金管會大執法 金檢13家投信

今天看到新聞金管會要金檢13家投信，對於違規的經理人「一定處分」。這種聲明實在讓人不解。經理人出問題，其他高階主管，特別是內部稽核和法務部門都不用負責，真是讓人稱奇。然後，明明兩年前就知道問題，現在才開始清查，還說要「一定處分」？這些經理人沒有觸犯「背信罪」的疑慮嗎？怎麼不移送檢調機關調查？
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

金管會大執法 金檢13家投信

【聯合報╱記者孫中英／台北報導】 2012.11.23 05:17 am

盈正案、友輝光電炒股疑案連環爆，金管會昨天表示，檢查局已鎖定十三家投信公司，即將啟動專案金檢，最快年底前提出報告。

金管會官員說，這波專案金檢範圍包括資金流向、買賣個股時點、經理人相關帳戶、交易監視系統等，除調閱相關交易資料、全面比對查核之外，並且指派檢查人員實地檢查，金檢時間預定一個月。

官員不願透露金檢投信名單，只表示，這十三家投信都曾接受委託為政府基金操盤；外界則點名安泰、凱基，德盛安聯、群益、永豐與聯邦等投信，可能都已被檢查局鎖定。

金融界人士說，「專案檢查」一般以銀行、金控為主，很少針對投信公司，這次專案金檢，凸顯金管會掃蕩炒股決心；不過盈正案發後，金管會先是下令卅八家投信經理人「自清」，現在又祭出專案金檢震撼彈，政府大執法，遏止投機炒作，也可能嚇跑資金，台股成交量恐更難回溫。
金管會昨天也說明盈正案的處理情形，證期局副局長王詠心說，投信經理人「全面自清」，查出四家投信的四名基金經理人交易異常，其中一人已放棄陳述機會，另三人違規金額不大，金管會目前複查中，也同步清查友輝光電炒股疑案。
至於在「自清」時閃辭的五名基金經理人，王詠心說，如查出這些經理人涉及違規，一定依法處分；市場也傳出五名經理人中有人涉及炒作友輝光電股票，王詠心說，全案調查中不便回應。
【2012/11/23 聯合報】@ http://udn.com/
全文網址: 金管會大執法 金檢13家投信
金融要聞
財經產業
聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN4/7518233.shtml#ixzz2D91SmtqG

Power By udn.com

Sharing the burden: top houses v top people

英國的「豪宅稅」

人可以搬走，但房子不行

英國打算針對價值在台幣一億以上的豪宅，課徵 1% 的豪宅稅，用來取代所得稅最高級距 50%，並維持所得稅最高級距在 40%


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sharing the burden: top houses v top people

People can move. Houses, by and large cannot.

That's one good reason economists would give for removing the 50p tax rate on Britain's highest earners - and taxing its most expensive houses instead.

Another good argument would be that land is taxed relatively lightly in the UK, whereas labour income is taxed a lot.

That's the theory. The reality - economic and political - is, naturally, more complicated.

The Treasury reckons that it will take in £2.8bn more in income tax in the coming fiscal year with a 50p top rate, than if the ceiling were still at 40%.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies believes that could well be an over-estimate. In fact, it has suggested that it might not raise any money at all - because high earners will find ways to avoid it.

This is what the IFS's Mirrless Review of the UK tax system had to say on the matter: "There are numerous ways in which people might reduce their taxable incomes in response to higher tax rates; at some point, increasing tax rates starts to cost money instead of raising it.

"The question is, where is that point?

"Brewer, Saez, and Shephard (2010) addressed precisely this question for the highest-income 1%. Their central estimate is that the taxable income elasticity for this group is 0.46, which implies a revenue-maximizing tax rate on earned income of 56%.

"This in turn (accounting for NICs and indirect taxes) corresponds to an income tax rate of 40%. So, according to these estimates, the introduction of the 50% rate would actually reduce revenue."

'Big difference'

In opposition, both David Cameron and the Chancellor George Osborne suggested more or less the same thing.

It's safe to say that a mansion tax on houses worth more than £2m would raise more than nothing. Again, we move house, not the other way around. But how much more it would raise is a matter for lively debate.

At the time of the election, the Liberal Democrats reckoned that a 1% tax on the value of houses above £2m would raise about £1.7bn.

At the time, that struck many as on the high side.

Knight Frank, the estate agency, reckons there are about 45,000 homes in England and Wales worth more than £2m, more than 80% of them in London.

You might be surprised to hear that 40% of them are in Kensington and Chelsea alone. Then again, you might not be.

We don't know whether the average value of those 45,000 homes is a lot more than £2m, or not much more at all. That would make a big difference to overall take.

However, on the World at One on Tuesday, the IFS expert on this, Stuart Adam said £1.7bn was probably "in the right ballpark."

If the 50p rate ends up raising as much as the Treasury first thought, it's looks as though a mansion tax raising £1.5bn to £2bn would not fill the gap.

However, it might be enough to let the government cut the top rate from 50 to 45%.

Those same Treasury estimates suggest that change would only cost the chancellor about £1.1bn next year. If that's true, the Inland Revenue could even come out ahead.

That might sound attractive to George Osborne. But he would then be raising a large amount - from an even smaller number of households.

Raising even £1bn from 45,000 properties means an average extra tax bill, for each of those houses, every year, of more than £22,000.

Britain's top earners may not like paying the 50p rate. But there are a lot more of them - about 275,000, according to the Treasury. (Or at least, that's how many they hoped there would be, after the new top rate had been introduced.)

So, even when it comes to the very wealthiest taxpayers, Mr Osborne may need to decide how much he wants to share the pain.

He may also discover first hand why Britain had traditionally taxed residential property so much less than economists would like - seriously distorting our economy, in the process.

No-one likes chancellors who raise taxes. But British people seem to particularly dislike the chancellors who tax them where they live.

This blog post was first published on Tuesday 6 March 2012. Because of a technical problem, it had to be republished with a new timestamp.

Q&A: Mortgage lending rules

FSA (英國的「金管會」)在一份關於改革房貸制度的研究文件中提到：「我們注意到，輕鬆可得的貸款對某些族群，例如首次購屋者，不盡然是好事。寬鬆供給的貸款是，藉由導致房價大幅上升，致使首次購屋者因無力承擔而退出市場的因素之一。」

我們台灣的金管會，什麼時候才能摸摸良心，告訴馬英九和吳敦義這個顯而易見、不容抹滅的事實？請他們停止用納稅人的錢，供應各種低利貸款？

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q&A: Mortgage lending rules
By Ian Pollock
Personal finance reporter, BBC News


The chief City regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has moved a step closer towards tighter regulation of mortgage lending.

By the summer of 2013 it wants new rules to be in place to prevent a return of the reckless lending seen in the middle of the last decade.

This will involve much closer scrutiny of a borrower's ability to repay.

The riskiest loans, worth more than the current value of the property being bought, will be banned outright.

Lenders will have to assume in their calculations that interest rates are higher than they are now when decide how much to lend.

The FSA says: "We are concerned that, as money returns to the market, firms will come under increasing pressure to consider riskier lending and will focus more on market share than maintaining lending standards.

"We need to learn the lessons of the past and act to stop poor lending practices re-emerging in the future," the FSA adds.

Who will all this affect?

At the moment, very few people. Strict mortgage rationing, due to a lack of funds, has been in force since 2008 anyway. So home sales have been roughly halved since then. The slightest blemish on a credit score can see an application for a mortgage being turned down. So, the FSA estimates that just 2.5% of current new borrowers would be affected by the more stringent lending rules it is proposing. And, assuming they are not watered down in some way as a result of the continuing consultation, they will not come into effect until 2013 at the earliest.
So what is this all about then?

This is all about stopping a new boom in mortgage lending, and house prices, in the future if lenders start lending too much money to home buyers who cannot really afford to repay their loans. That is what happened in the middle years of the last decade. Were it not for the extraordinarily low level of interest rates we have been experiencing, the FSA fears that tens, or even hundreds, of thousands more borrowers would now be in arrears and facing repossession.

Even if the boom conditions seen a few years ago returned, the new approach laid down by the FSA would, on its estimate, restrict lending to about 11% of prospective borrowers.
Sounds like not much will change for most people?

Not quite. Firstly, the widespread use of so-called self-certified mortgages (known to some as liars' mortgages) are now ruled out. They accounted for a very high proportion of new lending a few years ago. People will no longer be able to claim - with no evidence - that their income is big enough to justify a mortgage loan when in reality it is not.

For other applicants, even if lenders find they have more money to lend, they will have to scrutinise the finances of their borrowers much more thoroughly, to show they really can afford to re-pay. And lenders will have to assume that interest rates are noticeably higher than they are today.

Will my mortgage deal be renewed?

If you took out a mortgage a few years ago on rather optimistic assumptions, your lenders will not be forced to dump you if, as a brand new borrower, you might not pass the new lending criteria.

Whether you get the same deal is another matter though. If the value of your home has fallen in the meantime, any new mortgage may be much more expensive than it was before.

Will my interest-only mortgage be affected?

Yes, if you want to renew it in its current form. A new part of the FSA's continuing consultation proposes telling lenders to assess the affordability of interest-only loans as if the borrower were taking out a more expensive repayment mortgage. So in the future, if you have an interest-only loan, and want to re-new it, you may have to show that your finances are sufficiently robust, or that you have other "credible" sources of cash to pay off the mortgage in due course.
I would like to buy my first home, but cannot obtain a mortgage.

Will this help me?

In the long run yes, because it may help suppress artificial house price booms that lock out first-time buyers. The FSA puts the matter very clearly in its consultation document:

"Easy mortgage credit availability is not necessarily a force for good for groups such as first-time buyers. The easy supply of credit was a factor which, by generating significant house price appreciation, contributed to the declining role of first-time buyers within the market, squeezed by affordability problems."