前醫管局主席及安永會計師事務所遠東主席胡定旭違反審計準則一案終於塵埃落定。胡定旭、安永及另外一名合夥人被判違反專業準則,香港會計師公會對他們作出紀律處分。案中的主角胡定旭被罰停牌兩年，及罰款二十五萬港元。對於一位已經退下來的會計師，是完全沒有阻嚇力。不過，重點不在刑罰的輕重。一如以往，會計師公會的新聞稿隱惡揚善，有意無意隱去了大量細節。有趣的細節都在紀律委員會的判詞裡。
如之前寫過，胡定旭案案情非常簡單，就是胡定旭在1995起當新中港審計師期間，收兩家茶禮，並人贓並獲：他一方面負責審計，另一方面，每月收取10萬元的顧問費負責管理客戶的帳目及控制銀行戶口，違反核數師獨立性這重要的原則及會計師的專業守則。
胡定旭最近接受壹周刊訪問時解釋，這件案對他不公平，原因是不應該用現在 - 或後Enron年代 – 的標準去審批他們20年前所作的審計。壹周刊負責記者或者不是負責金融行業、或不懂英文，或是懶惰，沒有花點時間看判詞。從判詞中可以找到紀律委員會分析為何胡定旭的解釋並不合理 - 核數師獨立性是重要的原則，現在如是，20年前亦然。委員會亦對胡定旭的無知感到驚訝 (surprising)。而且，審判是用上以往的準則 Statements on Auditing Standards，如非現在的 Standards on Auditing。在胡定旭的訪問中，可以看出他不但沒有誠意作一個新的理由，而且非常厚顏。如果該記者好好把握，應該可以打蛇隨棍上，即時問胡先生為甚麼沒有悔意，沒有反思 (lack of introspection)、是否有誠信危機，是否不適合出任公職等等。壹週刊的確是很有娛樂性的讀物，不過認真就輸了，不能有要求。
另外，縱然 Enron 的審計師安達信從客戶身上賺取大額非審計的顧問費用，據我了解但並沒有直接控制 Enron 的賬戶及銀行戶口。而且，用一件臭名遠播的案來為自己說項，就有如學生考試出貓作弊，被抓後詭辯「其他同學也是這樣」一般的無理。胡定旭為四家公司（電能實業、中國農業銀行、粵海投資、中國太平保險）的獨立董事，及一家正在籌備上市的公司的出任獨立董事。各家上市公司均有發表公告，表示知悉胡定旭被罰停牌，但沒有交代為何繼續讓胡定旭出任董事，及他的任命是否合適。原來面臨紀律處分的會計師可以繼續出任香港上市公司的獨立董事，可以繼續為小股東監察上市公司，為公司管治出一份力！香港真是一個充滿機會的地方！
這件案聽來簡單。正在考會計師專業試的同學亦應該能判斷胡定旭違反了守則。不過，會計師公會在新中港清盤後4年才展開調查，而調查亦用了超過6年時間。為甚麼調查需要那麼長時間呢？原來連委員會亦有所不知，只知這應該不關胡定旭他們事 (not attributable to any of the Respondents)，但會計師公會亦沒有解釋 (unexplained)。委員會認為拖了這樣長時間是十分令人惋惜 (regrettable) 及極不尋常 (exceptional)，而且對自我監管的會計師公會，公眾及會計師本身亦有不妥，而且並非公義的處事方式。
會計師公會的新聞稿對委員會的問題沒有回應，只交代的個人的懲處。會計師公會是否欠公眾及守法的專業會計師們一個交代？
原載在 Education Post。
2014年8月25日星期一
What have I learned from the MBA programme? (Part 2)
In earlier times, an apprenticeship was a much more fashionable way to learn a trade or profession. While the rise of cost-effective and scalable classroom teaching may have contributed to the demise of apprenticeships, the prevalence of internships has proved that on-the-job training is irreplaceable. There is only so much that lectures and readings can achieve: we very often learn a craft through observation and imitation. For example, we learn how to play the piano not by reading a Dummies Guide on it, but by imitating the moves of our instructors. We learn through observation, exposure and practice.
Classroom teaching and business cases are the building blocks of MBA programmes, and inevitably, there are structural voids that come with this mode of education. It is true that all schools have access to the same textbooks and cases. What impressed me most about my business school and professors is how they filled those voids, making an MBA education a holistic and seamless learning experience.
A business case is a reconstruction of a chain of historical events from the perspective of a bystander. It is all too easy to critique the decision maker with perfect hindsight and perfect data in an air-conditioned classroom. However, we all have emotions and don’t necessarily make the best decisions under stress and uncertainty. Furthermore, our decisions are bound by our position, belief and office politics. These inextricably intertwined forces are so important, and yet very often lacking, in typical business cases. Perhaps some of the issues are too polarising and politically inappropriate for publication. Having guest speakers who are in the know talk about their cases makes a substantial difference in class.
Guest speakers provide the context and inconvenient truth, and thereby complete the untold story. Through our interactions with them – some are the most influential and powerful figures in the world – we catch a glimpse of their souls, their fear and their thinking. They are only prepared to reveal their inner feelings when the professors are their good friends; the class is small, professional and smart; and the conversation is off the record. The most powerful assets of senior professors are not their publications, but their rolodex. The most important asset of a great business school is their students, not their facilities.
My visits to C-suite executives and senior government officials, and daily encounters with some highly talented classmates, have exposed me to the many possibilities in life. My friends and I have seen first-hand how highly successful people portray power, exert influence, and evade questions. We challenged them in class, as if they were classmates. Even more entertaining, and somewhat mind-boggling, is seeing the Jekyll and Hyde sides of many career politicians and senior business executives behind closed doors.
We did not like all we saw, but we had a better sense of what actually happens. We drew our own conclusions and learned from them. We have also become accustomed to nasty and provocative personalities, and at ease with senior executives of multinational corporations. We have been shown the dynamics and politics of boards of directors, and may even have been assimilated by them. We have become more like them. Maybe this explains the popularity of MBAs among consulting firms, investment banks, multinational corporations and other staid establishments. Perhaps this also explains why MBAs are not known for being entrepreneurial or innovative.
Originally posted on Education Post.
Classroom teaching and business cases are the building blocks of MBA programmes, and inevitably, there are structural voids that come with this mode of education. It is true that all schools have access to the same textbooks and cases. What impressed me most about my business school and professors is how they filled those voids, making an MBA education a holistic and seamless learning experience.
A business case is a reconstruction of a chain of historical events from the perspective of a bystander. It is all too easy to critique the decision maker with perfect hindsight and perfect data in an air-conditioned classroom. However, we all have emotions and don’t necessarily make the best decisions under stress and uncertainty. Furthermore, our decisions are bound by our position, belief and office politics. These inextricably intertwined forces are so important, and yet very often lacking, in typical business cases. Perhaps some of the issues are too polarising and politically inappropriate for publication. Having guest speakers who are in the know talk about their cases makes a substantial difference in class.
Guest speakers provide the context and inconvenient truth, and thereby complete the untold story. Through our interactions with them – some are the most influential and powerful figures in the world – we catch a glimpse of their souls, their fear and their thinking. They are only prepared to reveal their inner feelings when the professors are their good friends; the class is small, professional and smart; and the conversation is off the record. The most powerful assets of senior professors are not their publications, but their rolodex. The most important asset of a great business school is their students, not their facilities.
My visits to C-suite executives and senior government officials, and daily encounters with some highly talented classmates, have exposed me to the many possibilities in life. My friends and I have seen first-hand how highly successful people portray power, exert influence, and evade questions. We challenged them in class, as if they were classmates. Even more entertaining, and somewhat mind-boggling, is seeing the Jekyll and Hyde sides of many career politicians and senior business executives behind closed doors.
We did not like all we saw, but we had a better sense of what actually happens. We drew our own conclusions and learned from them. We have also become accustomed to nasty and provocative personalities, and at ease with senior executives of multinational corporations. We have been shown the dynamics and politics of boards of directors, and may even have been assimilated by them. We have become more like them. Maybe this explains the popularity of MBAs among consulting firms, investment banks, multinational corporations and other staid establishments. Perhaps this also explains why MBAs are not known for being entrepreneurial or innovative.
Originally posted on Education Post.
2014年8月23日星期六
What have I learned from the MBA programme? (Part 1)
A friend recently asked me what I have learned during my two-year MBA programme. This is the first part of my thoughts on the subject.
There are scientific hypotheses and theories about how brain development slows down as we grow older. When I was younger, this misled me into thinking I might be incapable of further intellectual advancement after a certain age, but I could not have been more wrong. Taking an MBA has turned out to be a most inspiring and memorable experience. It has accelerated my career progression and personal development and, in doing so, has definitely been transformative.
Even so, I find it difficult to put down in words exactly what I have learned. On various occasions, friends have asked me about the biggest lessons and I have clearly failed to come up with a consistent and satisfying answer. Perhaps this is attributable to the non-technical nature of an MBA, but it has also led me to reflect deeply on my two-year educational journey in the United States.
There, the MBA is rather confusingly classified as a professional degree. But unlike other such degrees, it does not provide on-the-ground training for a profession. A law degree prepares students to work in the legal field, a degree in medicine trains future doctors. Yet there is no obviously equivalent profession for MBA graduates. Even in the realm of business education, an MBA is probably the least technical further qualification. For instance, a master’s in accounting is clearly designed for accountants, while the MBA, in covering numerous subjects, is more of a compromise between breadth and depth.
Certainly, I learned a few tricks about statistics, financial engineering, strategy and, perhaps most importantly, about using Microsoft PowerPoint. But I could probably have learned those just as easily at home at less expense. I should, of course, mention having an expanded network and the many happenings outside the classroom. The MBA was a chance to step out of my comfort zone and test my own mental – and physical – limits multiple times. Also, it was difficult to keep count of all of the interesting excursions, meetings and seminars we were asked to attend. But with the nature of the MBA being to train people to be a jack of all trades, I know I have learned a lot, but still find it hard to pin down the few key distinct skills which will make all the difference.
It is only in retrospect and through introspection that I can recognise the subtle changes in myself and what I want and expect from life. Some of the changes are obvious and amusing, such as my new tolerance for poorly brewed coffee and hamburgers and a new passion for skiing and ice hockey. They may not help career advancement, but they have helped to add colour and variety to my life.
However, other influences from the MBA have fundamentally changed my perspectives on business and views about the world around us. I will go into more detail about that in my next blog.
Posted originally on Education Post.
There are scientific hypotheses and theories about how brain development slows down as we grow older. When I was younger, this misled me into thinking I might be incapable of further intellectual advancement after a certain age, but I could not have been more wrong. Taking an MBA has turned out to be a most inspiring and memorable experience. It has accelerated my career progression and personal development and, in doing so, has definitely been transformative.
Even so, I find it difficult to put down in words exactly what I have learned. On various occasions, friends have asked me about the biggest lessons and I have clearly failed to come up with a consistent and satisfying answer. Perhaps this is attributable to the non-technical nature of an MBA, but it has also led me to reflect deeply on my two-year educational journey in the United States.
There, the MBA is rather confusingly classified as a professional degree. But unlike other such degrees, it does not provide on-the-ground training for a profession. A law degree prepares students to work in the legal field, a degree in medicine trains future doctors. Yet there is no obviously equivalent profession for MBA graduates. Even in the realm of business education, an MBA is probably the least technical further qualification. For instance, a master’s in accounting is clearly designed for accountants, while the MBA, in covering numerous subjects, is more of a compromise between breadth and depth.
Certainly, I learned a few tricks about statistics, financial engineering, strategy and, perhaps most importantly, about using Microsoft PowerPoint. But I could probably have learned those just as easily at home at less expense. I should, of course, mention having an expanded network and the many happenings outside the classroom. The MBA was a chance to step out of my comfort zone and test my own mental – and physical – limits multiple times. Also, it was difficult to keep count of all of the interesting excursions, meetings and seminars we were asked to attend. But with the nature of the MBA being to train people to be a jack of all trades, I know I have learned a lot, but still find it hard to pin down the few key distinct skills which will make all the difference.
It is only in retrospect and through introspection that I can recognise the subtle changes in myself and what I want and expect from life. Some of the changes are obvious and amusing, such as my new tolerance for poorly brewed coffee and hamburgers and a new passion for skiing and ice hockey. They may not help career advancement, but they have helped to add colour and variety to my life.
However, other influences from the MBA have fundamentally changed my perspectives on business and views about the world around us. I will go into more detail about that in my next blog.
Posted originally on Education Post.
2014年8月21日星期四
Full-time MBA study does not imply high opportunity and career costs
We often hear about young professionals in their late 20s working for blue-chip firms and earning enviable salaries. They have already achieved a lot and, to advance further, decide it makes sense to have an MBA on their resume. The next logical step - as they see it - is to gain admission to a top MBA programme in the confident expectation they ace all the subjects as they did in high school and at college. That may require some extra effort, but it will pay off as the way then opens up to an even brighter future and, in due course, a spacious office somewhere in the C-suite.
There is nothing wrong with this approach. It seems to me, though, that if someone is already so sure about their future career path and so focused too, they may be better served by taking a specialised master’s programme rather than signing up for an MBA.
Top full-time MBA programmes are not intended to offer vocational training. They combine a wide spectrum of academic courses with group work, seminars and social activities and can provide a one- or two-year “gap” to weigh up a wider range of career options. Too many people look at this hiatus from an opportunity cost perspective, considering how much income they will lose and the promotions they may miss. Indeed, when I decided to take a two-year full time MBA, concerned friends and relatives most often asked about the real cost and the “risk” of further education. I could appreciate their worries, but didn’t agree. Leading executives have to build a business by seeking improvement and planning ahead, not just by minimising risk and avoiding costs.
In retrospect, I have been able to recognise the all-round benefits of a full-time programme. Taking two years off work means you don’t have the burden and distractions of daily workplace routines. This provides vital breathing for professionals to step back, learn and reflect. A period of introspection makes it easier to identify where your true passions lie and where your limits are. A two-year break from work also provides a chance to experiment, to experience real personal growth, and to fail in a “safe” environment. Lessons from failure are often the first steps on the road to success. In fact, IDEO, the celebrated design house, has even made “fail early and often” part of their management philosophy.
I still see too many of my peers living an unexamined life, as if in a bubble. Early success in a relatively narrow sphere has given them a large ego and arrogance. Their pride robs them of a useful mechanism – the reality check - and the “disease” of overconfidence can become chronic, ultimately harming their careers and meaning they don’t spot new opportunities or looming problems.
An MBA in not the only antidote for this, but it can go a long way to opening eyes, broadening horizons and changing outlooks, which alone can make it a worthwhile investment of time and money.
Posted originally on Education Post.
There is nothing wrong with this approach. It seems to me, though, that if someone is already so sure about their future career path and so focused too, they may be better served by taking a specialised master’s programme rather than signing up for an MBA.
Top full-time MBA programmes are not intended to offer vocational training. They combine a wide spectrum of academic courses with group work, seminars and social activities and can provide a one- or two-year “gap” to weigh up a wider range of career options. Too many people look at this hiatus from an opportunity cost perspective, considering how much income they will lose and the promotions they may miss. Indeed, when I decided to take a two-year full time MBA, concerned friends and relatives most often asked about the real cost and the “risk” of further education. I could appreciate their worries, but didn’t agree. Leading executives have to build a business by seeking improvement and planning ahead, not just by minimising risk and avoiding costs.
In retrospect, I have been able to recognise the all-round benefits of a full-time programme. Taking two years off work means you don’t have the burden and distractions of daily workplace routines. This provides vital breathing for professionals to step back, learn and reflect. A period of introspection makes it easier to identify where your true passions lie and where your limits are. A two-year break from work also provides a chance to experiment, to experience real personal growth, and to fail in a “safe” environment. Lessons from failure are often the first steps on the road to success. In fact, IDEO, the celebrated design house, has even made “fail early and often” part of their management philosophy.
I still see too many of my peers living an unexamined life, as if in a bubble. Early success in a relatively narrow sphere has given them a large ego and arrogance. Their pride robs them of a useful mechanism – the reality check - and the “disease” of overconfidence can become chronic, ultimately harming their careers and meaning they don’t spot new opportunities or looming problems.
An MBA in not the only antidote for this, but it can go a long way to opening eyes, broadening horizons and changing outlooks, which alone can make it a worthwhile investment of time and money.
Posted originally on Education Post.
2014年8月19日星期二
香港V.S.國內 會計師樓文化大不同
最近跟一位在內地執業的會計師吃飯。數年前他毅然從香港的會計師樓調往內地的分所工作。在飯桌上，我再次深深感受到香港會計業所面對的困境。
朋友形容，國際會計師事務所在內地的辦公室，一般在11點時已經很冷清，在公司通訊系統上online 的人只剩下小貓三兩，跟香港大部分同事都在午夜後還會繼續拼搏成了強烈對比。而且，內地的國際會計師事務所的工資縱然比不上很多外資企業，但待遇一般比本地企業好好多。加上內地的套房始終比香港的更容易負擔，大家的自我感覺自然良好。另一邊廂，最近聽到某些本地會計樓以月薪8千請 graduate trainee，比中環負責洗碗的阿姨還要低3千。「唔灰心意冷就假。」
為甚麼內地的工作時間會比較香港好那麼多？
我朋友認為，內地的工作文化比香港要好得多。比如說，老闆不會對下屬有太多無理的要求，亦會尊重同事的私人生活，起碼，週末要同事瘋狂加班亦不會當成「老奉」。而且，整晚待在公司的高級經理及合夥人相對較少。老闆都走了，大家都沒有需要做場戲，上 facebook、whatsapp，「磨爛蓆」鬥夜放工。我在四大期間，看到大量同事花大量時間上facebook，「耕田」玩 Candy Crush、睇相、吃 long lunch、long dinner。這樣的長工時，很大程度是自找的。
朋友亦留意到，內地員工一般比較早成家立室，很多還沒有升到經理級別以及有小孩要照顧。新婚的肯定希望早一點回家過二人世界。家裡有小孩子的，肯定希望早一點回家看小孩。在內地的生育政策下，小孩是家裡的中心。大家都抱有work-life balance的訴求，公司自然不能有太多無理的要求。哪怕遇著個別變態經理及合夥人，只要大家敢一起說不，大家都會好過好多。大家都逆來順受，合理化不合理的事情，結果就是 “race to the bottom”，大家都只有忍，並邊做邊罵。
不過，內地及香港最重要的分別，我個人認為是因為內地的遍地機會，令大家有勇氣說不。即使離開了會計師樓，還有機會找到有良好晉升機會的職業。畢竟內地的會計師數量極少，對會計專業有極大的需求。如果在北京/天津/上海/廣州/深圳的發展不太順，例如得罪了某經理/合夥人，國內還有大量城市可以考慮，並不一定要座困愁城，怕被人 blacklist （當然這是相對香港而言）。
最後一點是，我個人感覺，香港的合夥人及經理相對小心，審計程序做得比較足，做得較細。但除非客戶願意多付審計費用，或者香港合夥人及經理可以找到人願意「食鐘」，否則可以找內地審計師負責的項目，都會流失到便宜一截的內地審計師。而我不知道這是不是導致香港的同事較辛苦的最終原因。
原載在 Education Post。
朋友形容，國際會計師事務所在內地的辦公室，一般在11點時已經很冷清，在公司通訊系統上online 的人只剩下小貓三兩，跟香港大部分同事都在午夜後還會繼續拼搏成了強烈對比。而且，內地的國際會計師事務所的工資縱然比不上很多外資企業，但待遇一般比本地企業好好多。加上內地的套房始終比香港的更容易負擔，大家的自我感覺自然良好。另一邊廂，最近聽到某些本地會計樓以月薪8千請 graduate trainee，比中環負責洗碗的阿姨還要低3千。「唔灰心意冷就假。」
為甚麼內地的工作時間會比較香港好那麼多？
我朋友認為，內地的工作文化比香港要好得多。比如說，老闆不會對下屬有太多無理的要求，亦會尊重同事的私人生活，起碼，週末要同事瘋狂加班亦不會當成「老奉」。而且，整晚待在公司的高級經理及合夥人相對較少。老闆都走了，大家都沒有需要做場戲，上 facebook、whatsapp，「磨爛蓆」鬥夜放工。我在四大期間，看到大量同事花大量時間上facebook，「耕田」玩 Candy Crush、睇相、吃 long lunch、long dinner。這樣的長工時，很大程度是自找的。
朋友亦留意到，內地員工一般比較早成家立室，很多還沒有升到經理級別以及有小孩要照顧。新婚的肯定希望早一點回家過二人世界。家裡有小孩子的，肯定希望早一點回家看小孩。在內地的生育政策下，小孩是家裡的中心。大家都抱有work-life balance的訴求，公司自然不能有太多無理的要求。哪怕遇著個別變態經理及合夥人，只要大家敢一起說不，大家都會好過好多。大家都逆來順受，合理化不合理的事情，結果就是 “race to the bottom”，大家都只有忍，並邊做邊罵。
不過，內地及香港最重要的分別，我個人認為是因為內地的遍地機會，令大家有勇氣說不。即使離開了會計師樓，還有機會找到有良好晉升機會的職業。畢竟內地的會計師數量極少，對會計專業有極大的需求。如果在北京/天津/上海/廣州/深圳的發展不太順，例如得罪了某經理/合夥人，國內還有大量城市可以考慮，並不一定要座困愁城，怕被人 blacklist （當然這是相對香港而言）。
最後一點是，我個人感覺，香港的合夥人及經理相對小心，審計程序做得比較足，做得較細。但除非客戶願意多付審計費用，或者香港合夥人及經理可以找到人願意「食鐘」，否則可以找內地審計師負責的項目，都會流失到便宜一截的內地審計師。而我不知道這是不是導致香港的同事較辛苦的最終原因。
原載在 Education Post。
2014年8月18日星期一
How MBA rankings can get it all wrong
In my first article, I wrote that MBA rankings fail to capture the multi-faceted nature of an MBA programme, and thus prospective students have to do their own research. One glaringly obvious omission of ranking is its inability to consider the softer, but equally important, aspects of an MBA programme, such as student life and culture. Recently, one business school ranking has tried to fix this deficiency, but their efforts back-fired, sparking controversy.
In recent months, Bloomberg Businessweek sent an e-mail survey to graduating MBA students of certain business schools, seeking input for its biannual MBA ranking. This survey differs from previous ones in that it includes a list of new questions. Some of these are truly original – they include questions on students’ sexual orientation, drinking habits, relationship status, and political affiliation. My favourite is:
Is your MBA program a good place for a single person to find casual dating partners?
Essentially, Bloomberg Businessweek is asking students how easy it is to get hooked up.
Their researchers and editors evidently think this factor must be so important that it warrants a place in the survey. I have no doubt that to some students, nightlife defines their school life. To them, the ease of finding a casual date will be highly relevant to their choice of school. However, is this so universally important that it has to be part of the business school ranking? Many people also find these questions highly private, inappropriate and offensive.
Bloomberg Businessweek defended their decision by saying that culture is an important part of an MBA education, and these questions are designed to reflect that. It is true that culture is equally important to the academics and career support of a school. However, what people have in mind, but do not say, about good culture is one that is conducive to the advancement of scholarship, knowledge and career development. A collaborative environment means students are supportive and work together in team, not in bed.
Subsequently, the deans of a group of leading business schools – Chicago Booth, Columbia, Harvard, Kellogg, Stanford GSB, Yale and Wharton – signed a collective communiqué expressing their concerns about the inappropriateness of these questions, and demanding that they delete and remove them from the surveys. The episode ended when Bloomberg Businessweek agreed to remove the problematic questions, not use them in future surveys or cite the data obtained.
Originally posted on Educational Post.
In recent months, Bloomberg Businessweek sent an e-mail survey to graduating MBA students of certain business schools, seeking input for its biannual MBA ranking. This survey differs from previous ones in that it includes a list of new questions. Some of these are truly original – they include questions on students’ sexual orientation, drinking habits, relationship status, and political affiliation. My favourite is:
Is your MBA program a good place for a single person to find casual dating partners?
Essentially, Bloomberg Businessweek is asking students how easy it is to get hooked up.
Their researchers and editors evidently think this factor must be so important that it warrants a place in the survey. I have no doubt that to some students, nightlife defines their school life. To them, the ease of finding a casual date will be highly relevant to their choice of school. However, is this so universally important that it has to be part of the business school ranking? Many people also find these questions highly private, inappropriate and offensive.
Bloomberg Businessweek defended their decision by saying that culture is an important part of an MBA education, and these questions are designed to reflect that. It is true that culture is equally important to the academics and career support of a school. However, what people have in mind, but do not say, about good culture is one that is conducive to the advancement of scholarship, knowledge and career development. A collaborative environment means students are supportive and work together in team, not in bed.
Subsequently, the deans of a group of leading business schools – Chicago Booth, Columbia, Harvard, Kellogg, Stanford GSB, Yale and Wharton – signed a collective communiqué expressing their concerns about the inappropriateness of these questions, and demanding that they delete and remove them from the surveys. The episode ended when Bloomberg Businessweek agreed to remove the problematic questions, not use them in future surveys or cite the data obtained.
Originally posted on Educational Post.
2014年8月16日星期六
Handy hints on getting that reference letter
Reference letters are a key component of an MBA application. Most MBA admission committees require two to three reference letters. They rely substantially on these to decide whether or not to grant an applicant an interview because they offer a more complete picture of who that person really is. However, they are also the least controllable part of an application. You can neither control what your referee writes, nor can you know in advance what they will write about you. It is therefore a risky component of the process.
Choosing the right referee is difficult. All admission committees and consultants will say that you should choose someone who knows you best. The trouble is that he or she may not necessarily be your best referee. You may want a referee with a fancy job title, but such a person may not know you well enough. On the other hand, the people who know you best may not have any experience of writing reference letters, and therefore make all the common mistakes: they may lack specific examples of what you did, how you did it, or rely too much on your input. Regardless of how good you are, the quality of your application will be affected by the quality of your reference letters.
Some applicants will want to offer referees assistance and help them draft their reference letters. This should be avoided at all costs. The trained eyes of admission committee members can identify similarities between your recommendation letters and your personal statement. They are exceptionally good at judging how authentic and genuine your recommendation letters are. Sometimes they will contact the referees directly via e-mail or by a phone call, and have a conversation with them. Once they find out the letter was not written primarily by the referee, your application will suffer, even without your knowing it. As such, even if you imagine you have found a referee with the perfect credentials, you need to decide whether they will commit meaningful time to write the letter instead of delegating it to their secretaries and subordinates. You should also give them plenty of time and follow up with them frequently.
Another common problem is that referees may not be good writers. They may not be able to write a reference letter that is eloquent or contains an in-depth insight into you. Even though some say that a recommendation letter is not a test of your referees’ English, the overall quality of the letter matters. In most cases, admission committees cannot afford to meet everyone’s referees; that’s why I feel that people judge how reliable your referee is by how well they write.
Given the above, it is obvious a good referee is not easy to come by. I believe that a better strategy is to develop relationships at your firm early on. Once you have identified people you can trust, and who are of a high calibre, develop a trusting relationship with them years before your application.This provides a pool of potential referees and mentors. It is also much easier to ask for assistance from someone whom you know well as a friend rather than co-workers or colleagues whom you know very little outside work.
Originally posted on Education Post.
Choosing the right referee is difficult. All admission committees and consultants will say that you should choose someone who knows you best. The trouble is that he or she may not necessarily be your best referee. You may want a referee with a fancy job title, but such a person may not know you well enough. On the other hand, the people who know you best may not have any experience of writing reference letters, and therefore make all the common mistakes: they may lack specific examples of what you did, how you did it, or rely too much on your input. Regardless of how good you are, the quality of your application will be affected by the quality of your reference letters.
Some applicants will want to offer referees assistance and help them draft their reference letters. This should be avoided at all costs. The trained eyes of admission committee members can identify similarities between your recommendation letters and your personal statement. They are exceptionally good at judging how authentic and genuine your recommendation letters are. Sometimes they will contact the referees directly via e-mail or by a phone call, and have a conversation with them. Once they find out the letter was not written primarily by the referee, your application will suffer, even without your knowing it. As such, even if you imagine you have found a referee with the perfect credentials, you need to decide whether they will commit meaningful time to write the letter instead of delegating it to their secretaries and subordinates. You should also give them plenty of time and follow up with them frequently.
Another common problem is that referees may not be good writers. They may not be able to write a reference letter that is eloquent or contains an in-depth insight into you. Even though some say that a recommendation letter is not a test of your referees’ English, the overall quality of the letter matters. In most cases, admission committees cannot afford to meet everyone’s referees; that’s why I feel that people judge how reliable your referee is by how well they write.
Given the above, it is obvious a good referee is not easy to come by. I believe that a better strategy is to develop relationships at your firm early on. Once you have identified people you can trust, and who are of a high calibre, develop a trusting relationship with them years before your application.This provides a pool of potential referees and mentors. It is also much easier to ask for assistance from someone whom you know well as a friend rather than co-workers or colleagues whom you know very little outside work.
Originally posted on Education Post.
2014年8月14日星期四
How to manage the GMAT
The GMAT (graduate management admission test) is a prerequisite for any serious MBA programme. To impress prospective students and employers, the website of every top business school shows the average GMAT score of their MBA intakes. Even though I am not an advocate of this standardised test, it is an unavoidable and important step in any MBA application.
Comparing to the SAT (scholastic aptitude test) or A-Levels in high school, the GMAT is not that difficult. It does not give candidates the same level of anxiety as university entrance exams. After all, there isn’t a fixed deadline for the GMAT - candidates can always delay their MBA application to the next year. Also, there is no limit to the number of times you can take the test. But even so, preparing for the GMAT usually takes up a substantial portion of the time spent on an MBA application. After several years in the workplace, most people find their skills in taking a public exam have waned. Therefore, it takes extra effort to sit down and work through the sometimes tedious exercises in preparation for the GMAT.
Friends often ask me how much time to spend preparing and when to start. The simple answers are, of course, as much and as soon as possible, but that is easier said than done. It is common for young professionals in Hong Kong to work long hours and have very little free time at their disposal. The professional demands placed on junior bankers, lawyers and accountants alike make it extremely difficult to spare meaningful time to prepare for the test. So, the question should be how to make best use of the limited time available.
My approach is straightforward: identify your weakness early on and design a game plan to address it. Each GMAT question is weighted differently corresponding to its difficulty. Unlike most public exams, the weighted score and the difficulty of later questions depend on how well you answer the earlier ones. If you get one answer wrong, your next question will be easier and have a lower weighted score. The GMAT scoring matrix means a wrong answer has two implications, and it requires candidates to good all-rounders. In effect, for most candidates, their highest possible score is determined by their weakest, not their strongest, area.
Diligently going through the mock GMAT questions helps in overcoming weaknesses. As that happens, candidates can decide when to change focus or adjust their study plan. A good way to improve your score is by visiting GMAT discussion forums and forming study groups to exchange ideas. The key is to find people with similar aspirations and abilities who can also serve as allies as you go through the rest of the application process.
This is sound advice, but it is also sub-optimal. No working professional can afford to spend all their free time preparing for the GMAT. Quitting your job to do that is too risky – and a gap in your resume for that reason might even hurt your subsequent application. For that reason, possibly the best time to take your GMAT is in the last year of college. Any score recorded is valid for five years, and while it may be too early to tell whether an MBA is the path to take, having the GMAT early on gives an option to apply later with a head start.
Originally posted on Education Post.
Comparing to the SAT (scholastic aptitude test) or A-Levels in high school, the GMAT is not that difficult. It does not give candidates the same level of anxiety as university entrance exams. After all, there isn’t a fixed deadline for the GMAT - candidates can always delay their MBA application to the next year. Also, there is no limit to the number of times you can take the test. But even so, preparing for the GMAT usually takes up a substantial portion of the time spent on an MBA application. After several years in the workplace, most people find their skills in taking a public exam have waned. Therefore, it takes extra effort to sit down and work through the sometimes tedious exercises in preparation for the GMAT.
Friends often ask me how much time to spend preparing and when to start. The simple answers are, of course, as much and as soon as possible, but that is easier said than done. It is common for young professionals in Hong Kong to work long hours and have very little free time at their disposal. The professional demands placed on junior bankers, lawyers and accountants alike make it extremely difficult to spare meaningful time to prepare for the test. So, the question should be how to make best use of the limited time available.
My approach is straightforward: identify your weakness early on and design a game plan to address it. Each GMAT question is weighted differently corresponding to its difficulty. Unlike most public exams, the weighted score and the difficulty of later questions depend on how well you answer the earlier ones. If you get one answer wrong, your next question will be easier and have a lower weighted score. The GMAT scoring matrix means a wrong answer has two implications, and it requires candidates to good all-rounders. In effect, for most candidates, their highest possible score is determined by their weakest, not their strongest, area.
Diligently going through the mock GMAT questions helps in overcoming weaknesses. As that happens, candidates can decide when to change focus or adjust their study plan. A good way to improve your score is by visiting GMAT discussion forums and forming study groups to exchange ideas. The key is to find people with similar aspirations and abilities who can also serve as allies as you go through the rest of the application process.
This is sound advice, but it is also sub-optimal. No working professional can afford to spend all their free time preparing for the GMAT. Quitting your job to do that is too risky – and a gap in your resume for that reason might even hurt your subsequent application. For that reason, possibly the best time to take your GMAT is in the last year of college. Any score recorded is valid for five years, and while it may be too early to tell whether an MBA is the path to take, having the GMAT early on gives an option to apply later with a head start.
Originally posted on Education Post.
2014年8月13日星期三
Big4？別太大想頭！
在英美等國，在四大工作雖比不上投資銀行的工資，但絕對是一份體面的專業，並不會給其他專業比下去。這點，在香港就很不同。從「遠古」開始，國際性會計師事務所的大學生入職起薪已低於大學畢業生平均薪金一大截 ，工作時間亦比一般大學畢業生高出一大截。有很巧合，四大會計師事務所開出的入職起薪，每一年、每一家都是一樣的。結果大量優秀的會計系畢業生並沒有投身會業，轉投了其他行業。
曾經，拿取會計或法律專業資格是進入投資銀行的踏腳石。為數不小的香港資深銀行家都是ACA /CPA或者是律師。一方面，會計是商業的語言。要學懂怎樣看一盤生意，懂得會計是必要的。而且，除了審計行業以外，只有極少數的行業可以讓你看公司的商業機密。透過審計不同客戶的帳、審計不同種類的商業模式 ，其實初級審計員可以學到很多商業知識。不過，隨著美資投行及MBA的興起，以及CPA水平的下跌，大型跨國性投行已經越來越少直接在四大招收學徒，而轉投了甚麼好像都懂，但只懂皮毛的MBA / 美國法律學院的Juris Doctor （JD, 一般譯作法律博士，但其實只是一般的graduate degree, 所以美國人不會稱呼JD為Doctor）。因此，最好當然是擁有CPA再加上MBA或 JD。
在大學時期，我幸運地遇上了一位很好的mentor。Mentor的建議是先到四大學藝：如果喜歡的話，就努力攀上合夥人的位置。如果不喜歡的話，再回去投行也可以。雖然時間多花了，但到那時候你應已學到一身好武功，有一技旁身。亦因如此我幸運地接受了較低的工資，開展了會計的生涯。
縱然我上一篇文章下筆較重手，但我在四大的時間沒有白白浪費。少了的工資，就當作交學費罷了。持平地看，在四大工作薪幅加度大，而且每年升級，因此很快便可以追上並超過大學畢業生平均薪金。對於很多會計系畢業生來說，已經是很好了。
WYJimmy 寫，會計師公會剛公佈了一項會員統計，有10％會員參與。參與的會員中有38％年薪在60萬以上。而且參與者有過半數是35歲或以下。其實對於這統計數字我並沒有感到詫異。在四大待四年時間，即大部份審計員拿到CPA資格的半年左右吧，月薪應該已經有四萬多。計算13個月糧及加班補貼等，其實跟60萬年薪差距不太遠了。四大亦不看重碩士或以上學位，只要努力工作，踏實苦幹，加上國家財政部不再封殺，在四大工作而踏進60萬年薪的階層並非相信中困難。
原載在 Education Post: Big4？別太大想頭！
曾經，拿取會計或法律專業資格是進入投資銀行的踏腳石。為數不小的香港資深銀行家都是ACA /CPA或者是律師。一方面，會計是商業的語言。要學懂怎樣看一盤生意，懂得會計是必要的。而且，除了審計行業以外，只有極少數的行業可以讓你看公司的商業機密。透過審計不同客戶的帳、審計不同種類的商業模式 ，其實初級審計員可以學到很多商業知識。不過，隨著美資投行及MBA的興起，以及CPA水平的下跌，大型跨國性投行已經越來越少直接在四大招收學徒，而轉投了甚麼好像都懂，但只懂皮毛的MBA / 美國法律學院的Juris Doctor （JD, 一般譯作法律博士，但其實只是一般的graduate degree, 所以美國人不會稱呼JD為Doctor）。因此，最好當然是擁有CPA再加上MBA或 JD。
在大學時期，我幸運地遇上了一位很好的mentor。Mentor的建議是先到四大學藝：如果喜歡的話，就努力攀上合夥人的位置。如果不喜歡的話，再回去投行也可以。雖然時間多花了，但到那時候你應已學到一身好武功，有一技旁身。亦因如此我幸運地接受了較低的工資，開展了會計的生涯。
縱然我上一篇文章下筆較重手，但我在四大的時間沒有白白浪費。少了的工資，就當作交學費罷了。持平地看，在四大工作薪幅加度大，而且每年升級，因此很快便可以追上並超過大學畢業生平均薪金。對於很多會計系畢業生來說，已經是很好了。
WYJimmy 寫，會計師公會剛公佈了一項會員統計，有10％會員參與。參與的會員中有38％年薪在60萬以上。而且參與者有過半數是35歲或以下。其實對於這統計數字我並沒有感到詫異。在四大待四年時間，即大部份審計員拿到CPA資格的半年左右吧，月薪應該已經有四萬多。計算13個月糧及加班補貼等，其實跟60萬年薪差距不太遠了。四大亦不看重碩士或以上學位，只要努力工作，踏實苦幹，加上國家財政部不再封殺，在四大工作而踏進60萬年薪的階層並非相信中困難。
原載在 Education Post: Big4？別太大想頭！
2014年8月12日星期二
The Sage of Omaha
Every year on the first Saturday in May, more than 30,000 faithful disciples of Warren Buffett visit Omaha, Nebraska. They come from around the world to attend the annual shareholders’ meeting of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett’s investment flagship and, this year, I was one of those fans of the “sage of Omaha” who spent their weekend in a small town in mid-west America.
The main highlight of the meeting, also known as the “Woodstock of capitalism”, was the question and answer session. Here, Buffett and Charlie Munger, his business partner, respond to queries raised by journalists, analysts and investors. The session ran from around 9am to 4pm, with an hour’s break for lunch. It was tiring even for me to stay focused, but you have to remember that Buffett is 83 and Munger recently turned 90. Therefore, the length of the meeting was impressive in itself.
The duo talked about business, investment and politics with insight and wit, which made for an entertaining and inspiring six hours. Their advice about careers is generally simple, old-fashioned and straightforward.
First of all, they say, you should do something you are passionate about and where your talent lies. Both Buffett and Munger love what they do, and so have no plans to retire. They also recommend knowing your core competencies, what you are good at, and your limits. If not, your efforts may be doomed to fail. In the meeting, Munger recounted how he flirted with a career in the academia while he was at Caltech, before realising that he could never be as good as his professors. One shareholder asked how he could know if he is good at what he is doing. “There are idiots around to help you figure that out – and they are never in short supply,” Munger replied in his characteristically forthright way.
The second important thing is to “remove your ignorance” continuously. Both Buffett and Munger attributed their success to being persistent in learning what they didn’t know through the years. Regarding target companies, no matter how much they may know in advance, they can always learn more after investing. They admitted that some mistaken investments had cost them dearly and that their biggest weakness is responding too slowly to personnel changes. However, any failure also provides a golden opportunity to learn, and they are both sure that there is still a lot they don’t know.
A young shareholder asked how best to decide which industry and which company to join. “Talk to as many people as you can and ask a lot of questions,” Buffett said. He then recalled his experience as a stock researcher when he would turn up uninvited on the doorstep of senior executives of major corporations. Usually, they were ready to spend up to an hour with a young man who was obviously eager to learn. In return for their time and generosity, Buffett put a series of probing questions about their business which made them think.
“People usually like to talk if you show them you have done your homework and know a few things,” he said. Meetings with a few executives can give a good idea about an organisation and an industry. And, Buffett said, it is always worth asking executives which company, other than theirs, they think is the best in the industry and why. Munger added that it is equally important to ask which ones are the worst.
Finally, people climbing the career ladder should remember that money doesn’t buy happiness. Once you pass a certain threshold of financial wealth, money can be more destructive than many think. It corrupts and invites trouble. That is why Buffett has a notably modest lifestyle and has lived in the same house for decades.
Originally posted on Education Post: The Sage of Omaha
The main highlight of the meeting, also known as the “Woodstock of capitalism”, was the question and answer session. Here, Buffett and Charlie Munger, his business partner, respond to queries raised by journalists, analysts and investors. The session ran from around 9am to 4pm, with an hour’s break for lunch. It was tiring even for me to stay focused, but you have to remember that Buffett is 83 and Munger recently turned 90. Therefore, the length of the meeting was impressive in itself.
The duo talked about business, investment and politics with insight and wit, which made for an entertaining and inspiring six hours. Their advice about careers is generally simple, old-fashioned and straightforward.
First of all, they say, you should do something you are passionate about and where your talent lies. Both Buffett and Munger love what they do, and so have no plans to retire. They also recommend knowing your core competencies, what you are good at, and your limits. If not, your efforts may be doomed to fail. In the meeting, Munger recounted how he flirted with a career in the academia while he was at Caltech, before realising that he could never be as good as his professors. One shareholder asked how he could know if he is good at what he is doing. “There are idiots around to help you figure that out – and they are never in short supply,” Munger replied in his characteristically forthright way.
The second important thing is to “remove your ignorance” continuously. Both Buffett and Munger attributed their success to being persistent in learning what they didn’t know through the years. Regarding target companies, no matter how much they may know in advance, they can always learn more after investing. They admitted that some mistaken investments had cost them dearly and that their biggest weakness is responding too slowly to personnel changes. However, any failure also provides a golden opportunity to learn, and they are both sure that there is still a lot they don’t know.
A young shareholder asked how best to decide which industry and which company to join. “Talk to as many people as you can and ask a lot of questions,” Buffett said. He then recalled his experience as a stock researcher when he would turn up uninvited on the doorstep of senior executives of major corporations. Usually, they were ready to spend up to an hour with a young man who was obviously eager to learn. In return for their time and generosity, Buffett put a series of probing questions about their business which made them think.
“People usually like to talk if you show them you have done your homework and know a few things,” he said. Meetings with a few executives can give a good idea about an organisation and an industry. And, Buffett said, it is always worth asking executives which company, other than theirs, they think is the best in the industry and why. Munger added that it is equally important to ask which ones are the worst.
Finally, people climbing the career ladder should remember that money doesn’t buy happiness. Once you pass a certain threshold of financial wealth, money can be more destructive than many think. It corrupts and invites trouble. That is why Buffett has a notably modest lifestyle and has lived in the same house for decades.
Originally posted on Education Post: The Sage of Omaha
股神朝聖之旅 - 武林秘笈
上文提到，在巴郡的週年大會上，股神巴菲特及查理芒格跟股東及記者的對答大都似曾相識，談話內容跟他倆的著作及訪問大同小異，因此我並沒有從他倆對答環節學到新金融知識。儘管如此，去了股東大會一趟，大開眼界，令我反思了多個商業上的問題。
這是甚麼原因呢？
巴菲特多次在不同的場合說過，他的投資哲學及分析方法其實非常簡單，亦很容易學。他聲稱自己的投資方法基本上只有一個信念，那就是他師傅葛拉漢 (Ben Graham) 所創的價值投資。他亦推薦了葛拉漢所寫的《聰明的投資者》(The Intelligent Investor) 及費雪 (Philip Fisher) 的《怎樣選擇成長股》(Common Stock and Uncommon Profit)。在股東大會上，巴菲特亦有重複以上的講法。
價值投資的概念雖易學，但極難精。又有誰不知道，以低廉的價錢，換取價值不菲的股票是必贏的策略？從一開始，股票的設計就是要令人難以知道每股的價值。用另外一個角度看，近代鈔票 (banknote) 的設計就是要令人容易找出其價值，所以我們付鈔時並不需要左想右想，因為我們知道面值一百元的鈔票就是值一百元。又有誰擁有百分百的信心，準確預測股票未來三天的收市價？有又誰有百分百的信心，判斷某股票的市價及價值是否有分歧？就算是做足功課，亦不代表能做到價值投資。有為數不少的基金經理，亦中了不少天仙局。這因為價值投資有大量主觀判斷，單單看一兩本書，看看年報沒有可能學會。
情況就如武俠小說裡面的令狐冲的絕學「獨孤九劍」。獨孤求敗創立的劍法很簡單，只有九式。令狐冲只憑九式，在江湖上已經是一等一的劍術高手。惟「九劍」如同價值投資一樣，易學難精。令狐冲從風清揚學得「九劍」的口訣時，風清揚亦有加以引導。但要成大器，令狐冲亦須跟不同的高手過招，經過反覆的考量，歷練。
價值投資的書看了數本，又反覆看了數遍。欠了的，就是看「風清揚」的演示。巴郡的年報詳細列出了巴菲特的投資及他的想法，但欠了的就是「臨場」示範。在報紙上看巴菲特的訪問已經過大量修改，跟原版比已面目全非。在現場看巴菲特及查理芒格跟股東及記者的對答，所直接感受到的，是他們的思路及處事方式。不論股東的問題有多麼差，巴菲特當場迅間的回應反映了他怎樣考量問題、他怎樣處理跟股東的關係。亦可看出他是個怎樣的人、他是怎樣待人接物。
更深一層的想，投資，很大程度是押注在人上。上市公司賺了錢，公司管理層亦不一定要同股東分。股東要獲得合理回報，公司管理層必須是明白事理的人。怎樣押注在人身上？怎樣激勵及回饋管理層？怎樣管理公司的管理層？怎樣跟管理層相處？這些問題，《聰明的投資者》及《怎樣選擇成長股》未有提過。去奧馬哈市一趟，最大的得著，就是感受到巴菲特是個怎樣的人。為甚麼明知道他是個極聰明的投資者，依然有很多人要賣自己的公司給他，賣了公司給他，依然願意留下來賣命？巴菲特價值投資的終極一招，是投資在人。而他的待人處世，就是成就他事業的秘密武器。雖然去股東大會依然學不到他的一招，但亦每有會意，獲益匪淺。
原載在 Education Post: 股神朝聖之旅 - 武林秘笈 及 終極武器
這是甚麼原因呢？
巴菲特多次在不同的場合說過，他的投資哲學及分析方法其實非常簡單，亦很容易學。他聲稱自己的投資方法基本上只有一個信念，那就是他師傅葛拉漢 (Ben Graham) 所創的價值投資。他亦推薦了葛拉漢所寫的《聰明的投資者》(The Intelligent Investor) 及費雪 (Philip Fisher) 的《怎樣選擇成長股》(Common Stock and Uncommon Profit)。在股東大會上，巴菲特亦有重複以上的講法。
價值投資的概念雖易學，但極難精。又有誰不知道，以低廉的價錢，換取價值不菲的股票是必贏的策略？從一開始，股票的設計就是要令人難以知道每股的價值。用另外一個角度看，近代鈔票 (banknote) 的設計就是要令人容易找出其價值，所以我們付鈔時並不需要左想右想，因為我們知道面值一百元的鈔票就是值一百元。又有誰擁有百分百的信心，準確預測股票未來三天的收市價？有又誰有百分百的信心，判斷某股票的市價及價值是否有分歧？就算是做足功課，亦不代表能做到價值投資。有為數不少的基金經理，亦中了不少天仙局。這因為價值投資有大量主觀判斷，單單看一兩本書，看看年報沒有可能學會。
情況就如武俠小說裡面的令狐冲的絕學「獨孤九劍」。獨孤求敗創立的劍法很簡單，只有九式。令狐冲只憑九式，在江湖上已經是一等一的劍術高手。惟「九劍」如同價值投資一樣，易學難精。令狐冲從風清揚學得「九劍」的口訣時，風清揚亦有加以引導。但要成大器，令狐冲亦須跟不同的高手過招，經過反覆的考量，歷練。
價值投資的書看了數本，又反覆看了數遍。欠了的，就是看「風清揚」的演示。巴郡的年報詳細列出了巴菲特的投資及他的想法，但欠了的就是「臨場」示範。在報紙上看巴菲特的訪問已經過大量修改，跟原版比已面目全非。在現場看巴菲特及查理芒格跟股東及記者的對答，所直接感受到的，是他們的思路及處事方式。不論股東的問題有多麼差，巴菲特當場迅間的回應反映了他怎樣考量問題、他怎樣處理跟股東的關係。亦可看出他是個怎樣的人、他是怎樣待人接物。
更深一層的想，投資，很大程度是押注在人上。上市公司賺了錢，公司管理層亦不一定要同股東分。股東要獲得合理回報，公司管理層必須是明白事理的人。怎樣押注在人身上？怎樣激勵及回饋管理層？怎樣管理公司的管理層？怎樣跟管理層相處？這些問題，《聰明的投資者》及《怎樣選擇成長股》未有提過。去奧馬哈市一趟，最大的得著，就是感受到巴菲特是個怎樣的人。為甚麼明知道他是個極聰明的投資者，依然有很多人要賣自己的公司給他，賣了公司給他，依然願意留下來賣命？巴菲特價值投資的終極一招，是投資在人。而他的待人處世，就是成就他事業的秘密武器。雖然去股東大會依然學不到他的一招，但亦每有會意，獲益匪淺。
原載在 Education Post: 股神朝聖之旅 - 武林秘笈 及 終極武器
股神朝聖之旅
我大概是在中四、五開始每天看南華早報及信報，亦大概是同一時間從報紙上讀到股神巴菲特的事蹟。之後一直有聽聞巴菲特在巴郡的股東周年大會與他的拍檔查理芒格 (Charlie Munger) 的對答環節非常精彩，亦一直想去拜訪他老人家，但就是沒有推動力老遠跑去美國中部的內布拉斯加州奧馬哈市。我要到2012年巴菲特患上前列腺癌後，才意識到巴菲特老了，時日可能無多。雖然他投資表現依然良好，但畢竟是八十多歲的老人家了，就算他可以活很久，難保他可保持精靈活潑多年。 於是，今年下定決心，要到奧馬哈一睹股神的風采。
今年的股東大會的主要活動從五月二號星期五開始，到星期天結束，高潮是星期六進行的股東大會。於該週末，奧馬哈市內所有的酒店房都爆滿，而酒店房價及內陸機票亦比會議前後一周漲了一到兩倍。據當地人說，該週奧馬哈的人口會增加百分之 5-10。巴菲特的 fans 從世界各地飛到奧馬哈，擠在一個只有40萬人口的小鎮，為的只是聽巴菲特及芒格數小時的分享。沒有親自到過奧馬哈，很難想像這是個怎樣的光景。
我在週五到達奧馬哈，抵步後就去了主場館 Century Link Center 拿入場證，之後就去了股東歡迎會。基本上是喝酒聽音樂的酒會，沒有甚麼特別。
股東大會星期六進行，主場館在七點鐘開門，活動在八點半開始。我的一位朋友每年也去奧馬哈朝聖，他說要坐在較前的位置的話，要在早上五點半開始排隊。五點半？Are you kidding me? 我去開股東大會啊，不是去音樂會！香港上市公司的股東大會一般只有小貓三兩隻，更肯定沒有人排隊。五點半排隊去開股東大會？原來我五點半到達的時候已經有一條龍。Are you kidding me?
等了很久…主場館終於開門了。為了霸占有利位置，一大班中年、禿頭，有肚腩男人一起開步跑，往講台前排衝！有人說香港人甚麼都要搶先，其實外國的月亮不一定特別圓。為了親近股神一點，大家也不太管規矩，爭先恐後了。
搶到位置安頓好之後，各股東就排隊拿簡單早餐，有咖啡、茶及獨立包裝的麵包，吃著等待股東大會正式開始。
股東大會的頭30分鐘是播放關於巴菲特及巴郡的短片，大部分是輕鬆搞笑的小品，亦有一些頗有意思的短片。之後從9點半到3點半都是巴菲特及查理芒格的回答記者、分析員及在場股東問題的環節，當中有一個小時的午飯時間。大部分問題財經報紙都有報導過，不冗。有不少的問題都很尖銳，但亦有不過爾爾的問題，多數是由股東提出。我印象是三分之一的問題在巴菲特致股東的信及芒格的 Poor Charlie’s Almanack 已有多次提過，問題質量令人失望。儘管問題水平參差不齊，巴菲特及芒格的對答不但有內容，有sound bite ，很多更有幽默感。而且，在整整五個小時，沒有冷場。
我看巴菲特及芒格的寫作多年，關於他們投資的哲學及具體操作已沒有甚麼大的問題。這是多年沒有成行的原因之一。但這是錯誤的判斷。聽他們講話的具體內容學到，比看書及看報紙立體很多，可以說是打開眼界。我離開奧馬哈一周後亦在咀嚼巴菲特及芒格的對答，令我想了很多關於投資及做生意的問題。
學到甚麼，下文再續。
原載在 Education Post: 股神朝聖之旅 及 股神朝聖之旅 - 絕無冷場
今年的股東大會的主要活動從五月二號星期五開始，到星期天結束，高潮是星期六進行的股東大會。於該週末，奧馬哈市內所有的酒店房都爆滿，而酒店房價及內陸機票亦比會議前後一周漲了一到兩倍。據當地人說，該週奧馬哈的人口會增加百分之 5-10。巴菲特的 fans 從世界各地飛到奧馬哈，擠在一個只有40萬人口的小鎮，為的只是聽巴菲特及芒格數小時的分享。沒有親自到過奧馬哈，很難想像這是個怎樣的光景。
我在週五到達奧馬哈，抵步後就去了主場館 Century Link Center 拿入場證，之後就去了股東歡迎會。基本上是喝酒聽音樂的酒會，沒有甚麼特別。
 |
| Century Link Center. 未到6點已出現有人龍。 |
股東大會星期六進行，主場館在七點鐘開門，活動在八點半開始。我的一位朋友每年也去奧馬哈朝聖，他說要坐在較前的位置的話，要在早上五點半開始排隊。五點半？Are you kidding me? 我去開股東大會啊，不是去音樂會！香港上市公司的股東大會一般只有小貓三兩隻，更肯定沒有人排隊。五點半排隊去開股東大會？原來我五點半到達的時候已經有一條龍。Are you kidding me?
等了很久…主場館終於開門了。為了霸占有利位置，一大班中年、禿頭，有肚腩男人一起開步跑，往講台前排衝！有人說香港人甚麼都要搶先，其實外國的月亮不一定特別圓。為了親近股神一點，大家也不太管規矩，爭先恐後了。
搶到位置安頓好之後，各股東就排隊拿簡單早餐，有咖啡、茶及獨立包裝的麵包，吃著等待股東大會正式開始。
股東大會的頭30分鐘是播放關於巴菲特及巴郡的短片，大部分是輕鬆搞笑的小品，亦有一些頗有意思的短片。之後從9點半到3點半都是巴菲特及查理芒格的回答記者、分析員及在場股東問題的環節，當中有一個小時的午飯時間。大部分問題財經報紙都有報導過，不冗。有不少的問題都很尖銳，但亦有不過爾爾的問題，多數是由股東提出。我印象是三分之一的問題在巴菲特致股東的信及芒格的 Poor Charlie’s Almanack 已有多次提過，問題質量令人失望。儘管問題水平參差不齊，巴菲特及芒格的對答不但有內容，有sound bite ，很多更有幽默感。而且，在整整五個小時，沒有冷場。
我看巴菲特及芒格的寫作多年，關於他們投資的哲學及具體操作已沒有甚麼大的問題。這是多年沒有成行的原因之一。但這是錯誤的判斷。聽他們講話的具體內容學到，比看書及看報紙立體很多，可以說是打開眼界。我離開奧馬哈一周後亦在咀嚼巴菲特及芒格的對答，令我想了很多關於投資及做生意的問題。
學到甚麼，下文再續。
原載在 Education Post: 股神朝聖之旅 及 股神朝聖之旅 - 絕無冷場
極不人道的會計生涯
在香港，經常見到不正常、不合理的事情。初入行會計師的極不人道的工作時間及極低的實際時薪，為一例。
這樣的待遇及制度，不同年代的會計師，不斷的罵。不滿的人不斷辭職，但制度依舊保存下來。為甚麼可以這樣？正所謂「有人辭官歸故里，有人漏夜趕科場」，希望踏上數萬月薪的大學生太多，願意放棄生命中種種美好事物的人，太多。甚至，有人會為了自己的事業，為了錢，可以把一些不合理，不負責任的事情合理化。最近觸動我神經的，是看到一篇「偽正面」的恐怖文章。
一位會計師作家蔚薇在蘋果日報寫她的一位當上媽媽的會計師朋友，雖然「家中的幼兒生病，心裏急得如熱鍋上的螞蟻，但為了能在死線前完成工作，也不能趕回家陪伴」。這位「媽媽會計師」對自己專業的投入及熱誠是無容置疑的。蔚薇認為媽媽會計師這樣「一點也不慘情，相反，為了理想而堅持的那團火、那份熱誠…型爆。」
為了自己的夢想，很多人都可以去到好盡。每一個人都有選擇自己命運的權利。不過，除了夢想及權利，每一個人亦有責任。成年人可以選擇生育與否，但小孩是無辜的，小孩沒有選擇自己媽媽的權利。即使是成年的孩子亦有情緒問題，需要父母的關心及支持，更遑論是幼兒？病倒了的幼兒，最需要的是親人的愛護照顧。因為無理的工作安排，因為那虛無縹緲的所謂「死線」，媽媽會計師竟然連當母親的最本的責任也不能兼顧。
你問，當媽媽有當媽媽的責任，但會計師也有會計師對客戶的責任啊。難道跑回家，不理「死線」在即的工作責任，不理客戶的利益才是好員工？當然不是。我在想，為甚麼公司不安排同事幫忙，頂一下？為甚麼合夥人自己不可以主動幫同事，頂一晚？實情是，公司沒有這樣的文化，而且大部分合夥人根本不會知道初中級同事的問題。大部分合夥人根本不care。大型跨國會計師事務所會關心公司有沒有拿下 Caring Company ，但只要同事繼續賣命，公司同事的turnover 在可控、可以接受的水平，公司根本不會太關心員工的去留。如果公司缺人、閣下的表現好，或者是經理，你一人的辭職可能會引起公司管理層的關注，但沒有人會從根本出發，改變制度，改善同事的生活。
「你唔做？大把人想做！」
我理解每個人都有自己的難處，份工（及人工）對不同人有不同的意義。既然行內大量會計師願意這樣付出，願意默默承受，默默忍耐，就得接受這個遊戲。但接受不代表要合理化，甚至美化。面對一點也不人性化的上司，「工作到凌晨五點，然後回家洗個澡小睡一會，十時回到公司，被上司投訴沒有準時上班」的遭遇，要默默忍耐，再用一個虛無縹緲的「夢想」來美化，是否有點兒那個？對於會計行業這樣的工作環境，蔚薇不單沒有反思，更正面回應，認為這樣「型爆」。
蔚薇，對不起，我不覺得連當父母最本的責任也不能兼顧的，是型爆。對不起，我認為，會計業出現困境，就是因為像你這樣的人，太多。
原載在 Education Post
這樣的待遇及制度，不同年代的會計師，不斷的罵。不滿的人不斷辭職，但制度依舊保存下來。為甚麼可以這樣？正所謂「有人辭官歸故里，有人漏夜趕科場」，希望踏上數萬月薪的大學生太多，願意放棄生命中種種美好事物的人，太多。甚至，有人會為了自己的事業，為了錢，可以把一些不合理，不負責任的事情合理化。最近觸動我神經的，是看到一篇「偽正面」的恐怖文章。
一位會計師作家蔚薇在蘋果日報寫她的一位當上媽媽的會計師朋友，雖然「家中的幼兒生病，心裏急得如熱鍋上的螞蟻，但為了能在死線前完成工作，也不能趕回家陪伴」。這位「媽媽會計師」對自己專業的投入及熱誠是無容置疑的。蔚薇認為媽媽會計師這樣「一點也不慘情，相反，為了理想而堅持的那團火、那份熱誠…型爆。」
為了自己的夢想，很多人都可以去到好盡。每一個人都有選擇自己命運的權利。不過，除了夢想及權利，每一個人亦有責任。成年人可以選擇生育與否，但小孩是無辜的，小孩沒有選擇自己媽媽的權利。即使是成年的孩子亦有情緒問題，需要父母的關心及支持，更遑論是幼兒？病倒了的幼兒，最需要的是親人的愛護照顧。因為無理的工作安排，因為那虛無縹緲的所謂「死線」，媽媽會計師竟然連當母親的最本的責任也不能兼顧。
你問，當媽媽有當媽媽的責任，但會計師也有會計師對客戶的責任啊。難道跑回家，不理「死線」在即的工作責任，不理客戶的利益才是好員工？當然不是。我在想，為甚麼公司不安排同事幫忙，頂一下？為甚麼合夥人自己不可以主動幫同事，頂一晚？實情是，公司沒有這樣的文化，而且大部分合夥人根本不會知道初中級同事的問題。大部分合夥人根本不care。大型跨國會計師事務所會關心公司有沒有拿下 Caring Company ，但只要同事繼續賣命，公司同事的turnover 在可控、可以接受的水平，公司根本不會太關心員工的去留。如果公司缺人、閣下的表現好，或者是經理，你一人的辭職可能會引起公司管理層的關注，但沒有人會從根本出發，改變制度，改善同事的生活。
「你唔做？大把人想做！」
我理解每個人都有自己的難處，份工（及人工）對不同人有不同的意義。既然行內大量會計師願意這樣付出，願意默默承受，默默忍耐，就得接受這個遊戲。但接受不代表要合理化，甚至美化。面對一點也不人性化的上司，「工作到凌晨五點，然後回家洗個澡小睡一會，十時回到公司，被上司投訴沒有準時上班」的遭遇，要默默忍耐，再用一個虛無縹緲的「夢想」來美化，是否有點兒那個？對於會計行業這樣的工作環境，蔚薇不單沒有反思，更正面回應，認為這樣「型爆」。
蔚薇，對不起，我不覺得連當父母最本的責任也不能兼顧的，是型爆。對不起，我認為，會計業出現困境，就是因為像你這樣的人，太多。
原載在 Education Post
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)