沒錢，至少沒有七八位數字的身家。在「銀雞界」中，中女是最難找到客人的，因她們有錢，不肯平賣，卻又不夠「嫩口」，只能賣名氣。正因如此，她們一年做不了一兩單「生意」，一旦有客人，便要捉住。
2. 我聽了此故事後，想了一想，對報料人說：「這位莊家出門去找女人時，會不會對太太說：『我出外是談生意、沽股票、出貨。』」
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
證監會暫吊銷訊匯證券馮敬東牌照六個月
證監會暫吊銷馮敬東牌照六個月 Appledaily.com 2010年09月01日 (11:08 am)
證監會暫時吊銷馮敬東的牌照，為期六個月，由 2010年 9月 1日起至 2011年 2月 28日止，馮是訊匯證券的客戶主任。
證監會的調查發現，馮在 2008年 8月至 12月期間：沒有向僱主披露其父母的帳戶均屬與職員有關的帳戶以及這些帳戶的全權委託安排；未經任何書面授權而操作其父母在訊匯持有的帳戶；透過父母的帳戶進行個人交易，目的是為帳戶帶來成交額，令僱主以為馮在營業額方面的表現沒有轉差；及沒有以小心審慎和勤勉盡責的態度防止透過其父的帳戶所進行的非法賣空。
.
證監會暫時吊銷馮敬東的牌照，為期六個月，由 2010年 9月 1日起至 2011年 2月 28日止，馮是訊匯證券的客戶主任。
證監會的調查發現，馮在 2008年 8月至 12月期間：沒有向僱主披露其父母的帳戶均屬與職員有關的帳戶以及這些帳戶的全權委託安排；未經任何書面授權而操作其父母在訊匯持有的帳戶；透過父母的帳戶進行個人交易，目的是為帳戶帶來成交額，令僱主以為馮在營業額方面的表現沒有轉差；及沒有以小心審慎和勤勉盡責的態度防止透過其父的帳戶所進行的非法賣空。
.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
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
【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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)