HKEX has been careful not to ruffle too many feathers with the proposal this time, limiting the dual-class share structure to the new board, as well as suggesting a number of safeguards.
But that didn’t stop global investors from giving HKEX the thumbs down — again.
The Hong Kong Investment Funds Association (HKIFA), which represents domestic and international funds from Aberdeen to Vanguard, added to the chorus of dissent this week, saying weighted voting rights were “against the interests of investors”.
It insisted that the bourse had been too gung ho in promoting the merits of dual-class shares, without taking a deeper dive into the risks.
The investment management arm of Norges Bank, Norway’s central bank, echoed this stance. The $873bn fund said in a letter to the exchange that its main concern was unequal voting rights, adding that it “would have liked to see a more balanced consideration of the interests of all the stakeholders in the listing environment”.
“Considerable weight is given to the interests of the exchange in attracting the listing of certain issuers compared to the interests of long-term investors in supplying capital to issuers,” Norges Bank Investment Management said in the letter.
The fact that HKEX’s consultation has failed to placate the buy-side is the clearest sign that the exchange needs to revisit the proposal.
To be sure, the bourse should not be faulted for wanting to make up for lost time. It deserves credit for trying to prevent another loss akin to Alibaba Group Holding’s world-beating IPO, and these efforts show it is dealing with the existential question of the exchange’s long-term future in a digital economy.
One share, one vote
But what HKEX must realise is that in the absence of shareholder protections such as class action lawsuits, the “one share one vote” policy is the surest guarantee that investors reserve their rights.
It is true that the new board will leave Hong Kong’s flagship Main board untouched but, as investors such as Norges have argued, the very creation of a new board could pull listings away from the Main board, and result in a lowering of standards on the latter.
Good governance, after all, should not bend to the will of issuers. As Norges put it, issuers will be willing to adapt to higher standards of governance if incentivised by the listing framework to do so.
Ironically, in the months since HKEX released its consultation, a number of issuers from the technology sector have said they intend to float in Hong Kong — without the incentive of dual-class shares. Since Meitu listed last year, the likes of China Literature, Razer and ZhongAn Online Property and Casualty Insurance Co have filed IPO applications.
Just this week, lossmaking Cofco Womai, one of China’s biggest online grocery stores, submitted a draft prospectus for a $600m IPO.
As for the banks, HKEX can take comfort in the fact that bulge bracket firms see dual-class shares as a non-event, since issuers are increasingly exchange-agnostic. Moreover, issuers looking to raise over $100m typically prefer the prestige of the Main board, and few would be willing to act as guinea pigs for the new board.
What all this proves is that Hong Kong need not rush into a decision on weighted voting rights.
Alibaba may have been the one that got away, but there is no denying Hong Kong holds its own as a listing destination. Although HKEX executives are keen to bring dual-class shares to the city, they would be better off losing the battle to win the war.