Coincidence of the day: UBS decides to deny media access to all its research reports the day after the media reports that the Swiss financial group dumped BOC Hong Kong (Holdings) from one of its key local stock portfolios. This fact was, yes, revealed in a research note sent to the media on Monday. Daily comment no more. Sector and company reports, nope. UBS denied that its decision to dump BOCHK - from which it earned juicy co-sponsoring fees from its US$2.6 billion listing last year - from its MSCI HK model portfolio was putting it under pressure, triggering the media ban. Surely there must be some link between BOCHK and the ban? 'No, none whatsoever,' UBS head of Corporate Communications for Asia-Pacific Matthew McGrath said. 'This is the result of a review that has been underway for some time. That it happens today is a coincidence and has no relationship to BOCHK.' Mr McGrath insisted the decision was taken 'in response to mounting feedback from our clients that they prefer the research to be exclusive to them'. Funny that they never complained before - the house has been distributing research reports to the media for years. above the law It must be comforting for the government to consider itself immune from the Securities and Futures Ordinance. The new law, 10 years in the making and hugely unpopular with substantial shareholders who now have to disclose holdings of 5 per cent or more in a counter, is not binding on the state. In theory then, that leaves it open to market manipulation (shades of 1998's stock market intervention, perhaps) and all kinds of security breaches. Short-selling, front-running, non-disclosure, the list goes on. But of course that is all just that - theory. No government official would ever dream of flouting such a sweeping law. And the government will make voluntary disclosure. It says so. This must make state-protected Financial Secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung feel a bit relieved. A little snippet of news such as a looming hike in car tax could be taken as a variable of insider dealing. Especially when you ultimately profit. Just think, under old insider-dealing rules he would have had to have paid back the entire sum plus up to three times the cash he made as a result of insider dealing. The donation he made to the Community Chest would barely cover his legal fees. relative injustice Legislators should fasten their seatbelts. They are in for a bumpy ride today. Lawmaker Choy So-yuk is armed with a dynamite question to put to the government during this afternoon's session. She will be attempting to get to the bottom of a shocking practice that takes place regularly within government circles: When Legco members or District Council members are asked to attend official functions, only their spouses - but not other immediate family members, for example, their parents and children - are invited. And to make matters worse, if the spouse declines, other family members are still not allowed on to the guest list. There simply are no words. Lai See is tempted to call for a public inquiry. Ms Choy has asked the government to elaborate on the rationale for this and whether it has considered that it may run contrary to the spirit of the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance. Oh, and will the government consider inviting family members to these functions? To hazard a guess: The rationale? Taxpayers feeding freeloading parents and brats wouldn't go down a treat. Contrary to the spirit of the law? Good grief. But we do think a critical point is being missed here. The really important issue, of course, is that these people's pets have rights too. Snack preview Lai See strongly recommends that you stop and think before picking up a biscuit at your next board meeting. According to United Biscuits researchers, both your choice of cookie and the way you eat it reflects your business approach. If you take just one biscuit, you are seen as conformist, two means you are confident and three or more shows you to be overly competitive or aggressive. Should you take the chief executive's favourite biscuit, you will be seen to be making an indirect challenge. There exists the potential for a boardroom coup. Cracker, anyone? Got a question for Lai See? laisee@scmp.com Tel: 2565 2632 Fax: 2565 1624
