In a move
which highlights the fallacy of its claim to promote a free market
economy, the HK Government has told HKEx, whose board it controls, to
delay plans to scrap the minimum commission rule. We look at the wider
aspects of what this says for competition policy in Hong Kong, and at the
way vested interests dominate the debate on market reforms when investor
representation is absent. We call again for the government to adopt the
HAMS Proposal. |
Government Backs Cartel
24th January 2002
The Hong Kong Government, which owns no shares in Hong Kong
Exchanges and Clearing Ltd (HKEx) but still appoints the majority of its
directors, has caved in to pressure from a small but vocal minority to use that
power to maintain anti-competitive price-fixing practices in Hong Kong's
brokerage industry. In doing so, the Government demonstrates that despite all
its claims of a free market, Hong Kong's economy is still a system of cartels
where the Government puts vested interests ahead of economic competitiveness.
Hong Kong's small brokerage firms, whose owners were paid off handsomely when
HKEx was created, are living in the past. The New York and London commissions
were deregulated in 1975 and 1986 respectively, and they remain world-class
markets employing tens of thousands of brokers.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong still has no organisation to represent investors in
this debate. We call on the Government to table enabling legislation to create
and fund HAMS (the Hongkong Association of Minority
Shareholders) through the Good Governance Levy. You can't have a world-class
market if it is dominated by vested interests.
Webb-site.com editor David Webb is a member of the informal SFC
Shareholders Group, established with government approval, which meets every
couple of months and is sometimes consulted by the SFC on matters affecting
investors, but we can confirm that the group was not consulted on the
government's move.
If Hong Kong had a comprehensive and fair competition law, as most modern
economies do, then the price-fixing arrangement for broking would be illegal.
The Consumer
Council in 1996 called
for such a law but the government continues to reject it, claiming that
a sector-specific approach is better. The example of brokerage rates
demonstrates that the sector-specific approach is in fact a selective approach
where vested interests are protected at the expense of consumers and for
political ends.
Readers may recall our debate article
against Financial Secretary Antony Leung in the FT Survey last July and his
opposing article
on behalf of the Government. He wrote then:
"the government will not hesitate to take action to eliminate business
practices that limit market access or impair economic efficiency or free
trade."
But the government is indeed hesitating to eliminate price-fixing in the
brokerage sector.
As recently as 14-Nov-01, Legislative Councillor David
Chu Yu-lin asked the Government a loaded question
about the effect of the long-awaited deregulation on lay-offs and closures in
the brokerage industry. Mr Chu is one of the 6 legislators appointed by the same
800-member Election Committee that will soon re-appoint the Chief Executive of
Hong Kong, Mr Tung Chee-hwa. That business-dominated committee
includes 24 members from the Financial Services and Finance sub-sectors. Mr
Tung, who is likely to be unopposed, is currently trying to get as many
signatures as possible on his nomination form.
For those who don't' know, and the question didn't mention it, Mr Chu's wife
is
Mrs
Chu Ho Miu Hing, who is Managing Director of a small brokerage called Good
Harvest Securities Co Ltd. Mr and Mrs Chu are the Chairman and Vice Chairman of
HK-listed property company Wah Tak Fung
Holdings Ltd, and on 2-Nov-00 Mrs Chu was reprimanded
by the SFC for propping up the closing price of the company on the Stock
Exchange.
Anyway, we digress. Back to that legislative council question.
In reply, Stephen Ip, Secretary for Financial Services, pointed out that Hong
Kong was the only remaining market in the 15 largest markets of the world where
brokerage rates were rigged, Taiwan having been the last to deregulate on
1-Jul-00. He added:
"The liberalisation of commission rates will create an
environment conducive to free competition in the stock market. To meet the
challenges of globalisation and technological advancement, Hong Kong must keep
up with international developments and remain competitive"
"To allow sufficient time for the industry to adapt to
the change, the Board of HKEx passed the decision to provide a two-year
transitional period, thus deferring the liberalisation of brokerage commission
for two years to April 2002.
About turn
Just over two months later, and reportedly after intervention by
the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Mr Ip yesterday reversed course, telling
small-broker lobbyists that the abolition would be delayed by at least 12
months, and now his spokesperson is saying (today's SCMP):
"With the current high unemployment rate and economic
downturn, it is obviously not the right time to abolish minimum brokerage
commission."
You will notice that the Government didn't dare put out its own
press release, instead allowing the bad news to be broken by the brokers who
asked for it, and then hiding behind anonymous "spokesperson"
briefings to the media. This is a stark contrast to the fanfare which greeted
the announcement of deregulation nearly two years ago. Then, the HKEx made an
announcement
quoting its Chairman Charles
Lee Yeh-kwong, who is also one of Mr Tung's Executive Councillors, and the
Government issued a press
release hailing the move. Mr Lee said back then:
"The liberalisation of brokerage commission rates... we
believe, is in the interest of the investing public, the brokerage industry
and the economic well-being of Hong Kong"
He was right then, and the Government is wrong now. There can be
no economic justification for anti-competitive practices. Many sectors of the
economy are going through some pain as they adjust, but the Government wouldn't
dream of introducing say, minimum prices for meals in restaurants, to save jobs
in the restaurant trade, or minimum prices for food in markets, to protect
workers in the retail trade. A free market economy must have a free market in
prices.
What this means for HKEx
Incidentally, let's remember that HKEx is a for-profit listed
company. A reduction in brokerage costs would lead to increased turnover due to
the lower friction of dealing costs, oiling the wheels of the market. HKEx gets
a 0.01% turn out of each transaction (split between buyer and seller) so the
more volume, the more money it makes. So the delay is negative for the
profitability of HKEx.
© Webb-site.com, 2002
|