港交所同股同權存廢之爭

What have Jack Ma, Li Ka-shing and a Dodge automobile got in common? Skip the jokes about the unlikeliness of Asia’s richest men travelling in an American muscle car and Hong Kong’s bankers, investors and lawyers could find out soon.

馬雲(Jack Ma)、李嘉誠(Li Ka-shing)和道奇(Dodge)汽車有何共同之處？如果你想說亞洲富豪不大可能乘坐一輛美國肌肉車的段子就省省吧，香港的銀行業人士、投資者和律師們很快就會發現三者的共同之處。

Asia’s most vibrant stock market is poised to look again at investor rights — namely whether Hong Kong could, or should, allow US-style dual-class shares.

作爲亞洲最活躍的股市，香港股市正準備重新審視投資者權益，即考慮香港是否可以（或者說是否應該）允許美國式的雙重股權結構存在。

Last week the city’s top regulator unexpectedly, and very publicly, emphasised his neutrality on the issue while the Hong Kong exchange is due to publish responses imminently to a paper published last year.

上週，在香港交易所(HKEx)即將對去年發佈的一份文件進行迴應之際，香港最高監管負責人出人意料地公開強調，自己在這個問題上持中立態度。

The city’s current one-share-one-vote principle goes back to 1987, when Mr Li, among others, tried to exploit a loophole that would have allowed him and other tycoons to control their companies with less cash through new super-voting shares. They were rebuffed.

香港現行的“同股同權”(one-share-one-vote)原則可追溯至1987年，當時李嘉誠等人曾試圖利用一個漏洞，如果成功的話，可以讓他和其他大亨通過新的超級投票權股份，以更少的現金控制自己的企業。他們的這一提議當年被拒絕了。

More recently, the debate was resurrected after Alibaba founder Mr Ma decided to drop plans to list in Hong Kong in favour of the US because the New York Stock Exchange was willing to accommodate the company’s partnership structure.

阿里巴巴(Alibaba)創始人馬雲去年決定放棄香港、轉赴美國上市，因爲紐約證交所(NYSE)願意遷就該公司的合夥人結構。在此事之後，關於這個問題的辯論近來又復活了。

The history of Dodge Brothers, the US carmaker that is part of Chrysler, underscores that a dual-class share holding is neither purely a Hong Kong issue, nor is it new. Back in 1925, Dodge Brothers caused a stink in New York when its investment bank owners listed the company, raising $130m in bonds, non-voting stock and preference shares after paying just $2.3m for 100 per cent voting control. The outcry led the NYSE to ban dual-class shares until the 1980s, when competition from Nasdaq pushed it to revise its position.

現屬於克萊斯勒(Chrysler)旗下的美國汽車製造商道奇兄弟(Dodge Brothers)的故事凸顯出，雙重股權結構既非香港特有，也並非新問題。1925年，道奇兄弟在紐約引發了衆怒：其投行所有者將該公司上市時，在僅支付230萬美元就獲得了百分之百的投票控制權之後，通過發行債券、無投票股票和優先股募集了1.3億美元資金。強烈的抗議使紐交所禁止了雙重股權結構，直至上世紀80年代來自納斯達克(Nasdaq)的競爭迫使其改變立場。

Unlike US federal regulators who ultimately had little say over the NYSE’s rule changes, Hong Kong’s market regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission, will find itself in the position of having to decide yes or no — and if yes, how.

與對紐交所的規則變化幾乎沒有最終發言權的美國聯邦監管機構不同，作爲香港市場監管機構的香港證監會(Securities and Futures Commission)將發現，它處於一個必須決定規則改還是不改的位置，並且如果確定要改的話，它還要決定具體如何操作。

So heated is the issue that HKEx’s paper last year was not even classed as a consultation, merely a “concept paper” — which meant it did not include actual proposals. But when Ashley Alder, the SFC’s chief executive, talked last week of keeping “an open mind” he confirmed in many listeners’ minds the expectation that HKEx is in fact planning to suggest rule changes (the exchange says it plans an update in the next three months).

這個問題引發瞭如此激烈的爭議，以至於香港交易所去年發佈的文件甚至沒有被歸爲徵詢意見稿，而僅是一份“概念文件”——這意味着它不包括實際的建議。但當上周香港證監會行政總裁歐達禮(Ashley Alder)表示他將持“一種開放態度”時，他使許多聽衆更加堅信，香港交易所事實上正計劃提議更改規則(該所稱，它計劃在未來三個月內進行一次更新)。

Although the responses have not yet been published, they are expected to include letters from investors who oppose the idea and missives from banks and other service providers, such as law firms, arguing in favour.

雖然民衆的迴應尚未公佈，但可以預料的是，其中將包括反對這一提議的投資者的來信，以及銀行和其他專業服務提供者（如律師事務所）表示支持的來函。

Publicly, the banks have so far been quiet on the issue. But investors have been rather more forthright. “Corporate governance in HK-listed companies is bad enough already without making the abuse of minority shareholders even easier,” said David Webb, an activist shareholder who published his response.

在公開場合，銀行業在這個問題上迄今一直保持沉默。投資者則直率得多。發表了迴應的維權投資者戴維•韋布(David Webb)稱：“沒有這個讓欺負小股東變得更容易的新規則，香港上市公司的治理就已經夠糟糕了。”

The “for” business case is clear enough. Alibaba’s choice of New York meant Hong Kong gave up the world’s biggest-ever initial public offering and far more importantly, the increased activity and the trading commissions that the dynamic company would have brought. With the exception of Tencent, Alibaba’s rival mainland tech group, Hong Kong’s market is dominated by tycoon-controlled conglomerates and Chinese state-owned enterprises.

從商業角度而言，“支持”改變的理由已足夠明顯。阿里巴巴選擇了紐約，意味着香港不僅放棄了有史以來全球最大的一筆首次公開發行(IPO)，更重要的是，它還失去了這家充滿活力的公司本可以帶來的更大活躍度和交易佣金。除了阿里巴巴在內地的競爭對手、科技集團騰訊(Tencent)之外，香港股市眼下已被由大亨控制的企業集團以及中國內地國有企業所主導。

Meanwhile, the 100-plus Chinese companies listed in New York are dominated by dual-class structures. The group includes Baidu, the search engine, and , Alibaba’s online retailing rival. Although only a third of companies by number fall into the dual class category, they account for about two-thirds of the available market capitalisation. That number does not include Alibaba, since it is not officially dual-class. Instead, it has one class of shares but its partnership, a self-selecting group of executives, has the power to nominate the majority of the board.

與此同時，雙重股權結構主導着100多家在紐約上市的中國內地企業，其中包括搜索引擎公司百度(Baidu)和阿里巴巴的電商對手京東()。雖然在數量上只有三分之一的企業採用了雙重股權結構，但它們從市值來看佔到約三分之二。這一數字並不包括阿里巴巴，因爲它採用的不是正式的雙重股權結構，它只有一種類別的股份，但它的合夥人團隊（由阿里巴巴自己挑選的高管組成）有權任命董事會多數成員。

Back in 1987, the FT’s Lex column called the dual-class efforts of Mr Li and the Jardines group “cheeky” yet it doubted authorities would act. That call was technically wrong but a cynic could argue it was ultimately right. Hong Kong’s tycoons, including Mr Li, use waterfall structures where, say, 51 per cent ownership of one company that owns 51 per cent of the next ensures control with only 26 per cent economic interest. Mr Li and Mr Ma found their own ways to cope with Hong Kong’s rules, but it is the Dodge Brothers case, with its resulting six-decade ban, that highlights how long-lasting this issue can be.

1987年，英國《金融時報》的Lex專欄曾稱李嘉誠與怡和(Jardines)推動雙重股權結構的努力是“厚顏無恥”的，但該文當時不相信當局會採取行動。“厚顏無恥”這帽子嚴格來說扣得不對，但懷疑論者可能會辯稱，這麼說本質上沒錯兒。包括李嘉誠在內的香港大亨使用瀑布式結構——在一家公司擁有51%的所有權，這家公司又擁有下一家公司51%所有權——從而只用26%的股份就獲得了控制權。李嘉誠和馬雲都找到了各自應對香港規則的方式，但是凸顯出這個問題可以持續多久的，是遭禁60年的道奇兄弟的案例。

Hong Kong’s regulator will not be able to keep such an open mind for very long.

香港監管機構如此開放的態度不會保持太久。