2012年6月28日星期四

狗法官判囚社運青年辱罵法官 義工大狀皺眉

社運青年辱罵法官 義工大狀皺眉 - Yahoo! 新聞香港


【明報專訊】大批被告的社運「80後」支持者到庭,眾人在庭內庭外猶如遊行示威,保持一貫激進作風。一眾支持者「塞爆」法庭,當不滿裁判官判決立即在庭上揚聲質問,更以粗口「鬧爆」法官,義助被告求情的資深大律師駱應淦聽罷亦不禁皺眉。
周諾恒、梁穎禮等社運人士,開庭前在庭外拉起「惡法戰無不勝」橫額。法庭坐無虛席,部分人打開法庭大門站在庭外旁聽。惟部分人未守秩序,裁判官杜浩成宣判時曾作「溫馨提示」,叫庭內人立即停止錄音或拍攝影片,否則可被控藐視法庭。
持續干擾 高喊「狗法官」
不過,庭內人持續打嗝及嬉笑,當杜官提到襲警數字漸增,又有旁聽者高聲發問「咁警察畀假口供呢」。不滿聲音直至判刑完結時大爆發,旁聽者得知被告被判囚半年,高叫粗口單字,又稱杜官為「狗法官」,大叫「政治檢控可恥」,但杜官充耳不聞。
不收分文出庭的駱應淦在律師席中面露難色,着旁邊的大律師石書銘要求全數旁聽者離席,再為被告申請保釋,免生枝節。
駱應淦曾任大律師公會主席,出庭一次收費以萬元計,透露因傳媒朋友請求才出手義助,「唔好講仗義,免費啦」。他不諱言在襲警案中,判囚半年刑罰甚重,但未知會否為被告上訴。至於日後會否繼續當「社運之友」,他笑說:「睇個別情况啦。」

翟紹唐星展case

今天我有去聽星展case 的結案陳詞,冇甚特別。但覺真係好兒嬉,單靠個官一個人對件事的睇法就定案?個官其實都未搞清楚產品的複雜性,銀行的銷售手法,他未曾身歷其景,實在好難明白點解咁都會俾人呃!

翟紹唐講來講去是普通法行的是合約精神,總之你簽名就作實,唔理有冇解釋,唔理你唔識英文,唔理你唔知道條款,唔理你有冇睇章程 etc.-----都要承受責任。

Coleman 力爭的是要睇事實(指誤導,可惜舉證實在困難),不能單靠文件;並指出如果個合約本身已經是錯誤的,則簽了名都不應承擔責任;又有提到證監條例 108

2012年6月27日星期三

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導


韋奕禮(Martin Wheatley)舊年6 月未約滿就劈炮唔撈,搞到原本舊年10 月約滿證監會主席方正要拍膊頭做多一年,仲要忙於搵人做行政總裁,唔怪得佢2011 年4 月至2012 年3 月底酬金獲大幅上調19.8% , 至84.1 萬元,同其他非執行董事3.85%加幅相比,多一大截。
新任行政總裁歐達禮(Ashley Alder)舊年10月至今年3 月,人工共330 萬元,假如仲律師樓做合夥人,半年可能唔止賺呢個數。雷曼迷債事件搞到Martin 成身蟻,Ashley 咁有膽識接任,仲要減薪,好明顯唔係為錢。
至於四位執行董事加幅比去年高,但一向加得少,繼續加咁少,反之亦然。
「一姐」張灼華年薪683.3 萬元,係最高薪執董,期內又搞RQFII、中港合作等,加幅只有1.99%。負責市場監察雷祺光,搞沽空新制、場外交易監管……愈來愈多做,加幅達6.67%,年薪有579.2 萬元,卻係四人之中最低。
捉老虎專員、法規執行部董事施衛民(MarkSteward),對洪良同佢保薦人兆豐資本窮追猛打,加幅都有5.66%,至616 萬元。近日同班保薦人紮行馬何賢通,獲加4.88%,至580萬元。
三位男士好快就約滿,唔知方主席幾時宣布佢去向呢?

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導


今年是香港回歸15周年,回顧回歸後的15年光景,香港的樓價變化很多,經歷大上大落。筆者猶記得,97年樓市大旺,炒風熾熱,及後特區政府成立,推出「八萬五」房屋政策,碰巧遇上亞洲金融風暴,資產泡沫爆破,樓價下跌70%。
  後至03年「沙氏」過後,政府推出「孫九招」,令土地供應幾近停頓,加上政府完全撤出市場,並停建居屋,而勾地政策亦令土地供應量「話事權」,拱手相讓予發展商。雖然「孫九招」穩住樓價,但在「自由行」推動經濟的情況下,樓價進一步上升。
  在03至06年間,香港平均每年還有超過2萬伙私人住宅單位落成,當時政府還未醒覺政策不改變,供應量將遠遠落後於需求。結果,在07至11年這5年間,總落成量只有49,300伙,即平均每年供應不足1萬伙。
樓價續升 上車仍難
  相反,經濟持續復甦,即使面對08年金融海嘯,樓價也只是回落了幾個月。再者,面對歐美及中國放寬銀根,利率低企,外地大量資金湧港,加上香港市民經過雷曼事件,對投資於非實物的信心大減,資金紛紛流進房地產,令其價格進一步上升。
  及至2012年,樓價平均指數已經高於97年的最高點,當然市區的貴價地段,比97年更加珍貴,政府才猛然醒悟政策上的失誤,宣布復建居屋及增加土地供應。
  但遠水難救近火,政府惟有「出口術」,配上金管局收緊按揭成數及推出SSD等行政措施遏抑樓價,但大多新招都只能得到短期成效。事實上,一般用家都只能體驗到樓價繼續上升,但按揭成數就愈來愈低,首期要求則愈來愈高,廣大民眾累積的怨氣,結果只會令今年七一遊行,又多了一批生力軍。

政壇:證監執董人人有薪加 - 太陽報

政壇:證監執董人人有薪加 - 太陽報


證監會尋日發表最新年度年報,各高層嘅年薪自然「大現形」。根據年報,行政總裁歐達禮二○一二年年度人工總計係三百三十萬元。但大家要知道,佢係舊年十月一號至正式返工,即係話三百三十萬元只係佢半年人工啫!但呢個數仲未計可能有俗稱花紅嘅酌情薪酬!雖然半年搵三百三十萬元已算作打工皇帝,但對比佢以往喺律師樓做,可能只係「濕濕碎」。

至於其他執行董事,全部都有人工加。張灼華二○一二年年度薪酬共有六百八十三萬元,微升2%。人稱「打虎英雄」嘅施衛民,人工則有六百一十六萬元,上升5.6%,其中酌情薪酬為一百三十二萬元。施衛民近年屢破大案,花紅增加,相信都冇人會有異議!

2012年6月19日星期二

滴滴金:官場怨婦狗熊不如 - 東方日報

滴滴金:官場怨婦狗熊不如 - 東方日報

任志剛掌管金管局十多年,堅拒聯繫匯率脫鈎,甚至擺出聯匯神聖不可侵犯的姿態。然而,不知何故在新舊政府交接之際,忽然放棄一貫堅持,撰文認為聯匯是否脫鈎可以討論!


以為任志剛此全城最高工資官僚,涵養氣質俱遠勝其他「舊電池」,豈料大跌眼鏡,發現此君亦是一丘之貉。他是否因為私怨而炮製亂局,不得而知,但為何身在其位時不付諸行動,則欠社會一個交代!
美國總統選舉爭持激烈,但選戰過後,身為共和黨的前總統喬治布殊,有說過當選民主黨的奧巴馬不是嗎?有試過「出口術」阻撓奧巴馬政府行新政嗎?相反,布殊跟奧巴馬在國家事務交流不絕,甚至成了交心朋友。
為甚麼來自美國,此立國只有幾百年國家的元首,有如此氣量?但在中國此文明古國,香港特別行政區,薪金高過美國總統的「九品芝麻官」,一旦丟官,便即掉轉槍口充任「社會良心」、「民主英雄」?
他們在位時,為何拿不出良心來、民主不起來?為何政府違背良心,他們仍見日過日,月月支薪,年年公費外訪?為何沒有急流勇退,與不仁不義不民主的政府劃清界線?他們是否認知自己一度擁有的權力,並非他們的私有財產,而是屬於整個社會的公權?所以,須以謙卑之心承擔執掌公權之責,需要放手時便從容放手。因丟官淪為「怨婦」或「復仇者」人士,根本就不夠班做官。
至於聯繫匯率,相信在未來五年,在位者根本沒有膽識和承擔去作任何改變,所以肯定不會脫鈎。值得關注的只是新政府對聯匯導致通脹,採取甚麼補救措施而已。可考慮的,包括多建公共房屋及發放現金津貼。

2012年6月16日星期六

一業兩管不合時宜

立法會雷曼事宜小組委員會發表報告,狠批相關財金官員失職之外,還點出當前監管制度有缺陷,不能保障投資者利益。 證監會主要職責是規管本港證券行業,但銀行旗下證券業務卻除外,由金管局直接管轄,如此一業兩管制度,容易產生互相卸責的問題,引致弊端叢生。

證監會著眼點維持一個公平、公正、公開的市場,保障投資者的利益為首要,而金管局則看重金融業,維持銀行體系穩定,最重要的是銀行要有充足資本比率,自然會忽略銀行向客戶推銷金融產品的手法是否有問題、是否有違規,雷曼迷債事件便是在不健全的一業兩管制度下發生。

一業兩管制度根本不合時宜,銀行業走向以金融超市方式的經營,除了傳統的存貸業務,賺取了息差收入之外,非利息收入也佔銀行盈利的重要部分,例如證券業務與金融、保險產品等佣金收益,再加上強積金業務,令銀行成為金融產品重要的銷售平台,涉及證券、保險及強積金,目前銀行流行交叉銷售,現有監管制度不能與時並進,造成漏洞百出,當局應該汲取雷曼迷債事件的教訓,從速檢討現行的監管制度,是時候考慮成立超級監管機構,覆蓋銀行、證券、保險及強積金等行業。

據資料顯示,雷曼迷債違規銷售的投訴個案中,9成都涉及銀行,券商所佔比率有限,若然銀行的證券業務繼續由金管局管轄,擔心類似雷曼迷債的事件會歷史重演。 雷曼迷債合共3至4萬名苦主,事件難免對本港作為國際金融中心聲譽有負面影響,期望當局能夠痛定思痛,下定決心改革監管制度。

2012年6月14日星期四

Editorial Yam's Suggestions Totally Inappropriate - Yahoo! 新聞香港

Editorial Yam's Suggestions Totally Inappropriate - Yahoo! 新聞香港


【明報專訊】FORMER Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) chief executive Joseph Yam Chi-kwong has published an academic paper urging the government to take into consideration the public interest and revise the dollar peg by, for instance, widening or removing the trading band. His suggestions have attracted widespread attention, and the exchange rate of the Hong Kong dollar fluctuated wildly for a while. The market's response to Yam's suggestions is telling Yam clearly that he has acted most inappropriately.
First of all, it is not appropriate for a man of Yam's standing to publish such a paper. For he not only was party to the introduction of the pegged exchange rate system in 1983, but was privy to everything concerned with the peg till 1 October 2009, when he retired as head of the HKMA. And in all those years when he was at the helm, he staunchly defended this exchange rate system, never failing to refute calls for removing or revising the peg. His sudden change of stance is therefore very strange.
Moreover, Yam is currently a consultant to the People's Bank of China. His academic paper thus gave rise to speculations that the central as well as the HKSAR government might be using him to float some ideas to see how the market would react. With Chief Executive-elect Leung Chun-ying, financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah and current HKMA head Norman Chan Tak-lam declaring categorically one after another that the pegged exchange rate system would remain unchanged, such speculations have been proved totally ungrounded. We cannot but say that Yam's publication of the paper was most inappropriate, for it just served to disturb the exchange rate of the Hong Kong dollar and throw the financial market into confusion.
Second, Yam's paper was not released to the appropriate parties. Understanding the pegged exchange rate system as he does, if Yam thinks there are problems, he should and is indeed duty-bound to render his advice to the central government, the People's Bank of China, and the HKSAR government. No wild speculations or financial confusion will ensue if he exercises his influence only at the decision-making level. It was unfortunate as well as irrational that, this time, Yam chose to communicate his views to the public instead.
Third, Yam's suggestions were made at an inappropriate time. As the European debt crisis is looming and Hong Kong is to have a new government in about half a month, stability in the financial market is particularly important, or we might have another financial crisis upon us, like the Asian financial crisis happened 15 years ago. Even if Yam was totally well-intentioned, the fact is that his suggestions have left the financial market greatly shaken. We cannot understand why a man so deeply involved in and conversant with the dollar peg should have done such a thing.
The peg is of course no sacred totem. It can and should be discussed and reviewed from time to time, but not publicly. Just imagine what would happen to the financial market if the public were invited to express their opinions on the exchange rate policy in the same way as they are invited to discuss other government policies. Chaos would be the only result. Under normal circumstances, where changes are needed, the government should have already formulated a policy, of which the public and investors will know nothing until the changes are introduced - and only then will the government explain the changes in detail.
明報社評 2012.06.14﹕任志剛倡議改動聯匯 身分時機對象三不當
金管局前任總裁任志剛發表論文,倡議政府視乎公衆利益,改動聯繫匯率,包括聯匯去留或擴闊聯匯可兌換範圍等。這番倡議備受關注,港元匯價一度急劇波動。市場反應告訴任志剛,他這次做法極不恰當。
任志剛這次倡議之不當,首先是他的身分。從1983年香港實施聯繫匯率開始,任志剛已經參與,直至2009年10月1日離任金管局總裁,所有聯繫匯率事宜,都與他有關。在他主持大局期間,一直堅定地捍衛聯匯制度,若有人提出脫鈎或什麼改動聯匯的意見,任志剛都會直斥其非,他現在打倒昨日之我,使人感到突兀。
另外,任志剛是人民銀行顧問,這個身分,使人聯想到中央和特區政府對聯匯是否有些想法,由他放試探氣球,測試市場反應。從候任特首梁振英、財政司長曾俊華和金管局總裁陳德霖先後發言,明確表示聯繫匯率不會改變,足證任志剛測水溫之說,絕無其事,但是事件已經觸動港元匯價,一度擾亂了市場,實屬不當。
任志剛第二個不當是選錯受衆對象。任志剛對聯匯制度的熟悉程度,若他認為有什麼問題,任志剛應該、也有責任提出,包括向中央、人行和特區政府獻策獻計,只要他在決策層面發揮作用,就不會給市場帶來猜測和混亂;但是,現在任志剛將他的倡議,公告周知,太不合情理。
任志剛第三個不當,是時機不當。歐債危機山雨欲來風滿樓之際;另外,本港還有約半個月就政府換屆,特別希望金融市場保持穩定,以免重蹈15年前亞洲金融風暴的覆轍。任志剛的倡議,即使完全出於良好意願,但是客觀效果搖動了金融市場,以他與聯匯的淵源和認識,出現這種情况,使人無法理解。
聯繫匯率並非什麼神聖不可侵犯的圖騰,絕對可以討論,也應該檢討,但是不宜公開討論和檢討。試想想,若政府處理聯匯,與其他政策一樣公開諮詢,金融市場會是怎樣一種景况?答案必然是波動大亂。正常情况下,政府就聯匯制度遇到什麼情况的應對,應該已經制定方案,當市民和投資者知悉改變時,政府已經實施新做法,然後提出詳細解釋而已。

「打死」不離三兄弟

經過三年多的調查,立法會雷曼事件小組近日終於發表報告,譴責金管局前總裁任志剛監管不力,要為金管局在雷曼迷債一事上的錯失負上最終責任。

不錯,正如立法會議員黃宜弘所說,美國投資銀行雷曼兄弟公司宣布破產,是百年一遇的事件,「神仙都避唔到」。任志剛不是神仙,當然難以預料雷曼公司倒閉;但他作為銀行監管者,長時間出任金管局總裁一職,每年薪酬過千萬元,理應清楚本地銀行的所作所為,實在難以推卸責任。

任志剛1971年加入政府,1982年獲委任為政務官,出任首席助理金融司,自此一直參與香港的貨幣與金融事務。1993年金管局成立,任志剛出任總裁,一做便16年,直至2009年離任。

97回歸後爆發亞洲金融風暴,炒家多次狙擊港元,令本地拆息升,恒指期指大跌,炒家藉沽空圖利。任志剛不理會本地經濟學者的警告,必須擴大聯匯的保證範圍才可以避免炒家繼續狙擊港元圖利。金管局獨沽一味以加息去捍港元,令香港經濟陷入嚴重衰退,任志剛被傳媒謔稱為「任一招」。

1998年8月,任志剛聯同當時的財政司司長曾蔭權及財經事務局局長許仕仁,一起決定動用過千億元外匯儲備入市,人為推高恒指,成功擊退炒家。任志剛、曾蔭權及許仕仁三位財金官員擊退大鱷,贏得市民一致讚賞。但當時已有評論認為,政府人為托市,令股市供求失衡,嚴重扭曲市況,令恒指不再反映未來經濟表現,亦阻慢香港經濟復甦步伐。政府入市後不過一年多,恒指由6,000多點一直升至2000年初的18,000點,總共升了萬多點。但之後隨科網股泡沫爆破,政府以盈富基金方式出貨,恒指便開始大幅下瀉,總共跌了萬多點。幾年間,恒指大上大落,不少投資者損失慘重。因此,筆者對當日任志剛、曾蔭權及許仕仁的入市決定極之保留。任志剛可謂後知後覺,倘若他早早推出擴大聯匯保證範圍的措施,炒家便不會予取予攜,將香港當作提款機。

同樣,自從2001年金管局全面撤銷利率協議後,銀行息差收窄,盈利下跌。不少銀行轉而推銷投資產品,在這方面的收益大增。任志剛作為銀行監管機構之首,不可能不知道銀行推銷的產品,絕非一般投資者所能理解。一些金管局前高層,離職後加入本地銀行工作,致力推銷投資產品,藉此增加銀行的利潤和自己的花紅。即使任志剛後知後覺,到2007年8月美國出現次按風暴,2008年3月美國第五大投資銀行貝爾斯登資不抵債,需要美國政府和聯儲局打救後,他亦應該意識到本地銀行出售的投資產品可以出現問題,但金管局卻沒有採取行動,在這年多時間,不知不覺間任由銀行繼續推銷有問題的投資產品,令愈來愈多的小投資者和存戶受損。

當日有份決定入市的三位財金官員,現時的處境各有不同。許仕仁被廉署拘捕;曾蔭權正接受廉署調查,因貪得無厭而被市民唾棄;任志剛的處境較好,不過被立法會「打手板」,譴責一下而已。這三位「打鱷兄弟」幾個月內遇上不同程度的「打壓」,真是十分巧合。

林本利曾任教於理工大學,現為專欄作家及教育中心校監(http://www.livingword.edu.hk)作者網誌:http://lampunlee.blogspot.com

2012年6月12日星期二

任志剛罔顧時機 評聯滙添亂 - Yahoo! 新聞香港

任志剛罔顧時機 評聯滙添亂 - Yahoo! 新聞香港


經濟日報專訊】金管局前總裁任志剛撰文指聯繫滙率須檢討,以適應新形勢,此雖非無理,但聯滙目前仍是本港最佳選擇。反而任志剛罔顧其身份與時機之敏感,拋出如此震撼議題,觸動市場神經,引發港滙波動,不但無益,更為香港添亂。
何需公開質疑 何必動搖市場
任志剛昨以學者身份發表論文,直指本港聯滙必須檢討,惟他不是一般學者,既是掌管本港聯滙的金管局前總裁,現時亦是中央的金融智囊,他挑現時外圍因歐債而風雨飄搖,本港政權又將交接此市場敏感之際,公開質疑聯滙,自然引發市場揣測與震動,港元滙價昨便曾飈至逼近一美元兌七點七五的強方兌換保證水平,顯示聯滙已初步受衝擊。
任志剛示意港府或缺乏政治勇氣改革貨幣制度,故需公開發表論文,惟此舉既無助改變政治現實;且客觀而言,若其言論造成市場劇震,聯滙受嚴重衝擊而逼得港府陷於被動,窮於回應及捍衞聯滙,此絕對是未見其利,先見其害。
任志剛身份特殊,與港府和中央都有聯繫,恰當的做法是直接向港府或中央提供意見,而非像現時般罔顧市場反應,事實上為香港添煩添亂。
至於任志剛一改過去二十多年堅持聯滙的理由,他指是時移勢易,美國大肆量化寬鬆及人民幣持續升值,使本港在聯滙機制下,飽受超低息與熱錢湧入促成的資產泡沫和通脹風險。此非無理,惟世上無完美制度,是否維持聯滙須權衡利害。
若棄聯滙,是否要讓港元自由浮動?但香港作為小型經濟體,亦是國際金融和貿易中心,港元滙價若大幅波動,對本港金融與經濟的發展與穩定,利未必大於害。
默默檢討機制 聯滙尚最適合
又或者將港元掛鈎其他貨幣?但人民幣尚未自由兌換,若半吊子改革如仿效新加坡和一籃子貨幣掛鈎,市場勢估計本港滙率機制能改一次,自然可以有第二次、第三次,熱錢對港元的炒作與衝擊將沒完沒了。
維持聯滙制度雖有代價,惟在目前環境下,堅持並等待人民幣自由兌換,才將港元直接轉掛人民幣,應是較佳選項。
任志剛提改革聯滙的時機絕不適當,但他挑明的問題則有重視價值。尤其是一個七百萬人的貨幣體系,如何服務十三億中國人以至全球市場?國際與國內形勢風雲變幻,港府實有需要與時並進,默默地不斷檢討聯滙制度,是否應優化或有更進取準備;但現時聯滙尚是最適合香港的制度,港府與前高官都不應輕率動搖市場對聯滙的信心。

2012年6月10日星期日

Joseph Yam role in Lehman Minibonds saga

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導


Joseph Yam Chi-kwong may once have been the world's highest paid central banker, but that wasn't why the former Hong Kong Monetary Authority chief executive was nicknamed "tsar" of the local financial sector.
It was his ability to steer the city through many an economic storm over the past two decades that made him invincible. It was Yam who helped create the Hong Kong-US dollar peg in the early 1980s to stabilize the local currency and, just short of a decade later, limited bank loans to home-buyers to protect lenders against property slumps.
Despite forced by Donald Tsang to retire in 2009 due to his allowing of HK banks to sell derivative products under the name of bonds by orders of top officials that include Henry Tang and Donald Tsang, purple HK$10 notes still bear his signature, while the Bauhinia motif he designed is on our every coin.
Such was the legacy of the 64-year-old until a damning report released by the Legislative Council last Wednesday that accused him of failing to prevent banks from misleading investors into buying the risky Lehman minibonds.
The report, result of a probe that lasted more than three years, said Yam should bear "ultimate responsibility" for investors' losses as bank staff sold clients the structured products issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers without explaining the risks. When the US lender collapsed in September 2008, these products became worthless and investors suffered huge losses. About 43,000 investors in Hong Kong spent HK$20.2 billion.
The finding has split opinion, not only over Yam's role but also whether it has tainted his reputation.
"To be fair, Mr Yam got the job done as a good central banker by establishing the peg-linked system to ensure the stability of the local currency. But this does not offset his failure to regulate the banks' securities businesses that led to the minibond fiasco," said Chim Pui-chung,the legislator who represents the financial services sector and Chim also blamed Lehman Brothers that designed these structure products with discussion with LBV but Chgim insisted that Yam must pay the price to allow all these mis-selling under his control to get huge profits for the bankers.
"Mr Yam had only one good trick, to manage the peg which he did well. But he did not pay attention to banking regulations that saw them sell products like Lehman minibonds without fully explaining the risks . That's why the criticism is fair."
Not everyone shares this one-trick pony portrayal of the former central banker especially for those Legco members that supported Henry Tang and the rich that controlled HK richness together.
Banking legislator and Bank of East Asia chairman David Li Kwok-po said he and many bankers considered it "extremely unfair" and "ill-considered" to single out Yam's responsibility.
"As the chief executive of the HKMA, Joseph Yam oversaw the remarkable growth of Hong Kong as a financial centre and led the effort to establish the city as the financial centre for our country. He has given fully of himself for Hong Kong,'' Li said. He said it was Yam's sound supervision that meant the banks could cope with the 1998 and 2008 financial crises.
Born on the mainland in 1947, Yam moved to Hong Kong with his parents and an elder brother when he was one. After graduating with first-class honoursin economics and statistics from the University of Hong Kong he joined the government in 1971 as a statistician in the Census and Statistics Department and rose to become senior economist in 1977.
In 1983, he helped created the Hong Kong-US dollar peg at the exchange rate of US$1 to HK$7.80 to shore up fragile public confidence when China and Britain began talks on the change of sovereignty.
Yam became the city's first central banker when named chief executive of the newly established Hong Kong Monetary Authority in 1993 and stayed in the position until 2009.
While critics agreed with the Legco report that he failed to regulate the securities business, bankers that gained huge profits during 2003-2007 periods praised Yam as a competent regulator who, in 1991, said banks could not lend more than 70 per cent of the value of a property to homebuyers - a golden rule that is still in place and has protected banks from the risks of a property slump.
Yam was awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal in 2009 for his contribution to the financial sector, a move supported by former HSBC executive director Vincent Cheng Hoi-chuen, who said: "Mr Yam is a good financial architect and has laid down the financial system in the city."
Before the minibonds saga Yam often faced flak about his salary. He was the world's highest paid central banker by taking in jobs in Bank Regulations in around 1996 to double his salary and receiving HK$11.9 million (US$1.53 million) in 2008, compared with US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke's US$191,000 with FSA to regulate the banks.
Yam was back in the spotlight last year as he jumped in to help former chief secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen run for chief executive. There were speculation that if Tang had won, Yam might have taken up the top financial job or joined the Executive Council to cover up his role in Minibond saga.
Yam turned down a request for an interview with the South China Morning Post about the Legco report but replied in writing, disagreeing with its findings. "I have adequate grounds to seek a judicial review. But it is difficult to confront the entire political engine with my own force."
Bankers believe the report will have little impact on Yam's reputation and say many banks, officials and academics would be pleased to hear his advice.
Even legislator Chim said: "Mr Yam is not a saint. Like others, he makes mistakes, such as in the minibonds crisis. But still he is one of the few people in Hong Kong who has the experience and ability to know how to run a central bank and handle a financial crisis. He is likely to continue to play a key advisory role to the mainland government and banks."
Joseph Yam Chi-kwong
Age: 64
Currently: Executive vice-president of the China Society for Finance and Banking, non-executive director of China Construction Bank, distinguished research fellow of the Institute of Global Economics and Finance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong
Previously: Chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (1993-2009)
Education: Bachelor in economics and statistics, University of Hong Kong; honorary doctorate degrees from the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology and Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Personal: First marriage in 1972, second in 2000. Has two children

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導


政壇:小氣候:「三小眾」倒公帑落海須回水

立法會調查雷曼事件三年半後,於上周中公布小組調查報告,點名譴責金管局前總裁任志剛失職,須為事件負最終責任,財爺鬍鬚曾及財經事務及庫務局長陳家強亦被評「失望」。然而,這份耗資二千八百萬元的報告甫出世已被人剝牙,一不能追究官員,二是委員會公布報告卻先上演分歧鬧劇,三名委員藉另一份小眾報告明柴調查報告的台兼自摑一巴,但狠辣處更勝摑人一巴!拖拉三年半還不夠,三名小眾議員以異議姿態又推翻了報告,納稅人的血汗錢無辜被倒進鹹水海。
耗用大量公帑運作的立法會,近年因議員出席率、流會、拉布戰等,已引來大量不滿,更有民間聲音要求立法會應接受衡工量值審計,言猶未了,雷曼事件調查報告公布,立法會議員再爆一齣「自我否定」的鬧劇,令這份三年半才完成的報告存在價值更惹疑竇。
負責主持整個調查工作的立法會雷曼事件小組委員會主席何鍾泰指出,有關調查歷時三年零八個月,期內開支共達二千八百萬元,主要是秘書處及行政方面的支出,總開支較過去的專責委員會相對廉宜。何舉例指出,如按調查梁展文事件的專責委員會工作亦花逾一千六百萬元計算,今次雷曼調查開支應超過四千萬元,故他認為今次已經「好慳」。
且不說何的開支理論是否有漏洞,但立法會就特別事件專門成立調查小組跟進,小組成員幾乎用了整整一屆任期(四年任期中用了三年半調查一宗事件)來徹查一件事,議員代表市民獲得崇高的授權傳召相關事件證人,政府、金管局、證監、銀監、各大銀行都要鼎力配合,這樣的調查小組理應以調查真相、追究失職者為天職,遺憾的是,報告公布之初,其中三名成員另寫小眾報告,並聲言「誰人是神仙」?
三年半的漫長調查,縱使個別調查小組成員有異議,是否應以這種違反議會共識大原則(非絕對共識)的方式柴台呢?立法會秘書處能否公告市民,過去的專責委員會調查報告是否絕對共識、絕無異議?過去如有委員有異議,那當日的議員在大多數認同的報告中簽字,是否行之有效的傳統?三名商界議員的小眾行為,是否立法會專責調查委員會的新玩法呢?
有人說,如今看來,雷曼調查根本是鬧劇一場,調查裝模作樣,浪費公帑,甚至蹉跎歲月,最後反正是一邊要譴責、一邊大嚷汝非神仙。最近政壇潮流興向不稱職者叫回水,那些不稱職的議員是否也應列入回水行列?

大聯盟特稿

這是一場對抗成幫財大氣粗,唯利是圖的老千銀行;欺世盜名,屍位素餐的監管官員;推莊卸責的龜縮官僚和助紂為虐的無恥政棍的斗爭.一路走來殊不容易,可謂艱辛卓絕!

可惡的是:現任曾蔭權政府,為了逃避責任,前年就已開始向社會散佈雷曼事件已經解決的虛假消息.去年底,涉及的政府部門:包括律政署,警察商業罪案調查科,證監會和金管局,更是全面的,系統性的開始拉閘,關閉受害者投訴之門.意圖逼迫苦主去走連富貴如任志剛者都說不敢為之的訴訟之路.

"集體訴訟"當然可以比較全面的幫助到受害者.可惜要幾年後才出台.期間充滿各種變數.例如:法庭會否以已過訴訟有效年期,不予受理? 及有很多細節,必需事先有充分討論安排或部暑.

雷曼事件銀行要負責,政府監管部門更要負責.以及兩者的一些具體的,技術性的錯失報告書提到不少具體事項,例如迷債的"經驗投資者",星債的風險評級,銀行(不能單憑客戶簽名)要有其佐證...等等.都是我們追討賠償的一些理論

至於新政府延任曾俊華和陳家強,蠢到捉兩隻蚤上身,應該早有盤算.問題在,這改朝換代之際,如何借助各種不同的政治訴求,和各種社會勢力之間的微妙關係.使之向對我們最有利的方向推進.

由於證監會和金管局監管失責,使唯利是圖的銀行有機可乘,導致雷曼毒債肆掠香港.事後,政府再用證監會和金管局來處理雷曼事件,有利益衝突,是決策錯誤.因此產生出不公義,不公平的結果.政府必需負全責.

2012年6月8日星期五

追究到底 苦主不罷休 促曾陳下台

立法會調查雷曼迷債事件的小組委員會已發表報告,但雷曼苦主聲言絕不罷休,要求財政司長曾俊華和財經事務及庫務局長陳家強必須向苦主正式道歉及下台,而苦主亦會繼續在美國的集體索償訴訟。

美索償官司進行中

雷曼苦主09年委託美國律師 Patrick Daniels向雷曼產品的信託人美國滙豐銀行進行集體訴訟,索償16億美元(約124億港元)。雷曼苦主大聯盟主席陳浩偉昨表示,美國的索償官司與本港銀行的和解協議無關,官司目前仍在進行中。
陳又表示,大聯盟下周三會再到立法會抗議,討回公道。立法會的報告既已證明金管局前總裁任志剛及多名官員犯錯,政府便有責任向苦主作出補償。
大聯盟前主席陳光譽昨在電台節目中表示,對於立法會雷曼小組報告感失望。證監會前行政總裁韋奕禮沒有出手禁止迷債銷售,他應如任般受譴責。
至於曾俊華和陳家強,陳光譽認為兩人應辭職,不應在下屆新政府續任。他更指出,陳家強缺乏獨立思考,只是跟着曾俊華的思路考慮問題。

Conclusion flawed, Lehman investigation still has to be affirmed

The subcommittee set up by the Legco for the Lehman Brothers minibond disputes finally completed its report after three years and eight months of "persistent fight" just in time before the legislators' term ends, putting an end to the investigation.

  Before the long-standing international financial institution Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, local financial institutions issued $20 billion worth of structured products linked with Lehman loans and sold through banks to over 40,000 customers. Many of them were packaged as "minibonds" for sale, misleading many conservative depositors to suddenly transform into holders of high-risk minibonds. The public agrees with holding regulatory bodies and officials accountable but the scope of controversy mainly lies in the degree of severity.

  The final conclusion of the subcommittee was to reprove the then Monetary Authority CEO Joseph Yam Chi-kwong, express "great disappointment" with the then Securities and Futures Commission chief Martin Wheatley and at the same time express disappointment with Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah and Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Chan Ka-keung. A Lehman victim organization immediately criticized that the report was too lenient and asked the two officials to step down. On the other hand, there were legislators in the subcommittee who disagreed with reproving Yam in the report and they refused to sign it. Yam himself responded to it with "Justice is in the hearts of the people".

Criticism meted with different severity and pleasing neither side

  The criticism made in the Lehman report has drawn many disputes. The difference in treatment of Yam and Wheatley is one of the things most unable to convince the public. Yam certainly has to bear responsibility for his fault in supervising the banks' selling practices of Lehman minibonds. But with the banks selling minibonds, the Securities and Futures Commission is also duty-bound. Hence the authority and commission should bear equal responsibilities. Since the subcommittee's conclusion said it wanted to treat the matter strictly, then it should have treated everyone equally. Now the criteria lack consistency and credibility undermined. Also, both the victims and those condemned were dissatisfied. It gained favour from neither side.

  However, the impartiality of accountability issue in the report being called to question does not mean the subcommittee has wasted so much time and $28 million of public money. If the Legco had not formed this subcommittee and caused unprecedented political pressure through vigorous pursuit, the government officials, regulatory bodies and banks might not necessarily have so seriously addressed the plight of Lehman victims and done their best to reduce their losses.

Investigation produces effect, reduces victims' losses

  Through pressuring at different levels, the regulatory bodies remedied the situation and investigated fully. Banks could not but seriously look into faults in their selling procedures. Finally, unprecedented compensation proposals and settlement arrangements were made. Some of the victims could get back 90 per cent of their capitals. The risk was passed back onto the banks. Banks incurred losses in both business reputation and money and they learned a painful lesson.

  The Legco's investigation provided Lehman victims with added bargaining power when facing financially strong banks. Banks now pay more attention to a price they had finally to pay for "unscrupulous business operations" and misleading customers into investing in products that did not suit their own risk appetites than before. This resulted in a consensus among regulatory bodies and banks to launch all types of arrangements to protect the interests of customers including the separation of counters providing traditional banking from those for investment services, doing proper customer risk assessments, recording the process of selling the products and ensuring clear explanation of the products and risk to the customers.

  The conclusion of the subcommittee's report this time is not perfect. But, the investigation itself has functioned, which is much more important than the conclusion itself. It produced results in serving the people, monitoring the government, pushing reforms and enhancing protection for the citizens. These functions should be affirmed.

香港司法貪污腐敗


香港大律師公會及律師公會得到法院專利恩賜,壟斷了法律的自由市場,法院賦予大律師會有違反公平競爭法、壟斷法的權利。回歸前,香港的司法制度是引用英國司法制度;回歸後,也一樣照搬英國的司法制度。回歸前,英國律師來港訴訟,不受任何限制,市民生命財產受到侵犯時,當事人有權自行選擇聘用英國律師,為自己伸張正義。回歸後,法院的政策產生變化,法院規定英國或外國律師到香港參與訴訟,要先經大律師公會同意,法院才會接納,即英國律師來港訴訟的權利及香港當事人的命運,完全掌握在大律師公會手上。法庭訴訟已成了大律師公會資深大狀搶錢工具,這些由大律師公會設立的關卡,原則上大律師公會若對英國律師發出同意書,法院也是基本予受理申請的。
筆者也經歷過此際遇及嘗過苦果。多年前,筆者與中銀在合作上產生糾紛,利益受到侵害,因此向法院提出起訴,由於法院規定聘請英國大狀要經香港大律師公會同意,我也只能首先聘請本地大律師,當時聘用余若微及馮華建為本人訴訟。後因訴訟失敗,我再請黃福鑫大狀上訴,並要求黃大狀代我聘用英國一位名為「叟鬼」的資深大狀來港,參與這個案件訴訟。

市民應有權利遭受剝奪
大律師公會為維護本地資深大狀特權利益,拒絕了我的請求。要知道本地大狀的收費是天價,我沒有能力支付馬拉松式冗長昂貴的律師費,訴訟已令我傾家蕩產。在沒有選擇的情況下,我只有求助法援處,但因為我在訴訟前資產已超過法援上限,多場訴訟後我已身無分毫,申請因此獲受理,但案件就此飲恨而終。
我就是這個所謂公平制度下被剝奪了公民應有法律申訴權利的犧牲者,我的案例只屬冰山一角,法院給予大律師公會這種特權壟斷,是剝奪了市民的法律保障,所謂公平公義,實際上是社會悲哀的諷刺。
法院把這個壟斷式權力,賦予只有幾百名會員的大律師公會,顯然是官商勾結行為,讓大律師公會壟斷了法律訴訟市場,促成今天香港的訴訟費用是全世界之冠的主因。法院若允許市民可以自行聘請英國律師的權利,訴訟費應可以減省一半。自回歸以來,大律師公會在這種特權庇護下,市場便從此失去競爭,資深大律師的收費不斷向天開價,瘋狂地榨取當事人的血汗錢;筆者不禁要問,英國律師收費低廉,是代表英國律師沒有較高的法律專業水平嗎?答案顯然是否定的。
這種不公平現狀甚至連普通事務律師都看不過眼,但也只能無奈地為貧窮老百姓感嘆!同時亦應該指出,法律本是保障人民的生命財產安全,法律行業本是為人民服務的行業,法院給予大律師公會這種壟斷權力,法院將這種特權給了大律師公會,理應由有關部門進行監管,大律師公會也應有責任制定自律性的收費標準,但政府卻放任自流,直接造成特權利益輸送,大律師公會無法無天的狀況。這種政策傾斜,注定了香港法律只維護權貴利益的特質。小甜甜案件的訴訟費達至幾億元天價,可說當今舉世法律界難望其背項,就已說明一切。
大律師公會得到法院的祝福,對外來律師排斥,令訴訟市場失去競爭,讓法律行業權貴合法擁有專利。甚麼反壟斷法、公平競爭法,從何談起?
這種倒行逆施行為,在香港司法系統內已表現得淋漓盡致。請問香港普羅大眾,尤其那些無經濟能力的訴訟案件當事人而言,何嘗有公平對待呢?人民的公民權利有何保障呢?又有誰為公平公義發聲呢?

應取消特權維護公平公義
法院對律師有這樣的政策,香港律師資格由法院考核簽發證書,但執業律師必須是律師公會會員。如果沒有加入律師會成為會員,就沒有資格在香港執業。法院賦予法律專業管理權力給兩個律師會,使之成為唯一的法律專業行政規範管理團體。過往香港司法系統一直保持司法獨立的原則,司法系統不會參與政治。但自回歸後,法院默許律師公會、大律師公會偏離司法獨立原意,兩會權貴妄自使用律師公會的名義,不斷發表政治評論,進行政治渲染,直接干擾政府施政,更為可惡是該會政客強姦了不願參與政治的專業律師,間接剝奪了他們的權利和意願。香港有效管治一向是實行司法獨立的原則,但被他們推翻,廣大市民卻仍抱對法律制度能保障公平公義的信心,但大律師及律師公會的操權者,卻違背了自己的本業使命和人民的期望,參與從政士途,刻意兩律師會變成政治團體,變本加厲地向政府施壓,令香港經濟受到嚴重的衝擊,直接損害市民根本的利益。
香港大律師公會、律師會、公民黨等法律行業政客,對香港社會公平、不公義的制度,無不清楚問題的嚴重性。但他們卻天天在高呼公平公義,爭取民主,自己卻在法律行業內倒行逆施,為自身利益妄顧人性、道德。說透了,這些法律界政客打民主反民主,打公義反公義,喊得震天價響的民主口號,只不過是蒙騙追隨者及愚弄市民,使他們在亂港反中的行為中,撈取政治利益,這才是他們在港推行政治運動的核心價值!香港法院應維護香港司法制度的專嚴,收回兩律師公會的所有特權,以彰公義! (二之二)
林前進 政經評論員

一語道破香港司法界假扮民主背後o既狼毒之心
法官,大律師公會,律師公會如何相互勾結,營私結黨,途以法亂港,陷港人於萬劫不復之地

2012年6月7日星期四

2012年6月6日雷曼小組記招4

實習記者 陳健敏 2012年6月6日 雷曼苦主指報告欠誠意

Ex-HKMA chief may face censure over minibonds

雷曼苦主大聯盟 - 雷曼苦主大聯盟, Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims - 媒體報導


Ex-HKMA chief may face censure over minibonds

The former chief of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) Joseph Yam Chi-kong is likely to be reprimanded in an investigation report to be released by lawmakers today on the Lehman Brothers minibond scandal.
The report, to be tabled to the Legislative Council this morning after a probe into the saga that has lasted more than three years, is also expected to criticise major government figures including Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah and Secretary for Financial Services Chan Ka-keung, as well as former Securities and Futures Commission chief executive Martin Wheatley.
But at least three lawmakers, including Jeffery Lam Kin-fung, Philip Wong Yu-hong and Abraham Shek Lai-him who are supporters of Yam, are said to have refused to sign the report and have vowed to table a minority report on the findings. All three did not return calls last night.
The lawmakers' minibond investigation was launched after Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, leaving more than 43,000 Hong Kong investors facing losses after buying the product through local financial institutions.
Despite the name, minibonds are not corporate bonds, but risky derivatives linked to the credit of listed companies. Over 30,000 investors complained to the HKMA and Securities and Futures Commission, accusing the banks of not telling them about the risks.
A source familiar with the probe cited the report as saying that Yam had to bear the greatest responsibility. He mostly paid heed to maintaining the stability of the financial system and did not consider protecting small investors as one of his main tasks, a source said.
Many lawmakers disagreed with his paying so little heed to small investors.
The source said Wheatley was also blamed as the securities watchdog should have better regulated the financial institutions.
Tsang and Chan faced less severe criticism as the government was not the direct regulator.

2012年6月6日星期三

報告揭不良銷售法 但指欠理據告欺詐 銀行最錯反被放生 - 20120607 - 蘋果日報

報告揭不良銷售法 但指欠理據告欺詐 銀行最錯反被放生 - 20120607 - 蘋果日報


部份銀行缺失

銀行:中銀香港、蘇格蘭皇家銀行
缺失:銷售人員培訓材料稱迷債產品得到證監會認可,有誤導成份

銀行:渣打銀行
缺失:11%的迷債客戶屬風險錯配,即低風險承受能力的客戶買了高風險產品

銀行:星展銀行
缺失:將不保本的雷曼產品定為低至中風險

銀行:中銀香港、大新銀行
缺失:分別在銷售雷曼產品2年及4年後才制定產品的風險評級

銀行:大新銀行
缺失:在13天內推出8個雷曼產品,無充足時間對銷售人員作足夠培訓
缺失:在雷曼爆煲後,到08年9月才停止銷售雷曼產品

資料來源:雷曼調查報告

雷曼報告建議撮要 - 東方日報

雷曼報告建議撮要 - 東方日報

1. 證監會應強制規定零售銀行所披露的資料,以淺白語言撰寫



2. 參考英國金融服務管理局推行的「公平待客」計劃
3. 提高前線銷售人員的最低學歷,例如最少具大學學位或專業資格
4. 授予證監會法定權力,對充分理據的投訴,要求違規機構作出賠償
5. 監管機構亦應盡可能公布投訴個案的調查進展,以提高透明度
6. 取消現時證監會規管證券行、金管局規管銀行所有業務的模式
7. 建議將銀行股票證券業務撥歸證監會管轄,將違規銷售的調查和懲處交由同一機構負責
8. 對銀行進行現場及非現場審視,確保人員符合資格,對銷售投資產品有足夠認識
9. 將投資者保障及個人理財納入學校課程

查迷債虎頭蛇尾 政治騷令人失望 - 東方日報

查迷債虎頭蛇尾 政治騷令人失望 - 東方日報
歷時三年又八個月、經過一百六十三次研訊、耗費二千八百萬元公帑,立法會雷曼迷債調查報告終於面世,可惜又是雷大雨小。報告對金管局前總裁任志剛提出「譴責」,對證監會前主席韋奕禮「極度失望」,但對財政司司長曾俊華與財經事務及庫務局局長陳家強僅表示「失望」,對銀行責任更是隻字不提。這份小罵大幫忙的調查報告,才是真正的令人失望。


雷曼迷債事件影響巨大,涉及苦主四萬多名,至今仍有二千多名苦主未獲賠償。立法會雷曼迷債事宜小組的調查報告指出,在涉及迷債的二萬個投訴個案當中,證實有三成六個案屬銀行違規銷售,金管局既未能及早預警雷曼「爆煲」,又對銀行違規銷售把關不嚴,任志剛須「負上最終責任」。不過,所謂「最終責任」的懲罰只是口頭譴責而已,不痛不癢,何況任志剛早已不在其位,譴責只是馬後炮,有姿勢無實際。
其實,應受譴責的何只任志剛。陳家強在雷曼事件爆發前幾天,還信誓旦旦強調不可能再次發生金融風暴,事後更承認對迷債一無所知,監管自是無從談起。身為最高財金官員的曾俊華同樣難辭其咎,當初企圖置身事外,僅將雷曼事件定性為商業糾紛,不利於苦主爭取賠償。正如雷曼苦主大聯盟負責人質疑,曾俊華等人的責任不比任志剛小,但報告並無譴責,顯然是放生。亦有苦主批評,報告耗費三年多時間及大量公帑,但沒有要求有關財金官員下台問責,亦未提及銀行應負甚麼責任,未能為苦主討回公道。
更不堪的是,即使是無關痛癢的口頭譴責,當事人也不願接受。任志剛聲稱自己任內一直盡心盡力,問心無愧,又指雷曼迷債是國際性事件,香港不能獨善其身,故不能認同報告所作出的結論。金管局及港府的聲明大同小異,都是將迷債事件諉過於全球金融海嘯。最令人側目的是,來自商界的三名立法會雷曼迷債事宜小組成員拒絕在報告簽名,並公開唱反調,指任志剛不是神仙,不可能預測金融海嘯,反對提出譴責。
這些辯解其實都是推卸責任。沒有人要求高官預知金融海嘯,亦沒有人指望港府力挽狂瀾,然而,港府始終無法解釋,為甚麼在西方國家不能銷售的迷債,卻可以在香港隨便銷售?為甚麼連財金高官都不甚了了的毒債,卻可以向一般投資者推銷,甚至連長者的棺材本也不放過?
「齊之無鹽,善美者不能掩其醜。」港府在迷債事件中負有監管不力之責,這是鐵的事實,無可抵賴。立法會同樣惹人非議,當初為討好民意急於介入調查,事過境遷便敷衍了事,虎頭蛇尾,草草收場。這種政治騷,不可能查出真相,更不可能釐清責任,除了浪費公帑,毫無價值可言

2012年6月1日星期五

天津投資者告滙豐推售不適當投資產品 索償近4千萬

【on.cc 東方互動 專訊】 經營貿易的天津齊維寶夫婦,現入稟高院控告滙豐私人銀行(瑞士)(下稱滙豐)銷售投資產品失當,向他們推介不合適的複雜兼高風險的股票掛鈎票據(ELN)及股票累計期權(Accumulator)產品,又無向他們解釋清楚。結果515萬美元投資,只剩約5.9萬美元。齊氏夫婦現向滙豐追索差額損失約509萬美元(約3,971萬港元)。

齊維寶只諳有限英文,其妻成義從更完全不懂,他們早向滙豐表明並無投資證券及衍生產品的經驗,2人育有一名患自閉症兒子,僅能承受中度投資風險。然而,滙豐在07年3月至12月期間,竟建議他們購買19隻ELN及30份Accumulators合約。

齊氏夫婦2010年11月曾到滙豐中環總部示威,滙豐當時隨即控告齊氏夫婦,禁止他們誹謗及示威。同年12月雙方就示威一事達成共識,齊氏夫婦同意禁令。當時高院法官亦建議齊氏夫婦循法律途徑解決投資糾紛,指示威未必最有效。



控匯豐誤導投資雷曼 天津夫婦追3900萬
2012年5月24日

【明報專訊】獨子是自閉兒,於天津經營化工原料貿易生意的夫婦,聲稱於07年3月獲匯豐私人銀行職員邀請來港,向兩人推銷風險極高的雷曼相關Accumulator產品,卻訛稱產品符合兩人低風險投資的要求,結果夫婦蝕去近4000萬元積蓄。夫婦日前入稟高院向銀行追討損失。
原訴夫婦齊維寶及成義從,入稟控告HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) S.A.,入稟狀透露,齊維寶略懂英文,其妻則完全不懂。06至07年間,兩人在天津與被告一名黃姓客戶經理見面,談及投資取向,當時夫婦告知黃積蓄都是從事化工原料生意儲下,二人只有一名患自閉症的兒子,投資股票經驗很淺,表明只接受低風險投資產品。
07年3月,兩人應黃邀請來港洽談,當時一名沈姓職員與兩人接洽,沈亦知悉兩人投資意願,並指可投資300萬美元,每年可得7%至8%利潤,據當時評估,被告將兩人評為中風險投資者。
後授權購極高風險產品
原訴指出,沈向他們說「如果不選擇專業投資者這條路,很多好的投資產品也做不了」,後來沈獲兩人授權買入9項極高風險的股票掛票據,及後一名薛姓理財經理代替沈,更建議兩人買入雷曼相關產品,並先後兩次叫夫婦增加投資額至515萬美元,但沒解釋產品風險。金融海嘯後,兩人投資只剩下5.9萬美金,扣除餘額興訟追討逾3900萬元。
【案件編號﹕HCA857/12】