英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

SHOULD HKMA BEAR THE LARGEST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE CASE OF THE FRAUD OF LEHMAN BROTHERS’MINIBOND? [5]

论文作者:留学生论文论文属性:报告 Report登出时间:2010-06-25编辑:lisa点击率:10073

论文字数:4100论文编号:org201006251635297307语种:中文论文 Chinese地区:中国价格:免费论文

关键词:论文代写金融论文

izes investment products for sale to the Hong Kong public in accordance with product codes and industry standards. Furthermore it also monitors marketing materials and formulates policies for the development of new products.
In the Lehman Brothers’ minibonds case, the prospectus was authorized by the SFC under the Companies Ordinance provisions applicable to debentures. SFC claimed that the main requirement for authorizing prospectus was based www.51lunwen.orgon its full disclosure (i.e. disclosure-based regulation), and that SFC would not be responsible for considering the suitability of the product for the investor (i.e. not merit-based regulation).
However, the facts showed that the prospectus did not meet its full disclosure requirement and its objective “Clear, Accurate and not misleading”.
Firstly, it never stated that the minibonds was related to the 7 reference entities plus many other undisclosed entities so a potential minibonds investor would mistakenly think that all the risk of the minibonds would be from the 7 reference entities.
Secondly, Synthetic CDO collateral is comprised of CDS with totally unknown number of reference entities. In this case, it did not provide credit rating and selection criteria for those reference entities so the investors could not get complete and adequate information.
Thirdly, the prospectus just mentioned the money would be invested in a basket of assets but in fact it is traded in a complex transaction. The minibonds Ltd (Pacific International Limited) used investors’ money to invest in high risk products of the 150 companies and what the investor bought was Credit Default Swap (credit risk swap). That means they would only receive a fixed income of 5.1% from the Minibonds Ltd (Pacific International Limited) but if these high risk products failed, investors would have to bear the brunt. This showed that investors had not given enough information in assessing the risk of the investment.
Finally, it never mentioned the default event’s impact on the principal loss. This basis information should be provided in the prospectus for the investors to get a full picture of the transaction.
On the other hand, the word “minibond” was also misleading as the natural bond has a fixed yield and the principal is guaranteed. The minibonds clearly did not perform like a bond. SFC should have regarded the minibonds as investment products under the Securities and Futures Ordinance so it would have a stronger ground to consider the suitability and merit of the products.
Clearly, the authorization of the prospectus by SFC didn’t meet its “Clear, Accurate & Not misleading” objective and full disclosure requirement. It is highly questionable that SFC allows the products’ prospectus to be distributed to the general public.
Furthermore, as the minibonds had been actively marketed in Hong Kong for six years and being a regulator of the broker in the securities market, it would have been SFC’s responsibility to keep abreast of the latest market news and trend and ensure that the marketing material was accurate and comprehensive in order to protect the best interests of investors.
In conclusion, we think SFC has a degree of responsibility in this case but we think HKMA should bear the main responsibility as most of the minibonds buyers were retail customers from banks and their activities are supervised by HKMA.


Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) :
Hong Kong Monetary Autho论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。
英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非

   Europe (24-hours)
   EN:13917206902
   china (24-hours)
   CN:13917206902
在线客服团队
    全天候24小时在线客服
      QQ:949925041 
  

微信公众订阅号