中環的光環

早前有前輩討論大學畢業生在會計界的出路，這令我想起如煙往事。

我的一個好友，為人playful，廣交天下朋友，早年在英國名牌大學畢業。可能是因為放浪英倫太久，鄉愁日深，以致他對一切香港的事情都趨之若騖，對香港帶來的東西都珍而重之。遺憾的是，這包括了擇偶條件。他最愛的竟然是比港女更港女的極品。這一點不知道應否算是英國教育的失敗。

記得有一次跟中學同學唱K，他說會帶幾個朋友過來。結果帶來了幾個只有外表，其他甚麼都沒有的女女。看著她們「易容」後的臉，我感到迷茫。迷茫並不是出於歧視她們唸書不成又沒有內涵。迷茫是因為我第一次跟如此質素的女子接觸，不懂招架。我不看電視劇，又少看報紙娛樂版，所以真的不知道跟她們聊甚麼才好。

四目相投，death air，尷尬，歌又未輪到的我選的，只好亂找些東西聊。我對她做甚麼，有甚麼興趣，其實甚麼興趣也沒有。不過，還算是個樣貌娟好的女子，也隨便答幾句吧。啊啊啊你做邊行？

「我在銀行打工的。」對於剛認識的人，我個人認為最好不要透露自己做投資銀行。

「係邊度嘅銀行返工啊即係？」該女子還不心息。

「中環。」

該女子頓了一頓，要數秒才能回神，之後再加個崇拜加羨慕的表情。阿小姐我可能是負責掃地的，妳是否應該了解清楚我的工資，才給我反應？當然，這小女孩只個「極品」，不能當作常規。不過，在外國留學加個專業資格，亦比不上區區一句「我係中環IFC番工」。在那一刻，我才深深感受到中環的威力。原來香港還有人對中環存在如此幻想。

對於我來說，中環只是拼搏的地點，人多車多，餐廳又貴又難吃又要等位，下班後最好不要回來。當會計師樓相繼離開中環時，我記得其中一個大家反對的理由時影響招聘。我不相信畢業生會單單因為公司地址而放棄四大的聘書。後來因為週末經常上班，才慢慢發現，週末時很多人會千里迢迢到中環消遣。原來，對於某些應徵者，對於某些公司，地址對選擇公司真的有影響。原來，很多在中環上班的人，都以為自己頭上有光環。

這樣的事情，倫敦及紐約都沒有發生。

國際會計師事務所及律師事務所在倫敦及紐約辦公室很多都不在市中心的黃金地段。羅兵咸永道、安永的倫敦辦公室在泰晤士河南岸，傳統上一不是商業區，二並不是一線的市中心地帶。花旗 - 及後來搬進來的高盛 - 紐約總部位於TriBeCa，在80年代時肯定不是紐約的中環，而是破舊的工業區。摩根士丹利及巴克萊的總部位於時代廣場，地點像銅鑼灣多於金鐘。但這些公司的辦公室寬趟舒適，有優質飯堂、咖啡館、gym，當地員工肯定比香港的同事開心。我認識的紐約專業人士，沒有一個會以自己在華爾街上班為榮。大家拼的是公司的實力及福利。

為甚麼香港沒有發生這樣的事情？為甚麼中環對那麼多人會有吸引力？我真的不懂。


原載在 Education Post: 中環的光環

Secrets to a successful career switch

Most MBA holders, myself included, took career and financial risks in deciding to take a two-year, full-time programme because they were unsatisfied with the path they were on. Some yearned for a better career in a different industry. Others were driven more by the prospect of pay rises and promotions in their current sector.

For the “career switcher”, an MBA seems to offer the best chance of starting somewhere else with a clean slate – but not at the bottom of the ladder. After all, many schools brag about their success in placing career switchers with leading corporations, consulting firms and investment banks. Every year, there are probably thousands of such stories of top business schools helping students achieve this goal - and I have heard quite a few of them in person.

A few of my classmates are now management consultants with the best known firms. Before the MBA, they were high school teachers, specialising in mathematics, science and English. They had no prior background in business, but are now advising senior executives and board-level directors of some of the world’s most successful multinationals. Their career switch has been dramatic and successful, showing just what a good business degree can help you achieve. The MBA has transformed their careers, but my own encounters with them showed that it takes something extra to actually do it.

Following the curriculum and duly completing your assignments will, at best, only get you an average grade at a leading business school.  In the first two terms, the distinctions and accolades usually go to those with prior business experience. So, if your main goal is to switch career, a relevant summer internship is generally a pre-requisite. Since preparations and applications for these usually begin during the first term, there is little time to play catch-up. And the truth is that students with business experience and top grades have a much better chance of getting the best internships and – later – the best jobs.  

For my friends to win through, it took diligence. Before accepting their MBA offers, they did extensive research on each school’s student profiles and were well aware of the competition among classmates for each type of job. Some rejected offers from higher-ranked schools on the grounds that their chances of getting into a dream job from there would be so small. Long before classes started, they read the leading financial journals to familiarise themselves with the latest business trends and concepts. They also networked with alumni in their preferred industry and learned how best to prepare for job interviews.  These individuals also took the time to study consulting cases and see how they worked. Then, when it came to recruitment season, they knew all about the analytical frameworks and were able to ace their interviews with a show of real confidence. 

Their success can be put down to the Boy Scout motto: be prepared. You would be surprised to learn how many people at highly rated universities miss out on opportunities because of complacency and over-confidence. By being proactive and preparing well, you will end up ahead of them and ahead of the curve. 


Originally posted on Education Post.

初級審計員歲月

我認為，當初級審計員的經驗非常寶貴。

在各大會計師樓，剛畢業進審計行業的初級審計員一般被戲稱為「小朋友」。相對大學的其他同學，在會計師樓工作的「小朋友」的工資低、工時長、壓力大，亦沒有什麼job envy及榮譽可言。如果跟舊同學吃飯，聊起近況，當你聽到你的朋友滿懷不憤，投訴自己懷才不遇，bonus 只有三十多萬，其他同事有四十多萬的時候，你怎樣跟他說自己的一年賺不到20萬的際遇？

最辛苦的，可能是到內地出差。如在一線大城市如北京上海廣州當然沒有問題。不過這些機會不是屬於我，及你，的。有很多時要到內地三四五六線小鎮，過著民工般的生活。數年前，曾經在網上瘋傳的一封電郵，講敘一個某四大的駐上海初級審計員到豬場數豬的痛苦經驗。在公司眼中，初級審計員是工廠女工，重複又重複地查賬，對單，找發票，低增值，亦是可替代品。

不過，當初級審計員的歲月最寶貴就是因為可以做這些「低端」的工作。「小朋友」每天的工作都是在「商業的最前線」，親手接觸變成會計帳數字前的交易資料。對客戶的公司來說，這些重要資料都是高度機密。「小朋友」每天都要處理大量這樣的機密資料，工作量大，可能盲目了：審核過客戶的帳目後，你亦同時掌握了客戶成功的因數及商業模式。如果你發現街口的茶餐廳原來一直賺取暴利，但又少交了稅。你清楚了解他們的生意，亦都看過他們的供應商合同、勞工合約，剛好你同朋友有幾十萬想創業…

大家都說，當審計可以學會計。我認為，會計哪裡都可以學。大行ibanker分析員都懂一般的會計。但你問問他們，如要請秘書、茶水阿姨要出多少錢，怎樣才是好的買賣合約條款，airway bill 的terms 怎樣看，在怎樣開香港及BVI公司，甚至一程地鐵巴士的價錢，十個有九「中環才俊」個答不上。上心地做一年審計的「小朋友」肯定知道答案。

所以，在我看來，當「小朋友」學到最寶貴的，是商界的運作。學的不只是會計，而是近距離看公司實際運作，學做生意。


原載在 Education Post: 初級審計員歲月

The reinvention of business school

The ultimate yardstick for measuring your success in business is, of course, your business. Since their establishment, business schools have successfully trained generations of MBAs who have gone on to become successful C-suite executives, partners of management consulting firms, managing directors of investment banks and fund managers. However, very few have businesses of their own. MBAs are mostly good managers, but not all are entrepreneurs or business magnates. They are successful climbers of corporate ladders, but not rock stars who can bring disruptive forces that change businesses for the better. Business schools do not have a good record in training entrepreneurs or picking winners.

In this regard, business schools and business education are an embarrassing disappointment.

It is tempting to resort to the wisdom of the age - “A students teach; B students work for C students.” There is some truth in this, but in the age of knowledge, this may no longer be as relevant. Before Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard College he was on track to graduate magna cum laude. The founders of Google and Yahoo dropped out of their schools to found their companies, but they were in the PhD programme at Stanford University, working on a groundbreaking discovery that yielded unlimited commercial potential. They are highly educated and business-savvy, but there is no trace of business school education on their résumés.

Nonetheless, to say that business knowledge is less important than technological breakthroughs could not be further from the truth. It is generally believed that the first decline of Apple in the late 1980s and 1990s was attributable to the ousting of Steve Jobs engineered by John Sculley, a seasoned executive Jobs had recruited from PepsiCo. But contrary to popular belief, Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple and designer of the legendary Apple II computer, actually attributed the success of later generations of Apple computers to the skills of senior managers such as Sculley. Business education, therefore, should be as important to executives, if not more important, than technical expertise.

The questions are: where do these entrepreneurs receive their business education, and who are their professors? There is a limit as to what anyone can achieve by their own reading. The vacuum can be easily filled by venture capitalists who invest in entrepreneurs, providing them with capital, advice and coaching. Mike Markkula provided Steve Jobs and his team with much-needed guidance when Apple was in its infancy. Peter Thiel and Sean Parker were early advisers to Mark Zuckerberg. The gold standard of MBA education, a two-year full-time programme, may be too time-consuming and inflexible to meet the needs of up and coming business stars.

In order to remain relevant, business schools are reinventing themselves. Some offer more flexible means of delivery, such as online or part-time programmes. European schools are well-known for their one-year programmes. But top business schools are reluctant to revamp their two-year MBA programmes. Despite this, they do incorporate elements of entrepreneurship in their education, push students into joining start-ups, and expand their short-term executive training offerings.

If you are pretty sure you are not going to start your own business, why should the re-positioning of business schools be relevant to you? Firstly, the ability of business professors to respond to emerging business trends reflects their business acumen. Secondly, as I argued in my previous article, your network may be the most important asset you can acquire at business school. Even if you are not Mark Zuckerberg you may meet the next Zuckerberg at business school, and you could be the next Eduardo Saverin.


Originally posted on Education Post.

Understand what an admissions team wants to see

Every year, thousands of deserving candidates apply to top MBA programmes –and are rejected. This year, for instance, Harvard Business School only admitted 12 per cent of applicants, the majority of whom are highly accomplished by any standards. This number is typical of all leading schools, so if you aim to attend a first-rate programme, you have to find a way to stand out from other applicants.

The obvious answer is to be among the best and the brightest in every area the admissions committee looks at. Having a magna cum laude AB from Harvard College and a few years’ experience at McKinsey or Goldman Sachs immediately catches the eye. So does a BS from Caltech and founding a successful start-up. However, the very reason most professionals want an MBA is because they don’t yet have such accomplishments on their CV.   

Realistically, nothing can be done about an undergraduate GPA (grade point average) or a first job out of college. However, you do have a greater degree of control over the remaining parts or your business school application – the reference letter, essays, and GMAT score. In fact, I know of a few candidates who have impressed admissions committee with an outstanding GMAT score.

Usually, they spent a substantial amount of time preparing for the GMAT and other forms of standardised test. I have even read of some applicants quitting their jobs just to prepare for the test and add an extra 10 or 20 points to their total score. In my view, though, this type of dedication is misplaced. 

My rationale is that trying to improve a GMAT score which may already be in the top 4 per cent overall, there is a diminishing marginal return on time invested. Most top schools accept candidates with scores in the range of 680 to 760 – out of a maximum 800. So, if you have achieved a fairly good GMAT score, it is more important to spend time crafting your application essays and coaching your referee to emphasise the right things.  

The GMAT is important, but it is one-dimensional. It shows how smart you are, but in business school, as in the real world, being smart can only get you so far.  Good essays give more colour, revealing other talents and aspects of your personality.

The primary goal of these essays is to let the admissions committee know who you are and where you want to go to. You should be answering the implicit questions why this business school and why you.  When I wrote application essays, I kept thinking about how best to demonstrate the “why me”, while ensuring the essay was interesting to read and would hold the attention for a few minutes. The easiest mistake is to jump right in and take the set question at face value. Instead, you should think long and hard about what the admissions committee is really asking. Knowing what they want will help you tick more boxes on their scorecard.


Originally posted on Education Post.

把關不力，改革刻不容緩

當我剛剛出道的時候，會計師公會（Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants）的英文還是Hong Kong Society of Accountants。我跟同期的朋友笑稱，香港沒有會計師「工會」，只有「會計師商會」及「Society of Big4 Accountants」。 之後，理論上代表會員利益的會計師公會竟然跟會計界一人一票選出來的議員譚香文打了一場非常無聊的官司。當然，會計師是永遠不用負責的，輸了幾百萬律師費後，公會沒有人要負責。Business as usual。

美國重複又重複發生槍擊案，主流民意支持收緊槍械監管，但法案到了國會後一般都會變成冇牙老虎。為什麼？因為反對收緊槍械監管的軍火商及槍會組織資源集中，而且利益及立場一致，所以在國會的遊說事半功倍。跨國大會計師樓擁有龐大的資源及一致的利益，在公會擁有相對大的影響力亦是必然的結果。

誠然，非執業會計師才是會計師公會佔比重最大的會員類別，審計師主要服務的亦是非執業會計師及大眾。因此，會計師公會應平衡執業跟非執業會計師的利益，而非一面倒向大會計師行傾斜。我的一位教授曾為Enron作顧問。他說，當年他對Enron的各種會計手法有極大的保留，並向董事局提出疑問。董事的回覆倒也簡單：五大的安達信、國際律師行及投行都看過安排，都沒有問題了，你不用擔心。結果？公司多位高層飽受牢之災。安達信雖然倒下來了，但上訴得值。坦白說，所有CFO及Financial Controller也有無心之失，有「睇漏眼」的時候，但「洗」你錢的會計師就沒有法律後果，公平嗎？

成功做空Enron及美國銀行業而成名的沖基金經理James Chanos說過，所有大型會計醜聞必定有各大會計師及律師事務所參與。最近證監會出手凍結帳目有問題的群星紙業的資金。群星上市至今的審計師是誰？又是畢馬威KPMG。出手的，又是證監會，又再一次不是會計師公會。保薦人高度依賴審計師的工作。爆鑊後，保薦人被證監會罰款、停牌。但審計師有後果嗎？

當然，保薦人被證監會罰款的原因並只因為爆鑊，而是因為保薦人「放飛機」。如果功夫做足，依足守則，客戶爆鑊亦無畏調查吧。雷曼倒閉時，不是有調查其會計手法嗎？最後世上最積極的檢控當局不是要放棄檢控安永？上週，我的朋友在facebook 登載了有趣的status。他說，審計員找他討論財務資料前已把working paper已填得滿滿了。不是「放飛機」，是什麼？客戶也可以看出審計師「放飛機」，什麼審計經理及合夥人看不出？

會計師公會多次把關不力，多年沒有深切的改革。公會高高在上的態度到近年有改善，但個人認為利益依舊向大會計師樓傾斜。早前，會計師公會為審計改革諮詢而設的網站，轉載的文章一面倒反對改革，對其他支持改革的報導充耳不聞。會計師公會是否有預設立場，我當然不知道。不過，如果是巧合的話，那過去的眾多事件的巧合真是令人嘖嘖稱奇。這個巧合的安排，不是正正提供了公眾一個赤裸裸的證據，我們需要獨立的監管機構？

原載在 Education Post: 把關不力，改革刻不容緩

破龔耀輝及鄭中正的盲辯

龔耀輝及鄭中正為年青會計師協會的骨幹成員，但我猜他們當了多年會計師，把加入會計師公會的基本資格都忘掉了。

會計師最基本的要求

龔及鄭二人，分別在《見棺材還未流眼淚》及《開天殺價 落地還錢》聲討「將來的fit and proper的登記要求」。曉以大義，動之以情，我差點兒被他們感動了，直至到我想起，fit and proper一直都是登記做會計師的基本要求。不信？公會的網站清楚寫明：Any person seeking the Institute's membership must satisfy the Institute that he or she is a fit and proper person to be a certified public accountant。

龔指諮詢是「無知、無心、無腦」。但做會計師最基本的要求都搞錯，不知道龔及鄭是「 無知」、「無心」還是「無腦」？其實，如果有心看諮詢文件，一定會看到FRC無意改變現有會計師公會的fit and proper標準（現有公會的標準在這裡）。因此，龔及鄭就反對登記的論據自然全部站不住腳。是龔及鄭是有心歪曲事實，還是沒有時間看文件，我就不知道了。

另外，龔又指「劵商的工作有明文規定，只要跟足字面要求，就可以守法安心。核數師做的工作，是根據一些虛無縹緲的指引，並按照自己判斷行事。」事實又是否如此簡單？不要忘記，證監負責監管企業融資活動及投資銀行。保薦人的盡職調查、招股書的質素等難道不是「根據一些虛無縹緲的指引，並按照自己判斷行事」？證監怎樣判斷劵商有沒有違規銷售，怎樣監管俗稱「炒房」的自營交易部門？龔耀輝曾任企業融資顧問，應該明白證監及港交所上市科如何根據指引及規則而作出服眾的判斷。Listing Decision及Takeovers Bulletin公開透明，引經據典，分析合理。就算當事人不服，亦不會在黑箱拖足10年。

無知無心無腦

其次，龔指：「照搬SFC罰1000萬元或利潤三倍，模仿盧教授的說法，是無知、無心、無腦。炒股票犯事，一買一賣，利潤幾多，一計即知。但核數師一單核數工作，淨賺幾多，點計？」

Excuse me? 以前，做保薦人不另收費的投行比比皆是，用龔耀輝的邏輯，那違規是否不用罰款？證監負責監管的投行研究部門，完全沒有收入，那出問題又不用罰款呀？如果俗稱「炒房」的自營交易部門違規，但炒爆蝕大錢，又不用罰款呀？這樣說，怎樣也說不通吧。利潤不一定要用帳目利潤，可以用經濟利潤 (economic profit)。龔耀輝用利潤三倍來標籤FRC「無知、無心、無腦」，是否太重手了？

我重看龔耀輝的舊文《戰鬥！趁還有戰鬥的自由》，才發現原來跟龔及鄭中正曾代表「會計師監管改革關注組」與財經事務及庫務局官員見面，討論會計改革。覺得很可怕。因為，他們二人的文章有大量與事實不符的歪論。加上堂皇的言語，似是而非的盲辯，我擔心改革會被淡化。為文時，心情沉重。為什麼龔及鄭二人那麼多歪理，但竟然沒有人反駁？我對香港會不會變成內地另一個不懂反抗的城市，不敢樂觀。


原載在 Education Post: 破龔耀輝及鄭中正的盲辯

上海地產案：周正毅不幸的謀臣

你可有試過在工作上遇過，工作報告的方向寫錯了，結論全盆皆錯，更白白浪費了公司幾百萬元的經費，但閣下的上司們不但沒有厲色嚴懲，反而高度讚揚閣下的表現？我相信，做錯決定又受到上司高度讚揚，世間上極少發生。我雖然未有這樣的經歷，不過，這事發生在上海地產案：該案錯判的原審法官就受到推翻其判決的上訴法官的感謝及讚揚。這是極為少見的事，究竟案情為何？

上海地產案案情非常複雜，極具爭議性。該案判詞極長，上訴法官更多次用「痛苦」 (painstaking)  來形容案件的判詞的長度及案件的分析。當年，周正毅的上海地產在香港借殼上市。在買殼的交易中，公司發表了正式公告及綜合併購文件。當中的文件披露了新股東沒有具體的注資計劃  (no specific plans)。

一方面，如果周正毅不把自己的資產注入殼，他這個殼就會被廢了武功，變成一家沒有用的空殼公司，所以不注資是不合理的。另一方面，周買殼的錢是向中銀借的。他的如意算盤是，只要把私人資產賣給上市的公司殼，套現後就可以還錢給中銀了。這樣，他不但可以獲得一個上市平台，更不需要動用自己的資本。所有參與這交易的公司管理層及專業人士皆知道周正毅的計劃。他們的電郵亦有討論注入的資產、大概的估值、時間表等。

不幸地，正式公告及綜合併購文件明明指新股東沒有具體的注資計劃。因此，周正毅、公司公司管理層及涉案的專業人士控指串謀行騙，作虛假聲明。原訟庭亦判各被告罪成。

何謂「具體」的注資計劃是非常複雜的判斷。連注入的資產、大概的估值、時間表都有了，這算不算是「具體」呢？周正毅怎樣還款予中銀，中銀是否依賴注資計劃來收回貸款，涉案的人對注資計劃的了解等亦非三言兩語可以說清。此外，雖然文件是由涉案人士共同負責，但原來「沒有具體的注資計劃」是非涉案的律師所加的。

上海地產案專業人士被錯判，要到終審才能上訴得直，受了牢獄之災，花了大量金錢及時間，毀掉了各人的事業。我對涉案的專業人士最終被判無罪，感到恩慰。但，真相是非，絕對不是一件明顯的事。而且，事發之後，金融業從業員對披露的信息都更小心，務求做到更精確，披露更全面。最公眾來說，總算是好事。

雖然案件的原審是誤判，但審訊是公開的，而且大家可以在網上看法官的判詞，其分析及案例，各代表律師等。會計師公會的紀律聆訊，我從來沒有聽過招待公眾旁聽。上海地產案審訊的時間雖長如胡定旭案的十年，但亦是非常之長，討論亦詳細。香港的法院一般擁有不錯的聲譽。我認為拿這案跟胡定旭案比，是不合理，不適當，亦沒有心看判詞之果。對龔耀輝用「犬決」來形容香港的法院審判，我真是無話可說。

龔耀輝及年青會計師協會其他文章的不合理點，下期再續。


【1】  上訴庭的判詞：http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=70436&currpage=T

【2】  終審判詞：http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=77301&currpage=T


原載在 Education Post: 上海地產案：周正毅不幸的謀臣

馬雲的盤算

隨著阿里巴巴宣布放棄在香港而選擇在美國上市，阿里巴巴引起的一連串股權及控制權的爭議正式告一段落。搞了一場大龍鳳，香港交易所及李小加全程配合，阿里結果還是在美國上市。究竟馬雲在想什麼？究竟馬雲想要什麼？

香港報章媒體看到的討論一般集中在『同股不同權』的『A/B股』制度上。但若果細心留意阿里巴巴及馬雲的談話內容，會發現阿里巴巴官方從來沒有提出過希望透過『A/B股』上市。阿里巴巴一直所要求的他們自創的、不知所謂的『合夥人』制度。

在香港經營業務，基本上只有三種商業安排：獨資經營，合夥或『有限公司』。在香港及大部分普通法系國家，『合夥人』不單只要出資，更需要共同承擔合夥公司的負債及責任，這亦是『合夥』與『有限公司』之間的最大分別。合夥人之間的關係，那個大，那個小，賺到錢怎樣分，一般會通過『合夥合同』釐清，白紙黑字寫清楚。出資大的，不一定有話事權，安排非常靈活，但有事要『上身』，股權也不能靈活集資，遑論上市。

惟阿里巴巴肯定是一家『有限公司』而不是合夥。阿里巴巴有28名所謂『合夥人』，一般要在公司工作5年以上才可以成為『合夥人』。合夥人由現任合夥人一人一票選出，須獲75％以上同意才可當選。阿里巴巴及馬雲最希望達到，而香港交易所未能允許的，是『合夥人』們可以在公司上市後提名半數以上的董事。因此，馬雲真正要求的，是一種集『合夥』的靈活及可受控、『有限公司』方便集資的股權架構，但有事不用上身的上市載體。

阿里巴巴指他們的方案只是為了保障小股東利益，合夥人是公司『文化的傳承者』。我並不認為阿里巴巴的『合夥人』能保障小股東利益，但就肯定能傳承公司的文化。公司管理層必須獲75％以上的現任合夥人同意才能要加入合夥人的行列。這樣小圈子選出來的人，能有異見人士嗎？沒有異見人士，公司文化肯定得以保存。我的推斷是，最終阿里巴巴的合夥人及董事局的文化及思想會非常類同。但在這科網年代，這樣的安排好嗎？What if合夥人及董事局看錯大局，公司需要改革？面對這樣頑強的制度，還有誰可以力挽狂瀾？如果大股東對管理層不滿，想更換C什麼O，還有誰可以壓得住場，管得住合夥人們？這樣的局面只有一個結果：更換以馬雲及其親信為首的管理層極度困難。另外，合夥人們要『玩』非執行董事，其實不難，馬雲亦有前科（見下文）。

香港交易所一廂情願以為阿里巴巴要的是A/B股權，更李小加主動披露會為A/B股權進行公眾諮詢，亦不斷公開為A/B股權說項。A/B股權無疑可以允許管理層持有高投票權的股票而對公司有更大的影響力。但馬雲及其親信所佔的股權只有約10%，遠遠不如雅虎及軟銀的近50%。即使馬雲及其親信的股權突然神奇地變成B股，並擁有A股誇張的5倍投票權，亦只能跟雅虎及軟銀打成平手。更何況，多年來馬雲跟雅虎及軟銀有大量紛爭，雅虎及軟銀一定不會對合夥人們順攤，願意在上市前接受股改的要求，放棄控制權。如此，A/B股權對馬雲並不足夠，因為他們根本不夠票。

雅虎在阿里巴巴寒微時投資入股，現在阿里巴巴羽翼已成，旋即咄咄逼人，反面不認人。例如，在2009年，馬雲及合夥人繞過阿里巴巴的董事會，以3億多元的低價把的支付寶從阿里巴巴拿下，根據文件披露，雅虎要到2011年才意識到支付寶已脫離阿里巴巴的集團內。媒體多次報導阿里巴巴多次談判雅虎，賠償雅虎的損失，包括支付寶成功上市時需要向雅虎支付20-60億美元等（這可以看出何謂賤賣資產）。雙方最終亦於2012年簽訂回購協議。根據回購協議，阿里巴巴向雅虎回購5億多股。如阿里巴巴在2015年底前上市，雅虎便需要以招股價向阿里巴巴或市場出售2億多股阿里巴巴的普通股，或現時雅虎近半數的持股量。大如雅虎及軟銀亦要跟阿里巴巴鬥智鬥力，如沒有嚴格監管，香港的散戶怎樣跟馬雲及合夥人爭取合理待遇？

我相信，雅虎的美國管理層及軟銀巴不得阿里巴巴可以立刻在美國上市，使合夥人們就會受到上市規則及條例監管，促使阿里巴巴公平合理地對待股東。若有不公及違反法例，公司、董事及合夥人們都有機會被美國集體訴訟機制控告。美國是雅虎的地頭，阿里巴巴肯定不會夠雅虎玩。所以，我認為香港一直是阿里巴巴的首選。即使阿里巴巴宣布在美國上市，亦放風聲只其沒有放棄香港。另一邊廂，雅虎的減持可以直接減低其影響力，這對馬雲來說非常重要。因此，我認為 馬雲不會想放棄2015年底前上市。我認為這是阿里巴巴不能再等香港交易所的主要原因。

從阿里巴巴處理『合夥人』的手法，可以看出他們（其法律顧問及投行）過分自信，大大低估了市場對任何不公平制度的接受程度及技術難度。習慣內地做生意的馬雲，可能以為有港交所CEO李小加出面支持，事情會容易話為。幸好香港是講程序公義的地方，除了面對股東及盈利壓力的李小加及港交所的上市科外，還有獨立運作的上市委員會及證監會把關。

市場原先預期港交所可以在2014年第一季初推出A/B股權的諮詢文件，但到現在只聞樓梯響，想必是問題複雜，前期工作耗時甚巨。就算港交所可以在年中前推出諮詢文件，沒有人知道市場的反應會如何 – 不過應該不會好到哪裡。另一方面，這樣具爭議的題目，諮詢期、撰寫諮詢結論及新例落實只會小心緩慢進行。拖個一年並不出奇。阿里巴巴這樣龐大的IPO，股票市場需要極好的氣氛及深度才能消化得下。現在聯儲局收水在即，難保明年的股票市場會持續平穩上揚。阿里巴巴及馬雲著急了，所以管不了那麼多，原先搞砸了的投資銀行及顧問繼續留任，A/B股也好，有集體訴訟機制也好，先上市再算。我預計招股書的風險披露，應該會很精彩，亦很期待。

An MBA is not for everyone

At times, I hear from people who say that many subjects taught at business schools are irrelevant to career advancement.  The usual “culprits” are competitive strategy and strategic management, and the last person who aired such a complaint to me was actually my secretary. There are clearly some misperceptions here if students are not getting what they want despite spending a substantial sum for their courses. To see where the real problem lies, let me go back to the beginning.

The first master of business administration (MBA) degree was introduced by Harvard Business School in 1908, eight years after the first graduate school of business - the Tuck School of Business - was established at another Ivy League institution, Dartmouth College. The first MBA programme was heavily influenced by the management science of Frederick Winslow Taylor, who is generally considered the first management consultant and was a professor at Tuck. Even though Taylor died in 1915, we are still living in his shadow, since the structure and philosophy he established for business education has outlived his management science.

From the outset, MBA programmes have been designed to address the pressing issues faced by senior executives and their consultants. As the business world constantly changes, MBA programmes have adjusted   correspondingly. Entrepreneurial education, e-commerce and emerging markets are now popular courses, but were little known in leading business schools two decades ago. So, even though MBA graduates   will not become C-suite executives overnight, they do generally have the skills needed to join leading consulting firms and investment banks and to offer constructive advice to senior executives of Fortune 500 companies. They are in a position to work their way up and, in due course, become leaders with a mandate to effect change at boardroom level and beyond.

Exemplifying this, Harvard Business School has long been regarded as a training ground for future recruits of consultancy firm McKinsey. It is no coincidence that the case teaching method invented and made famous by Harvard closely resembles the typical approach to a consulting case or investment banking engagement. Subjects like competitive strategy and M&A (merger and acquisition) financing prepare students for such challenges and equip them with important skill sets which consultants and bankers may use on a daily basis. Such skills may not be as useful for managers of manufacturing firms or SMEs but, remember, the job of leading business schools is to design a modern MBA which caters to the likely vocational needs of the majority of their students.

The choice of MBA programmes is now wider than ever, so candidates should carefully consider the structure and content of available courses and select one which best suits their individual needs and ambitions. Investing in a programme which is not right for you – and having persistent doubts about - is not the way to go. 


Originally published on Education Post.

小休復出，重新上路

小休了一段時間，剛剛才發現原來已放下blogging 一段時間。整理好文章後會陸續開始再寫一些不同的材料。