顯示具有 Hedge Fund 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Hedge Fund 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2011年8月29日 星期一

Quant Fund 盟主不敗之謎



美國長期資本管理公司(LTCM)董事局的Myron Scholes和Robert C. Merton不但是1997年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主,直到目前市場仍然採用他們設計的方程式計算期權金。然而,LTCM成立短短6年便因為投資失敗而倒閉,使人懷疑數學理論只是紙上談兵;不過,同樣以數學及科學專才為骨幹的Medallion基金卻以連續20年保持雙位數回報而傲視群倫。


計量金融學或金融數學(Quantitative Finance或Mathematical Finance)是結合金融和數學的學科,運用高級數學原理例如機率微積分就投資產品包括證券的投資風險分析及定價,市場利用計量金融學模型進行程式買賣的基金(quant fund)比比皆是,但西蒙斯(Jim Simons)1982年創辦的Renaissance Technologies旗艦Medallion對沖基金的投資回報,所有對沖基金同業都無出其右,Medallion從1990至2006年扣除費用平均年回報高達38.5%,而1999至2007年底更創下每個季度全勝的驚人紀錄。

兩千多年前大思想家莊子說:一尺之棰,日取其半,萬世不竭;意思是一根一尺長的木杖,每天折去一半,木杖永遠也折不完。西蒙斯大約三歲時,有人告訴他當汽車用盡了汽油便不能行駛,西蒙斯感到大為震驚,他小小的腦袋認為油缸用去一半汽油便剩下一半,再用去一半又會剩下一半,餘此類推,汽車不可能因為沒有汽油而拋錨。西蒙斯對彭博記者講述這個「小」故事時也忍不住笑稱以一個乳臭未乾的小子來說思想未免太複雜了。

科學數理天賦過人

科學數理天賦過人的西蒙斯1958年於名校麻省理工(MIT)畢業時剛好20歲,1965年在另一名校加州柏克萊學院考獲數學博士,曾回去母校MIT以及哈佛和紐約州立大學(New York State University)石溪分校(Stony Brook University)執教鞭,其後任職美國國家安全局(National Security Agency)的國防分析組(Institute for Defense Analyses,IDA)負責破譯密碼(code cracker),當時越戰方殷,西蒙斯對上司的上司Maxwell Taylor將軍在《紐約時報雜誌》(New York Times Magazine)誇稱美國會輕易打勝仗不以為然,他於是投稿反駁Taylor,認為最理智的做法是徹底從越南撤軍,但卻因此被革職,西蒙斯當時29歲,已婚並有三個子女。1968年,西蒙斯得到石溪大學校長慧眼賞識委任他建立數學部,他立即為數學部引進康乃爾大學數學教授James Ax。

西蒙斯在數學上最突出成就為1974年與數學家陳省身共同研究發明的「陳-西蒙斯理論」(Chern-Simons theory)、證實愛因斯坦相對論描述的扭曲空間的確存在的高深數學理論,而利用陳-西蒙斯恒值(Chern-Simons invariants)更可以解釋物理範疇的宇宙弦理論(string theory);1976年,西蒙斯獲美國數學會(American Mathematical Society)頒授Oswald Veblen幾何學獎。

放棄基本因素分析

西蒙斯初顯投資身手之作是任職石溪大學期間與人合資買入期糖合約,期糖在1974年7個月漲升逾倍,為西蒙斯取得10倍投資回報。1977年,西蒙斯離開石溪創業,他的Monemetrics(Renaissance Technologies前身)聘任IDA舊同事Leonard Baum專責外滙交易。Baum是基本因素派,他根據財經新聞分析滙市趨向,從來不用模型程式買賣,而Baum在1970年代末至1980年代初亦成功為公司賺大錢。西蒙斯分析,在單邊市的情況,利用基本因素的確比模型程式更容易操作,例如強勢政府戴卓爾夫人明言支持英鎊,只要跟風買入便必賺無疑。

然而,今年1月西蒙斯應邀回到MIT發表演說時指出,基本因素分析的弊病是贏錢的時候你會感到自己是天才,但輸錢的日子會認為自己有如白癡,抓破頭皮也想不明白為何大市走勢與自己的分析背道而馳,而模型程式買賣則不會令人產生心理困擾。西蒙斯決定為公司引入模型程式買賣,並先後羅致James Ax、Elwyn Berlekamp等數學專才編寫適合包括股票及商品期貨的計量金融模型,初期還基本因素及模型程式雙線運行,經過幾年實驗比較發現後者的表現優勝得多,1988年3月成立的Medallion基金已是純模型程式運作。

跑贏畢非德索羅斯

而Medallion基金的計量金融模型亦證實經得起時間及市場的考驗,基金成立至2009年,除了1989年虧損4.1%,其餘20年每年最少錄得20%以上的回報【表1】。難能可貴的是,聯儲局1994年一連六次加息,聯邦基金利率由3%升至5.5%,債券及股票投資者都「冇啖好食」,Medallion回報卻高達70.7%;1998年同樣擅於運用計量金融模型的LTCM投資失手並陷入財政危機,Medallion的回報為41.5%;科網股泡沫爆破前的2000年,索羅斯的量子基金幾乎不敢入市,Julian Robertson更於3月關閉他的老虎基金,Medallion卻取得98.5%的投資回報,而標普500指數則下跌10.1%;2007年7月1日,西蒙斯眼見次按及相關市場搖搖欲墜而決定止賺離場,Medallion當年的回報為73%。對沖基金盟主尊稱當之無愧。

財經網站Insider Monkey分析,Medallion的alpha比年輕時的股神畢非德有過之而無不及,假若西蒙斯早出世20年,相信畢非德要將全球首富榮銜讓予西蒙斯(蓋茨的微軟尚未壯大至現今規模;《福布斯》2010年9月統計,西蒙斯以87億美元資產名列全球第80位富豪)。

Medallion從事短線買賣,經常改變投資組合比例或「換馬」,有時甚至參與高頻交易,2005年8月,西蒙斯成立Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund(RIEF)專門投資美國股票,投資策略轉為較長時間持股,翌年12月,西蒙斯為RIEF設限,每月流入新資金不超過15億美元;2007年10月,西蒙斯成立一個專注投資商品期貨基金,名為Renaissance Institutional Futures Fund(RIFF),而RIFF「誕生滿月」即錄得5.2%增長。

基金收費高人一等

對沖基金一直被批評收費昂貴,Medallion的收費更高得嚇人:每年基本管理費已需5%(業界標準收費2%),投資表現獎金則由2000年之前與同業看齊的20%,逐級上升至36%然後44%。市場估計西蒙斯持有Renaissance Technologies約25至50%股權,他同時是Medallion最大持份者,彭博以西蒙斯投資20億美元於Medallion推算(所有數字無法證實,因為西蒙斯一概不予置評),2007年頭三個季度西蒙斯單單從Medallion已賺到10.1億美元投資表現獎金。

2009年10月,西蒙斯宣布將於2010年1月1日正式退休,但保留在Renaissance Technologies非執行主席職位。他今年1月在MIT答覆提問基金成功的秘密時透露,Renaissance Technologies的管理團隊約300位頂級人才,其中約三分之一擁有數學、電腦、天文學等各種科學博士銜頭,在公開而和諧的氛圍下鑽研最適合個別資本市場的金融模型程式,以及因應市況變化修正現有模型。他強調必須知人善用,又表示與聰明的人共事已是一種樂趣。另外,遇到困難不要氣餒,要有永不言放棄的毅力,再加上一點運氣,成功指日可待。

不過,西蒙斯對Renaissance Technologies金融模型程式的結構始終守口如瓶,並明言絕對不會公開模型如何發出買賣訊號。雖然Renaissance Technologies定期公開其投資組合變化【表2】,但相信基金同業專家也難以從中找到玄機,西蒙斯不敗之謎可能成為永遠的秘密。

「賭神」講投資


數學天才西蒙斯(Jim Simons)的對沖基金Medallion創造了連續20年近乎奇迹的雙位數淨回報(由1990至2009年,成績最「差」是1997年的21.2%,2008年金融海嘯的一年回報為80%,詳見2011年2月8日「Quant Fund盟主不敗之謎」);數學博士Edward Thorp的對沖基金賺錢雖然遠不及西蒙斯,但比西蒙斯更早運用計量程式的Thorp由賭場贏到股票市場,證明計量數學的實用價值絕非紙上談兵。

1920年代歐洲賭業集團Greek Syndicate「荷官明星」Nico Zographos表示,在賭場根本沒有運氣可言,完全是數學的對決。賭場利潤來自經過精密計算的各種賭局,令莊家擁有賭場優勢(House Advantage,HA),賭客流連在賭桌的時間愈長,下注的次數愈多,輸錢的機會愈大(詳見2010年2月25日「賭博數學」)。

索普(Edward O. Thorp,1932)自小已顯露他的數學天份,據說他7歲時便可憑心算計出一年有幾多秒。索普1958年在洛杉磯加州大學獲取數學博士後,翌年在麻省理工覓得教職,在那裏他認識了另一位數學大師、「資訊理論之父」(the father of information theory)夏農教授(Claude Shannon,1916-2001)。

夏農是工程數學專家,他非常有興趣研究廿一點和輪盤的賭法;至於索普雖然從未踏足賭場,但他早年讀過由四位數學家撰寫的文章,作者提到有方法可以減低廿一點的HA,索普一直思考如何提高閒家的優勢,兩位有「共同語言」的數學家互相切磋,索普參考了J. L. Kelly, Jr.的公式(Kelly criterion)和利用IBM704電腦推算,終於成功創出廿一點的賭博方程式。他的理論基礎是無論用一副或以上撲克牌進行廿一點賭博,當一局分出勝負之後,下一局撲克牌張數便會減少,那麼計算即將出現的撲克牌點數的或然率準確度便相對提高(無需計算每張撲克牌的點數,例如將13隻撲克牌分為三組,以1代表2至6點,-1代表10、J、Q、K、A,其餘7、8、9為0),根據計算結果再配合控制注碼,索普表示可以將原本最高達5%的HA轉變為1%閒家優勢。

賭場歡迎挑戰

當索普發表他推翻賭場必勝傳統觀念的研究成果時,學術界尚半信半疑,賭博業則嗤之以鼻,他們對於長久以來行之有效保障賭場利潤的各種賭具設計信心十足,拉斯維加斯有幾間賭場更公開表示歡迎程式賭客,他們甚至願意安排的士到機場接載索普。1961年1月某個周末,索普帶着他和夏農共同發明的隨身電腦(幫助統計出現過的撲克及計算)和1萬美元賭本靜靜地來到拉斯維加斯,他挑選較小型的Reno進行實驗。

索普最初8小時將注碼限制在1至10美元,一方面學習廿一點的賭例,另一方面觀察他的方程式是否真正實用,然後把注碼加至2至20美元賭2個小時,再進一步加碼至每注5至50美元;又過了兩個小時,索普的注碼跳升至25至200美元。經過3小時大注實驗,索普已完全熟習了廿一點的玩法,對自己的方程式愈來愈有信心,於是在其後5個小時「開足馬力」將每注提高到50至500美元。長達20小時的戰績是索普從賭場贏走1.1萬美元。

第一仗旗開得勝,拉斯維加斯成為索普與夏農夫婦的度周末勝地,而賭場雖然多次針對索普改變廿一點規則,但仍無法制止他把賭場當作提款機,索普很快便成為不受歡迎人物,所有賭場都將他拒諸門外。索普嘗試化裝混入賭場,但這些江湖伎倆總被識穿;1962年,他索性將賭廿一點的十大數牌秘訣(ten count system)全盤公開,《擊敗莊家》(Beat the Dealer)一出版便名登《紐約時報》暢銷書榜,並成為當時賭廿一點的必讀「聖經」。據稱數牌法用於賭百家樂也一樣有效。

股市猶如賭場

拉斯維加斯此地(賭場)不留人,索普轉移目標向他認為是全球最大的賭場──華爾街進軍,他指出,賭場與股票市場有不少共通點,同樣存在「市場無效」(market inefficiency)之處,1967年,他利用數學知識和電腦創出預測股市的模型,並與加州大學歐文分校同事經濟學教授Sheen Kassouf合著《擊敗股市》(Beat the Market: A Scientific Stock Market System);1969年,索普將理論付諸實踐,成立Convertible Hedge Associates(後來改名為Princeton/Newport Partners)對沖基金,專門利用衍生工具和可換股債券進行對沖炒作。

1988年,Princeton/Newport Partners涉嫌內幕交易遭政府調查而被迫結業(後來證實清白);1992至2002年,索普主理一隻統計式套戥基金(statistical arbitrage fund),據他統計,由1969至1998年5月超過28年期間,每年平均投資回報達20%;他目前是Edward O Thorp  & Associates主席。而索普的計量數學投資成就被The Quants: How a New Breed of Math Whizzes Conquered Wall Street and Nearly Destroyed It作者Scott Patterson尊為「計量教父」(godfather of the quants)。

利益與風險兩極化

美股8月初急跌,Investment Management Consultants Association於8月5日即邀請索普訪問談論經濟大勢,參與討論還有Margaret M. Towle博士、Cambridge Strategy的Edward Baker、Geoffrey Gerber博士以及Santa Clara大學教授Meir Statman。回答Gerber對於美國股市最值得關注的詢問,索普認為,目前最大問題是金融市場的不平等競爭,大機構認定政府及群眾不會任由他們倒閉以致拖累全國陷入衰退,這些自恃「大到不能倒」的機構只求利潤而罔顧風險的行為,無異於將「利益私有化而風險普及化」(privatized profits and socialized risk),結果造成財富由普羅大眾轉移到一小撮人的手裏,財富兩極化又增加了市場的不平等,大部分GNP亦因此而浪費掉,相關問題已存在了好幾年,但直到現今仍然沒有改變。索普批評市場「三不足」:透明度不足;問責不足;交易對手保障不足。

買黑天鵝保險

對於Towle問及目前的投資大計,索普透露,最近他正思考塔利布提到的「黑天鵝」保險,而所謂黑天鵝意思是市況大幅波動,例如1987年的暴跌,以及2008至2009年的情況,設想一個投資組合包含國庫票據、股市指數和期權,是否值得用少量資金買入價外期權以防發生意想不到的風險。

索普最後就市場有效和無效作補充闡釋。他認為,市場是有效和無效的混合體,例如廿一點,試想像所有人都不知道有數牌這回事,他們長期以來都為參與廿一點市場付出2%的代價,直到有一日忽然出現一個會數牌的人搶到優勢,但廿一點市場並不是由那時刻才變得無效;又例如畢非德對很多企業的基本價值知之甚詳,在股神來說市場可算是無效的,但其他沒有這個優勢或知識的數以千萬計的普通股民,他們會認為市場是有效的。

索普分析經濟時提到黑天鵝保險,他顯然認為目前市場存在巨大風險,投資者須警惕黑天鵝隨時出現;另外,他又似乎暗示要擁有例如廿一點數牌和畢非德的市場優勢,必須勤做功課自我增值。

賭神股神淵源

索普由1964年開始研究股市,並為家人、朋友和大學同事進行對沖投資,他又將自己25%的資本進行槓桿買賣,在70%的高比例孖展要求下仍取得超過100%投資回報。1965年,加州大學成立歐文分校(University of California,Irvine),索普獲聘擔任數學教授,他意想不到的是自己的投資成績早已傳遍歐文分校,院長Ralph Waldo Gerard也經常和他討論投資心得;索普更加意不到的是他在投資方面的主意會傳到格拉罕(Benjamin Graham)的耳中,原來大名鼎鼎的格拉罕是Gerard院長的親戚。

因為格拉罕的關係,Gerard認識了並投資於畢非德的對沖基金Buffett Partners,L.P.,格拉罕得意弟子的成績亦果然不同凡響,直至1968年,12年來Gerard從基金得到平均每年24%複式增長。

然而,畢非德有見於股市1967和1968年連續兩年大升,認為已找不到合適的投資目標,他於是決定結束Buffett Partners並將全部資本投入Berkshire Hathaway,而畢非德給投資者兩個選擇,一是取回資金,一是跟隨畢非德投入Berkshire Hathaway,但當時絕大多數客戶對於Berkshire Hathaway紗廠根本沒有信心(巴郡哈撒韋經股神改造後的成就已毋須贅言),Gerard從此成為索普的新投資客戶。

2011年8月2日 星期二

全面搶奪區內投資者 歐美內地印度大鱷爭霸香江


今年第二季國際大鱷來港雖有放緩迹象,近日卻有再度活躍之勢。這些新落戶的對沖基金,不少擁有中資背景,冀與歐美的大鱷爭奪區內的投資者。據了解,未來數月陸續有大型美資對沖基金來港,包括芝加哥最大的對沖基金Mesirow Financial。

第三四季繼續活躍

1937年成立的Mesirow以芝加哥為基地,截至今年6月底,管理資產達287億元(美元.下同),是當地最大的對沖基金,業務包括傳統基金和諮詢服務,團隊數目達一千二百人。不過,多年來主要在美國發展,國外的辦公室只有倫敦一個。

「Mesirow的資金來源都是非常龐大的機構投資者,例如主權基金,入場費100萬元,主要協助客戶(投資者)通過投資基金中的對沖基金,目的是分散風險。」消息人士說。

據悉,該公司計劃在港設立的銷售辦公室,初步計劃只有兩名負責人員駐港;同時,為了壯大亞洲團隊規模,已積極在港招兵買馬,目標羅致的對象是行業的高級管理層。

與「沽神」保爾森今年初在港設立的Paulson Asia一樣,據了解,Meirow只計劃申請「證券交易」的牌照,而不是一般對沖基金申請的「就證券提供意見」和「提供資產管理」兩類牌照。

天智合規顧問董事鍾婉怡認為,這反映國際大鱷主要來亞洲爭取更多客源,不一定涉及提供資產管理等受規管活動。「大家都在開發亞洲市場,自然吸引國際對沖基金落戶香港,不難預期第三、第四季繼續活躍。」

下半年另一個焦點是,由全球最大對沖基金Highbrige前亞洲主管Carl Huttenlocher自立門戶的Myriad。據了解,Myriad的首個對沖基金最快於9月向投資者募集資金,首階段集資3億元,目標至明年初增加至10億元。證監會的資料顯示,Huttenlocher已離開Highbrige,但新公司仍未完成註冊。

至於剛在7月份取得牌照的對沖基金,規模較大的是來自三藩市的Partner Fund Management,管理資產達24億元,大股東之一的Christopher James已經來港坐鎮,可見該公司對這個市場的重視。

與此同時,雪湖資本和遠山資本管理均由「海歸派」人士主理,總部均設於美國,內地辦公室只是分公司。市場人士估計,「出口轉內銷」的方法,似乎令公司有較大的名氣。另一家內地對沖基金奕騰資本管理也低調來港。

同月來港的還包括來自印度的Steadview,是當地頗具規模的另類投資公司,亦活躍於慈善事業,目前香港的負責人員均來自印度。

放大圖片


放大圖片

2011年7月7日 星期四

袁天凡加盟對沖基金


Francis袁天凡【圖】係第一代華人投行高手,後來做咗李澤楷「軍師」,近來比較低調,甚少公開露面,只係偶然在中環食晏時見到佢。不過,大家咪以為佢老哥退隱江湖,凌通知道,佢已經決定出山重投金融界,加入一家大型對沖基金做主席。

Francis加入之基金名為泓策,英文名叫Ortus,係全球知名之對沖基金,管理資產超過20億美元,專長於G7外滙投資;旗下有個基金產品更加因為表現非凡,回報驚人而全球排名第十二,真係唔講得笑。更令基金界驚訝係,呢間Ortus的創辦人唔係老外,而係海歸中國人,以真正的戰績為華人爭光。

辭去電盈旗下職務

據知,Francis會擔任呢家Ortus之主席,好快就會搬去公司新近入伙的寫字樓正式返工。至於同8號仔電盈之關係,Francis已於本月辭去8號仔旗下所有職務,只保留8號仔母公司喺星洲上市的盈拓之非執行副主席一職。

講開Ortus,基金界老友就話創辦人周全(洋名Joe)係金融界甚為吃得開,客戶層面極廣,甚至包括有主權基金。

而且為咗打天下,Joe前排挖咗中國主權基金中投公司嘅一個董事總經理陸彪過檔,呢位老總陸彪之前喺中投主要負責管理對沖基金業務,同Joe係中學同學兼老死。老友仲話,Joe除咗擅長投資買賣,更加係高球高手,有在粉嶺同張連偉一較高下的能耐。Francis日後唔止多個同事,仲多咗個一齊揮桿的波友。

2011年7月4日 星期一

北美沽空成本升目標大減 對沖基金轉戰香港「空襲」民企

北美上市的多家民企被揭發造假,早前嘉漢林業遭研究機構「渾水」(Muddy Waters)揭發賬目可疑,引發對沖基金大幅沽空北美上市的中資民企,並且大有斬獲。不過,有對沖基金經理表示,由於美國沽空內地民企成本愈來愈高;加上經過早前的民企風暴後,當地可攻擊目標民企不多,預期對沖基金將轉移目標,轉戰本港上市的民企賺取豐厚利潤。

路透引述以沽空中國公司股票的澳洲Bronte Capital Management的投資負責人John Hempton表示,美國將不再是主戰場,而要將目標移往香港。因早前沽空在紐約和多倫多上市的中國企業,基本上已令沽空成本飆升,沽空策略不可能延續;加上這些公司大部分為會計造假,容易攻擊的目標基本已被攻擊完畢,再挖掘問題公司的空間有限。

路透社引述市場人士指出,先前對沖基金借貨沽空的利息不到1%,但經營Citron Research的投資者Andrew Left說,如今利息成本已飆升至7%至70%。

對於對沖基金轉戰香港的說法,瑞士資本亞洲研究部發言人對本報表示,目前看不到本港民企被大手沽空的情況,亦預料短期內發生的機會較低。「一般來說,亞洲市場的差價較闊,意味對沖基金沽空的成本較高,削弱那些對沖基金在港進行大手沽空的意欲。」

金融基建完善成功機會低

他不諱言,個別對沖基金為求表現,不惜推低股價,利用大手沽空獲利;然而,由於民企的股份流通量(liquidity)集中亞洲,假如來自歐美的對沖基金期望股東來大手沽空,以他們的流通股份,較難達到預期的效果。

但反駁意見認為,本港的金融基建相當完善,受到個別股票被沽空而影響整個市場運作的機會較低。本港證監會將收緊淡倉申報制度,屆時指定股份的淡倉量達到個別上市公司已發行股本的0.02%,或淡倉的市值達到3000萬元(以較低者為準),必須申報。

證監會市場監察部執行董事雷祺光昨天在立法會財經事務委員會會議上表示,亞洲金融風暴後,監管機構要求投資者必須為沽空交易輸入特別標記;加上金融海嘯後,國際證監會組織(IOSCO)要求各市場提高淡倉的透明度,因此,證監會參考本港市場的特質和個別股份成交量後,制定新制度的準則。

多家對沖基金踴躍領牌

去年底至今年初,多家國際對沖基金落戶香港,至上月有放緩迹象。然而,市場消息指,7月份將再次活躍起來,來自美國的Summitview Capital和Sylebra Capital,以及以香港為基地的Sharp Peak Capital,正積極籌備申請相關牌照。

據了解,一向低調的Summitview Capital和Sylebra Capital,將利用香港拓展亞洲業務,推出大型對沖基金。

至於Sharp Peak Capital,由瑞信的前亞洲指數衍生產品部主管Jean-Guy Renard和前董事總經理Jonathan Hodgson於今年初成立,是利用股票套戥策略的對沖基金。早於今年4月,市場已傳出該公司準備推出1億元(美元.下同)的對沖基金,但一直只聞樓梯響。

參考研究機構HFR的統計,今年首季投資於新興市場的對沖基金資產規模達1210億元,打破2007年1170億元的紀錄。市場人士指出,區內對沖基金愈來愈受傳統機構投資者的歡迎。

2011年6月26日 星期日

國際大型對沖基金雲集香港 搶高甲級寫字樓租金


亞洲金融風暴期間政府擔心國際對沖基金擾亂本地市場秩序,事隔13年,這些大鱷相繼來港雄踞中環的甲級寫字樓,他們出手闊綽,在其推波助瀾下,租金創歷史高位,以國際金融中心二期為例,目前每呎的入場費已達到190元。

去年香港正式被確立為離岸人民幣中心,加上美國要求投資銀行分拆「坐盤」交易部門,國際大鱷來港蔚然成風,過去12個月較受市場注目的包括索羅斯基金管理、高盛證券前「盤房」主管施家文成立的Azentus、GLG Partners、Viking Global、成立首個以人民幣計價對沖基金的發邏資產管理(Pharo)等,均租用中環甲級寫字樓為辦公室。

專門為對沖基金、私募基金擔任物業代理的嘉峰資本管理董事朱志江表示,過去六個月中環甲級寫字樓的租金,被國際對沖基金推高得頗為厲害。

據悉,目前國金二期每方呎租金叫價達190元,是歷史新高,由於出租率近100%,意味租客議價能力甚低,對沖基金往往要邀請客戶到辦公室開會,不惜斥資數百萬元裝修,相等於每呎達1000元,這與他們「2/20」的高收費模式(管理費約為管理資產的2%,實際回報約20%)不無關係。

對沖基金一般租用1500至2000平方呎的單位,部分的面積達4000平方呎,以每平方呎190元為例,再加上約9元的管理費,每月租金開支最少29.8萬元。索羅斯和Viking Global都是國金二期的租戶,其中後者更租用19樓全層,而Azentus則選擇樓齡較高的花園道中國工商銀行大廈,平均呎價也達到120元。

樓宇配套設施要求高

大部分對沖基金依賴先進交易科技,例如高頻交易(HFT),絕不容許down time,因此,對後備電源等相關配套的要求非常高,這解釋為何他們首選在較新的甲級寫字樓為辦公室,例如國金二期、友邦金融中心、長江中心等。」朱志江指出。

他補充說,對沖基金找辦公室的積極性與大市表現關係密切,近日市況欠佳,他們往往多看幾個單位慢慢考慮,預期下半年的租務成交會放緩;不過,租金水平將繼續向上。

與此同時,部分國際大鱷的核心投資團隊只有幾個人,卻租用全層的寫字樓。「他們普遍租用較大的辦公室,準備當市況轉好,便立即擴充團隊規模。」朱志江說。

第一太平戴維斯商業樓宇部資深董事(港島區)劉偉基表示,年初至今來自對沖基金的甲級寫字樓租務成交比去年少,被來自俄羅斯和內地的企業取代。

據國際物業顧問公司高緯環球資料,本港去年甲級商廈租金升幅達51%,每月平均呎租達110元,超越東京和倫敦西部,成為全球寫字樓租金最昂貴的地區,預期2011年甲級寫字樓將有平均20%至25%的租金升幅。

陳家強:不會減股票印花稅 質疑高頻交易是否有利香港

交易科技發展改變市場生態已是不爭的事實,機構投資者、對沖基金不再靠眼光賺錢,而是靠科技。在歐美大行其道的高頻交易(HFT),受制於股票印花稅,在港幾乎無用武之地。不過,財經事務及庫務局局長陳家強卻質疑高頻交易對市場是否有利,強調無意降低印花稅。

「不少學者贊成高頻交易,但從監管者的角度來說,我認為程式交易(Algorithm Trading)非壞事,但懷疑高頻交易的作用,其所帶來的流動性(liquidity),是否香港希望吸引的?又是否值得我們特別鼓勵?」本身是財務學教授的陳家強接受訪問時說。

高頻交易屬於程式交易的一種,特別深得對沖基金的歡心,他們把大手交易「斬件」,利用比眨眼還要少的時間逐一完成,由於每宗交易的差價都很少,故累計的利潤相當可觀。因此,交易費用愈低,對高頻交易投資者愈有利。

陳家強續指出,香港要徵收印花稅,成為高頻交易的天然障礙。「印花稅是重要的收入來源,也有穩定市場的作用,我們不會降低這個稅率。」

印花稅有穩定市場作用

剛過去的財政年度,來自印花稅的收入達510億元,是第二大稅項收入,當中股票印花稅佔49%。

至今在歐美市場使用高頻交易的比例,佔總交投一半,近日新加坡證券交易所(SGX)的數據中心正式開幕,開宗明義是為高頻交易投資者而設,目的是刺激流動性。

香港是否要反其道而行?陳家強不認為香港的做法是「趕客」,相信投資者不只考慮交易成本,還會衡量市場結構。他舉例說,不願見到不受管制的「黑池」,但又不想「趕客」,意味解決方面是把「黑池」納入監管機構的雷達。

「作為國際金融中心,市場的微結構非常重要,例如港交所(388)提議的延長交易時間、收市後競價時段、收窄買賣差價、隱名交易等,都是香港市場結構需要配備的。」陳家強強調,發展方向正確,惟細節需要由港交所制訂。被問及上述建議的反對聲音不少,他表示,要兼顧市場發展和不同人士的意見。

另外,陳家強本月中出訪俄羅斯,而吸引企業來港上市是其中一項任務。他指出,當地政府計劃減持國營企業的權益,香港當然會鼓勵這些國企來港,但單是在海外掛牌,似乎不大可能,因此,鼓勵在香港和俄羅斯兩地上市,是較可行的做法。

由於俄羅斯兩大交易所RTS和Micex即將合併,期望增加成交量,市場相信,當地政府會更加積極邀請俄羅斯國企上市,令香港較難攔途截劫。

2011年6月23日 星期四

SAC, Ortus Lead Hedge Fund Expansion, Fuelling Hong Kong Office Demand

Hedge funds including SAC Capital Advisor LP and Ortus Capital Management Ltd. are expanding in Hong Kong, fueling demand for space and driving rents higher in the world’s most expensive office market.

SAC Capital of Stamford, Connecticut is in talks to boost its space by 20 percent after adding employees at its more than 5,000-square-foot office at York House, said two people with knowledge of the matter, who declined to be identified because the information isn’t public. Ortus Capital, a $2.5 billion macro hedge fund based in Hong Kong, this month moved into premises 20 percent bigger in St. George’s Building, said a person with knowledge of the matter.

Prime office rents in Central business district rose 8.5 percent from January to the end of May as financial services companies boosted hiring in the city, according to Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.Hong Kong and Singapore are luring global hedge funds returning to the region following their retreat during the 2008 credit crisis.

“Hedge funds and private equity are capable of paying higher rents and they make decisions fast,” said Bernard Chu, director at Sagarmatha Capital Ltd., a Hong Kong-based real estate broker specializing in hedge funds and private equity firms. In Central, “they’re willing to pay around 5 to 10 percent more compared with investment banks, law firms and accounting firms, and they’re willing to pay an even higher premium for grade A buildings such as the International Finance Centre.”

Record Fund Inflow

The $3.6 billion capital that investors added to Asian hedge funds in the first three months was the largest quarterly inflow into the regional industry, according to Chicago-based service provider Hedge Fund Research Inc. The number of hedge funds focused on Asia increased to 1,055 in the first quarter, the highest since the second quarter of 2008.

Nine Masts Capital Ltd., led by Wang Bing, former Asia head of Deutsche Bank AG’s Saba proprietary trading desk, is negotiating to more than double its 1,500-square-foot office space after its assets under management surged 10-fold to more than $300 million since it started trading in May 2010, two people with knowledge of the matter said.

Matchpoint Investment Management Asia Ltd., a Hong Kong- based hedge fund co-founded byOch-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC (OZM) partner Raaj Shah, and Sean Debow, former Asia managing director of Los Angeles-based Ivory Investment Management LP, found a new location where it doubled its space, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

More Space

The 4,300-square-foot L. Place office it moved into last month provided more room after its staff tripled to more than 15 since its September 2009 inception, and its assets under management jumped fivefold to $270 million, the person said.

Instead of moving, Senrigan Capital Group Ltd., the $1 billion Hong Kong-based hedge fund backed by Blackstone Group LP (BX) and led by former Citadel Investment Group LLC manager Nick Taylor, took an adjacent unit at Wheelock House after it more than doubled its workforce to at least 20 people since it started trading in November 2009, said a person with knowledge of the matter.

Janice Tang, Ortus’s spokeswoman; Katarina Bendle, who represents Senrigan; Elaine Davis, Nine Masts’ chief operating officer; Jonathan Gasthalter, an outside spokesman for SAC Capital, and Matchpoint’s Debow declined to comment.

About 25 of the biggest global hedge fund firms are seeking to expand in Asia, according to a Credit Suisse Group AG report last year. About 75 percent of the top 100 global hedge funds, ranked by Alpha Magazine based on assets managed, will likely have a presence in Asia, according to the Zurich-based bank’s prime brokerage unit.

Actively Looking

“If someone’s still seeking office space in Central at this moment, they’re likely someone who’s willing to pay a very high rent,” said John Siu, Hong Kong-based general manager at Cushman & Wakefield Inc., the biggest closely held property services company. “Hedge funds have been very actively looking for additional space since the market recovered from the credit crisis and it looks like this trend is continuing.”

Hong Kong’s prime office rents jumped more than a third to $2,066.35 per square meter at the end of last year, the highest in the world and almost double the cost of the City of London, according to Colliers International Research.

Average rents for new tenants at top-tier buildings including Cheung Kong Center andInternational Finance Centre in Central stood at HK$159 a square foot per month at the end of May, according to Jones Lang LaSalle. Only 1.3 percent of these buildings are vacant, compared with the 3.7 percent average for the rest of Central, the Chicago-based property brokerage said.

Less Bargaining Power

Hedge funds and asset managers may also be paying more for leases because they usually take up space of between “a few thousand to under 10,000 square feet,” Siu said. That gives them less bargaining power compared with investment banks that take up multiple floors at premium buildings with areas up to “tens of thousands of square feet,” he said.

Central’s higher rents drove some banks and professional services providers such as law and accounting firms out of the district to less expensive areas. Allianz Global, the investment unit of Allianz SE, Europe’s largest insurer, which occupied about 20,500 square feet in Cheung Kong Center, last month moved to nearby Citibank Plaza, where average rents are about 30 percent lower. Deutsche Bank AG last year completed its relocation to the International Commerce Centre in West Kowloon.

2011年6月9日 星期四

Beware This Chinese Export

Feature

| SATURDAY, AUGUST 28, 2010



IN CHINA, IF YOU WANT YOUR BUSINESS LISTED on an American stock exchange, you may find yourself talking to Du Qingsong. His electronics company was among the first to reach Nasdaq back in 1997. From the city of Xi'an, the end of the ancient Silk Road in central China, Du has put together half a dozen of the country's latest arrivals on the Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange. Yet it's hard to find him in their securities filings or even at his office, located in a room inside the headquarters of his son's beef company. That could be because Du was banned from stock-market activity, after drawing a four-year jail term for a 1999 fraud conviction.

Like their American counterparts, China's biggest businesses raise capital through underwritten initial public offerings. But in the past few years, hundreds of mid-market entities have gotten U.S. listings through a back-door maneuver known as a "reverse takeover"—in which an active Chinese business merges into a dormant American shell corporation that was registered for public trading. So Chinese medical-device vendor Winner Group merged into the shell of Las Vegas Resorts; tire maker Zhongsen International merged into Rub A Dub Soap. The stocks rarely surpass $1 billion in market capitalization, but their collective presence is substantial. More than 350 of these deals have been done in recent years, reaching, at their peaks, a combined capitalization of more than $50 billion.


A Barron's study of the most seasoned 158 China reverse mergers shows that in the first three years of each stock's trading, the median among them underperformed the Halter Index by a dismal 75% (see the chart, Relatively Lousy). The Halter index is composed of U.S.-listed Chinese companies, ranging from the American depositary shares of well-known names like Internet giant Baidu.com (ticker: BIDU) and telecom power China Mobile (CHL) to small-cap reverse mergers. The median of those China reverse mergers lagged behind the Russell 2000 index of small-cap stocks by 66%.
The billions in reverse-merger losses were shouldered by Chinese entrepreneurs, who thought they were raising capital the American way—and by American investors, who thought they were buying a piece of China's prosperity.

The lure for American investors is the wondrous growth of China's economy and the ascent of such benchmarks as the Halter USX CHINA Index, which rose more than 60% last year. But most reverse-merger stocks have proven to be a poor way to ride China's boom. Today, the market cap of these stocks has shrunk to $20 billion, a 60% drop.

Reasons for the stocks' disappointing performance aren't hard to find. The group has been a minefield of revenue disappointments and earnings restatements. Financial filings the companies make with the Securities and Exchange Commission often diverge from those filed with the Chinese government—by drastic amounts. Investor and analyst visits to corporate facilities in China reveal operations smaller and less impressive than shown in U.S. presentations. The companies too often select auditors who have previously signed off on the financials of companies that turned out to be busts. Some companies' securities filings don't disclose the involvement of promoters in China or the U.S., who—like Du Qingsong—have disquieting track records in the stock market.

These companies fall between the cracks of market regulation. The SEC's enforcement staff can't subpoena evidence of any fraudulent activities in China, and Chinese regulators have little incentive to monitor shares sold only in the U.S. Many reverse-merged companies admit in prospectuses that they haven't gotten required approvals under China's financial regulations. Yet the convoluted structures devised by lawyers in China and the U.S. have kept the companies out of trouble, says Mitchell Nussbaum, a lawyer with Loeb & Loeb who's arranged dozens of reverse mergers. But satisfying each country's legal requirements doesn't make the companies' shares good investments.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, established under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to police auditors, recently warned against lax auditing of U.S.-listed Chinese businesses. The PCAOB plans to ask Congress to lift restrictions on the disclosure of its disciplinary proceedings against accountants. China is one of several nations that won't let the PCAOB inspect the local auditors used by U.S.-listed companies.

AS WITH THE MANUFACTURED GOODS that China exports to the U.S., there's an established supply chain for Chinese reverse mergers. At the Chinese end, promoters like Du Qingsong scout out businesses that are viable candidates for reverse mergers. Some of the companies are reorganized around their most profitable parts. These are then merged in share exchanges with American shells that are frequently provided by U.S. firms that deal in penny stocks. The Big Board or Nasdaq collect listing fees. Capital is injected by hedge funds, who in return get cheap shares in a private placement. The hedge funds often also get substantial say over the new U.S. company's hiring of key financial personnel. Among the active and well-known investment banks in these deals are Roth Capital, Rodman & Renshaw and William Blair. Bankers fete the companies at investor conferences; one even featured former President George W. Bush as keynote speaker. This week, as it happens, Roth Capital is hosting its annual gathering of reverse-takeover companies at Hawaii's Grand Wailea Resort.

Only a handful of reverse takeovers have made it from China to a listing on the most prominent U.S. exchange, the NYSE. One of them is China Green Agriculture (CGA), which produces fertilizer and operates greenhouses. In late 2007, the predecessor to China Green reverse-merged with Discovery Technologies, the dormant shell of a Mexican-restaurant operator whose stock had fallen to less than a penny a share. The deal was already complex. Before merging into Discovery, China Green's predecessor first merged into a New Jersey corporation controlled by Yinshing David To. To was a Chinese citizen who also goes by the names ShingHoi To and Du Chenghai. His father is Du Qingsong.

After surviving China's Cultural Revolution, Du Qingsong rose in the 1980s to become general manager of Sha'anxi province's largest fertilizer factory. Provincial officials then sent him to run a floundering maker of TV-tube components in Xi'an City. Du revitalized the state-owned enterprise and, by 1997, one of its units was listed on China's Shenzhen Stock Exchange. In September of that year, Du took two other subsidiaries of the state business onto Nasdaq, raising $42 million in one of the exchange's first China listings. But the Nasdaq stock, Asia Electronics Holding Co., went into a tailspin when Du disappeared in the summer of 1998.

He'd been arrested. Newspaper reports speculated that Du was the victim of a power struggle between his political patrons in Xi'an and their rivals. In 1999, a local court found Du guilty of "fraudulent investment schemes" and sent him to prison. China's securities regulators also barred Du from China's stock markets and any management role in a listed company. Nasdaq delisted Asia Electronics after its shares fell to pennies. At a subsequent corruption trial of the Xi'an branch chief of China's securities regulator, evidence showed that Du had given the branch chief 5,000 shares of his company before its Shenzhen Exchange listing. The regulator got a 12-year sentence after a bribery conviction.

Du, now 64, agreed to speak with Barron's when we called him. (Xia Ming, a China expert and political scientist at City University of New York, translated.) But, asked about run-ins with the Chinese government, Du cancelled the interview. He communicated with us, instead, by e-mail. His jail sentence, he wrote, was the result of politics. "After their investigation, they found nothing," said Du. "The court made the decision simply for the sake of a conviction." As for the alleged bribery of a securities regulator, Du said in the e-mail that government officials sometimes took shares meant for employees. "I merely acquiesced without objection," he said. "I only met him once. I never had any relationship with him."

Once the fertilizer company China Green became a U.S. stock in December of 2007, its SEC filings show that Du's son, whose New Jersey company had merged with it, controlled 38% of its shares. He later turned most of the stake over to China Green's chief executive, Li Tao, under the terms of an agreement worked out with the company's hedge-fund investors. Du's son retained 3%. "We always take cash for our consulting service," Du Qingsong wrote to Barron's , explaining the arrangement . "Of course, if the consulting service is for a listing, we also take some percentage of shares."

China Green says Du was not involved in founding or organizing the company, "directly or indirectly," nor did he receive any stock.

Du hands out an expensive-looking marketing brochure for his consulting firm AiDi Investment, with pictures of him alongside "directors" who its says include a partner of the well-known law firm Proskauer. The law firm says its partners have no relationship with Du. Many of the photos also feature an American stockbroker, Meiyi Mary Xia, who started a brokerage firm called Asia Pacific Securities with Du just before he was arrested in 1998. Her home is the address used for AiDi's American office and for the China Green shareholdings of Du's son. When the diesel-fuel producer China Integrated Energy(CBEH) did a reverse merger in October 2007, about 90% of its stock was held for a time by Xia. Her husband, Lawrence Xiao Xia Pan, was Nasdaq's chief China representative from 2005 to 2007. When asked about Du, Xia said, "I don't work with him any more," and hung up.

In scouting for reverse-takeover candidates, Du Qingsong has plenty of competitors.

One is Kit Tsui, who has helped deliver some of China's most volatile reverse takeover stocks, like the chemical supplier Gulf Resources (GFRE) and the cardboard makerOrient Paper (ONP). The two stocks rocketed from pennies a share to about 15 bucks around year end, ballooning the value of shares held by Tsui through entities like Max Time Enterprises. But trouble seems to haunt Tsui's deals. The company that first brought him to Nasdaq—a telephone manufacturer he'd started in the 1990s by the name of Industries International—had its main business forced into bankruptcy by Chinese authorities in 2004, and its auditor alleged that the company misreported related-party deals with Tsui. Tsui subsequently stepped down.

In June, the Amex-listed shares of Orient Paper plunged to 5 when a pair of investment researchers published a report declaring the company a fraud. The Hong Kong-based analysts, whose firm is Muddy Waters Research, said in their report that they visited Orient Paper's factory in January and found it idle and dilapidated. They calculated that the company's SEC filings overstated the value of its assets some ten-fold. Revenues were overstated 40-fold, the researchers estimated. They've shorted the company's stock. Muddy Waters said last week it stands by its conclusions.

Company spokesman Crocker Coulson said Orient Paper would have no comment, pending a board-commissioned internal investigation of the Muddy Waters allegations by the company's lawyer, Loeb & Loeb's Mitchell Nussbaum, who also declined comment. A money manager who spoke with company officials says they blame Tsui for the alleged irregularities. Barron's left messages at Tsui's offices in Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai. We heard nothing back. We also visited the address of Tsui's firms, China Finance and China U.S. Strategy, in New York, near Rockefeller Center, but building attendants said the floor was vacant.

One of the most controversial promoters of Chinese reverse takeovers, Benjamin Wey, continues to find work. Wey'shistory of suspension and censure by Nasdaq and state securities regulators has been amply reported, including a Barron's story ("AgFeed Trips on Its Way to the Trough," May 19, 2008). Since our piece describing Wey's work for the hog farmer AgFeed Industries (FEED), the company has missed production targets and its shares have slumped from 15 to below 2.50. The company could not respond to queries by presstime. In an interview last year with the English-language newspaper China Daily, officials of his New York Global Group investment bank claimed that 15% of the Chinese companies on Nasdaq were its clients. The firm has offices in Beijing and at 40 Wall Street in New York. On its Website (www.nyggroup.com), Wey's firm brags of alliances with four city governments and China's central bank. With hedge-fund operator Michael D. Witter—grandson of the brokerage founder Dean Witter—Wey last year announced plans to raise $300 million to invest in China companies. Neither Wey nor Witter responded to Barron's queries.

Kitchen-appliance maker Deer Consumer Products (DEER) doesn't mention Wey in its securities filings. But the Chinese language version of Wey's Website shows him flying with Deer's management in a private jet on the night before the pricing of a $75 million secondary offering underwritten by William Blair and BMO Capital Markets. Wey's latest success story is CleanTech Innovations (EVCP), a maker of windmill towers whose shares tripled to $9.50 shortly after a July private placement led by William Blair. At that price, the stock trades for 220 times last year's earnings.

THE REVERSE TAKEOVER of a China company usually coincides with a private placement of its shares with hedge funds. For instance, in the reverse merger of China Green in December 2007, hedge funds and other investors bought $20.5 million of the new company's stock. Among the frequent participants in such deals are Pinnacle Adviser's Barry Kitt, Barron Capital's Andrew B. Worden and Guerilla Capital's Peter Siris, who's talked about his Chinese stock holdings with this magazine.

Plano, Texas-based Kitt has invested in dozens of China reverse mergers—often taking the lead position in the private placement. When executives of China Green, the fertilizer company that had initially merged with the company controlled by Du Qingsong's son, rang the opening bell at their NYSE listing in April, Kitt was beside them on the balcony. In the reception that followed, Kitt thanked China Green for letting him invest. Kitt refused an interview and after he received e-mailed questions, our messages were blocked from his e-mail system.

As with most private placements of public equities—otherwise known as PIPEs—the investing public should think twice before following PIPE investors.

To test whether particular funds' participation augered well for investors, Barron'sstudied the performance of hedge funds' Chinese PIPE deals the same way we did all the Chinese reverse mergers. We analyzed data from Morningstar and Bloomberg using the statistics routines of the open-source project Rmetrics (www.rmetrics.org), which many Wall Street firms utilize. One of Rmetrics' developers, Yohan Chalabi, a Ph.D. student at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, helped write our computer scripts. We compared each stock's return, from the date of its reverse-merger announcement, against a benchmark's return for the corresponding period. Because the stocks all had different merger dates, this approach (known as an "event study") helps control for varying market environments. Then we looked at the median return for the group under examination (see charts, Relatively Lousy). Of the reverse mergers where Pinnacle was a PIPE investor, there were 23 stocks with at least one year of returns. Over that stretch, the post-merger return of those stocks slightly lagged behind that of the Halter Index, as it did for the 15 stocks in Kitt's PIPE portfolio that had three-year returns.

Relatively Lousy

From 2003, Barron's compared the cumulative return of 349 Chinese reverse-merger stocks against the Halter USX China Index starting from the merger announcement. The red line, below, is the Halter-relative return of the median of the 158 reverse mergers with three years of data. At the bottom, Halter-relative returns of reverse mergers banked by Roth Capital, or funded by Barry Kitt, or advised by Crocker Coulson.

[CHINa_4CHTS_c]

Investors would be well advised to steer clear of stocks like those in the PIPE deals involving Andrew B. Worden's Barron Capital. Of those China stocks, 11 had at least a year's worth of returns and their median lagged behind the Halter Index by 30%. For the seven stocks with three years of returns, the median fell short of the Halter Index by over 75%. The Barron Website features testimonials by the chief executives of Orient Paper and SkyPeople Fruit Juice (SPU) thanking Worden for his support. The Website invites companies to let him introduce them to lawyers and accountants who can help them go public. It boasts of his 20 years analyzing and investing in public and private companies, yet neglects to mention that during that span he pled guilty in a 1995 prosecution for wire fraud and settled an SEC civil suit that alleged he'd opened dozens of accounts and then stiffed brokers on losing trades. Worden didn't return calls or e-mails.

Buried in the exhibits of many reverse-takeover filings are agreements that often give hedge funds like Worden's and Kitt's extraordinary sway over the fledgling companies. In exchange for their PIPE financings, the funds get approval power over a company's choice of auditor, investor-relations firm and chief financial officer. One of the most frequently stipulated IR firms is CCG Investor Relations, which boasted last year that its "core group" of 15 clients had gained an average of 412% after listing on the Nasdaq or the Amex. CCG founder Crocker Coulson told Barron's that China offers "the most exciting economy and companies in the world." He has set up two blind-pool companies to invest in Chinese businesses.

But a longer term analysis of Coulson's client list shows performance that doesn't come close to his selective sample. As shown in the nearby chart, the median return among the 30 CCG reverse-merger clients with at least three years of trading history underperformed the Halter index by a whopping 70%, since their mergers. Coulson commented that these companies had only benefitted from CCG's services for a portion of their history as U.S. listings.

Hedge funds would seem to want to ensure that their portfolio companies hire only the sharpest auditors. Yet one after another of the reverse-merger companies hire the same small firms that certified the financials of companies that came to grief.

Dozens have hired Frazer Frost, the successor firm to Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer & Torbet. Moore Stephens, a Los Angeles auditor, gave clean audit opinions in 2004-05 to China Energy Savings Technology. Doubts about the balance sheet caused the SEC to suspend trading in 2006 and eventually file a fraud suit against the company, which is now defunct. The PCAOB found no deficiencies when it made its regular inspection of Frazer Frost and the firm's Asian-services partner, Susan Woo, notes that she and her colleagues go to China themselves to examine and audit clients. "We are the guard to the public and we have a responsibility," she says.

Accounting problems have recently surfaced at a couple of Frazer Frost's China clients. Even the investment banker of China Natural Gas (CHNG) consigned the stock to a Sell rating a couple weeks ago after the company admitted that its March balance sheet had failed to reflect a large bank loan from February. RINO International (RINO), a Frazer Frost client that makes equipment for sewers, has had three auditors and four CFOs in the past four years, while restating its financials twice. "Every company has some deficiencies in internal controls," says Woo. "These are newly public companies."

Another popular auditing pick is Kabani & Co., a small Los Angeles firm that the PCAOB found deficient in a routine inspection in 2008. Kabani audited Bodisen Biotech, one of the earliest China blowups. Bodisen's shares ran up to 19 with the help of commercials on CNBC, then tanked to 47 cents when the Amex suspended the stock in 2007 over the company's misleading disclosure of its relationship with Benjamin Wey's New York Global Group. Kabani has audited a number of Wey's other promotions and now audits China Green. Partner Hamid Kabani did not respond to requests for an interview.

As the "auditor of auditors," the PCAOB has sounded an alarm over the auditing of overseas businesses. A July 12 practice alert noted with concern that 40 accounting firms with five or fewer partners had rendered opinions on companies with China-based operations. "We take these practice alerts very seriously," says Greg Scates, the agency's deputy chief auditor.

AT THE END OF THE reverse-merger supply chain are the U.S. bankers, which include Roth Capital, Rodman & Renshaw and William Blair, among others.

Journey to the West

In all about 350 China companies have merged their way to the U.S. markets since 2003.

[china_bar_c]

The pre-eminent banker for China reverse mergers is Roth, the Newport Beach, Calif., firm whose promotional materials say that it pioneered the practice of PIPE financing and has helped raise more than $2.8 billion for 67 U.S.-listed Chinese companies. Roth works closely with hedge funds like Kitt's Pinnacle. Indeed, Kitt's son is an investment banker in Roth's Shanghai office.

The broker's analysts were caught flat-footed by the problems of banking clients like Orient Paper and China Natural Gas, cutting ratings and price targets after the shares had already slumped.

Questions have also begun to be raised by investors about banking client China Green. In SEC filings the company reported revenues of $23 million for 2008, but in its tax filings in Xi'an it reported less than $8 million. "CGA's financial statements are accurate," said chief executive Li Tao, in an e-mail. "Legitimate reasons exist for why [China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce's] reported financial statements do not match those numbers filed with the SEC."

Roth Chairman and CEO Byron Roth declined an interview, but in an e-mail said: "We take the due diligence process very seriously and perform extensive due diligence." Asked about the promoters Du Qingsong, Kit Tsui and Benjamin Wey, Roth wrote: "None has had any role in connection with any offering we have completed."

When asked how Roth's banking clients had performed as investments, the brokerage chief said the 70 China stocks that his analysts follow were up 120% in 2009 and down about 15% through early August. That didn't quite answer the question, so we ran the numbers ourselves.

Of the 28 Roth client companies with at least three years of trading post-merger, the median among them underperformed the Halter Index by one third over a three-year period. By comparison, the Roth client companies roughly matched the returns of the Russell 2000. Roth isn't alone as a banker for China reverse-mergers, of course. Running a similar three-year analysis of Rodman & Renshaw's banking clients, we found the 12 companies with three years' of post-merger returns performed some 70% worse than the Halter Index. Rodman's Chief Executive Edward Rubin says his bank focused on China in a big way in 2009, after most of these stocks had been reverse-merged and—he claims—abandoned by their original bankers.

The reverse-merger industry gathers in Hawaii this week at a Roth conference—a venue equally favored by China stock touts and by the sector's short sellers. The rest of us should probably stay home.