PDA

View Full Version : Hong Kong pushes ahead of NY in IPOs


Tosspot
Dec 24, 2006, 9:06 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061224/hong_kong_surging_market.html?.v=3

AP
Hong Kong Pushes Ahead of NY in IPOs
Sunday December 24, 2:28 pm ET
By William Foreman, Associated Press Writer
Hong Kong Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple, Surpasses New York in Attracting IPOs

HONG KONG (AP) -- Hong Kong surged past New York this year and became the world's second most popular place -- after London -- for companies to float new stock listings.

The city's amazing success was due to several factors, analysts say. Being next door to mainland China's booming economy was a huge help. Tough new U.S. accounting rules have discouraged many companies from listing in America.

Perhaps most importantly, Hong Kong benefited from a new trend that involves the rise of regional markets, diminishing the importance of places like New York. With the help of powerful computers and increasing liquidity, capital can easily zoom around the world, scouting for the best investments.

But Hong Kong is keenly aware the competition for global investors is fierce. Already, there's much discussion about how long the good times can last. Some are worrying about other upstart markets -- especially the Shanghai Stock Exchange -- which might soon be able to elbow their way into the big leagues.

Hong Kong's big advantage now is that it has a solid legal and financial system that can handle big initial public offerings, or IPOs. Shanghai isn't close to being able to match this city, and that's why a parade of China's biggest banks decided to launch record-breaking IPOs in Hong Kong this year.

One of them was the world's biggest ever: the $21.9 billion offering in October by Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, the mainland's largest lender.

With two weeks left in the year, Hong Kong has raked in HK$307.7 billion, or $39.57 billion, in IPOs -- nearly twice as much as the HK$165.7 billion raised last year, according to Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd., the listed firm that operates the stock exchange.

London was the world leader for IPO equity raised, with $48.92 billion raised, according to the World Federation of Exchanges. Hong Kong was second and the New York Stock Exchange lagged back in third with $33.61 billion, according to the most recent WFE figures, which included the January-November period.

That may be partly because some American companies are holding back from listing in the U.S. due to the strict rules under the Sarbanes-Oxley anti-fraud law, opting instead to stay private.

But few of them have turned to Hong Kong. The growth in IPO issuance here has been driven almost entirely by Chinese companies eager to tap international capital markets.

Beating out New York for the No. 2 spot has inspired much chest-thumping by Hong Kong leaders. Frederick Ma, secretary for financial services and the treasury, has argued that the IPO success confirms Hong Kong's status as an international financial center. And he contends that it will continue to grow because of its strong link to China.

"If China becomes a large economy rivaling the U.S., then Hong Kong will grow to the extent of New York and London," he said in a speech to the Foreign Correspondents' Club.

Ma said Hong Kong was already benefiting from a new clustering of businesses drawn to the city because of its success in finance. The world's top 70 banks are operating there, he said. In 1995, the city only had 200 chartered financial analysts, but now it has 3,000 -- ranking it No. 4 in the world behind the U.S., Canada and Britain, he said.

But some say the back patting is premature and that Hong Kong is nothing more than a regional finance center.

Jake van der Kamp, a finance columnist for Hong Kong's South China Morning Post and a former investment banker, said a true global finance capital should be like a long dining table with several legs. He noted that Hong Kong doesn't offer much in the way of bond, foreign exchange and commodities trading.

"All I see here is a one-legged stool," he said, adding that Hong Kong was just a listing center for Chinese equities.

Hong Kong is heavily dependent on listings by mainland Chinese companies. The firms make up nearly 50 percent of the total market capitalization of $1.59 trillion, according to Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing. The companies make up 73 percent of total equity funds raised, it said.

Many believe Hong Kong will lose some of this investment as Chinese firms decide to stay closer to home and float more shares on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, which is enjoying a big renewal of investor confidence. The market's blue-chip index hit a record high Friday.

When the giant Industrial & Commercial Bank of China launched its IPO in October, it decided to do a historic dual listing in Hong Kong and Shanghai.

Shanghai is still a minnow compared to Hong Kong, which has average daily turnover of $4.21 billion -- 12 times the volume of Shanghai. But this will likely change.

"China's domestic markets are growing up, developing their own importance, and it will be a challenge going forward to other markets in the world," said Hans Schuettler, managing director and chief executive officer in Asia for Morgan Stanley & Co.

But Schuettler said that a regional market would grow up in Asia. "This is what we've seen in Europe. This is what I definitely expect to happen in a more pronounced version here," he said.

One thing Hong Kong needs to be more aggressive about doing is attracting IPOs by companies that have operations in China but are owned by firms in the U.S., Canada, Germany and other places, said Ronald Arculli, chairman of Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing.

Arculli was also confident that economic growth in Asia -- particularly in India and China -- will send plenty of business Hong Kong's way. He agreed that, like Europe, the region will have room for more than one big stock market.

"What's the problem with Asia having Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo and India?" he said. "We are two-thirds of the world's population, with two of the biggest economic powerhouses in the next 20 to 30 years to come. There's plenty for everyone."

VivaLFuego
Dec 24, 2006, 10:25 PM
It's those stupid SOx laws. . . knee-jerk political posturing that ends up costing everyone. Typical.

Dolemite
Dec 26, 2006, 6:36 PM
It's those stupid SOx laws. . . knee-jerk political posturing that ends up costing everyone. Typical.

I'm an accounting major in Chicago, and I despise most components of the SOC Act:( SOX isn't the only thing hurting the competitivness of American capital markets.There are other SEC regulations that make it more difficult to do business...and then there are the witch hunts being conducted by the likes of Elliot Spritzer and other worthless bureaucrats trying to make a name for themslves.

It is also worth nothing that exchanges in London and Hong Kong are preceived as being 'riskier' for many investors. The Wall street Journal did a big write up on this a couple of weeks ago. Quanity of IPO's/= quality.

Master Shake
Dec 26, 2006, 10:29 PM
New York's decline as a financial center continues apace.

While accounting regulations are hurting the industry. Blaming regulation may be a bit a cop-out. I think it has more to do with the general decline of the United States. London has done a better job of attracting international investors and Honk Kong is the financial center for the future economic super power. Both the EU and China are positioning themselves to surpass the debt burdened US economy. Who wants to to have a company's shares priced in a currency that is in for a long term devaluation? Makes no sense.

What witch hunts were carried out by Spitzer? You can't blame Spitzer for going after crooks. New York's decline has more to do with the general macro problems in the United States. Of course the relative decline of New York had no impact on Wall Street fat cat bonuses this year. Fiddling while Rome burns in my opinion. History will tell.

ChiNY
Dec 27, 2006, 2:42 AM
New York's decline as a financial center continues apace.

While accounting regulations are hurting the industry. Blaming regulation may be a bit a cop-out. I think it has more to do with the general decline of the United States. London has done a better job of attracting international investors and Honk Kong is the financial center for the future economic super power. Both the EU and China are positioning themselves to surpass the debt burdened US economy. Who wants to to have a company's shares priced in a currency that is in for a long term devaluation? Makes no sense.

What witch hunts were carried out by Spitzer? You can't blame Spitzer for going after crooks. New York's decline has more to do with the general macro problems in the United States. Of course the relative decline of New York had no impact on Wall Street fat cat bonuses this year. Fiddling while Rome burns in my opinion. History will tell.


New York is far from declining as a global financial center. Companies IPO on exchanges based on where its comps trade and in which market it thinks it will receive the most favorable valuation (which has little to do with currency considerations between the pound/euro/dollar/yen and more to do with comparable company trading multiples, tax treatments and other corporate finance considerations). The primary reason for a decline in IPOs is not due to New York or the US declining as a financial superpower. More US-based companies in the last few years have decided to be sold to larger corporations (e.g. YouTube selling to Google) rather than going public. There was a nice write-up about this in the WSJ last week. A large reason is certainly SOX. The hassle of dealing with regulations of a public company versus cashing out and being bought is certainly something to consider. M&A deal volume continues to climb and who advises these guys? Investment banks and law firms--with the majority of the major banks and firms being based in New York...hence the fat cat bonuses. Whether this is good or not is something the article addresses and is a topic for a separate thread.

ChiNY
Dec 27, 2006, 2:55 AM
W

austin356
Dec 31, 2006, 6:14 AM
I think (as a someone in the industry and econ major) think that we need to move towards a less rules based system (lawyers, loopholes, excessive regulation cost, and special interest) to a more of a principals based system (like the UK) that is honestly and evenly enforced by the SEC and/or Attorney Gens.


This, imo, would eliminate the cost differentiation between the US and London and significantly close the gap between the US and HK.

Lets ask ourselves...What was/is the purpose of these regulations (with SOX being just one aspect)? IMO, it is to protect individual investors and put them on a more even playing field with the big boys, along with protecting the stability of our financial markets from human wrongdoing. But, increased regulation (different than enforcement) has not been a net positive for even the little guy (who now has a much harder time getting a piece of an IPO), let alone a net positive for the markets as a whole.

Are our companies any less likely to commit fraud because of SEC procedures? I dont think so, they only make more complex and hard to track schemes that make it harder to detect. What executives are scared of is JAIL, JAIL, JAIL. That is what we should do to those who intentionally harm their investors. And that can just as easily be accomplished under Clinton era regulations/ and or UK/HK style governing over private investments.

austin356
Dec 31, 2006, 6:29 AM
New York is far from declining as a global financial center. Companies IPO on exchanges based on where its comps trade and in which market it thinks it will receive the most favorable valuation (which has little to do with currency considerations between the pound/euro/dollar/yen and more to do with comparable company trading multiples, tax treatments and other corporate finance considerations). The primary reason for a decline in IPOs is not due to New York or the US declining as a financial superpower. More US-based companies in the last few years have decided to be sold to larger corporations (e.g. YouTube selling to Google) rather than going public. There was a nice write-up about this in the WSJ last week. A large reason is certainly SOX. The hassle of dealing with regulations of a public company versus cashing out and being bought is certainly something to consider. M&A deal volume continues to climb and who advises these guys? Investment banks and law firms--with the majority of the major banks and firms being based in New York...hence the fat cat bonuses. Whether this is good or not is something the article addresses and is a topic for a separate thread.



I think you are right for the most part. Something you eluded to was Private Equity which is eating up everything under the sun. Many believe that it has now become more favorable to be bought by private equity or a larger corporation than hassle with going private. I discussed my opinion on this in the above post.

Your assertion about special treatment is supported by IRS Corporate income tax data. Which shows that even though rates have not gone down, and deductions not significantly gone up, the effective rate has dropped in the last 7 years (started before Bush II got in). This is due to a broad range of factors, the largest being globalization, which incorporates the topic at hand.

austin356
Dec 31, 2006, 6:42 AM
New York's decline as a financial center continues apace.

While accounting regulations are hurting the industry. Blaming regulation may be a bit a cop-out. I think it has more to do with the general decline of the United States. London has done a better job of attracting international investors and Honk Kong is the financial center for the future economic super power. Both the EU and China are positioning themselves to surpass the debt burdened US economy. Who wants to to have a company's shares priced in a currency that is in for a long term devaluation? Makes no sense.

What witch hunts were carried out by Spitzer? You can't blame Spitzer for going after crooks. New York's decline has more to do with the general macro problems in the United States. Of course the relative decline of New York had no impact on Wall Street fat cat bonuses this year. Fiddling while Rome burns in my opinion. History will tell.




Regulation is a major factor when competition is soo extreme. Your assertion that America is dieing is just dumb. Because London is thriving doesn't mean the EU is...........the truth is the average person in Mississippi is better off than the average person in the EU and their is no foreseeable change to that in the near future.

US debt? Well considering that the average for EU nations is larger when looked at as % of GDP than America. This America in debt thing has been played out since the 80s. When nominal GDP grows at a faster % rate than nominal increases in debt, we are becoming less indebted on a relative basis, which is happening now and has been since after Reagan. The real point I am making is that if that is killing us (hurting is a different story) then its not just us that has a problem but Japan has 3x the problem and Europe 1.5-2x the problem.

Oh and by the way, a company does not look at national debt when deciding what is most profitable place for his company to IPO, only a fool of a company looks at the nations problems ahead of its own problems.