📖 ZKIZ Archives

webb 哥 Raking muck, Part 6 爆 254

1 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:43:06

http://webb-site.com/articles/muck2012p6.asp

On 28-Dec-2009, COMG announced that it would buy 100% of GMG Media Group Ltd (GMG Media), a BVI company with no turnover and no assets, for HK$1241.89m, of which $13m was in 100m shares and $1228.89m in 5-year 0% convertible bonds, both at $0.13 per share. The vendor was named as Jiang Qi Hang (Mr Jiang), a former securities sales representative. Our records show that he was last licensed at BOCI Securities Ltd until 3-Jan-2006.

According to the announcement, in the 1990s he worked for Procter & Gamble (China) Ltd in brand management. The plan, via a contractual arrangement with a PRC company (to get around PRC ownership restrictions for foreign companies without 3 years' experience in the advertising industry) was to install 100 wide-screen displays in mainland shopping malls and share the advertising revenue with them.

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20091228554_C.pdf
於二零零九年十二月四日，買方（本公司全資附屬公司）與賣方訂立協議，據此，買方同意以總代價1,241,890,000 港元向賣方收購銷售股份。
買賣銷售股份之代價1,241,890,000 港元將由買方以下列方式償付：
(a) 13,000,000 港元將會由買方促使本公司於完成時按發行價向賣方或其代名人配發及發行入賬列作繳足之代價股份支付；及
(b) 1,228,890,000 港元將會由買方促使本公司於完成時向賣方或其代名人發行可換股債券支付。
...
(iii) 擔保人： Jiang Qi Hang(江啟航)，彼向買方保證賣方將會妥善準時地履行協議。

賣方主要從事投資控股。擔保人合法實益擁有賣方全部已發行股本。擔保人持有中山大學頒授之工商管理學士學位及新南威爾斯大學澳大利亞管理研究生院頒授之工商管理碩士學位。擔保人於廣告及投資業擁有逾15 年經驗。彼於一九九二年任職寶潔中國有限公司，負責Head & Shoulders洗髮乳之品牌管理，亦在中國傳媒及廣告業建立強大人際網絡。完成工商管理碩士學位後，彼轉業至金融業。自二零零零年起至二零零四年，擔保人於法國巴黎百富勤證券有限公司出任證券銷售總監。於二零零五年，彼加入中銀國際證券有限公司出任執行董事。於二零零七年，擔保人為China Angel Capital Holdings Ltd.的創辦人之一，專門從事傳媒及互聯網業之策略投資。據董事作出一切合理查詢後所深知、全悉及確信，賣方與擔保人均為獨立第三方。

唔怪之得有一排929被狂吹，他應該有供股
http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/ ... 8&src=MAIN&lang=ZH&
http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20091109571_C.pdf

---

2 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:45:07

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20100326066_C.pdf
According to the circular dated 26-Mar-2010, the installation cost of these screens would be about RMB6m over 5 years, the initial capital requirements to implement the business model of GMG Media are approximately RMB3m (then about HK$3.6m) and "there is no significant entry barrier for the business". So why would anyone pay HK$1242m for that?

由於目標集團出租及租賃顯示器系統，故預期資本開支極微。實行業務模式之初步資金規定約為3,000,000人民幣。於五年期內安裝100個巨屏顯示之成本約為6,000,000 人民幣。

---

3 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:46:37

又是敦沛加時富
Bond conversions and sales

On 13-Aug-2010 COMG and Mr Jiang agreed to accelerate the convertibility of the bonds, which originally were not convertible until 6 months after issue, to make them immediately convertible. This was amended again 4 days later, because as a director of a subsidiary of COMG, Mr Jiang was a connected person and the amendment needed independent shareholders' approval. Joseph Lau still owned 21.90% and could vote. A circular went out on 30-Aug-2010 and the amendment was approved at the EGM on 15-Sep-2010. Three weeks later, Mr Jiang began converting, and as far as we can tell:

  On 7-Oct-2010, he converted $65m of bonds into 500m shares (28.42%) of COMG. He deposited his shares with Tanrich Securities the next day.
  In two equal tranches on 19-Jan-2011 and 21-Jan-2011, Mr Jiang disposed of $20.8m of bonds, and these were converted on 21-Jan-2011 and 24-Jan-2011 into 160m shares. One tranche was deposited with Tanrich Securities on 25-Jan-2011 and the other was deposited with Fulbright Securities Ltd (Fulbright) on 26-Jan-2011.
  On 28-Jan-2011, he converted $13m bonds into 100m shares (4.94%), and these were deposited with Tanrich on 2-Feb-2011. He then held 600m shares (29.64%) of COMG, all via Tanrich.
  On 28-Feb-2011, COMG announced that Mr Jiang had agreed with an unnamed placing agent to sell up to $238m of the bonds at an undisclosed price. A disclosure shows that the broker was Celestial Securities Ltd (Celestial). $135m of the bonds were sold by Celestial on 11-Mar-2011, converted on 14-Mar-2011 and deposited with Celestial on 31-May-2011. Another $33m were sold on 18-Mar-2011 and converted on 21-Mar-2011, and $36m were sold on 8-Apr-2011 and converted on 12-Apr-2011. These two blocks combined produced 530,769,229 shares which were deposited with Celestial on 5-Jul-2011. That makes a total of $204m of principal value. The remaining $34m went back to Mr Jiang on 12-Apr-2011.

---

4 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:48:13

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20110329946_C.pdf
中國戶外媒體集團有限公司（「本公司」）董事會（「董事會」）欣然宣佈，高洪星博
士（「高博士」）獲委任為本公司非執行董事，自二零一一年三月二十九日生效。
高洪星博士
高洪星博士，49歲，於浙江大學取得博士學位。高博士為高級經濟師。二零零
四年至二零零七年間，高博士獲委任為於深圳證券交易所（「深交所」）上市之沙
河實業股份有限公司之獨立董事。高博士現為海南海峽航運股份有限公司之
獨立董事及廣東長城集團股份有限公司之董事，兩間公司皆為深交所上市公
司，以及香港衞視國際傳媒集團董事局主席。於加入香港衞視國際傳媒集團之
前，高博士出任香港月朗基金管理有限公司董事長、華林證券有限責任公司董
事長兼總裁及國泰君安證券（深圳分公司）副總經理。高博士亦於多間國有銀行
及證券公司，擔任高級管理職位。

---

5 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:48:37

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20110413591_C.pdf
朱德付先生
朱先生，47歲，獲中山大學頒發文學碩士學位。朱先生現任《淘寶天下》週刊社總
經理兼社長、阿里巴巴集團副總裁及其新媒體事業部總經理及中國雅虎總編
輯。朱先生於報業擁有豐富經驗，曾任《中國週刊》社執行社長兼總編輯、人民
日報主辦之《京華時報》副社長兼總編輯、廣州日報集團之《信息時報》總編輯、
《南方日報》出版社副總編輯及新聞採編中心副主任兼機動記者組組長、《南方
都市報》副總編輯及《南方週末》編委兼記者部主任。朱先生亦為國際關係學院新
聞學碩士研究生導師、北京大學公共政策研究所副所長及新聞與傳播學院碩
士研究生導師。

---

6 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:49:06

Taobao Tianxia's holding of 500m shares was diluted to 4.61% by the series of subsequent bond conversions, but it has failed to disclose any change in its interest. There was a 6 month lock-up agreement with Mr Jiang which expired in Oct-2011. As far as we can tell, the only block of shares deposited into CCASS that we cannot account for since Taobao Tianxia became a shareholder is 446m deposited with Bank of China (HK) Ltd on 21-Jun-2011, so that is probably theirs.

---

7 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:49:24

On 19-Jul-2011, he disposed of $234m of bonds which were converted the same day into 1,800m shares and deposited with Piper Jaffray Asia Securities Ltd (Piper Jaffray) on 21-Jul-2011. On 25-Jul-2011, Mr Jiang moved his entire holding of 219,230,770 shares (3.16%) from Tanrich to Piper Jaffray. However, some time between 19-Jul-2011 and 4-Aug-2011, his interest in shares (including via bonds) rebounded to where it had been before 19-Jul-2011, because there is a filing on 4-Aug-2011 showing the same opening balance. So there appears to be a missing disclosure. As a result of the share return, his actual shareholding increased from 3.16% to 25.81%.


派杰都有

---

8 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:50:20

On 4-Aug-2011, he disposed of another $114.4m of bonds which were converted into 880m shares on the same day. These were likely deposited with BOCI in 3 tranches on 9-Aug-2011 (780m), 10-Aug-2011 (50m) and 15-Sep-2011 (50m).
On 28-Sep-2011, COMG announced that Mr Jiang had sold 100m shares (1.28%) of COMG to Shanda Capital Ltd, 100% owned by Shanghai Shanda Networking Co Ltd, for an undisclosed price. The buyer is 70:30 owned by Mr Chen Tianqiao and Mr Chen Danian, the respective CEO and President of Shanda Interactive Entertainment Ltd.
On 25-Oct-2011 Mr Jiang disposed of $16,909,732 of bonds which were converted on the same day to 130,074,860 shares. However, they appeared to bounce back to him on or before 9-Nov-2011, because a filing on that date shows the same opening balance. So there appears to be a missing disclosure.
On 9-Nov-2011, COMG announced that Mr Jiang had sold 100m shares (1.26%) of COMG to Mandra Capital Ltd (Mandra), 100% owned by Mr Zhang Song Yi and his family, for an undisclosed price. Zhang Song Yi was billed by COMG as a director of Sina Corporation, but that's just one of his non-executive roles. Mandra was also involved in selling Mandra Forestry Holdings Ltd to the spectacular Sino-Forest Corporation.

盛大、嘉漢林業都有

---

9 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:52:47

新浪都有

---

10 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:53:42

In summary, the entire amount of convertible bonds generated 9,453m shares, enlarging the share capital of COMG by 750%. Mr Jiang kept about 3,001m shares (27.67%) of COMG and sold the other 6,452m, either as bonds or converted shares. In all of his statutory filings, he failed to disclose the price he received for any of the sales. We call on the SFC to investigate that.

無披露價錢

---

11 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:54:52

http://chinangel.com.cn/
江先生個基金

中国天使基金的投資目標是主要投資於若干認可交易所，如香港、台灣及新加坡的交易所、以及其他亞洲新興市場上市的公司，以獲得長期資本增長。基金將集中其核心投資組合於帶有長期資本增長的基本投資機會。



基金行政管理人、託管人 匯豐機構信託服務(亞洲)有限公司

基金投資顧問 AM Capital Limited

基金核數師 香港立信德豪會計師事務所

基金開曼群島法律顧問 Conyers Dill & Pearman

基金香港法律顧問 龍炳坤、楊永安律師行

無線互聯網


中國最大的手機閱讀社區運營商-移動書城-廣州邁步信息技術有限公司



中國天使從公司的初創期介入投資， 並協助公司引入策略股東， 目前已發展成為中國最大的手機閱讀社區運營商；



互聯網
四月天
中國最大的女性原創文學網站
中國天使從公司的初創期介入投資， 並協助公司引入策略股東，並協助公司於2010年8月被中央閱讀平台的運營方-中文在線收購



新媒體



巨屏傳媒
高端商場大屏幕網絡的媒體公司
中國天使從公司的初創期介入投資，和公司的創始人緊密合作， 從商業模式的建立， 團隊建設， 商業談判與業務拓展等幾乎全方位的協助公司成長。 中國天使並竭力促成該公司於2009年12月被香港上市的中國戶外媒體公司（0254.HK）全面收購。


軟件



中國領先的城市安防系統集成商
安芯數字



該公司已於2009年9月4日被香港上市公司博智藥業(1149.HK)以13億港元收購， 變相實現借殼上市， 博智藥業將於2010年8月更名為中國安芯。



現代農業



中國最大的生薑出口企業-萬盛農業
中國天使投資於2009年投資萬盛農業， 以協助該公司順利在美國實現從櫃檯板轉往主板的交易， 並將種植面積增大超過50%。 2010年8月該公司公佈其淨利潤增長超過一倍至550萬美元。



新能源



全球領先的釩電池生產商
普能集團



普能集團是全世界領先的大型儲能電池的提供者， 是目前VC最炙手可熱的投資對象。



中國天使參與了普能集團的首輪投資， 並在次輪融資中加大了投資額度。 普能集團獲得了2009年中國創業投資價值榜最具投資潛力50強並於2010年5月完成3000萬美元的融資。



高端製造業



全球領先的電腦驅動器零件生產商
國際精密 （0929.HK）
2009年初，在金融海嘯的大浪淘沙中，中國天使發現了該上市公司的價值被嚴重低估，通過和公司管理層的積極溝通， 促成該公司向中國天使基金獨家增發新股， 獲得發展資金。 在2010年7月該公司發佈盈利預喜， 並預期將創出盈利新高。 而中國天使基金成為該上市公司策略股東後和公司共同成長， 已獲得數倍的回報。



環保



中國環保新材料控股
中國最大的丁二醇生產商， 並將在2011年成為中國最大的可降解塑料PBS的生產商。



通過和公司管理層的充分溝通， 中國天使參與了該公司上市前最後一輪融資。 中國天使投資5000萬港元於這一輪PRE-IPO融資中。

---

12 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:55:08

江啟航先生



一九九二年於中山大學畢業，取得工商管理學學位，並於一九九七年於Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales, Australia取得工商管理學碩士學位。江先生在金融領域有超過十五年的經驗。於一九九七年至二零零零年期間，他曾任職里昂證券亞洲有限公司。於二零零零年至二零零四年，他為法國巴黎百富勤證券有限公司的董事。於二零零五至二零零六年，他出任中銀國際證券有限公司的執行董事。江先生為中國天使資本之創辦人及行政總裁。

---

13 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 19:59:37

門先生



於商界及金融界具有相當經驗，曾為香港聯合交易所有限公司主板上市公司IPE集團有限公司(主要從事供應高精準金屬零部件)創辦人之一及前執行董事。徐先生現為中國天使資本集團有限公司 (「中國天使資本」) (主要從事中國創業投資業務)董事。

好不實wor
http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... 19/00929/CWP113.pdf
http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... 19/00929/CWP112.pdf


傅志民先生



於一九九三年畢業於廣州市暨南大學工商管理系獲經濟學碩士學位。於一九九三年至一九九五年期間，傅先生擔任恆豐國際投資有限公司投資銀行部主管、擔任深圳中安信理財服務有限公司總經理及法人代表。自二零零零年開始，傅先生開始出任澳洲金钥匙投资顾问公司董事總經理。



黃偉堅女士



二零零三年畢業於中央廣播大學金融本科。黃女士於投資及證券行業具有超過十年經驗。她曾於一九九三年至二零零零年期間任職廣東粵財信託投資公司，擔任公司國債服務部的交易部主管，專注於發行國債及企業債券的工作。於二零零零年至二零零五年，她任職於廣東民安證券有限責任公司，負責資金清算及資金業務管理工作。



江啟航先生



一九九二年於中山大學畢業，取得工商管理學學位，並於一九九七年於Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales, Australia取得工商管理學碩士學位。江先生在金融領域有超過十五年的經驗。於一九九七年至二零零零年期間，他曾任職里昂證券亞洲有限公司。於二零零零年至二零零四年，他為法國巴黎百富勤證券有限公司的董事。於二零零五至二零零六年，他出任中銀國際證券有限公司的執行董事。江先生為中國天使資本之創辦人及行政總裁。



繆炯先生於



金融投資界具超過十年行政及管理經驗。於一九九七年至二零零二年期間，他曾任上海威利投資管理有限公司的投資部總監。於二零零二年至二零零七年期間，他任上海冠通投資有限公司總裁，主要管理的金融資產超過五億港元。

---

14 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 20:07:33

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20111018090_C.pdf
建議收購一

目標公司一為於香港註冊成立之有限公司，目前於中國及香港從事並經營以下業務：（1）「Tao 淘」+「淘寶天下」雜誌及其網上購物平台；（2）Iconhere愛看互動娛樂及資訊平台；（3）LED全面解決方案及顧問業務；以及(4)戶外媒體業務，包括大型戶外LED屏幕及戶內LCD屏幕業務

建議收購二
於二零一一年十月十七日，買方與賣方二訂立諒解備忘錄二，據此，買方擬收
購及賣方二擬出售目標公司二全部已發行股本。
賣方二為Triscom Investments Limited 及Wazup Sunshine Limited，現時分別持有目標公司二已發行股本51%及49%。Triscom Investments Limited為於塞席爾群島註冊成立之有限公司，而Wazup Sunshine Limited則為於英屬處女群島註冊成立之有限公司。據董事會經作出一切合理查詢後所深知及確信，賣方二、彼等最終實益擁
有人及彼等各自聯繫人士均為獨立於本公司及其關連人士（定義見上市規則）之第三方。
目標公司二為於香港註冊成立之有限公司，擁有行動電話識別軟體系統（即i-Marker）及從事全球性業務及網購業務。i-Marker 在iPhone 4 或Android移動手機平
臺上運行，無論在任何媒介上都能偵測出增強現實代碼，包括但不限於報紙、雜誌、刊物、海報、看板和背景布幕等傳統印刷物，經偵測及隱藏的多媒體資訊如文本、圖像、視頻和動畫也會自動地在移動螢幕上顯示。
考慮到目標公司一及目標公司二經營之業務，董事會相信，該等建議收購符合本公司業務計劃，對本公司及本公司股東整體有利。
該等諒解備忘錄將自該等諒解備忘錄日期起有效三個月。賣方一及賣方二已同意本公司將有權將該等諒解備忘錄之期限進一步延長三個月。
此外，該等賣方已同意，於該等諒解備忘錄日期起三個月期間，不與其他第三方進行任何類似該等建議收購或與之有關之討論或磋商。該等賣方進一步同意，本公司將有權將獨家期間進一步延長三個月。
除有關盡職調查、獨家、成本及費用、保密、規管法例及司法權區之條款及一般條文具法律約束力外，該等諒解備忘錄之所有其他條文並無法律約束力。

查閱公司資料

你的查詢： 公司編號： = 1121914
公司編號：   1121914
公司名稱：   ZHEJIANG DAILY JOIN-HOME MEDIA HOLDING GROUP LIMITED
浙報競合傳媒控股集團有限公司
公司分類：   本地公司
成立日期：   2007年4月11日
公司類別：   私人公司
公司現況：   仍在登記冊上
備註：   -
清盤模式：   -
已告解散日期：   -
押記登記冊：   有
重要事項：   -

公司名稱紀錄
名稱生效日期   使用名稱
2011年3月11日  ZHEJIANG DAILY JOIN-HOME MEDIA HOLDING GROUP LIMITED
浙報競合傳媒控股集團有限公司
2007年4月11日  Lightscape Technologies (Greater China) Limited

http://www.ddml.com.hk/about
http://www.lightscape-tech.com/

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20111221101_C.pdf
董事會另欣然宣佈，本公司已全力於大中華區（包括香港及澳門）與浙報競合傳媒控股集團有限公司（「浙報競合傳媒」）開展新媒體業務合作。藉由加強其與浙報競合傳媒之全方位業務合作，董事會預期，本公司可擴充及開發其新媒體業務，包括但不限於揉合最先進科技之新媒體業務，例如三網融合(3 net integration)及雲端技術(i-Cloud)。

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... TN20120117468_C.pdf

---

15 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 20:08:58

http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/ ... LN20111123004_C.pdf
8258

---

16 : GS(14)@2012-03-11 20:09:22

Conclusions and unfinished business

We'll bring this hexalogy to a close. We've given you enough reasons to avoid investing in all of the listed companies named at the top of this article, as well as any company which uses the same advisers, particularly on a regular basis. We've also laid out evidence surrounding a substantial number of dubious transactions that the SFC, ICAC or CCB should investigate, and we've drawn attention in the "regulatory notes" boxes to a number of deficiencies in HK's regulatory framework which facilitate some of these schemes.

Once in a while, the authorities do actually listen and act. Examples include our article Cooking with Gas (4-Apr-2004) which was eventually followed by an ICAC investigation and convictions in 2010, and a trilogy of articles about the Styland Network in 2002. Just last week, 10 years later, the SFC won a landmark ruling ordering the former Chairman and his wife (who was an executive director) to pay HK$85m in compensation (plus a lot of interest since 2000). The case was actually heard in Jan-2011 but it took 14 months for Justice Aarif Barma to issue his judgment, which says something about the strain the courts are under and the need to raise the budget for the judiciary. It will be interesting to see whether the couple pay up. The court has disqualified them as directors for 12 years, but their son is now CEO of Styland and they still own 22.72% of it. No criminal charges were brought against the couple.

Other series include the tetralogy of articles in 2009 on China Public Procurement Ltd (1094) and China Railway Logistics Ltd (8089), amongst others. No public action has been taken on those. There was also our articles on EganaGoldpfeil, after which the company collapsed. The SFC has commenced action against the directors seeking disqualification orders and HK$2.13bn of compensation, but no criminal charges have yet been brought despite an investigation by the Commercial Crime Bureau.

---

Webb哥新功能

1 : GS(14)@2012-06-25 22:22:58

好正呀

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/tra.asp?i=429

---

2 : mannishmark(26310)@2012-06-25 22:36:24

經濟通個圖加埋每日行情@@

---

3 : GS(14)@2012-06-25 22:38:29

但這不用錢

---

4 : mannishmark(26310)@2012-06-25 22:39:29

3樓提及

---

但這不用錢

這是重點

---

5 : GS(14)@2012-06-25 22:40:21

4樓提及

---

3樓提及

---

但這不用錢

這是重點

平平地有個雞野用，定是貴貴地有好野用，大家會選哪個?

---

6 : mannishmark(26310)@2012-06-25 22:41:58

5樓提及

---

4樓提及

---

3樓提及

---

但這不用錢

這是重點

平平地有個雞野用，定是貴貴地有好野用，大家會選哪個?

我會揀前者

---

7 : GS(14)@2012-06-25 22:42:15

6樓提及

---

5樓提及

---

4樓提及

---

3樓提及

---

但這不用錢

這是重點

平平地有個雞野用，定是貴貴地有好野用，大家會選哪個?

我會揀前者

咁得啦，我地繼續呢種精神

---

8 : drbull(3010)@2012-06-26 17:13:03

呢個好正,唔知個adjusted price岩唔岩呢~

---

9 : ksw(1423)@2012-06-26 17:54:14

呢個讚好

---

10 : Ar Yan(11362)@2012-06-26 18:02:13

整個adj day high & low 抗衡下囉!

最好加埋畫線tim~~~

(我都幾大貪)

---

11 : Louis(1212)@2012-06-26 21:31:44

讚好!

---

12 : fineram(806)@2012-06-26 21:50:58

以為係金價呀...幾千蚊...

---

13 : Hierro(1191)@2012-06-26 21:55:33

堅正

---

14 : 自動波人(1313)@2012-06-26 23:26:57

其實係咩黎???

---

15 : GS(14)@2012-06-28 00:19:00

14樓提及

---

其實係咩黎???

調整股價圖

---

16 : GS(14)@2012-06-28 00:19:17

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/orgdata.asp?code=12&Submit=Current
又多一個新功能

Holders

Note: holders may be incomplete and/or outdated.
Issue:  O
Outstanding:   2,368,905,035
At date:   31-May-2012

Holder   Shares   Stake   Date
HENDERSON DEVELOPMENT LIMITED    698,976,789    29.51%    20-Jan-2012
BELIEVEGOOD LIMITED    370,379,416    15.64%    20-Jan-2012
CAMERON ENTERPRISES, INC.    179,543,353    7.58%    20-Jan-2012
PROSGLASS INVESTMENT LIMITED    73,964,970    3.12%    20-Jan-2012
FANCY EYE LIMITED    68,060,406    2.87%    20-Jan-2012
SPREADRAL LIMITED    56,912,301    2.40%    20-Jan-2012
Lee Shau Kee    7,521,743    0.32%    20-Jan-2012
SUPERFUN ENTERPRISES LIMITED    5,602,600    0.24%    20-Jan-2012
FU SANG COMPANY LIMITED    1,413,560    0.06%    20-Jan-2012
Tako Assets Limited    640,180    0.03%    20-Jan-2012
THOMMEN LIMITED    300,031    0.01%    20-Jan-2012
Total      61.77%   

---

17 : mannishmark(26310)@2012-06-28 01:42:59

16樓提及

---

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/orgdata.asp?code=12&Submit=Current
又多一個新功能
Holders
Note: holders may be incomplete and/or outdated.
Issue: O
Outstanding: 2,368,905,035
At date: 31-May-2012
Holder Shares Stake Date
HENDERSON DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 698,976,789 29.51% 20-Jan-2012
BELIEVEGOOD LIMITED 370,379,416 15.64% 20-Jan-2012
CAMERON ENTERPRISES, INC. 179,543,353 7.58% 20-Jan-2012
PROSGLASS INVESTMENT LIMITED 73,964,970 3.12% 20-Jan-2012
FANCY EYE LIMITED 68,060,406 2.87% 20-Jan-2012
SPREADRAL LIMITED 56,912,301 2.40% 20-Jan-2012
Lee Shau Kee 7,521,743 0.32% 20-Jan-2012
SUPERFUN ENTERPRISES LIMITED 5,602,600 0.24% 20-Jan-2012
FU SANG COMPANY LIMITED 1,413,560 0.06% 20-Jan-2012
Tako Assets Limited 640,180 0.03% 20-Jan-2012
THOMMEN LIMITED 300,031 0.01% 20-Jan-2012
Total 61.77%

呢個超正,我都唔知呢D野係邊度搵~

---

18 : GS(14)@2012-06-28 21:41:32

呢個未整好

---

19 : dennis001(8614)@2012-06-28 22:42:16

第一頁條LINK開唔到啊

---

20 : GS(14)@2012-06-28 22:54:41

是呀，停左

---

David Webb愛股成謙盈警 急瀉2成

1 : GS(14)@2012-07-31 11:06:58

http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/Finance/20120731/News/eb_ebb1.htm

成謙聲匯上周五發盈警，指受到一名客戶的不良付款所影響，要為應收帳撥備，令上半年的虧損較去年同期大幅增加。其首席財務總監鄭靜雯，亦於7月10日辭任。
帳面價值蒸發逾64%
David Webb於2007年時12月初時，按照多年慣例於網誌內送「聖誕禮物」，推介成謙聲匯。根據港交所披露，截至2010年9月22日，David Webb共持有2253.6萬股，佔已發行股數7.01%。
2007年9月14日他首次披露權益後，3次增持合共50.8萬股，平均買入價為0.814元至0.9元，涉資44.8萬元。此前，他已持有1638.8萬股，但未知交易作價。因此，單單計算3次增持的股份，帳面價值已蒸發逾64.3%。
首次推介寶途跌逾95%
David Webb自從1999年開始派禮物的傳統，直至2009年才終止。最後數年所推介的股份，包括嘉利國際(1050)、富士高(0927)及順龍控股(0361)等，推介翌日例必引起市場追捧，升幅最少有10%以上(見表)。然而時移世易，假如投資者由推介後持有至今，可能要蝕錢離場，其中1999年首次推介的寶途(0585，現已易名意馬國際)，經過股權變動及整合後，股價已跌逾95%。

---

2 : lam(884)@2012-07-31 11:21:04

今時唔同往日.....！

---

3 : GS(14)@2012-07-31 11:25:27

他D股真是迫住持有，無得沽的

---

4 : lam(884)@2012-07-31 11:33:58

工業股得兩條路，一係好到你唔信一係差到要.......

---

5 : GS(14)@2012-07-31 11:36:56

一是死直啦

---

Webb 哥呢個功能好勁

1 : GS(14)@2012-08-07 10:16:08

同他傾下搞個中文版好唔好?
http://webb-site.com/articles/WTRlaunch.asp
Why are we doing this?
No other web site that we know of provides total returns time series for HK stocks, including the reinvestment of distributions such as dividends, demergers (distributions of shares in other companies) and bonus warrants. Distributions are a huge component of the overall market return. This leaves retail investors unable to know what their total investment return would have been over any period, or to fairly compare the graphs of two stocks which have different dividend yields. Instead, all you get is share price graphs, as if the distributions belonged to someone else. The graphs for companies with high dividend payouts can look like they are stagnant or losing money when in fact they are generating very good total returns. Journalists regularly produce tables (particularly at year-ends) comparing share price gains and losses over a period without taking account of distributions, like comparing lychees with kumquats.
Information is the antidote to speculation. It requires a lot of work, but Webb-site has produced the Webb-site Total Returns system to fill that gap.
We are aware that a professional terminal, which costs around US$2,000 per month, includes a total returns service, although we doubt that it fully adjusts for some of the more novel distributions in Hong Kong, such as bonus warrants and warrants attached to rights issues. So even if professionals and academics have access to that system, they may be relying on understated returns.
In the near future, we will link the past and present listed company directors in our "Webb-site Who's Who" database to the total returns during the period in which they were directors, so you can see how the companies they directed performed. We can also do the same for sponsors and auditors - so much fun ahead! Our system covers every HK-listed stock since 1994. Unlike many financial web sites, we also cover stocks which have delisted. On most sites, key in a stock code for a delisted stock and you will find nothing. Coverage of delisted stocks allows you to remove "survivor bias" because you can look at all the stocks you could have bought at any point in time, not just the ones which didn't go bankrupt or get privatised.
To find data on a historic stock, just key in its stock code in the blue bar at the top of any page, and hit "past". For current stocks, hit "current" or just hit your Enter key. If you don't know stock codes, you can look up current ones here and historic ones here.
Raw stock prices and other market data are facts, not creative works, and you cannot copyright facts, but Webb-site Total Returns, like stock market indices, are a creative work over which we sweat and for which we assert copyright. However, we encourage media to quote them freely and academics to use them in research, provided that attribution to "Webb-site.com" is given. Our goal is for Webb-site Total Returns to become the "gold standard" in the same way that students of US stock performance tend to use products from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago.
If you operate a financial web site and wish to enhance your product with Webb-site Total Returns, then contact us for a confidential discussion on terms. Don't your users deserve better? The fees would help support the running costs of Webb-site, which is not for-profit.
...
15 years of the HKSAR
Now to demonstrate the system, let's pick a period of 15 years to 30-Jun-2012, the first 15 years (or 30%) of the HKSAR, which we've all recently been celebrating, or at least commemorating. We will actually use 27-Jun-1997 as the base date, because this was the last trading day before the Handover of sovereignty. So we go to the "Database" link in the navigation bar above, and choose "All Webb-site Total Returns", then we punch in the dates, and click here to see what we get. You can sort the table by clicking on the column headings.

There were only 612 stocks you could have bought on the last ever trading day in the Colony of Hong Kong. Of those, 258 would have made gains over the 15-year period, including those which were delisted, for whatever reason (usually either a privatisation or financial difficulties). On the other hand, 3 were unchanged and 351, or about 57%, had negative total returns - even ignoring transaction costs, you would have lost money in them over the 15-year period. We should note that HK was in one of its market bubbles in 1997, so there is a high base point.

---

2 : GS(14)@2012-08-07 10:18:30

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/allto ... 2012-06-30&s=tretdn
279,273,412真是1、2、3是倒數那隻，呢度隻隻都有番咁上下

604     1051   O   G-Resources Group Limited   -99.991%   -46.25%
605     0943   O   EFORCE HOLDINGS LIMITED   -99.993%   -46.95%
606     1003   O   21 Holdings Limited   -99.994%   -47.45%
607     1166   O   SOLARTECH INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED   -99.994%   -47.61%
608     0326   O   CHINA STAR ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED   -99.998%   -51.29%
609     0286   O   G-PROP (HOLDINGS) LIMITED   -99.998%   -51.90%
610     0279   O   Freeman Financial Corporation Limited   -99.999927%   -61.01%
611     0273   O   WILLIE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED   -99.999984%   -64.75%
612     0412   O   HERITAGE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED   -99.999993%   -66.58%

---

3 : GS(14)@2012-08-07 10:20:28

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/allto ... 2012-06-30&s=tretdn
吉之島排第十，創科排第9，利豐排第8，東方海外排第7，銀河娛樂排第6，立信排第5，ASM排第4，美麗寶排第3，六福排第二，估唔到南華中國排第一...

1     0413   O   South China (China) Limited   8,672%   34.73%
2     0590   O   LUK FOOK HOLDINGS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED   6,616%   32.35%
3   *   1179   O   MIRABELL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED   5,755%   31.15%
4     0522   O   ASM PACIFIC TECHNOLOGY LIMITED   3,791%   27.63%
5     0641   O   FONG'S INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED   3,058%   25.86%
6     0027   O   GALAXY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED   2,449%   24.08%
7     0316   O   ORIENT OVERSEAS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED   2,255%   23.43%
8     0494   O   LI & FUNG LIMITED   2,214%   23.28%
9     0669   O   TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES COMPANY LIMITED   1,998%   22.48%
10     0984   O   AEON STORES (HONG KONG) CO., LIMITED   1,974%   22.39%

---

4 : GS(14)@2012-08-07 10:22:16

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/allto ... 2=2012-8-2&s=tretdn
今年方面，第一是川盟，第二是友川，第三是華多利，第四是綠城，第五是廣豪、第六是佳景，第七是巨騰，第八是廣藥，第9是利君，第10是高銀地產

1     8020   O   Chanceton Financial Group Limited   467.6%   1,836%
2     1323   O   Newtree Group Holdings Limited   240.4%   709.2%
3     1139   O   VICTORY GROUP LIMITED   230.0%   667.3%
4     3900   O   Greentown China Holdings Limited   156.1%   397.9%
5     0844   O   Grand Concord International Holdings Limited   150.5%   379.2%
6     0703   O   Future Bright Holdings Limited   149.9%   377.5%
7     3336   O   JU TENG INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED   143.4%   356.4%
8     0874   H   Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Company Limited   127.4%   306.4%
9     2005   O   LIJUN INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL (HOLDING) CO., LTD.   126.9%   304.8%
10     0283   O   Goldin Properties Holdings Limited   121.2%   287.7%

---

5 : GS(14)@2012-08-07 10:25:08

尾十的話，第十是神通，第九是中國訊息科技，第8是劉生隻8041，第7金石，第6太平洋實業，第5是太陽隻彩娛，真是頭尾都有，第四是百齡，第3是中國金融租賃，第2是華匯隻136，第1就是乳豬喜尚了

1447     8206   O   China Communication Telecom Services Company Limited   -74.62%   -90.37%
1448     8178   O   China Information Technology Development Limited   -75.79%   -91.12%
1449     8041   O   Luxey International (Holdings) Limited   -81.06%   -94.16%
1450     1380   O   China Kingstone Mining Holdings Limited   -81.14%   -94.20%
1451     0767   O   PACIFIC PLYWOOD HOLDINGS LIMITED   -81.20%   -94.23%
1452     8022   O   TLT Lottotainment Group Limited   -85.96%   -96.50%
1453     8017   O   Long Success International (Holdings) Limited   -86.98%   -96.92%
1454     2312   O   China Financial Leasing Group Limited   -94.43%   -99.28%
1455     0136   O   MASCOTTE HOLDINGS LIMITED   -94.43%   -99.28%
1456     8179   O   Gayety Holdings Limited   -98.00%   -99.87%

---

6 : fineram(806)@2012-08-07 12:41:06

佢呢d stat. 真係好鬼正.

---

7 : GS(14)@2012-08-07 14:38:50

如果他肯用象徵式價錢給我搞中文版就好啦...

---

8 : greatsoup38(830)@2012-08-07 16:45:47

http://thehousenews.com/finance/ ... %E6%8F%90%E4%BE%9B/
回歸15年以來，回報最佳的恒指成份股是那一家？答案是恒發（0097），回報高達588%，第2及第3位也是恒字輩，分別是恒隆（0010）及恒隆地產（0101），第四、五、六位則由公用股囊括，即煤氣(0004)、電能（0006）及中電（0002）。

一般股票機只會提供股價走勢，忽略了股息及公司分拆等對回報的影響，要準確計算股份的投資回報，需要用總回報（Total return），即考慮了股息、拆細、分派子公司股份及紅利認股權證等影響後的股票總回報，若果單單計算股價升值，會對股息高的公司不公平，因為其股價看起來會相對落後，而且公司有大動作，股價的表現都會走樣，令比較兩家公司的回報變得困難。現時專業股票機如彭博有提供總回報的資訊，但月費過萬，一般散戶難以負擔。

獨立股評人David Webb的財經評論大家或者看得多，但其實他的網站Webb-site.com有很多很有用的免費港股資訊，俾錢都買唔到，今日他便推出港股的總回報數據，可比較最多5隻股份的總回報。主場新聞玩過，真係愛不釋手。

今次Webb推出的總回報數據，涵蓋1994年以來的港股數據，連除了牌的股份都包括在內。他還打算，日後會將公司董事與這些回報掛鈎，從而令公眾得悉，有該董事出任的公司的回報表現如何。

為了示範有關功能的運作，他以其網站統計出回歸15年的港股回報，其中恒發因為在2007年底出售了煤氣股權予恒地（0012），而成為恒指成份股王，相反接貨的恒地，回歸15年回報只有0.73%。

至於表現最差的成份股（包括現役及退役），則為南華早報（0583），15年回報負65%，緊隨其後為新世界（0017）的-64%，及中信泰富（0267）的-49%。

想比較過去10年匯控及渣打的總回報，可按此。你會發現「有買貴，無買錯」的神話，早已破滅。

---

9 : ksw(1423)@2012-08-07 23:13:03

佢最近個SITE好多突破, 正

---

10 : pars(2406)@2012-08-07 23:24:54

d個功能真係好有用，如果你地攞到中文化黎攪，真係造福人群。

---

11 : 雪貓(1200)@2012-08-08 00:41:52

依個功能好似早幾日都有，我就係諗住用依D數據去計分
不過WEBB哥可能遲下都整埋添喎

---

12 : GS(14)@2012-08-08 10:40:54

10樓提及

---

d個功能真係好有用，如果你地攞到中文化黎攪，真係造福人群。

問左他，希望快D有回覆，如果他肯平平地畀我地改他個系統就正，因為我認為仲有D唔user friendly

---

13 : GS(14)@2012-08-08 10:41:21

11樓提及

---

依個功能好似早幾日都有，我就係諗住用依D數據去計分
不過WEBB哥可能遲下都整埋添喎

clcheung 都想緊的野，Webb 都做埋...

---

14 : GS(14)@2012-08-08 10:41:37

11樓提及

---

依個功能好似早幾日都有，我就係諗住用依D數據去計分
不過WEBB哥可能遲下都整埋添喎

我都想搞個中文版好耐啦

---

15 : micho(10404)@2012-08-08 23:40:14

我always 覺得webb哥自己系有個非常完整既system for data mining。放出黎應該系好成熟同距用到熟甚至吾再用既版本。

---

16 : GS(14)@2012-08-08 23:43:07

15樓提及

---

我always 覺得webb哥自己系有個非常完整既system for data mining。放出黎應該系好成熟同距用到熟甚至吾再用既版本。

我就覺得他一路整緊...仲未有完的一日，他現在想整到同clcheung弄緊的野差唔多

---

17 : 雪貓(1200)@2012-08-09 00:56:18

16樓提及

---

15樓提及

---

我always 覺得webb哥自己系有個非常完整既system for data mining。放出黎應該系好成熟同距用到熟甚至吾再用既版本。

我就覺得他一路整緊...仲未有完的一日，他現在想整到同clcheung弄緊的野差唔多

其實最重要都係DATA，KEEP到一SET比較完整既DATA
可以放入SAS DATA MINER，都有好多MODEL整出嚟
不過好似套野好鬼貴

---

18 : GS(14)@2012-08-09 12:36:44

17樓提及

---

16樓提及

---

15樓提及

---

我always 覺得webb哥自己系有個非常完整既system for data mining。放出黎應該系好成熟同距用到熟甚至吾再用既版本。

我就覺得他一路整緊...仲未有完的一日，他現在想整到同clcheung弄緊的野差唔多

其實最重要都係DATA，KEEP到一SET比較完整既DATA
可以放入SAS DATA MINER，都有好多MODEL整出嚟
不過好似套野好鬼貴

但clcheung 那個玩到股權披露同業績，Webb 要追上還有一些時日，但據我所知clcheug件野未來會收錢，因為我上次親自同佢傾過，他是咁講

---

19 : conandea(16520)@2012-08-10 11:21:54

可以TRACE 到好耐之前既PRICE , 都幾好

---

20 : GS(14)@2012-08-10 11:30:27

是好正的

---

21 : provleng(11142)@2012-08-12 15:50:46

clcheung兄那個不知想收多少錢呢?

---

22 : GS(14)@2012-08-12 15:56:46

21樓提及

---

clcheung兄那個不知想收多少錢呢?

我都想知，但應該唔平

---

23 : provleng(11142)@2012-08-12 15:59:45

希望不會貴過quamnet那些.

---

24 : trader(30981)@2012-08-12 23:49:50

23樓提及

---

希望不會貴過quamnet那些.

quamnet 那個好用嗎?

---

25 : provleng(11142)@2012-08-13 04:51:48

我知道佢好似有個要收錢的資料庫,但我無試過.

---

26 : GS(14)@2012-08-13 08:58:32

25樓提及

---

我知道佢好似有個要收錢的資料庫,但我無試過.

他那個可以用etnet啦

---

27 : hopingu(1296)@2012-08-13 09:45:00

413 最高回報是與派發左8155 有關, 之不過佢點計8155 實際收益的數目? 以股票派發日計?

---

28 : GS(14)@2012-08-13 09:46:23

27樓提及

---

413 最高回報是與派發左8155 有關, 之不過佢點計8155 實際收益的數目? 以股票派發日計?

他有解釋

---

29 : GS(14)@2012-08-13 09:46:45

A good example of anomalies is the stock in number 1 position over 15 years, now known as South China (China) Ltd (SCC, 0413). Its total return of 8672% is affected by the fact that in 2009 it distributed shares in another company, South China Land Ltd (SCL, 8155), and on 4-Aug-2009, the last date before the ex-dividend date, the distribution was worth about $1.1128 per SCC share, because SCL was in a bubble. SCC's share price was only $1.18 per share that day, probably because SCC shareholders didn't believe the SCL value would hold up. Consequently the theoretical ex-dividend price for the total return calculation was about $0.067, flattering the subsequent returns. By the time of the delivery of the SCL shares on 21-Aug-2009, it had fallen from $0.30 to $0.195. Such anomalies are fairly rare though, and can work both ways, overstating or understating actual returns. They just reflect the inefficiencies of markets, particularly in small, closely-held companies.

---

30 : x31294128(46781)@2015-01-05 00:10:00

如果Webb site可以有中文版就真係太好啦
比咩鬼滬港通造益香港市場得多

---

31 : GS(14)@2015-01-05 23:55:42

我會努力投錢下去做

---

32 : x31294128(46781)@2015-01-06 02:05:22

greatsoup在31樓提及

---

我會努力投錢下去做

期待下
呢ｄ野急唔黎，搞好個網先啦

---

33 : GS(14)@2015-01-06 02:10:11

搞好個網難了，呢個不是理想的討論方式

---

34 : x31294128(46781)@2015-01-06 02:15:00

greatsoup在33樓提及

---

搞好個網難了，呢個不是理想的討論方式

新網站嘛

---

35 : GS(14)@2015-01-06 23:47:25

等陣啦，未搞掂個網，好多問題

---

Webb狠批特速 「厚待」大股東

1 : GS(14)@2012-10-10 22:50:25

http://webb-site.com/articles/xpress.asp

15-year total
Under HK Listing Rules, directors pay has been disclosed in annual reports on
a named basis since 2005. In the 8 years to 31-Mar-2012, Mr & Mrs Chan were paid
a total of $268.2m (of which Mr Chan was paid $216.7m), while the total profit
attributable to shareholders over that period was just $60.4m.


Going back further, in the 7 years to 31-Mar-2004, the Executive Directors
were paid $206.0m, while the net loss attributable to shareholders was $307.9m.
The only EDs during that period were Mr & Mrs Chan and their children, but it is
clear from the pay bands that the vast majority went to Mr & Mrs Chan, with one
child earning between $1.0m and $1.5m in 4 of those years and otherwise below
$1m each.


Taking the 15 years together, the Chan family has taken pay of $492.8m, and
the total profit attributable to shareholders was...well, there wasn't any. It
was a total loss of $247.5m. And let's be clear, none of this pay was a breach of
the Listing Rules - because the Listing Rules contain no constraints on such
atrocious behaviour. During the same 15-year period, the
Webb-site Total
Return on the shares was -69.15%.
© Webb-site.com, 2012

....
本報昨日曾致電聯絡特速，暫未獲回覆。
倡修例 薪酬須小股東通過
...
　　浸會大學會計及法律系副教授陳少陽認同建議，並舉例指英國已要求執董的薪酬須得股東大會通過，但他亦解釋，當地上市公司股權分散，因此未有特別區分大股東及小股東。他認為，理論上監管方或同意Webb的建議可加強企業管治，但實際行動上有相當難度，「（大股東會指）要我人工由散戶批，當然不肯。」
上市公司商會：已有獨董審批
　　上市公司商會總幹事黃偉明認為，現時上市公司董事的薪酬須由獨立非執董組成的薪酬委員會審批，過程已非由公司管理層或大股東控制，「要對INED（獨立非執董）有信心」。
...
　黃偉明則表明反對建議，認為要求管理層薪酬與業績掛鈎，或會令管理層追逐短期盈利，漠視長遠發展，不一定是好事。

---

2 : reference(1610)@2012-10-11 10:59:08

"要對INED（獨立非執董）有信心"....frankly I don't have any after attending various board meeting on my pre-IPO / post-IPO projects

---

3 : GS(14)@2012-10-11 21:36:46

2樓提及

---

"要對INED（獨立非執董）有信心"....frankly I don't have any after attending various board meeting on my pre-IPO / post-IPO projects

可以講一些沒這麼敏感給大家學學野?

---

Webb公開身份證編號 富豪私隱大曝光

1 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:08:26

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165933
HKIDs and Government secrecy
12th February 2013

There's been a lot of attention recently on the proposed implementation of changes to the Companies Ordinance to allow the Companies Registry (CR) to withhold full HKID or passport numbers and "usual residential" addresses from public inspection at the registry.

Webb-site first wrote about the HKID issue back in 2010, when the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau had issued conclusions from its consultation on a draft Bill. The ordinance was amended last summer before the end of the 2007-12 session. The full ordinance can be found here. Now we have a new LegCo and the Government needs subsidiary legislation to map out the details, without which, this Division of the ordinance (Division 7 of Part 2, Sections 47-60) will presumably not be brought into effect. So on 2-Nov-2012 the Government published a consultation on the Companies (Residential Addresses and Identification Numbers) Regulation (CRAINR), amongst other things. The consultation closed on 14-Dec-2012, and conclusions have not yet been published.

So we still have a chance to stop it. Media articles in the last few months on the assets of families of state leaders (including Xi Jinping, Wen Jiabao and the 8 immortals) were facilitated by access to the CR, and that has brought this issue to global attention. Closer to home, sub-divided apartments held by a company owned by a HK official's wife have also been in the news. But there are much broader issues at stake, including the entire approach of the HK Government to access to information.

HKIDs should be seen, not hidden

In our 2010 article, we opposed the proposal to blank out the last 3 digits of ID numbers, because it makes it impossible to know for sure who you are dealing with. 1,000 people could have the same partial HKID, and in some cases, they will have the same name. Family names in HK, like Scottish clans, don't have a lot of variety, particularly when Romanised (there is a many-to-one relationship between Chinese characters and English words). Take out the Chans, Cheungs, Leungs and Wongs and you would be missing more than one third (24/70) of the Legislative Council. In mainland PRC, the top 3 family names cover 21% of the population, and many of them have only two characters in their name, such as "Li Wei", of whom we currently have 16 in Webb-site Who's Who (WWW), the leading public database on HK people.

Like any other culture, some given names are also quite popular. For example, we currently have 19 "Chan Chi Keung"s in WWW, of which 9 have no English given name, so they appear identical. The only way we can distinguish between them is using an identifier from another source, such as the SFC, where each licensee has a separate code. That doesn't help much though, because the same person could have been licensed with the HKMA, MPFA or insurance self-regulators, but he would have a different license number at each regulator. He might also have a disciplinary history as a licensed estate agent, a solicitor, or a certified public accountant. If all regulators published HKID numbers, then we would know whether we are looking at the same person. Without HKIDs, we are often unable to connect the dots and know for sure whether it is the same person or a different person with the same name.

As the Law Society put it in their submission in 2010 (page 4):

"Identification numbers should be recorded and disclosed in full as it is a unique piece of information for identifying a person; the name of a person is not. Persons with identical names are not uncommon. An identification number is not a reliable tool for authenticating the identity of a person in electronic or telephone transactions. Use of identification number for authentication purpose is itself a misuse and should be discouraged."

The Government, in its conclusions paper, said "the remaining digits (together with the name) should be sufficient to identify the individual persons". That directly contradicts the Government's own consultation paper of 17-Dec-2009, which said (p54):

"The option of masking 3 or 4 digits of an identification number would not serve the purpose of identifying a person as there are cases of persons with the same name having similar identity card numbers".

By treating HKIDs as secrets, the Government is encouraging the misuse of the HKID as an authenticator (particularly by phone) rather than an identifier, and thereby incentivising identity fraud. The Government should be doing the opposite, and requiring the service providers it regulates, such as telecoms and pay-TV providers, to find other ways to authenticate their customers.

The HKID index

The easiest way to stop abuse of HKIDs as authenticators would be to give clear notice that in say, two years' time, the full register of all HKIDs and the corresponding names will be published, so that nobody will rely on them as authenticators. Two years ought to be enough time for all commercial users to modify their systems to use more reliable authentication when dealing with customers by phone.

The Government should embark on a publicity campaign to remind people that HKIDs are not secrets and should not be used as authenticators. Through the Communications Authority, the HKMA and the SFC, Government can also require regulated service providers not to use ID numbers to authenticate people by phone or online. If they need to authenticate a customer by phone, they should ask the customer something that only she and the service provider would know, such as a pre-arranged password, or the balance on the last bill.

The Government should amend the Privacy Ordinance to make clear (if it isn't already) that an ID number is not a piece of personal data, it is an identifier. It does not in itself contain material personal information about a person, it merely identifies them.

The Government should also publish full HKID numbers alongside the name of any person it appoints to a statutory or advisory body. These posts are like directorships of companies, and the public has a right to know exactly who has been appointed, rather than just a common name (see this notice, for example - who is Wong Wai Man, or Chan Chi Hung?). The HKIDs can then be used at the CR, Land Registry and other public sources to know more about the person and check on any conflicts of interest. Regulators, likewise, should use HKID numbers in their online directories of licensees and in disciplinary matters. That includes the HKICPA, HKMA, SFC, MPFA, Medical Council, Estate Agents Authority and any other licensor you can think of.

We published our founder's ID number, P135143(9) back in 2010, to prove that this is not in any way a secret. Today, we are launching an index of HKIDs which are (or have been) available on the web, not behind any pay-wall, and not as a result of any security breach. There are over 1,100 people in that index, mostly still alive, including some well-known billionaires whose HKID numbers can readily be found online. Interestingly, the most popular prefix is "D", and the rarest is "Y". Judging from the names, it seems that persons born outside HK are more likely to have a P or an R (including some mainland arrivals), and the XA, XD, XE and XG series are almost exclusively non-Chinese but have been here for decades - possibly all before the handover, so perhaps those series are no longer issued.

We have compiled this index without (yet) paying to obtain data in the CR - but we reserve the right to do so. Filings with the CR are public filings, and the data are provided for the purposes of making them available for public inspection and identifying who the directors of companies are. You don't have to be a company director if you don't want to, but if you are, then the public has a right to know exactly who you are. You direct your company with its privilege of limited liability. The only reason that the CR data are not used more widely is the pay-wall that stands in the way.

Tear down that wall

The CR has a monopoly on filings from companies registered in HK. The Land Registry has a monopoly on the registration of real estate transactions. Each operates behind a pay wall, a pay-per-view document scheme which harks back to the days when providing copies of documents from the registries actually cost money, and involved counter service staff, acetate microfiches and reading rooms to enlarge, view and print said microfiches. In the 21st century though, the registries receive a lot of documents electronically, and those which are on paper are promptly scanned and digitised for internal records. The incremental cost of making all those files available for public search is nearly zero - just a matter of local bandwidth and software maintenance.

So there is no "user pays" excuse here. The greater public interest would be served by demolishing the pay-wall and opening the registries, and all their documents, to public access. In the words of Ronald Reagan in Berlin, "tear down this wall". A good example of this open access is the New Zealand Companies Registry, where all documents are online. They do have the complication that NZ has no national ID number scheme, so instead they distinguish between "John Smith"s by using their residential addresses. Another option would be to use dates of birth, to almost eliminate duplicates.

The CR makes a monopolistic profit. Accounts for the year to 31-Mar-2012 show that the CR had turnover of HK$483.2m and pre-tax profit of $257.6m, or 53% of turnover. Only $61.1m of turnover came from search and copying fees, so it would still have made a huge profit even if it charged nothing for searches. Incorporation fees, annual filing fees, and registration of charges (mortgages) amounted to $384.0m of turnover. So in fact the CR should cut those fees as well.

Meanwhile at the Land Registry, accounts for the year to 31-Mar-2012 show turnover of $426.8m, sharply reduced because of Special Stamp Duty which reduced transactions and filings, but still making a profit before tax of $116.5m, which was more than the search fees of $82.2m. In the previous year, turnover was $573.4m, with profit before tax of $242.2m and search fees of $100.9m. So in both years, the Land Registry would have made a profit without charging search fees.

Both registries are essential Government services and are natural monopolies. They should not be run for-profit but to cover their costs, including amortisation of infrastructure. The Basic Law calls for the Government to balance its budget, not rack up surpluses by abusing natural monopolies.

Regardless of that, the public interest calls for opening the registries and all their documents to free online search. For example, the controversy over the defaulted sales of luxury flats at 39 Conduit Road would have been avoided if it had been obvious, from looking at the online sale and purchase agreements, that each sale was to a shell company with only a 5% deposit. In effect, those shells were call options - if the value of the flats went down more than 5%, then the owner of the shell would walk away from the deal, and if not, then they would complete the purchase. The buyers and the developer knew that, but the public did not. Journalists had to pay to see each and every transaction agreement before they could build the picture.

Mistaken identity

Similarly, researching the assets and potential conflicts of interest by government officials, both from the mainland and HK, involves paying to see records of each company and property they are involved with - if you can identify them in the first place. In a first-hand example of why the use of HKIDs would improve transparency and reduce mistaken identity, we can tell you that on 18-Apr-2007, Ming Pao reported that Webb-site founder David Webb had sold a house in Mount Kellett Road for HK$75m, upon which he had made a profit of $12m. Nice story - but it wasn't us. The newspaper didn't bother to call us - they assumed that the property agents feeding them the story had got the correct David Webb. To our knowledge, there are at least three "David Webb"s in Hong Kong. Incidentally, the same house was resold in 2012 for HK$155m. If only we had held on to the house we didn't own to start with!

Now, if this story had been about the secret assets of a Chinese politburo member or a HK Chief Executive, he would probably have sued the newspaper for defamation. The risk of such mistaken identity is enough to intimidate the media into not reporting - there is a rule of thumb: "if in doubt, leave it out".

A media exemption would mean media controls

On 29-Jan-2013, after a meeting with Government, the HK News Executives Association said that the Government had suggested an exemption in the law for journalists. The fact that the Government even suggested such an exemption shows how little they have thought about the Basic Law issues at stake here. Yet they have clearly been planning it in some detail - each "media organisation" would be given its own password to access the HKIDs and residential addresses, but only if it was used for the purpose of news reporting. It is a blatant attempt to "buy off" opposition from the media, and we are glad that the Hong Kong Journalists Association has rejected this move outright.

A media exemption is completely unacceptable. Unlike in mainland China, where the Government controls all the media and censors free speech, Hong Kong has "freedom of speech, of the press and of publication" guaranteed by Article 28 of the Basic Law. There is no licensing scheme which says who is a journalist and who is not, and what is a media organisation and what is not, nor should there be (although there is still the antiquated Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance). The grant of any privileged access would imply a licensing or recognition scheme which could become a tool to suppress the media. The ability to withdraw privileged access to the registries by revoking recognition of a journalist or organisation would mean that the Government had the ability to impede freedom of the media. Bloggers, freelance investigative journalists, and operators of independent sites like Webb-site, would have a particularly tough time. The Government could simply refuse to recognise someone as a "journalist" or "media". Members of the public who wanted to conduct their own research would be locked out.

The situation is bad enough already, in that the Government already releases some information via a Government News & Media Information System (GNMIS) that is not open to the general public, only to organisations lucky enough to receive a password. You will notice a complete absence of any "register here" button on the site that would allow you to sign up. GNMIS is a little known fact - you don't see regular media ever mentioning it, perhaps because they fear losing access. We believe the system is used, amongst other things, to give notice of media conferences at which new policies will be announced.

People working in private banks or IPO sponsors, seeking to do due diligence on their potential clients, would also have difficulty, as would businesses seeking to know more about their customers or suppliers. The result would be more money-laundering, fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest than is presently the case. So what next - will the Government propose exemption for all these categories? Who does that leave?

Addresses

We have sympathy with the proposal to allow display of a correspondence address rather than a "usual residential address". As long as a person has a designated correspondence address at which they can be sued (whether or not they are physically at that address) then we see no reason why that address should also be his home. It could even be a P.O. Box, because that is little different from the "virtual office" addresses that thousands of private companies use. The law can be clarified that the designated address is valid for any legal proceedings, and if the person then does not check his mail and has a judgment awarded against him in his absence, that is his choice.

Although there is very little, if any, evidence that the disclosure of residential addresses has been abused, it can be a personal security issue. People conducting investigative journalism might not like the idea that the people they criticise can find out where they and their children sleep at night. If you are a director of a news organisation or association, or a freelancer who directs your own company, then your residential address should be in the CR. That risk in turn might work against the public interest in a free and incisive media. If you are a director of a private bank who has just declined to open an account for a suspected triad, then your address is in the CR too.

However, we note that residential addresses are also available in other public documents. For example, the (mostly residential) addresses of candidates for election to the Election Committee, District Councils and the Legislative Council are published in the Gazette. There you will find the addresses of the CPPCC nominees to the Election Committee in 2011, including Leung Chun Ying, and here are the addresses of property tycoons. The full list of nominations is here.

What the Government should do
1.Abandon the proposal to restrict access to IDs in the CR.
2.Amend the draft subsidiary legislation to focus only on correspondence addresses, and simultaneously table amendments to repeal the provisions of the new Companies Ordinance relating to IDs.
3.Adopt a Government-wide policy of promoting the use of HKIDs to uniquely identify a person, including in appointments to Government boards and committees.
4.Require the HKMA, SFC, Estate Agents Authority, Medical Council, Dental Council and other regulators to include HKID numbers in public registers of licensees, and require that regulated service providers cannot use HKIDs to authenticate individuals by telephone.
5.Amend the privacy ordinance to clarify that identifiers, including HKIDs and passport numbers, are not personal data.
6.Tear down the pay-walls and open the Companies Registry and Land Registry to free online access for all data and documents.

If the Government does all of the above, then it will promote HK as a fairer, more transparent and open economy, and at the same time reduce fraud, corruption and money-laundering.

© Webb-site.com, 2013

---

2 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:08:39

http://webb-site.com/dbpub/HKIDindex.asp
ID 號碼

---

3 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:09:02

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20130215/00176_040.html
「股壇長毛」揭富豪個人資料

再有人公開挑戰公司法的查冊限制，有「股壇長毛」之稱的獨立股評人David Webb日前就在其網站中發表文章，抨擊政府修例限制公眾查閱公司註冊紀錄的董事個人資料，並在網站公開一千一百五十名市民身份證號碼以示抗爭，當中包括一眾富豪，如恒基地產主席「四叔」李兆基、新鴻基地產聯席主席郭炳江、東亞銀行主席李國寶及電訊盈科主席李澤楷等。

包括李兆基李國寶李澤楷
David Webb指有關資料均從網上公開途徑中免費取得，包括由美國證券交易委員會網站、港府憲報等。David Webb在其網站解釋，由於擁有相同中國姓名的人數眾多，而且重複，難以單從姓名來核實公司董事身份，故身份證號碼可作為核實身份的憑據，他又不認同公開身份證號碼代表披露該人士更多具敏感性資料的私隱，而這類核實過程對商業機構及監管機構尤其重要。

David Webb促棄限查冊
他同時又建議港府放棄限制市民查冊，尤其是不應限制查閱登記冊上的身份證號碼等資料；另又建議修改有關的附屬法例，不應只是使用通訊地址登記，還要有其他地址資料。

---

4 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:09:52

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165933

【惡法阻查冊】
【本報訊】政府修例限制公眾查閱公司董事身份證號碼等個人資料，有「股壇長毛」之稱的獨立股評人David Webb發動網上抗爭，近日在網站發佈「身份證號碼索引」（The HKID Index），公開包括李澤楷、郭炳江、李國寶等1,150名市民的身份證號碼。個人資料私隱專員公署擔心資料落入不法之徒手中。Webb反駁，資料全部從網上公開途徑免費取得。政府限制公眾查冊，反而助長行騙、貪污和洗黑錢。
記者：白琳　張嘉雯




該批網上資料冊的來源，主要來自美國證券交易委員會網站、港府憲報的清盤人資料等。長實副主席李澤鉅、電訊盈科主席李澤楷及新地聯席主席郭炳江等人都榜上有名，他們的英文全名及身份證號碼一目了然。





政府變相鼓勵犯罪

Webb上月底發起身份證號碼公開大行動，呼籲網民在Twitter貼出自己的身份證號碼，以抗議政府限制公司查冊。Webb指出，外國傳媒早前透過本港查冊，揭發中共領導人習近平及溫家寶家族的身家，現時港府修訂《公司條例》，限制公眾查冊已成國際新聞，「我們還有機會阻止」。
他今次的抗爭，反映身份證號碼極容易取得，只能用作「辨識」身份，根本不適宜讓銀行或電訊商等公司用來「驗證」客戶，「政府視身份證號碼為私隱，只會鼓勵業界繼續以此作驗證用途，變相鼓勵犯罪」。
Webb促請政府要求業界改用其他驗證方法，例如私人密碼，杜絕不法之徒濫用身份證號碼。他建議政府把全民身份證號碼變成公開資料，設兩年過渡期給業界轉換驗證系統，並修改私隱條例，把身份證號碼剔除私隱之列。政府公佈公職人員名單也應附上身份證號碼，以便公眾追查其公司及物業交易紀錄，確保沒利益衝突。此舉也令傳媒有效辨識目標人物身份，避免報道出錯。
個人資料私隱專員公署發言人表示，任何人或機構收集個人資料，須告知當事人收集資料目的，縱使某些身份證號碼可公開取得，但仍屬個人資料，「任意」讓公眾查閱，未必與當初收集資料原意相關。

非牟利用途無違法

署理個人資料私隱專員張如萌警告，身份證號碼現時常用作識別個人身份真偽，獨一無二和高度敏感，須加以保護。假若身份證號碼連同姓名落入不法之徒手中，「將大大增加犯罪風險」。警方前年處理104宗使用他人身份證的罪案。
民主黨立法會議員涂謹申表示，Webb並無違反私隱條例。八達通事件後，政府修訂私隱條例，規定直銷活動公司使用或轉移資料須獲當事人同意，今年4月生效。不過Webb的抗爭非作牟利用途，不受新例規管，加上其網站與傳媒類似，而使用資料作新聞用途已獲條例豁免。
本報向長實、恆基、新鴻基地產及電訊盈科，查詢上述遭公開身份證號碼的人士會否向私隱專員求助或要求David Webb刪除有關資料。但至截稿前只有李澤楷透過公關公司表示不予評論。

---

5 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:10:50

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165936

【本報訊】獨立股評人David Webb在個人網站公佈城中富豪的身份證號碼。為了證明身份證號碼不是私隱，他刻意不採用要付費的公司查冊系統，改為透過多種免費渠道，找出他們的身份證號碼與住址，包括美國證券交易委員會查冊系統（EDGAR System）、廉政公署的《被通緝人士名冊》、政府憲報和香港聯交所「披露易系統」。




政府網站需繳費查閱

David Webb披露逾千名人資料，大部份都是採用美國證券交易委員會的免費查冊系統。該系統相當完善，市民在公司搜尋一欄只需輸入美國上市公司名稱，便找到1994年至今的重要文件，例如董事變更。文件也會記載董事的香港身份證號碼和住址，記者嘗試搜尋東亞銀行（The Bank of East Asia），即成功找到董事的香港身份證和住址，效果等同要付費的公司註冊處查冊，但搜索並不適用於未有在美國上市的公司。
Webb也從本港多個免費渠道「搵料」，包括港交所「披露易系統」。公眾人士只要輸入上市公司名稱，即可獲得公司董事名單和公司資料報表，如新增董事；公司亦需提交新董事履歷表和在其他公司擔任董事職位資料，但不提供董事的身份證號碼和住址。
廉政公署執法欄目有《被通緝人士名冊》，公開被通緝人士的身份證號碼、護照號碼、職業、出生日期和相片，提供最詳細的資料，現時有31位通緝人士資料在冊。
政府一站通提供憲報搜索，市民可翻查2000年起政府公告，政府機構要遵照條例公開公司資料，例如公司註冊處按《放債人條例》，在憲報公開財務公司地址，但財務公司其他資料，仍需在公司註冊處放債人註冊小組繳付17元查閱。





公司法專題
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/apple/index/16635518

---

6 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:12:58

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165938






【特稿】
現時公眾查閱註冊公司資料，須向公司註冊處付費，該處上年度收益達4.3億元。David Webb指出，新西蘭政府早已網上公開註冊公司董事個人資料，免費讓公眾查閱。港府不但沒有順應國際潮流，反而進一步限制公眾查冊，港人反對修例之餘，也應推倒這道收費高牆（tear down that wall）。由於新西蘭沒全國統一的身份證號碼系統，公司董事註冊只能以住址及出生日期辨識，只要在當地政府公司註冊網頁輸入董事名字，所有同名人士的註冊紀錄均一目了然。




Webb反對政府提出遮蓋身份證號碼最尾三個數字或只容許傳媒等個別界別查冊，指建議「完全不能接受」。字母連首三個數字相同的組合涉及1,000人，不能用作辨識身份；給予個別傳媒機構特權查閱資料，亦對博客和獨立記者不公。
《蘋果》記者

---

7 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:13:39

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165939

【本報訊】新《公司條例》推手、公司註冊處前處長鍾悟思（Gordon Jones）公開向政府「開火」，暗指新例限制查冊，縱容公司董事有權無責，公司執笠可以全身而退，卻連公開部份個人資料予公眾監察都嚴限，影響香港作為國際金融中心的地位。他認為身份證號碼是董事獨一無二的識別碼，並非機密，應該公開。




2008年退休的鍾悟思，是公司法重寫的推手；退休後，當局就附屬條例向公眾諮詢，鍾兩度提交書面意見，反對限制查冊，理據是香港情況與英國不同，未曾有董事受嚴重滋擾；而在香港同名同姓非常普遍，限制取覽身份證號碼會剝削公眾唯一查證個人身份的途徑，並會讓不誠實的人逃避債權人；惟意見未獲採納。
他今日在報章撰文，重申上述理據，批評當局未有考慮公司董事應權責一致，他指出，有限公司董事毋須承擔一旦公司倒閉所衍生的責任，理應公開部份個人資料讓公眾監察作為代價，又指當局諮詢文件內容「非常惹人誤解（very misconceived）」。






「風險轉嫁畀巿民」

鍾在文章批評支持收緊查冊的商會並不中立，相反，認為應維持現有做法的團體，包括銀行公會及香港會計師公會等，均屬監督公司及處理企業詐騙的重要組織。
他進一步批評本港容許私人公司擔任董事，這類公司毋須提交經審核賬目，非常不透明和難以問責，即使新條例要求私人公司委任至少一名自然人任董事，但若這名董事毋須披露個人住址及完整身份證號碼，公司透明度只會下降。
財經事務及庫務局發言人未有正面回應私人公司提交審計賬目的安排，只表示新例參照英國《2006年公司法》，訂明其他私人公司均須有至少一名屬自然人的董事。
反對限制查冊的香港記者協會主席麥燕庭稱鍾是「良心官員」，希望當局聆聽前人意見，「你（董事）以有限責任，毋須上身咁去搵錢，而呢個搵錢嘅風險轉嫁咗畀巿民，一旦公司執笠，董事毋須上身，所以你係需要負番嗰個有限度嘅責任，就係要俾人哋access你啲資料；但新諮詢文件，完全冇提呢樣嘢」。





公司註冊處前處長鍾悟思文章重點

1.公司董事毋須承擔公司倒閉的所有財務責任，有權利亦應有義務公開部份個人資料，讓公眾監察

2.身份證號碼是董事獨一無二的識別碼，不屬機密

3.支持收緊查冊的商會不中立，相反，支持現有做法的團體，包括銀行公會、香港會計師公會、香港律師會等，均屬監督公司及處理企業詐騙的重要組織

4.政府諮詢文件非常令人誤解

5.英國有董事曾受愛護動物組織成員滋擾，但香港未曾出現類似情況

6.本港容許私人公司擔任董事，私人公司毋須提交經審核賬目，若私人公司委任的個人董事也毋須披露個人資料，公司的透明度將進一步下降

資料來源：鍾悟思文章





公司法專題
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/apple/index/16635518

---

8 : GS(14)@2013-02-15 11:13:48

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130215/18165941






【本報訊】公司註冊處前處長鍾悟思不單是重寫公司法的推手，更是網上查冊功臣，在公司註冊處擔任主管的14年間推動該處電腦化，在2005年2月推出電子搜尋服務，至2008年5月正式退休。

鍾悟思1973年畢業於牛津大學，隨即加入香港政府擔任行政主任；1993年5月起出任公司註冊處處長；於2000年初和2004年分別完成公司法改革常務委員會的公司條例檢討及企業管治檢討。
61歲的鍾悟思，離職前接受《香港證券》訪問，表明自己是重寫公司條例的骨幹成員之一，認為有關工作是非常重大的成就，是確保香港今後作為主要國際商務與金融中心的關鍵因素，但他擔心部份內容被淡化，「既得利益者當利益受損時會提出反對，尤其是涉及董事條文，他們在立法會中具有非常強大的游說力」，惟未有指明涉及那些條文。





公司法專題
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/apple/index/16635518

---

9 : Dict(36611)@2013-02-15 18:27:30

對我地這些蟻民查資料會有什麼影響?

很多人會用身份証做密碼, 可能是一個問題

---

10 : 自動波人(1313)@2013-02-15 19:39:43

9樓提及

---

對我地這些蟻民查資料會有什麼影響?

很多人會用身份証做密碼, 可能是一個問題

一禁唔俾查,連傳媒都查唔到

用身份証做密碼係自己問題.....

---

11 : VA(33206)@2013-02-15 20:07:48

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

---

12 : Dict(36611)@2013-02-15 21:15:03

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

---

13 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-16 13:15:35

12樓提及

---

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

就玩大佢，一人一信投訴私隱專員公署，Webb的ID 有無留影

---

14 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-16 13:15:41

刪幾多貼幾多

---

15 : passby(15493)@2013-02-17 00:59:00

13樓提及

---

12樓提及

---

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

就玩大佢，一人一信投訴私隱專員公署，Webb的ID 有無留影

有得搞，但向邊個投訴？

---

16 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-17 10:46:10

15樓提及

---

13樓提及

---

12樓提及

---

11樓提及

---

我覺得佢用呢個方法玩大左

不過典解冇䛋哥嘅id?

我又覺得玩大D好, 多D人注意壓力才大, 多人討論先會有好結果

就玩大佢，一人一信投訴私隱專員公署，Webb的ID 有無留影

有得搞，但向邊個投訴？

私隱專員公署

---

17 : passby(15493)@2013-02-17 22:00:16

同警察投訴警察？
無用ga喎

---

18 : GS(14)@2013-02-18 21:33:00

17樓提及

---

同警察投訴警察？
無用ga喎

群眾壓力

---

19 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-22 00:48:27

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20130221/18171890


【本報訊】個人資料私隱專員公署對David Webb的身份證號碼索引展開「循規審查」，又指滙集已公開的身份證號碼供人查閱或觸犯私隱條例。Webb昨去信公署，批評公署說法等於資訊封鎖，令香港大陸化，「在香港圍起資訊防火牆，離內地的防火長城僅一步之遙」。
獨立股評人David Webb從網上免費收集逾千名富豪及市民的身份證號碼，製成網上索引讓公眾查閱，上周接獲公署審查通知後感到受「恐嚇」，暫時抽起索引。Webb昨書面回覆公署的查詢，同時在網上公開信件。
日後或篩選瀏覽者IP

現時彭博商業周刊及維基百科等多個海外大型網站，公開大量名人的個人資料。Webb指出，若公署說法成立，港人經這些網站收集資料，即受私隱條例規管。內地封鎖敏感網站的荒謬情景將會在香港出現，日後海外網站或須篩選瀏覽者的IP位址，專門封鎖港人並發出警告：「對不起……我們不能確定你使用本站的個人資料是否符合當事人意願，因此你不能瀏覽本站。」
Webb指出，私隱條例理應只規管向當事人收集個人資料，藉以提供服務的公司，使用已公開的個人資料不應受規管，也毋須向當事人徵求同意，否則只會踐踏言論及出版自由。
Webb要求公署盡快澄清，以便他重新上載身份證號碼索引。對於公署早前指去年有約100宗使用他人身份證罪案，Webb直指公署誤導，因此統計包括盜用他人身份證，與身份證號碼索引無關。

---

20 : passby(15493)@2013-02-22 04:19:35

香港無david webb真係收得皮

---

21 : greatsoup38(830)@2013-02-23 11:22:21

壓他們啦

---