只靠市場無法減收費 積金局推ETF強力介入

<轉載自2012年11月5日 明報 社評>

 

強積金半自由行開始實施，本以為一場管理費減價戰會正式開始，然而公眾見到的只是高昂管理費輕微回落，舊客戶更難以受惠。祈求向來依靠收取超高管理費過活的積金商自動減費，根本不切實際，強積金管理局應盡快強力介入，主動推出簡單及低收費的強積金產品（如指數ETF），讓市場真正有所選擇，亦以此作為手段迫使其他積金商盡快減費，把血汗退休金還給打工仔女。

期望商界自動減費 遙遙無期不切實際

強積金推行12年，表現差劣，管理費又超高，早已淪為「吸血鬼」的代名詞，不斷蠶食打工仔女的血汗錢。過去業界總是諸多藉口，說什麼計劃才剛實行，資金池不夠龐大故無法減費，又說只要引入競爭即可令收費下調，但現實卻完全是另一回事﹕12年下來管理總金額已增至近4000億港元，管理費依舊沒大變動，積金局推動半自由行也一波三折，社會本來期望一場減價戰會出現，卻事與願違。

據本報上周報道，多家大型強積金服務供應商推出的所謂優惠，只為新客戶或現有客戶的新開立「個人帳戶」提供管理費回贈，現有客戶的戶口優惠少之又少。業界或許會辯稱「半自由行」只推出了數天，不宜過早下判斷，但縱觀業界過去數年的表現，加上由數家經營商壟斷的情况不變，由「半自由行」變成「全自由行」引入全面競爭一事只會遙遙無期，管理費大幅下調至與外地合理水平看齊，機會也實在微乎其微。

公眾的容忍已到了極限，既然寄望積金商自願減費的願望極可能落空，積金局此時大力介入，以各種手段迫使積金商減費，並不為過。

本報上周五報道，積金局董事會正研究改革方案，建議政府成立公營、非牟利的強積金公共受託機構（public trustee），提供一系列「簡單、安全、低收費」的強積金計劃產品，作為強積金行業的基準，推動業界推出低收費的同類產品，亦為打工族提供安全港（safe harbour）。由於目前強積金受託機構以商業運作，以追求最大利潤為目標，欠缺為公眾提供簡單安全而低收費的退休金投資產品的誘因，積金局的改革方向正好刺中問題核心，從公眾利益而非商業利益的角度出發，設計強積金產品，為市場增添選擇，亦可藉此迫使商業機構減費。

不過即使是由積金局推出強積金產品，也面對以什麼金融產品作投資對象的問題。快將退休或取態保守的人，大都渴望投資以穩健定息收入的債券為主，但香港債券市場並不成熟，產品選擇不多，而香港市面上自動追蹤大市指數、毋須支付基金經理高昂薪酬的指數基金產品亦屈指可數，據消委會報告指出，523個強積金基金中，只有19個指數基金，數量不足4%，令市場欠缺足夠的代替品。

積金管理費過高的原因之一，是部分基金須由基金經理積極買賣（主動基金），故要支付基金經理薪酬，事實上，過去投資界總有一個迷思，認為總有高人能有獨特的投資眼光「跑贏大市」，故支付管理費也物有所值，但這個迷思應要打破。

根據調查公司的數據，截至10月18日，47隻港股基金中，今年回報能跑贏恒指的不足一半，只有21隻。研究股票及經濟近30年的恒指公司董事總經理關永盛上周一在本報刊出的專訪中就指出，最好的投資方法，其實就是「被動投資」，即買指數基金，因為「即使是星級基金經理，也不能持續beat the market（跑贏大市）」。

為市民退休保障籌謀 政府「出招」毋須手軟

事實上在美國也有調查有同類的發現。有關美國投資市場的長期研究顯示，七至八成互惠基金（即由基金經理運營的基金）均跑輸指數ETF，而由電腦跟蹤指數的ETF更可節省大量基金經理的薪酬。由此可見，積金局主動推出與股市指數掛鈎的ETF，為退休投資提供更多可行、以民為本的選擇，絕對適合。

積金局介入市場的理據已非常充分，因為靠市場競爭讓積金管理費回落，只會是緣木求魚。如果積金局出招亦無法令市場收費回落，政府當局更強力的介入，甚至另起爐灶，相信社會大眾也願意考慮。為市民的退休保障籌謀，政府毋須手軟。

Editorial

MPFA Should Try to Bring down MPF Fees

 

THE MANDATORY PROVIDENT FUND (MPF) Employee Choice Arrangement has come into effect. This arrangement, it was thought, would force MPF providers to slash management fees in order to stay competitive. But what has actually happened is just a slight reduction in fees - and existing clients are not to benefit from it.

 

Twelve years into its launch, the MPF has performed badly, with excessively high management fees nibbling away at employees' hard-earned money all the time. MPF providers at first came up with all sorts of excuses, declaring that the asset pools for MPF schemes at the early stage were not large enough to warrant a cut in management fees, and that the fees would be adjusted downwards when competition was introduced. But the facts are otherwise. Over the past 12 years, MPF assets have grown to a total of nearly $400 billion, while management fees have remained almost unchanged. And the Employee Choice Arrangement, introduced by the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) after much difficulty, has disappointingly failed to spur fee cuts.

As reported in Ming Pao last week, the so-called preferential offers now being made by major MPF providers mean hardly any benefits to existing clients. And judging from the MPF industry's general performance in the past few years, the possibility of a drastic reduction in management fees to bring them in line with international standards is at present minimal.

As also reported in Ming Pao last Friday, the MPFA is studying the feasibility of reforming the MPF system, and may propose to the government the establishment of a non-profit public trustee company to provide a series of low-fee MPF products with safe and simple investment strategies, the aim being to encourage the MPF industry to launch similar investment products with low charges. As all MPF trustees today are commercial organisations, they just want to make the greatest possible profits and have little incentive to provide the public with low-fee retirement products that are safe and simple. The MPFA's plan has got to the crux of the matter.

One reason why MPF schemes charge excessively high fees is that some of them - the actively managed funds - require their managers to trade frequently, for which the managers have to be paid. The investment industry has long fostered the myth that insightful fund managers are able to "beat the market", and so it is worth paying them for their services. This is a myth that has to be exploded.

According to the data collected by a survey company, as at October 18, only 21 (fewer than half) of the 47 Hong Kong equity funds outperformed the Hang Seng Index this year. Vincent Kwan Wing-shing, Director and General Manager of the Hang Seng Indexes Company who has studied the stock market and the economy for almost 30 years, pointed out in an exclusive interview published in Ming Pao last week that "passive investment", which means investing in index funds, is in fact the best investment strategy since "even star fund managers cannot consistently beat the market".

To provide the public with more retirement investment options, the MPFA has every obligation to take the initiative in launching exchange-traded index funds. If management fees in the MPF market do not go down despite the MPFA's intervention, the government should step in and take even more vigorous measures to safeguard citizens' retirement funds.

明報社評 2012.11.05﹕只靠市場無法減收費 積金局推ETF強力介入

強積金半自由行開始實施，本以為一場管理費減價戰會正式開始，然而公眾見到的只是高昂管理費輕微回落，舊客戶更難以受惠。

強積金推行12年，表現差劣，管理費又超高，不斷蠶食打工仔女的血汗錢。過去業界總是諸多藉口，說什麼計劃才剛實行，資金池不夠龐大故無法減費，又說只要引入競爭即可令收費下調，但現實卻完全是另一回事﹕12年下來管理總金額已增至近4000億港元，管理費依舊沒大變動，積金局推動半自由行也一波三折，社會本來期望一場減價戰會出現，卻事與願違。

據本報上周報道，多家大型強積金服務供應商推出的所謂優惠，現有客戶的戶口優惠少之又少。縱觀業界過去數年的表現，管理費大幅下調至與外地合理水平看齊，機會也實在微乎其微。

本報上周五報道，積金局董事會正研究改革方案，建議政府成立公營、非牟利的強積金公共受託機構，提供一系列「簡單、安全、低收費」的強積金計劃產品，推動業界推出低收費的同類產品。由於目前強積金受託機構以商業運作，以追求最大利潤為目標，欠缺為公眾提供簡單安全而低收費的退休金投資產品的誘因，積金局的改革方向正好刺中問題核心。

積金管理費過高的原因之一，是部分基金須由基金經理積極買賣（主動基金），故要支付基金經理薪酬，事實上，過去投資界總有一個迷思，認為總有高人能有獨特的投資眼光「跑贏大市」，故支付管理費也物有所值，但這個迷思應要打破。

根據調查公司的數據，截至10月18日，47隻港股基金中，今年回報能跑贏恒指的不足一半，只有21隻。研究股票及經濟近30年的恒指公司董事總經理關永盛上周一在本報刊出的專訪中就指出，最好的投資方法，其實就是「被動投資」，即買指數基金，因為「即使是星級基金經理，也不能持續beat the market（跑贏大市）」。

積金局主動推出與股市指數掛鈎的ETF，為退休投資提供更多可行、以民為本的選擇，絕對適合。如果積金局出招亦無法令市場收費回落，政府當局應更強力的介入，為市民的退休保障籌謀。