Cao Mingxin liked to play business games when he was young. After entering the Department of Computer Engineering of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, he decided to step into the real business world, so he acquired another identity - the founder of Jigao Industrial Group Co., Ltd.
The young entrepreneur personally felt the crux of Hong Kong's entrepreneurial financing ecology during his exploration.
Therefore, he wrote a letter to Hong Wen, a member of the Legislative Council Election Committee, pointing out that the Hong Kong venture capital industry has problems such as insufficient funding sources, lack of early financing experience in venture capital institutions, and low corporate valuations, expressing his feelings of hitting a wall since he started his business. , from what has been seen and researched.
The short letter of 1,000 words moved Hong Wen instantly, "I really hope to open up something for the younger generation..." To open up space for the next generation in Hong Kong, of course, we cannot rely on just a few funds.
However, starting from the improvement of the Future Fund and Hong Kong's growth portfolio, there may be an opportunity to reform public finance, and then leverage the structural transformation of the entire society.
"The Future Fund was established to deal with the financial burden of an aging population. It was not strategic enough and it didn't go far enough," said Hong Wen, "but the name 'Future Fund' aroused the imagination of many people, including me. Since the government This step has been taken, can you stand a little higher and be more strategic? I hope to use this step to push forward.”
"Hong Kong Venture Capital" is expected to break the bottleneck
"I have the same empathy with these entrepreneurs, because I really hope to develop something for the younger generation..." Hong Wen's eyes were red when she talked about Cao Mingxin's letter, and she immediately turned her head to look at Victoria Harbour. A joke to resolve the "embarrassment" just now: "I am more emotional, am I not suitable for this job?"
"I have received many letters from young people in Hong Kong. They are very responsible, and they are worth doing for them." Hong Wen looked away from the window, her eyes more tender, "I also have a 15-year-old. I look at this group of young people with the "heart of being a mother", and I want to open up space for them... Young people in Hong Kong are under pressure in the society, with few choices and housing Difficulties and inability to move upwards. Now everyone who holds resources, whether it is power or real resources, these people are responsible.” She added, “Whether Hong Kong’s decline or problems, it is What happens in our hands, we have a responsibility to improve and give back a better city to the next generation.”
In June this year, Hong Wen put forward a motion of "making good use of the "Future Fund" and "Hong Kong Growth Portfolio" to promote the diversification of the industrial structure" at the Legislative Council. It has a comprehensive, comprehensive and long-term vision, and makes strategic investments from the perspective of driving the transformation of Hong Kong's economic structure and opening up new development space for young people.
She explained afterwards: "The core appeal of my motion is to promote the SAR government to change its role in the economy, from the active and non-intervention style of a 'small government' to a moderate and proactive one."
For the government to change from a "passive" defender of earning investment to an "active" attacker who participates in economic reforms and shares development dividends, the key is to establish a "commercial entity" responsible for management and funds.
The establishment of an entity means that the fund moves from passive management, which is incorporated into the Exchange Fund's investment portfolio, to active management, which requires regular reporting, review and strategy formulation.
As the investor of the fund, the government must think about the future industrial and economic development of Hong Kong and provide direction for the fund's investment.
Many successful government sovereign funds are managed by separate entities.
For example, the Norwegian Government Pension Global Fund, the world's largest sovereign fund, is entrusted to NBIM (Norges Bank Investment Management), an investment management company under Norges Bank, to be responsible for specific operations and investment execution.
Part of Singapore's foreign exchange reserves and central provident fund (similar to public pensions) are operated and invested by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC); while Temasek Holdings (Temasek) is established and injected by the government's Ministry of Finance to manage Singapore's fiscal reserves.
Therefore, Hong Wen moved a motion in the Legislative Council, suggesting that the government optimize the management of the "Future Fund" and the "Hong Kong Growth Portfolio", and consider setting up a special zone following the example of Singapore's Temasek and Shenzhen Innovation Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shenzhen Venture Capital"). Hong Kong Venture Capital, a venture capital institution participated by the government, is responsible for the operation and investment of the above two funds.
"I try to avoid using the word 'Hong Kong version of Temasek' in the motion, but use 'Hong Kong venture capital'." Hong Wen explained that she did not want to create a false impression and make the public think that Hong Kong's venture capital institutions are going to "copy" Temasek. Its reviews are also mixed.
Some praised its high investment efficiency, and some called it a "super state-owned enterprise" and state capitalism; some praised its unique investment vision, and some praised its former CEO, Ho Ching, the wife of the current Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, and involved family nepotism. "Each economy has its own context, and copying it may not apply."
Figure 1: As of the end of June this year, Shenzhen Venture Capital Fund had invested in 1,463 companies, with an investment amount of about RMB 85.9 billion, of which 218 invested companies achieved IPO listings, and 422 projects have achieved exits (including IPOs).
(Hong Kong 01 cartography)
For the specific structure of "Hong Kong Venture Capital", please refer to "Shenzhen Venture Capital".
Founded in 1999, Shenzhen Venture Capital manages assets of RMB 432.4 billion, including 149 private equity funds, 13 equity investment funds of funds, and 20 special funds; the venture capital business mainly focuses on small and medium-sized enterprises and independent innovation high-tech enterprises And emerging industry enterprises, covering information technology, smart manufacturing, Internet, consumer goods/modern services, biotechnology/health, new materials, new energy/energy conservation and environmental protection and other industries.
As of the end of June this year (see Figure 1), Shenzhen Venture Capital Fund had invested in 1,463 companies with an investment amount of about 85.9 billion yuan. Among them, 218 invested companies had achieved IPO listings, and 422 projects had achieved exits (including IPOs).
"The government only holds 29% of the shares, and 71% of the shares come from the market." Hong Wen said that Shenzhen Venture Capital, endorsed by the government, created a guidance fund to attract market funds to participate in matching.
Therefore, she suggested that "Hong Kong Venture Capital" can also imitate the model of Shenzhen Venture Capital, through direct investment or the establishment of a guiding fund of funds, to support various industries that have strategic value for the long-term development of Hong Kong and can enrich the local economic structure, and can follow suit. The cooperation of various funds such as universities, science and technology parks, Cyberport, Hong Kong Productivity Council, etc., can not only cultivate local enterprises, but also attract advantageous enterprises to Hong Kong, opening up new growth points for Hong Kong.
Hong Wen summed up the four advantages of setting up a Hong Kong venture capital: First, to accelerate the transformation of Hong Kong's economy, provide convenience for new economy enterprises, create high-end jobs, and provide the next generation with decent choices other than the four pillar industries.
Second, take the initiative to use government credit to attract overseas funds. When Hong Kong venture capital leads investment in local companies, it means that the Hong Kong government endorses it, which can attract more sovereign funds that focus on growth investment to “open source” the venture capital industry and improve its performance. The resilience of the secondary market in Hong Kong.
Third, it can follow Temasek to provide value-added services, such as incubation and matching of start-ups, finding entrepreneurial mentors, and providing one-stop services for families of overseas talents to come to Hong Kong, etc., to increase Hong Kong’s attractiveness to overseas talents.
Fourth, it can be used as a "window" for the government to obtain market information. It can establish a venture capital talent network in the form of venture capital institutions, shorten the distance between the government and the industry, and help the government formulate more appropriate policies.
The Hong Kong venture capital model can be better integrated with the development of the northern metropolitan area.
"The government allocated the 5 billion Greater Bay Area Fund from the Future Fund to the Hong Kong Growth Portfolio this year, which can use the Hong Kong venture capital model to attract companies from the Greater Bay Area to operate in the northern metropolitan area." Hong Wen pointed out that in the industry chain There are "anchor enterprises" that can drive the upstream and downstream of the supply chain and form industrial clusters. "Shanghai provides a "policy package" to attract Tesla to land, just to bring the entire upstream and downstream of the car."
"Hong Kong venture capital can leverage a lot of things." In order to prepare the proposal, Hong Wen conducted more than 20 surveys and interviewed five members of the governance committee of the "Hong Kong Growth Portfolio", technology venture capitalists, technology entrepreneurs, and financial managers. Industry players and regulators, heads of Temasek Singapore and Shenzhen Innovation Investment Company, and some scholars of the Hong Kong Institute of International Finance.
"No one objected to my proposal," recalled Hong Wen. "What I was most moved by was that a member of the committee expressed support for the proposal. He also said that if the government is afraid of being a 'wok', it can be pushed to me."
Even as financial elites support a step forward in public finances, there is no shortage of opposition in the Legislative Council.
For example, the convener of the Executive Council and member of the Legislative Council of the New People's Party, Ip Lau Suk-yee, criticized in parliament that the proposal to use the Exchange Fund or the Future Fund for investment "is likely to be illegal."
Citing the "Exchange Fund Ordinance", Yip Liu Shuyi clarified the statutory function of the Exchange Fund to maintain exchange rates, emphasizing that "the US$300 billion Exchange Fund cannot be spent indiscriminately." She also pointed out that if the government wants to follow the example of the Temasek Fund and allocate hundreds of billions of dollars, "The idea of the Exchange Fund should not be taken." Instead, consider starting with three cross-harbour tunnels.
Hong Wen, a member of the legislature, hopes to open up space for young people.
(Photo by Chen Weici)
Huge resistance to public finance reform
However, upon reflection, Ye Liu Shuyi's "illegal" rationale is debatable.
First, although the Future Fund is managed by the Exchange Fund, its investments are distributed in the "investment portfolio" and the "long-term growth portfolio", rather than the "support portfolio" used to maintain the linked exchange rate system; the latter holds more US dollar bonds and bills. and other highly liquid assets, while the first two portfolios hold public market assets, private equity and real estate.
Although the investment amount can be allocated between portfolios, the statutory function of the Exchange Fund is mainly maintained by the "backing portfolio".
Second, the use of the Future Fund does involve legislation, but it is definitely not the Exchange Fund Ordinance, but a resolution on the Land Fund passed by the Provisional Legislative Council. The future fund established by the allocation will continue to use this resolution.
Taking a step back, the Executive Council is the highest-level "think tank" of the SAR government, and Ye Liu Shuyi, who is in it, should "climb up and look into the future" to understand the contradiction between public finance and urban development, but she still takes the lead in opposing the reform, which is enough to reflect The political resistance to reforming public finance is enormous.
Furthermore, it is important to maintain the linked exchange rate system, but does it mean that the Exchange Fund is the best solution to maintain the linked exchange rate system?
Or, from another perspective: how much assets are needed to maintain the stability of the monetary and financial system?
Are trillions of Hong Kong dollars of foreign exchange reserves "too much" for the current monetary system?
In 1999, Argentina’s then-undersecretary of finance and the then chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve proposed the Guidotti–Greenspan rule: If an economy is vulnerable to the free flow of capital, its reserves will be less The ratio of all foreign debt to maturity should be "100%" - this support ratio constitutes the "golden standard" for measuring the optimal level of foreign exchange reserves and is also the theoretical minimum level of reserves in an economy.
However, Ren Zhigang, the first president of the HKMA, quoted Hong Kong as an example of resisting the Asian financial turmoil in his blog in 2001, referring to the use of foreign exchange reserves that were several times more than the monetary base to defend against speculators, and concluded that if Hong Kong wants to maintain currency stability, foreign exchange Reserves must be well above the minimum theoretical level to support the monetary base.
To this day, Ren Zhigang's remarks are similar to the "fiscal discipline" of the HKMA in managing the Exchange Fund. Whenever there are voices questioning the excess of foreign exchange reserves, the Asian financial crisis has become an example of the authorities' constant talk.
However, this rhetoric is more like a "sequel" of the Asian financial turmoil, and Hong Kong is by no means unique.
In 2009, the Economics Working Papers Series of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) selected ten economies including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Conduct empirical research to explore whether the level of foreign exchange reserves in Asian economies is Optimal or Excessive.
The study concluded that after the Asian Financial Crisis, Asian economies accumulated reserves at an "unprecedented" pace and scale for precaution and insurance; Using excess reserves to buy safe, liquid, low-interest traditional reserve assets is an expensive waste of precious resources.”
Whether it is strict discipline or waste of resources, the fundamental difference stems from different understandings of the role of the government in the market economy - passive defense or active attack?
Hong Wen is obviously the one who takes the initiative.
Facing the rhetoric of "maintaining the cargo base" and "financial security" from traditional government officials, she emphasized the strategy of "offensive and defensive": "The Future Fund is only 220 billion yuan, accounting for less than 5% of the Exchange Fund. A little high-risk asset does not affect the liquidity that supports the linked exchange system at all. In addition, we have to consider the risk of financial sanctions. Half of our exchange funds are in US dollar assets, should we also consider asset diversification?"
Convenor of the Executive Council and member of the Legislative Council of the New People's Party, Ip Lau Suk-yi, criticized at the Legislative Council that the proposal to use the Exchange Fund or the Future Fund for investment "is likely to be illegal."
(file picture)
As for the legal issues involved in the "Future Fund", it is by no means that there are no solutions.
The "Land Fund" resolution stipulates that the use of the fund must be approved by the Legislative Council, and the "Future Fund" transferred in the future will still follow the law.
However, after taking office, the Financial Secretary, Mr Chan Mao-po, has repeatedly flexibly used administrative means to directly use it, disguisedly breaking the iron rule that his predecessor, John Tsang, set the "Future Fund" to be "unusable for ten years".
For example, in June 2020, Chen Maobo allocated 27.3 billion yuan from the Future Fund to invest in Cathay Pacific Airways, including 19.5 billion yuan to purchase limited shares, and 7.8 billion yuan of excessive loans to help it cope with the financial crisis under the epidemic.
This is the first time the Hong Kong government has directly injected capital into a private enterprise through the Land Fund (Future Fund).
Chen Maobo explained that this is a medium-term investment, and the investment can pay off, and it can also help Cathay Pacific to tide over the difficulties in extraordinary times.
According to the estimation of the external financial consultant, the expected internal rate of return of this investment is 4% to 7.5%.
In addition to interest income, the government will hold about 6.08% of Cathay Pacific shares in disguise if all shares are exchanged.
In a submission to the Legislative Council, the government said the Financial Secretary could exercise his discretion to authorize and direct the land fund to be invested in a way he decides.
Furthermore, "not available for ten years" does not mean "no inspection" or "no adjustment" for ten years.
Liao Pak-wai, a member of the long-term financial planning team that promotes the establishment of the Future Fund and a professor at the Department of Economics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, agrees that the government should re-examine the long-term financial planning and the effectiveness of the Future Fund.
"At that time, when we made long-term financial projections, we built a complete model, and the government only needed to put the latest data in and revise it." It is understandable that the fund should be used for other purposes. If the situation deteriorates, the government should deploy it earlier.
"It's time for an update!" said Liao Pakwei, "After experiencing social unrest, epidemics and other situations, the financial situation needs to be recalculated. At that time, there were long-term financial projections with 'good and bad' long-term forecasts. The worst The situation is that the financial crisis of 2008 is expected to occur, and the fiscal revenue will be bad. Unfortunately, even if the financial collapse does not occur, the impact of the epidemic will be very large, so we need to update this calculation.”
In a nutshell, the use of the Future Fund to invest in properties and help Hong Kong's economic transformation is not something that the government "doesn't have to do", nor is it that the government "can't do it".
Whether it's fiscal discipline or legal restrictions, there are parts that are debatable and room for flexibility.
The future of the Future Fund should also be re-examined and adjusted.
The dispute over whether it is illegal or not is obviously too superficial. For Future Fund, Hong Kong Growth Portfolio and even Hong Kong Venture Capital, talents and mechanisms are the real problems that need to be solved urgently.
After taking office, the Financial Secretary Chan Mo-po has used administrative measures flexibly and directly for many times, breaking the iron rule of "ten years of inactivity" for the "Future Fund" set by the former Financial Secretary, John Tsang.
(file picture)
Only by innovating financial management philosophy can talents be recruited
Among the government's many funds, the Hong Kong Growth Portfolio, known as the "Hong Kong version of Temasek", is already the fastest public financial management attempt.
However, it still lacks a physical governing body, lacks industry research and operates with low transparency.
Although the Hong Kong venture capital proposal has eliminated the key bottleneck of "physical institutions", it failed to take into account the barriers to implementation in terms of talents and mechanisms.
For example, the chairman of the Legislative Council Finance Committee and member of the insurance sector, Chen Jianbo, pointed out in the motion debate that although the establishment of venture capital institutions can promote the development of the industry, it also needs to take into account the disadvantages: "The government has always lacked investment talents, and any decision is easy to be regarded as The transfer of benefits, once the investment fails, is also criticized as a "prodigal", even Singapore's Temasek often makes wrong investment decisions, so the government needs to take a lot of risks when it directly participates in the investment." Therefore, Chen Jianbo suggested that the government should only monitor and not Those who do not participate in investment decisions also need to further consider "how to properly check and balance".
Where does talent come from?
"If you go outside, you can't do it with your own people. If the government needs to change its thinking, it will fail to accept investment." Liao Pak-wai said, "In the past, the government lost one dollar, and the Legislative Council was 'too big'! Invested 1 billion and 8 billion yuan and still lost money. Half of the time, officials have not yet been arrested for a large round of trial? Now that the political environment has changed, it may be better, but the Legislative Council will still be held accountable.”
The urgently innovated thinking refers to the public financial management philosophy of "prudent financial management and living within our means" pursued by the SAR government.
In this financial management philosophy, even if the government invests in financial management, it must rely on the operation of the HKMA, and requires "only profit without loss".
If things go on like this, there will naturally be a shortage of investment talent within the government.
"With so much experience to learn from, Hong Kong can avoid many detours." Chen Wenhong, director of the Belt and Road Research Institute of Zhuhai University, pointed out that Hong Kong has the advantage of being a latecomer and has financial strength. Alright." Chen Wenhong stressed that the HKMA's investment method is not applicable to funds aiming at economic development. "For speculators who speculate in stocks and foreign exchange, investment is made by financial methods, not industrial methods." He said that development funds The investment of the SAR requires a dedicated team to do research on industrial investment for medium and long-term development, but the SAR government ignores the research.
Cao Mingxin pointed out that the government's venture capital fund needs to be managed by capable people who love the country and Hong Kong and are loyal to the SAR government.
(Photo by Su Weiran)
Cao Mingxin emphasized the need to hire capable people who "love the country and Hong Kong" and "loyalty to the SAR government" to manage: "Because venture capital is not a public institution, if partners are opposed to Hong Kong people and Chinese people, they are self-defeating, but they are obsessed with foreign startups. Companies that have prejudice against Hong Kong start-ups will cause big problems... If Hong Kong does not invest in Hong Kong, our ecosystem will not be able to form.” He worries that if people in the investment circle are all “Old Money” The next generation will only damage the startup ecosystem.
The above suggestions are derived from Cao Mingxin’s observation: although there are many consortia and high net worth individuals in Hong Kong, these funds may not prefer Hong Kong.
For example, he pointed out that Victoria Harbour Capital, which is owned by the Li Ka-shing family, prefers to "invest in ghosts". "They used to like to invest in foreign biotech companies. The latest information on the website states that they only invest in Deep Tech. The problem is that Hong Kong has both Deep Tech, have you considered Hong Kong companies first?”
Hong Wen suggested that Hong Kong Venture Capital could follow the example of Shenzhen Venture Capital and openly recruit professionals from home and abroad to form an investment team.
For example, the initial operation of Hong Kong Venture Capital can be "dual-track" with the General Partner (GP) model of the Hong Kong Growth Portfolio.
In terms of mechanism, it is divided into monitoring mechanism and evaluation mechanism.
The "low transparency" mentioned above reflects the absence of a monitoring mechanism.
Many members of the Legislative Council have pointed out that if a venture capital institution is to be established, the government should not directly participate in the investment, but act as an "Observer" so that the professional investment team has room to play and find the most suitable industries for Hong Kong. and opportunity.
Specifically, you can refer to the organizational structure of the Norwegian Government Pension Global Fund (GPFG) (see Figure 2). It is not only the public investor with the highest amount of assets under management, but also the most open and transparent sovereign fund.
The organizational structure of the Norwegian Government Pensions Global Fund (GPFG) is worthy of reference for Hong Kong. It involves four major stakeholders: the Parliament, the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank and the Central Bank Investment Management Company. Bottom-up investment profile and risk reporting.
(Hong Kong 01 cartography)
Strengthen supervision with reference to GPFG governance structure
According to the article "Norway Government Pension Global Fund Operation and Reference" by China Europe Fund, the governance structure of GPFG includes four main stakeholders: Norges Bank Investment Management Company (NBIM), Norges Central Bank, Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Norwegian Parliament.
The Norwegian Parliament drafted and passed the National Pension Act, which stipulates that the GPFG shall be managed by the Ministry of Finance, the Norwegian Parliament shall supervise the implementation, the fund funds shall be stored in the central bank account, and the transfer of fund funds shall be subject to the resolution of the Norwegian Parliament.
The Ministry of Finance is the competent department of the fund and is responsible for setting the investment plan, investment scope and expected returns of the fund, formulating investment strategies and assessing risks and returns, and regularly reporting the investment and operation of the fund to the parliament.
NBIM is responsible for the specific operation and investment of the fund and is managed by the central bank.
How is the management of GPFG significantly different from the three "quasi-sovereign funds" in Hong Kong?
Although the operation of GPFG is still under the management of the central bank, due to the existence of the commercial entity NBIM, the fund adopts active investment, and the investment style is not as conservative as the Exchange Fund and the Future Fund.
Its portfolio investment returns from 2018 to 2020 were -6.12%, 19.95%, and 10.90%, respectively, with large fluctuations and double-digit investment returns.
Second, the Norwegian government and parliament are actively involved in the oversight and management of the GPFG.
For example, the Ministry of Finance needs to make a series of "top-level design", specific to investment planning, scope and even expected returns, and also needs to report to Parliament regularly.
Most importantly, GPFG's investment operations are completely transparent.
"Transparency" is one of the core values of GPFG's management code. In practice, every company or bond invested by GPFG will be updated in real time.
In Hong Kong, on the other hand, the SAR government and the HKMA are "in their own hands", and the Legislative Council is like a "toothless tiger" when monitoring the fund.
When the HKMA is a "bank", the government only cares about deposits, withdrawals and interest collection. It does not usually ask the HKMA's investment arrangements.
The HKMA, for fear of attracting the stigma of "intervention in the market", will only report roughly on investment performance, but will never disclose its investment portfolio.
For example, in 2018, then-Democratic legislator Au Nuoxuan asked the government and the HKMA to list the types and market values of real estate invested in the Exchange Fund's "Long-Term Growth Portfolio".
However, the HKMA only refused to provide relevant information on the grounds that "the investment of the Exchange Fund involves market-sensitive information, and it is not appropriate for the HKMA to disclose the specific details of the investment."
As a result, no one knows exactly what the Future Fund is investing in, and the eight general partners of the Hong Kong Growth Portfolio remain a mystery.
When the HKMA is a "bank", the SAR government only cares about deposits, withdrawals and interest collection. It does not usually ask the HKMA's investment arrangements.
The HKMA, for fear of attracting the stigma of "intervention in the market", will only report roughly on investment performance, but will never disclose its investment portfolio.
(file picture)
In addition to the monitoring mechanism, the evaluation mechanism is also a very important factor, and this mechanism must take industrial development as the core indicator.
"The indicators for measuring the development of the industry are very complex, not as simple as buying stocks." Chen Wenhong said, "The indicators of digital quantification can only see the current year, but not the trend of the economy." He then joked: "If you invest then Short-sighted, it's better to buy Mark Six! To simply make a lot of money, it's just gambling."
Chongming Chow, a lecturer in the Department of Applied Social Sciences at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, also agrees that the performance of the fund cannot be solely based on the return on investment. Even when measuring economic benefits, real economic indicators such as employment, contribution to the local industrial chain, and contribution to local talents should also be included.
Hong Wen pointed out that the evaluation mechanism must incorporate soft evaluation factors, "such as social benefits, national security benefits, environmental benefits, and the benefits of coping with population aging, etc., a comprehensive evaluation."
"The evaluation mechanism must be based on long-term results. If we still return to the annual percentage of returns, we will only invest in finance and real estate, which is not what we want." Hong Wen explained that the startup company has grown to a stable income. For large companies, the cycle is very long. "We have to use this cycle as the evaluation period. We cannot expect venture capital companies to make money in one or two years. This is impossible. From investment to exit, it takes more than five years to ten years. It is possible, and different industries have different evaluation cycles.” However, she also emphasized that when asking the government to change, it should be more tolerant of the government, “You can’t just let the horse run, but let the horse not eat grass... Only when the evaluation mechanism is well designed can there be room for error, and the government will dare to do it.”
"We are ready. I have surveyed so many people, and everyone thinks it's time for the government to take this step." Hong Wen said, "My motion is a 'casting a stone to ask for directions', and the Legislative Council has passed it. It means that if you really set up an agency to "break through" the Legislative Council, I believe it can be passed."
The details are published in the 331st issue of "Hong Kong 01" electronic weekly published on August 22, 2022.
Sovereign Fund.
1 | How far are we from the "sovereign wealth fund"?
Sovereign Fund.
2 | The Exchange Fund - the sovereign fund of the wealthy treasury following the Hong Kong-British style of seeking stability.
3｜Future Funds - "bureaucratic products" sovereign funds that cannot develop the future.
4｜Hong Kong Growth Portfolio - The sovereign wealth fund of the "Hong Kong version of Temasek" in vain.
Five | Get rid of passive defense and launch active attack Public finance must face the future