今期《亞洲週刊》有關蔣介石和毛澤東的文章很有趣，兩人對敵了大半生，歷史千迴百轉，他們的精神又被後世統一起來。有人說「世上沒有永遠的敵人」，茶怪想，這真有道理，如果連蔣介石和毛澤東也可以融和，我們面對日常工作上的人又甚算得上國仇家恨?
廣告時間:《財經拆局》榮登《亞洲週刊》「熱門文化指標」香港書籍榜第七位。
2007/09/24
An intervention worse than 1998
The recent government intervention in the Hong Kong stock market will cause far deeper damages than what it did in 1998.
This month, the government said it had bought shares in HKEx, which owns the city's sole stock exchange, and had become the largest shareholder of it. That was the first time the government actively bought any Hong Kong-listed stock since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998.
That year, the government, in a novel move, bought Hong Kong stocks and successfully defend its financial system. Years on, Hong Kong had left the turmoil behind and restored its reputation of a free market. In retrospect, the government intervention did no harm. How could the recent purchase of a single stock go wrong?
The difference is -- this time, the government chose.
Unlike last time when it bought all blue chips, of which the benchmark Hang Seng Index was composed, the government chose what to buy, when to buy, how many shares to buy. This discretion creates ambiguity. And ambiguity leads the power of coercion.
Now, the government intervention distracted corporate management from its focus on earnings. CEO of listed companies would ask: "What does the government like?" Will my company become the government's next target? Yes, every CEO, who takes his or her responsibility for optimizing shareholders' return seriously, ought to think about this question.
The next question the CEO should ask would be -- what could my company do to win the government's affection? Today, there are many cooperation opportunities between mainland China and Hong Kong. Stock and futures trading is one of them. Other possible arrangements could happen in infrastructure, utilities, transportation and technology. "What is the next big thing (for the government)?"
The corporate management would be busy developing businesses that they think the government would like. These businesses are not necessarily the most profitability or most efficient for the economy.
The distortion effort will multiply when investors join the guessing game. Investors would ask the same question: "What does the government like?" HKEx share price ended more than 20% higher on the day after the government's disclosure of its holding. They will buy stocks in anticipation of the government's action, rather than based on earnings prospects.
What does the government like? Somebody inside the government must have the answer. If not property regulated, that would create room for the government officials to give favoritism. Merely a public comment by government officials can move share prices up and down. That would create conflicts of interest between the public and private sectors.
This discretionary intervention would open the door for possible bailout for financial troubled corporations, especially those big ones with strong relationship with the government. All the government needs to justify a stock purchase is certain cooperation proposal between mainland China and Hong Kong, whether or not it will be realized in the future.
Therefore, the government holds the arbitrary power overshadowing the interest of investors and businesspeople, including incumbent industry players. Relationship with the government becomes more powerful than ever before.
Entrepreneurship will be compromised. Those start-up companies that experiment new products and services will not get financiers' attention they deserve. Being innovative and adventurous, those entrepreneurs cannot be the government's next pick. They cannot fairly compete with the incumbents that have maintained close relationship with the government.
If the government's intention mandates social activities, talents cannot contribute to the advancement of individual's living.
Hong Kong's success depends on entrepreneurship that enables its economy to transform flexibly from a trading harbor to a manufacturing base, to now a financial center. Hong Kong has long had favorable laws for business activities, for example low taxes and free ports. Above all, Hong Kong entrepreneurs are keen hunters for business opportunities. And a free market, without government intervention, is pivotal to allow investors to reward winners, and in turn encourage further newcomers and new ideas.
Should the government invested in a prominent local factory in the 1970's, when everyone believed that Hong Kong couldn't survive without manufacturing industry, Hong Kong could probably not be able to develop the financial industry as it is today.
In the future, will Hong Kong's success depend on some forms of bureaucratic alliance with mainland China? I don't know. But Hong Kong is destined to fail without entrepreneurship. The government's discretionary action is threatening the vitality of entrepreneurship.
Quam Copyright
This month, the government said it had bought shares in HKEx, which owns the city's sole stock exchange, and had become the largest shareholder of it. That was the first time the government actively bought any Hong Kong-listed stock since the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998.
That year, the government, in a novel move, bought Hong Kong stocks and successfully defend its financial system. Years on, Hong Kong had left the turmoil behind and restored its reputation of a free market. In retrospect, the government intervention did no harm. How could the recent purchase of a single stock go wrong?
The difference is -- this time, the government chose.
Unlike last time when it bought all blue chips, of which the benchmark Hang Seng Index was composed, the government chose what to buy, when to buy, how many shares to buy. This discretion creates ambiguity. And ambiguity leads the power of coercion.
Now, the government intervention distracted corporate management from its focus on earnings. CEO of listed companies would ask: "What does the government like?" Will my company become the government's next target? Yes, every CEO, who takes his or her responsibility for optimizing shareholders' return seriously, ought to think about this question.
The next question the CEO should ask would be -- what could my company do to win the government's affection? Today, there are many cooperation opportunities between mainland China and Hong Kong. Stock and futures trading is one of them. Other possible arrangements could happen in infrastructure, utilities, transportation and technology. "What is the next big thing (for the government)?"
The corporate management would be busy developing businesses that they think the government would like. These businesses are not necessarily the most profitability or most efficient for the economy.
The distortion effort will multiply when investors join the guessing game. Investors would ask the same question: "What does the government like?" HKEx share price ended more than 20% higher on the day after the government's disclosure of its holding. They will buy stocks in anticipation of the government's action, rather than based on earnings prospects.
What does the government like? Somebody inside the government must have the answer. If not property regulated, that would create room for the government officials to give favoritism. Merely a public comment by government officials can move share prices up and down. That would create conflicts of interest between the public and private sectors.
This discretionary intervention would open the door for possible bailout for financial troubled corporations, especially those big ones with strong relationship with the government. All the government needs to justify a stock purchase is certain cooperation proposal between mainland China and Hong Kong, whether or not it will be realized in the future.
Therefore, the government holds the arbitrary power overshadowing the interest of investors and businesspeople, including incumbent industry players. Relationship with the government becomes more powerful than ever before.
Entrepreneurship will be compromised. Those start-up companies that experiment new products and services will not get financiers' attention they deserve. Being innovative and adventurous, those entrepreneurs cannot be the government's next pick. They cannot fairly compete with the incumbents that have maintained close relationship with the government.
If the government's intention mandates social activities, talents cannot contribute to the advancement of individual's living.
Hong Kong's success depends on entrepreneurship that enables its economy to transform flexibly from a trading harbor to a manufacturing base, to now a financial center. Hong Kong has long had favorable laws for business activities, for example low taxes and free ports. Above all, Hong Kong entrepreneurs are keen hunters for business opportunities. And a free market, without government intervention, is pivotal to allow investors to reward winners, and in turn encourage further newcomers and new ideas.
Should the government invested in a prominent local factory in the 1970's, when everyone believed that Hong Kong couldn't survive without manufacturing industry, Hong Kong could probably not be able to develop the financial industry as it is today.
In the future, will Hong Kong's success depend on some forms of bureaucratic alliance with mainland China? I don't know. But Hong Kong is destined to fail without entrepreneurship. The government's discretionary action is threatening the vitality of entrepreneurship.
Quam Copyright
災難處理方案
當遇上電影《明日之後》的場面，地球氣候急劇改變，溫度驟降，全香港冰天雪地，你會到哪裡避難? 會否像男主角一樣，藏到圖書館，就地取材，燃燒圖書作取暖之用? 怕到時人人抄襲電影情節，迫爆圖書館，茶怪建議你到更安全暢適的地方，就是任何一間投資銀行，因為那裡存放大量招股書，每本幾百頁厚，可應付不時之須。
《28週後》又如何? 到處都是饑餓如狼的食人喪屍，如果你是故事中的美軍，開槍都開到手軟，你會怎麼辦? 茶怪想，最佳方法是向喪屍送上手槍、機關槍、手榴彈，讓他們自相殘殺。因為要決定一個可愛小孩，究竟將成為喪屍甲、乙還是丙的豐富午餐，暴力是唯一的解決方法，你打我、我打你的情況下，喪屍自然傷亡慘重，那個無辜的小孩或可趁亂脫險。人類與喪屍一樣自私，但人類較聰明，懂得制造武器，但更聰明的，是懂得制定法律，保障產權，以交易解決問題，和平共存。
2007/09/19
黑白配
港男港女的討論熱烘烘，以下是兩個月前茶怪在量子自白的留言:
其實結婚不一定是好事，選不對不結也擺。港男表面上有好多選擇，包括內地的女子，但到頭來又係有好多家庭問題。港女以前的結婚率高，很大程度是她們以前經濟獨立條件不足，所以一定要結，現在經濟條件改善，可以結可以不結，自由選擇，那不是較好嗎?
話說回頭，港女亦需要隨著社會時代變化而調節心理，男人搵錢少的，不代表他們不夠叻，在香港女搵錢多過男的正常的，因為香港經濟多是扮演中介人的角色，中介人重溝通，溝通是女性的專長，男性的專長多是數理，在美國矽谷，男人一定搵錢多過女人。如果男女都肯接受男女平等，例如男人肯分擔家務，不因為女伴搵錢多過自己而自鄙，港男港女的「對立」局面可以舒緩。
其實結婚不一定是好事，選不對不結也擺。港男表面上有好多選擇，包括內地的女子，但到頭來又係有好多家庭問題。港女以前的結婚率高，很大程度是她們以前經濟獨立條件不足，所以一定要結，現在經濟條件改善，可以結可以不結，自由選擇，那不是較好嗎?
話說回頭，港女亦需要隨著社會時代變化而調節心理，男人搵錢少的，不代表他們不夠叻，在香港女搵錢多過男的正常的，因為香港經濟多是扮演中介人的角色，中介人重溝通，溝通是女性的專長，男性的專長多是數理，在美國矽谷，男人一定搵錢多過女人。如果男女都肯接受男女平等，例如男人肯分擔家務，不因為女伴搵錢多過自己而自鄙，港男港女的「對立」局面可以舒緩。
2007/09/14
2007/09/10
2007/09/08
港府送上海免費call option
港府增持港交所股票，據報，不是為投資亦非為干預市場，而是為未來與上海交易所進行股權互換，合作發展。本來，股權互換是很正常的市場交易，港交所和上海交易所可以直接deal，為何要港府作為中間人，先買入港交所股票，然後轉讓? 報導引述政府消息指，這是為顯示港府對港交所的信心，茶怪覺得莫名其妙。
茶怪懷疑，由於合作發展討論需時，上海交易所怕遲些，港交所股價較現時貴得多，所以要求港府先買，鎖定成本，之後議價方便些，另外，港府亦看好港交所後市，即使未來以市價折讓，售予上海，仍然有賺。茶怪想，如果是這樣，港府便承擔起股價下跌的風險，如果股價下跌，上海選擇其他方案或無限期拖延，就是賴著不換，港府就蝕。港府變相送上海免費call option。
茶怪懷疑，由於合作發展討論需時，上海交易所怕遲些，港交所股價較現時貴得多，所以要求港府先買，鎖定成本，之後議價方便些，另外，港府亦看好港交所後市，即使未來以市價折讓，售予上海，仍然有賺。茶怪想，如果是這樣，港府便承擔起股價下跌的風險，如果股價下跌，上海選擇其他方案或無限期拖延，就是賴著不換，港府就蝕。港府變相送上海免費call option。
2007/09/05
政府唔會俾個市冧?
1997年夏天，一位前輩閒聊中告訴茶怪，「北京是唔會俾香港股市和樓市冧，個市起碼可以捱到1999年澳門回歸日，因為北京想有體面地收回澳門。」結果，1997和98年股災、樓市大跌，1999年北京還是照樣有體面地收回澳門。
近期類似的理論又復興:「香港回歸十周年之前，政府唔會俾個市冧。」「全國人大之前，政府唔會俾個市冧。」「2008北京奧運之前，政府唔會俾個市冧。」北京奧運之後，2009年澳門回歸十周年，2010世界博覽在上海舉行，2013年全國人大又來，即係幾時政府先可以俾個市冧?
茶怪想，這全是謬誤，理論上政府任何時間都唔想個市冧。但歷史上的股災又時有發生，政府阻止唔來，因為當股票拿在每個投資者的手裡，每個投資者有權決定買賣，政府管也管唔來。政府唯一可以做的，是避免給市場錯覺，以為政府唔會俾個市冧。因為一旦市場有這個錯覺，投機活動就更猖獗，後果更嚴重。
要股市降溫，政府不應出來說股市是否過高，這只會削弱政府官員的公信力，因為他們短期很大機會估錯，亦無助炒風，而是應該聲明政府沒有責任救濟投機者，以中國現時的國力，誰說沒有牛市，奧運便攪不成功? 奧運成功，不靠股市。
近期類似的理論又復興:「香港回歸十周年之前，政府唔會俾個市冧。」「全國人大之前，政府唔會俾個市冧。」「2008北京奧運之前，政府唔會俾個市冧。」北京奧運之後，2009年澳門回歸十周年，2010世界博覽在上海舉行，2013年全國人大又來，即係幾時政府先可以俾個市冧?
茶怪想，這全是謬誤，理論上政府任何時間都唔想個市冧。但歷史上的股災又時有發生，政府阻止唔來，因為當股票拿在每個投資者的手裡，每個投資者有權決定買賣，政府管也管唔來。政府唯一可以做的，是避免給市場錯覺，以為政府唔會俾個市冧。因為一旦市場有這個錯覺，投機活動就更猖獗，後果更嚴重。
要股市降溫，政府不應出來說股市是否過高，這只會削弱政府官員的公信力，因為他們短期很大機會估錯，亦無助炒風，而是應該聲明政府沒有責任救濟投機者，以中國現時的國力，誰說沒有牛市，奧運便攪不成功? 奧運成功，不靠股市。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)