Thursday 11 December 2008

Is Joseph Yam Irreplaceable?

One of the most bizarre arguments against replacing Joseph Yam is that: If you fire him, who will be the chief executive of HKMA? The argument then goes on to ask you to name a person that could do the job.

This is a silly argument: because you are unable to quote the name of a potential successor to a person, then that guy must be irreplaceable. I am quite sure out of the 15 politically appointed ministers, a majority of the Hong Kong people wouldn't even have heard of many of their names before they got appointed. Apart from a few lawyers, I am quite sure none of you have heard of Wong Yan Lung before he was appointed as the Secretary of Justice. No one would have possibly quoted his name when asked who can be the next Secretary of Justice, but he turns out to be one of the most popular ministers, out of this highly unpopular cabinet. Could anyone think of a successor to Ambrose Lee, the Secretary of Security? Hardly. Will our public order collapse if he has to leave his post somehow? Not at all.

I do not understand how on one hand, we claim our city as a "financial center" while on the other hand, we think it is impossible to find just ONE person, out of 7 million people, to maintain that automatic currency board system. If the status of Hong Kong as a financial center depends solely on the existence of ONE person, that is truly dangerous and we should try to make it less so. After all, it is not uncommon for public officials to be unable to carry out their duties, for one reason or another, so how can you say someone cannot be replaced?

Extended Reading:

任志剛,請你依法問責﹗

任志剛憑甚麼出花紅?

何俊仁余若薇失憶?任志剛免責?

任志剛,你收檔番歸啦!


Tuesday 9 December 2008

How high is the salary of Joseph Yam?


Salary of Joseph Yam, head of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, de facto central bank of Hong Kong, is always criticized as too high (which is a fact often denied by the HKMA), but how high his salary actually is?

Check it below and you will be astonished:

Salaries of Central Bankers (USD)

Joseph Yam $1,227,000
Chairman of Federal Reserve $191,300
European Central Bank President $444,000
Bank of England Governor $429,000
Bank of Japan Governor $387,000

Sum of salaries for Fed Chairman, ECB Pres, BoE Governor & BoJ Governor = 1,451,300
Salary of Joseph Yam = 1,227,000

Put it into perspective,

GDP of US+Japan+EU = 64% of world GDP
GDP of HK = 0.4% of world GDP

This certainly looks like how officials in corrupted countries are paying themselves. What a shame for Hong Kong, which always prides itself as "Asia's world city"!!

Don't forget Hong Kong is adopting a linked currency system which means there is no independent monetary policy for the city. The importance of this post is certainly much less than his counterparts in the US, Europe and Japan. Judging from his recent performance in the Lehman mini-bond debacle, Mr. Yam also failed to do its role as a bank regulator properly. Surely his performance as a fund manager for the Exchange Fund is less than inspiring, too. I cannot think of better ways to waste taxpayers' money than giving this incompetent guy a salary enough to hire the 4 most important central bankers in the world.

Mr. Yam, shame on you!


Extended Reading:

任志剛,請你依法問責﹗

任志剛憑甚麼出花紅?

何俊仁余若薇失憶?任志剛免責?

任志剛,你收檔番歸啦!


Monday 8 December 2008

雷曼事件金管局是否失職?

  雷曼事件發展至今,愈來愈多人已認為金管局有不可推卸的責任:其對銀行銷售高風險投資產品予零售投資者的業務監管不力。

  但是,任總多年來在不同場合,都刻意地指出,「並無法律條文明確規定金管局須負責保障銀行客戶」;以上是節錄自任總在2002年6月24日香港銀行公會晚宴的公開發言稿。再者,在金管局2007年年報中,亦明確說明「金管局並沒有保障消費者的法定權責」(72頁)。因此,在雷曼事件的辯證中,估計金管局一定會一再強調在現有法例下,其並未有被授權保障消費者和存戶的利益,以推卸責任。此外,「一業兩管」的複雜情況,更令金管局容易蒙混過關:強調這是制度漏洞的問題,並不是人為錯誤的問題。

保障存戶利益屬金管局職能  如果保障存戶利益不是金管局的責任,這是誰的責任?這麼重要的一個課題,政府和立法會都不可能長期視而不見吧!

  保障存戶利益是金管局的職能;首先,根據《銀行業條例》,其第七條就訂明了《金融管理委員的職能》的兩大要點:  1. 委員的主要職能是促進銀行業體系的整體穩定與有效運作。

  2. 在不限制第1.款的一般性原則下,專員須同時執行七項職能。

  在這七項職能中,第四項及第七項是清楚地與雷曼事件相關的。第四項是「金融管理專員須遏止或協助遏止與認可機構的業務常規有關的非法、不名譽或不正當的行為」。

  而第七項的修例,就更清楚說明金管局對 保護存款人的權責:「金融管理專員須採取一切合理步驟,以確保任何認可機構所經營的任何銀行業務、任何接受存款業務或任何其他業務是(i)以持正和審慎的 方式以及適度的專業能力經營的;及(ii)以無損或相當不可能損及存款人或潛在存款人的利益的方式經營的。」  這些法例和立法精神,明顯要求金融管理專 員有權責須採取一切合理步驟,以保障銀行存款人(甚至包括其他客戶)的利益。一些年邁的存款者被銀行職員誘導投資於雷曼債券,因而損失慘重,這些高風險的 投資產品在銀行零售層面發售多年,金管局未作有效遏止,這明顯是失職。任總如果真能「先知先覺」及審慎執行其職能,香港銀行業的聲譽和以十萬計的銀行客戶,就毋須付出這麼沉重的代價。

  讓我們再回顧一下,任總在2002年香港銀行公會晚宴的公開發言稿強調「金管局根 據《銀行業條例》第7(2)條的條文,參與促進與鼓勵各銀行維持正當的操守標準及良好與穩妥的經營手法,只是為履行『促進銀行體系整體穩定及有效運作』的 主要職能而附帶執行的工作。」這是非常誤導甚至是錯誤的言論。第一、根據《銀行業條例》,並沒有提出執行第7(2)條文是「附帶」的工作,這是金管局須同時執行的兩項職能之一。第二、第7(2)條文並不只是要求金管局鼓勵銀行維持正當的經營手法,條文中更包括金融管理專員須採取一切合理步驟,保障存款人的利益,這是直接的、不可轉移的責任。

  專員在多年執行《銀行業條例》的職能中,似乎都有嚴重的偏差和錯誤的理解,而歷任的財政司都沒有察覺,事情終於在雷曼事件曝光了。

銀公紀律委員會「似有若無」  金管局認為不需要直接監管銀行的經營手法,這是長期的政策。香港銀行公會是根據《香港銀行公會條例》於1981年成立的法定團體,其角色包括向所有銀行推廣最佳營運方法,這是業界自我監管的模式。銀行公會所訂定的《銀行營運守則》,是得到金管局認可的;公會更在2002年成立「銀行營運守則委員會」,由銀行公會、存款公司公會及金管局一同組成,不時檢討及修訂該守則,會員如有違例,銀行公會下的「紀律委員會」可以採取處分,包括譴責及開除會籍。然而,根據銀行公會網頁上的資料:「從未有會員因違例而需要紀律委員會召開會議。」  香港銀行公會與金管局共同訂立的《銀行營運守則》,四大目標之一是「促進客戶對銀行制度的信心」;今次雷曼事件,實在令大眾失望。

  就銀行經營受《證券條例》所規範的金融業務,包括銷售須獲證監批准的金融投資產品及提供投資顧問服務,金管局是負責全面執行《證券條例》的機構;金管局與證監會簽了合作諒解備忘錄,在同一標準下,分別向銀行及其他金融機構執行《證券條例》。根據金管局的《監管政策手冊》(SB-1, 1. 4. 1)訂明:「雖然證監會最終負責監管證券市場的中介人,但金管局仍是註冊機構(即銀行)的前線監管機構,並負責日常監管註冊機構的受規管活動。」證監會就受規管活動發出的準則及指引,均適用於註冊機構(即銀行)。

   這條在2002年3月通過的《證券及期貨條例》,整合了原本的十條法例,其中包括《保障投資者條例》。根據國際證監會組織(香港是成員)於1998年達 成的一項共識,同意證券業務監管的主要目標有三點:保障投資者、確保市場公平、有效率及減低系統風險。香港在設計新的條例,亦以符合這三點目標為立法基 礎。新條例中有關證監會的「法定規管目標」中,就清楚包括「向投資於金融產品公眾提供保障」和「盡量減少業內的犯罪行為及失當行為」。

  從以上分析,金管局在執行《銀行業條例》的職能時,有權責保障存款者的利益;而金管局在執行《證券及期貨條例》的職能時,則有權責保障在銀行購買金融產品投資者的利益。在雷曼事件中,金管局是否失職,就有待「立法會雷曼迷你債券事件小組」努力調查真相了。

羅祥國 浸會大學商學院兼任教授

延伸閱讀:

任志剛,請你依法問責﹗

任志剛憑甚麼出花紅?

何俊仁余若薇失憶?任志剛免責?

任志剛,你收檔番歸啦!

Thursday 4 December 2008

Collective Responsibility = Collective Irresponsibility

In the latest Bangkok incident, it is interesting to see when the Hong Kong government officials say "the decision is made collectively", it actually means "the decision is made by no one". If the decision is really so collective, then everyone of them should be accountable.

It is also interesting to see how Ambrose Lee said he will "take up ALL the responsibilities", but nothing has been done at all by him. What do you actually mean by "take responsibilities" if it doesn't mean some sorts of punishments?