????香港在美國傳統基金會（Heritage Foundation）2103年經濟自由度指數（Index of Economic Freedom，衡量各個國家和地區經濟自由程度的指標）排行榜上再次占據首位。這個指數的考察重點是現行法律和政府監管的覆蓋范圍。香港在后一點上表現得特別好，商業自由度得分為98.9，而美國和中國大陸的成績分別為90.5和48.0。

????當然，希望完全不受監管的企業極少——畢竟，這種情況可能導致過度競爭。長期以來，業內人士一直都想實現行業封鎖，或者說，通過接受監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：“要求立法機構為某個行業頒發許可證的壓力極少來自公眾……相反，這種壓力總是來自這個行業自身。”

????香港特別照顧會計師。香港的會計師們截斷了外地會計師事務所進入香港賺錢的渠道，還說服了監管機構允許他們通過香港會計師公會進行自我監管。

????但這樣的優待行將結束。安然（Enron）事件爆發后，會計師的自我監管開始被外界斥為謊言，世界上大多數國家和地區都對會計行業實施了監管和經營分離。但香港沒有這樣做。在監管方面，香港只是象征性地成立了財務匯報局，而實際上這個機構一缺資金二無實權。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厲，它直接取消了香港的監管對等（regulatory equivalency）待遇。因此，香港將再次進行改革。

????然而，擬議中的改革旨在保持監管俘獲（regulatory capture）狀態。香港證監會和香港會計師公會提出的方案是把審計核查這項重要職能從會計師公會轉移到財務匯報局，所需資金從投資者那里征繳。但會計師公會希望財務匯報局再把這項工作外包給這個公會，這樣就會再次形成會計師對自身工作進行核查的局面，只是這一次他們還會拿到報酬。

????把審計核查工作外包給要核查的會計師事務所是個糟糕的主意。我曾就此為研究機構Forensic Asia寫過一篇文章。有效的審計監管對投資者來說很重要。投資者應當大聲疾呼，以免財務匯報局繼續被會計師們所“俘獲”。(財富中文網）

????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.