香港會計(jì)監(jiān)管改革遭遇質(zhì)疑

????香港在美國傳統(tǒng)基金會（Heritage Foundation）2103年經(jīng)濟(jì)自由度指數(shù)（Index of Economic Freedom，衡量各個(gè)國家和地區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)自由程度的指標(biāo)）排行榜上再次占據(jù)首位。這個(gè)指數(shù)的考察重點(diǎn)是現(xiàn)行法律和政府監(jiān)管的覆蓋范圍。香港在后一點(diǎn)上表現(xiàn)得特別好，商業(yè)自由度得分為98.9，而美國和中國大陸的成績分別為90.5和48.0。

????當(dāng)然，希望完全不受監(jiān)管的企業(yè)極少——畢竟，這種情況可能導(dǎo)致過度競爭。長期以來，業(yè)內(nèi)人士一直都想實(shí)現(xiàn)行業(yè)封鎖，或者說，通過接受監(jiān)管來防止圈外人搶走自己的飯碗。米爾頓?弗里德曼在他的著作《資本主義和自由》（Capitalism and Freedom）中這樣描述此類行為：“要求立法機(jī)構(gòu)為某個(gè)行業(yè)頒發(fā)許可證的壓力極少來自公眾……相反，這種壓力總是來自這個(gè)行業(yè)自身。”

????香港特別照顧會計(jì)師。香港的會計(jì)師們截?cái)嗔送獾貢?jì)師事務(wù)所進(jìn)入香港賺錢的渠道，還說服了監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)允許他們通過香港會計(jì)師公會進(jìn)行自我監(jiān)管。

????但這樣的優(yōu)待行將結(jié)束。安然（Enron）事件爆發(fā)后，會計(jì)師的自我監(jiān)管開始被外界斥為謊言，世界上大多數(shù)國家和地區(qū)都對會計(jì)行業(yè)實(shí)施了監(jiān)管和經(jīng)營分離。但香港沒有這樣做。在監(jiān)管方面，香港只是象征性地成立了財(cái)務(wù)匯報(bào)局，而實(shí)際上這個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)一缺資金二無實(shí)權(quán)。金融界已就此對香港提出批評，其中歐盟采取的措施最為嚴(yán)厲，它直接取消了香港的監(jiān)管對等（regulatory equivalency）待遇。因此，香港將再次進(jìn)行改革。

????然而，擬議中的改革旨在保持監(jiān)管俘獲（regulatory capture）狀態(tài)。香港證監(jiān)會和香港會計(jì)師公會提出的方案是把審計(jì)核查這項(xiàng)重要職能從會計(jì)師公會轉(zhuǎn)移到財(cái)務(wù)匯報(bào)局，所需資金從投資者那里征繳。但會計(jì)師公會希望財(cái)務(wù)匯報(bào)局再把這項(xiàng)工作外包給這個(gè)公會，這樣就會再次形成會計(jì)師對自身工作進(jìn)行核查的局面，只是這一次他們還會拿到報(bào)酬。

????把審計(jì)核查工作外包給要核查的會計(jì)師事務(wù)所是個(gè)糟糕的主意。我曾就此為研究機(jī)構(gòu)Forensic Asia寫過一篇文章。有效的審計(jì)監(jiān)管對投資者來說很重要。投資者應(yīng)當(dāng)大聲疾呼，以免財(cái)務(wù)匯報(bào)局繼續(xù)被會計(jì)師們所“俘獲”。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie??

????Again in 2013, Hong Kong placed first in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, which measures its view of the economic freeness of various countries. The index focuses on the presence of the rule of law and the absence of government regulation. On the latter point Hong Kong does particularly well, scoring 98.9 in Business Freedom compared to 90.5 for the United States and 48.0 for China.

????Of course, business rarely wants no regulation – after all that might lead to excessive competition. The professions have long sought closure – blocking outsiders from the work of the profession in exchange for regulatory oversight. Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom observed this behavior: “the pressure on the legislature to license an occupation rarely comes from the members of the public . . . On the contrary, the pressure invariably comes from the occupation itself.”

????The accounting profession secured a particularly sweet deal in Hong Kong. They blocked access to their lucrative market to accounting firms from outside Hong Kong while convincing regulators to allow them to regulate themselves through the Hong Kong Institute of CPAs (HKICPAs).

????That deal is coming to an end. The world called B.S. on the accounting profession’s self-regulation after Enron, and most of the world has separated accounting regulation from the profession. But not in Hong Kong. Hong Kong made a symbolic move towards regulating accountants with the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), but made sure that the FRC was underfunded and toothless. The financial world has called Hong Kong out on this, the most serious blow being the removal of regulatory equivalency by the European Union. So reforms are once again in the winds.

????The proposed reforms, however, seek to perpetuate regulatory capture. A proposal advanced by the SFC and HKICPAs would transfer the important function of audit inspections from the HKICPAs to the FRC, funded by levies on investors. But the HKICPAs wants FRC to outsource those inspections back to the HKICPAs, leading once again to the profession reviewing its own work, but being paid for it this time.

????Outsourcing audit inspections to the inspected firms is a horrible idea, and I have written a piece for Forensic Asia on it. Effective audit regulation is important for investors, and investors should be speaking up loudly to make sure the profession does not keep the FRC in captivity.