SFC should name Yiu employer
THE refusal yesterday by the Securities and Futures Commission to reveal the name of the employer of suspended registered trader Yiu Shu-wai, a man involved in short-selling, smacks of cronyism and protectionism.
Yiu has had his registration frozen for 30 days after being found guilty of misconduct involving short-selling with clients, many of whom were convicted under the Securities Ordinance. Yiu apparently lied repeatedly and provided false documents to the SFC.
The SFC said the name of the employer at the time of the alleged breaches was withheld because it would be unfair to reveal it. Yiu apparently concealed his activities from his employer and apparently supervision was not called into question in the matter.
Wait a minute. We always have been led to believe the SFC was here to protect the investor.
There are high profile cases where big brokerage houses have been named. Are the chairmen and directors of companies such as Peregrine Investment and Standard Chartered Asia more culpable than those at Yiu's company? By implication the SFC could be saying that they are. The judgment made regarding the withholding of Yiu's employer's name is not one the SFC should make.
It is in the public interest that the name of Yiu's employer be issued so investors can be better informed about the company and its employees.
If Yiu's activities were concealed from audits and compliance checks at the firm, then there must have been something wrong with the checks. The public needs to know something has been done to make sure this activity does not happen again.