今期蔡東豪的第壹流提到如果中央政府以金融安全為大前提, 指令民族品牌金融機構主導發展, 不要說國際金融中心 , 亞洲金融中心之夢也不能實現. 蔡東豪文中問到"內地官員擁有這份自信嗎? 政治上, 他們有這種自由度嗎?". 筆者就唔認同蔡先生的言論. 試問有哪一個國際金融中心不注重自己國家的金融安全? 有哪一個國際金融中心不是以本國的金融安全為大前提? 日本是否國際金融中心? 你試下外資金融機構可唔可以進軍而且主導日本金融界? 美國是否國際金融中心? 你試下外資可唔可以收購花旗集團, 美銀, JPMorgan成為大股東?
蔡東豪文中提到"倫敦歡迎全球頂尖高手參與競賽, 確保能者居之". 請外國人打工當然可以啦, 因為一個信封已經可以請你回家. 至於"百年老 店一一換上外國品牌, 英國政府從沒有高呼我們要當 家作主. 倫敦領略到的重要經驗, 是愛國和保護主義是經濟發展的敵人", 想問蔡東豪英國有哪一家百年老字號銀行易主給外資? 英國政府容許RBS的主要股權賣俾外資嗎?
補充: 記得內銀股在香港上市時, 蔡東豪已經不看好內銀股. 記得在一個香港電台的節目中, 蔡東豪提及的理據都幾"行貨", 例如內地銀行貪污嚴重, 多壞帳等. 其實, 如果內地銀行沒有問題, 就不需要改革, 如果中央不是有決心改善, 就不會把國有銀行上市, 甚至引入外資股東. 事實上, 由上市至今, 內地銀行無論在經營業績或是股價表現, 都改善了不少, 甚至不見得比歐美銀行差. 至於講到"貪", 美資大行的管理層就唔貪嗎? 其實一樣是貪得無厭, 只是貪得唔同. 如果內地銀行的管理層拿同美資大行一樣豐厚的薪水, 花紅和福利, 相信情況會好唔同.
另外, 想講美國政府以及監管機構, 對金融業的話事權好大的. AIG前主席格林伯格在公布業績的記者招待會上，回應記者問他上市公司與監管機構的關係時，說了一句, "監管機構動輒把事件放大，拍蒼蠅的小事也當殺人放火處理". 第2日便收到紐約州檢察官埃利奧特·斯皮策的告票, AIG董事局為求自保, 逼格林伯格下台離職.
沙地王子拯救花旗買入10%股權也要被迫沽出一半. 強迫要美銀收購美林, 甚至要Lewis隱瞞股東美林巨額虧損的事, 政府話事無得反對, 否則整個美銀董事會都要解散. 仲有, 唔救雷曼兄弟, 唔俾雷曼轉型為銀行, 迫令雷曼破產, 相反, 拯救高盛, 注資高盛, 俾高盛轉型為銀行, (銀行才可以從聯邦儲備銀行取得短期貸款救命), 都是政府話事.
後記: 筆者還是比較喜歡蔡東豪以原復生身份寫的"原氏物語".
台灣yahoo: http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-market/
新浪Sina: http://graham_choi2003.mysinablog.com/
香港yahoo: http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/mr-market/
下一站，牛津
2 年前
就算講工廠當年老鼠拉屎賣畀小馬已經嘈到拆天,何況可以直接影響經濟政策既銀行。
回覆刪除荷銀都賣了給UBS.
回覆刪除收购会遇到政治限制但可以参股，三菱UFJ参股ms。但是国内准确讲不是民族品牌，而是国有品牌主导，中国的私人银行在国内也是受到歧视和排挤的。这点香港人不清楚。
回覆刪除回應無名士: 荷銀被RBS, 富通和西班牙國家銀行瓜分, 彼此都是歐洲國家.
回覆刪除回應無名士2: MS的I-bank業務就勁, 經營銀行業務只是初哥.
回應若缺齋老人 : 銀行對國家的安全性影響重大的其中一點是擁有國民存款, 因此, 基本上每個國家的銀行業都是由當地資本的銀行主導,不關什麼自由不自由, 自信不自信的事.
回覆刪除我想蔡東豪是想說一些大型美資投資銀行成功在倫敦搶攤，甚至佔據較大部份的市場份額。
回覆刪除我記得他在香港電台的電視節目中說過，70 年代英國是有不少出名的歐資投資銀行的，例如唯高達和霸菱等等，但現在倫敦的投資行大部分卻是美林、高盛等歐洲分部。
至於 RBS ，便較像花旗之於美國一樣，是綜合性銀行而非純投資行吧。
I agree very much with Mr. Market. Hong Kong is an open economy and has been ruled by an non-interventionist government. This policy fits Hong Kong's situation because Hong Kong is a small economy, in which the benefit associated with availability of external capital outweighs the cost of subject to external shocks and influence ( Hong Kong has no choice but accept the fact that it may be served as an ATM for speculator). The cost-and-benefit analysis is different for a big country like China and USA. Using Hong Kong's situation as the reference, many people in Hong Kong cannot understand the logic of China's policy-making.
回覆刪除回應簡單田 : 投資銀行的確是美資行最勁. RBS當然歸類為銀行.
回覆刪除回應small investor: 多謝意見.
actually, lehman us is acquired by barclays, and lehman europe is acquired by BTMU..
回覆刪除and how about rothschild, fleming, warburg and schroders? well these investment banks were all acquired by banks not of british origins.. and london has not only survived but has thrived..
one illustrative example is, deutsche's interntional hq is not in germany, it is in london... and it handles transactions from all over the world.. minibond, for example, was arranged in london and new york, not in hong kong..
回應無名士: Lehman brothers 的破產令人傷感, 我有不少美好回憶在其中, 也是啟蒙的地方. 那個年代投資銀行比今日百花齊放.
回覆刪除The logic of policy-making of a country has to be understood by a host of institutional arrangements (regulatory quality, credit information system, accounting system, legal protection for investors and creditors etc) rather than looking at a specific issue (bank ownership)only. London's financial institutional arrangements are definitely well-established than those of China. China has just started to extensively reform its financial system. It is well- known that financial liberalization of the developing countries are usually accompanied with huge financial risks. It is good for China to be more cautions about financial risks and financial security at this stage. There is an even deeper theoretical issue for transitional economies like China here: In the absence of well-established institutions (which take time to develop), could state ownership serve as an institutional substitute during the transitional period?
回覆刪除Yes, there is ample evidence on the inefficiency of state ownership of banks. Nevertheless, the issue of whether it is good for an economy to adopt this system cannot be determined by looking only at that issue itself but on a broader set of institutional arrangements. That is why some people have a positive view about state-owned banks in China but a negative view about the newly emerged state-controlled banks in the US. Policy-analysis is very interesting and challenging because there are complicated interactions effects among different institutions. As such, the functioning and efficiency implications of an institution in a country could be significantly different from those in different countries due to the country' unique institutional environment at that time. Of course, as institutional environment is changing overtime (this is particularly true for a transitional economy like China), the payoffs associated with the issue of foreign ownership of banks will also be changing as China's economic reforms continue. When China has a better legal and regulatory framework (which help promote financial safely and stability), the function of state ownership as a financial security device in China will decline
回應small investor: 多謝意見.
回覆刪除希望市場能早日恢復平靜！
回覆刪除若即若離 是非永遠止於智者 大學生活 珍惜幸福！ 雨後的空氣 感恩和感謝 來不及欣賞 四季的色彩 玻璃脆 以不同方式悼念過去