Prof. Chan , idiot?
I watch cable TV on Legco session live tonight after demonstrate in Legco this morning. I can't believe that Prof. Chan never read about Minibonds before Lehman defaults but he had given a speech in N.Y. about how HK gov. would deal with CDOs in 2007 and informed HKMA to find CDO products in HK banks and HK insurrance companies. The advertisement for Minibonds were shown in last five years in financial newspapers, that mean Prof. Chan never read HK financial newspapers but only international news and it is very strange to locate such a person for government job in charge of HKMA and SFC. Legco members do not read financial news, that fair since they should care about more social problems in HK but not for economists that never know what happens in HK banks and let him to be in charge of HK financial matters. All the professors and Ph.D I knew from my University all knew what happens in the markets, like Professor in economics act as advisor to HKMA and editors for financial newspaper, Professor in electronic knew what where their students are working in the factories, their products and new type of products in developement etc. etc
2 則留言:
公民黨
http://www.civicparty.hk/cp/pages/page-c/lhsch.php
22 JAN 2009 證監會宣布，與新鴻基投資服務有限公司和解，新鴻基願意向310名雷曼苦主購回迷債，退回全數本金，涉8,500萬元。證監會並譴責新鴻基自2002年銷售雷曼迷債涉及的「內部系統和監控措施」。翌日，公民黨發出新聞稿，指出新鴻基和解一事，突顯「一業兩管」可能產生的雙重標準，公民黨並呼籲各分銷銀行以新鴻基為鑑，盡快與雷曼苦主尋求和解，作出合理賠償。 新聞稿
20 FEB 2009 立法會雷曼小組首次公開聆訊，傳召財經事務及庫務局局長陳家強作供。余若薇向他指出，07年11月，國際貨幣基金組織提出了預警，敦促香港特區政府監察結構性產品的風險問題；翌年5月，陳家強在紐約演說中，亦詳細解釋次按產生的問題，顯示他熟悉次按危機及衍生工具的問題。余若薇質問陳家強，發表演說前，是否已察覺有關產品在香港市場廣泛銷售予普羅大眾？有否在9月迷債「爆煲」前向小投資者提出預警？有否有在任何階段提醒小投資者，雷曼迷債是信貸掛勾票據，並非一般人理解像「五隧一橋」的債券？陳家強說上述演辭只是論述次按危機的成因。
另外，湯家驊質問陳家強，政府對金融市場應該有宏觀的監管責任，除了賦予金融監管機構議會及金融市場穩定委員會資源和權力外，官方有否監管渠道？陳家強說官方與該兩個機構有不少日常接觸。
23 FEB 2009 立法會財經事務委員會特別會議，討論金管局和證監會調查雷曼事件報告。余若薇問金管局總裁任志剛，為何雷曼迷債在香港廣泛銷售，但在美國卻沒有？任志剛、金管局副總裁蔡耀君及證監會行政總裁韋奕禮均表示，其他地區都有類似但可能名稱不同的投資產品。
24 FEB 2009
立法會雷曼小組第2次公開聆訊，繼續傳召陳家強作供。余若薇問他，身為財經事務及庫務局局長，他的職責之一是監督轄下執行部門，若然金管局和證監會辦事不力，他是否要負上政治責任？陳家強說，例如公司註冊處，才是其轄下執行部門，金管局和證監會不是。
另外，余若薇問他，他既然明知有些銀行本身也不明白結構性產品的投資風險，他豈能期望散戶明白呢？陳家強說，這正正是監管機構調查的問題。
27 FEB 2009 立法會雷曼小組第3次公開聆訊，繼續傳召陳家強作供。余若薇問他，為何迷債在香港的銷售層面比其他地區大很多，是否香港監管比較寬鬆？陳家強重申香港的「披露為本」和「合適性評估」政策與其他地區無異，分別在於投資習慣和行業結構。金管局和證監會的調查報告已表述可改善之處。
余若薇追問他，他認為銀行需要花多少時間才能向客戶充分「披露」如此高風險的投資產品？陳說，不能以時間度量，視乎表達方式。
湯家驊問陳家強，07年8月金融監管機構議會和金融市場穩定委員會兩個會議中，他可有提出關注雷曼兄弟正遇上經濟困難？他說，有討論次按的全球影響，無印象曾否討論個別金融機構。
05 MAR 2009 公民黨公布一項民意調查結果，逾千名受訪市民中，高達72%認為，監管機構至今未能交代銀行違犯銷售雷曼迷債個案的調查結果，實屬失職。 民調結果
20 MAR 2009 立法會雷曼小組第4次公開聆訊，陳家強第4次作供。湯家驊問陳家強08年9月前可有主動了解雷曼有沒有在港出售金融產品。陳家強說，這是監管機構的工作。
余若薇問陳家強，雷曼迷債事件發生至今半年，只有屬證監會監管的新鴻基投資服務有限公司和解外，金管局監管的銀行卻一間都不見受處分，迷債持有人圈圈轉，一業兩管是否浪費資源？陳家強說，一業兩管有效地減少監管重疊，是恰當的做法。
(1)In Legco session, Prof. Chan never discuss about why the Constellation AAA rated CDO as securities that turned to BBB grade, but ackowledge that he did required SFC and HKMA to study how these bad milk (CDO) affected HK business section especially the banking sector. His cover up of how the banks such as DBS transfer all these bad milk to HK people shows he is not a idiot, but are also quilty in cover up of HKMA, SFC frauds to allow Singapore banks to steal money from HK poeple. He actions also intentionally cover his wife involvement with Morgan Stanley Victory Park notes.
2) Prof. Chan still keeping allow SFC, HKMA in charge of supervising banks in structure products and let the banks to bear the consequence of the Lehman minibonds and related products frauds.
3) Legco member Regina Yip questions to Prof. Chan is mainly deal with her proposal for government to set up the trust funds to take care of all the refund to Lehman minibonds victims. And the refusal of her proposal by Prof. Chan and his fail plan for banks buyback is now putting HK government under attack from all sides.
發佈留言
訂閱 發佈留言 [Atom]
<< 首頁