Mouse Storehouse: Individual behavior needs collective reflection

The re-emergence of the "Rat Barn" is like a fuse that will emerge from the hidden hidden concerns of the seemingly limitless fund industry one by one.　　Professional ethics and accomplishment fail to withstand the "wealth effect" of capital market and the temptation of huge profits, even the richest group, still difficult to overcome the greedy side of human nature. "Mouse Cang" repeatedly banned, what is the deep-seated reasons? What kind of system design and improvement should be made to prevent and combat "rat storehouse"?　　Should there be more collective reflection behind "personal behaviour"?　　As for the "rat Barn" incident, in the face of condemnation, perhaps we should also see the other side of the coin, in the capital city to eliminate the cancer, the young Chinese fund industry is embarking on a more sunny road to development.　　"Rat Storehouse" after has highlighted, Wang Limin, Financing fund "mouse storehouse" case exposure again aroused the attention of all parties.　　One months ago, the SFC inspection Bureau has been on the financing of "rat storehouse" case for investigation, at present, fund manager Zhang Ye for this time "rat storehouse" the protagonist is proved to be true, has been factoring fund delisting.　　The exposure of the Fund's "Rat Barn" case began with the disclosure of a mysterious retail investment myth called Zhou Yi. According to public information, at the end of June 2006, the Fund's dry and retail Zhou Yi at the same time in the new base of the top ten circulating shares of the list of shareholders, the end of the 3 quarter of 2006, the Fund has not changed the size of the stock, Zhou Yi continued to overweight the unit. It is noteworthy that in the 4 quarter of 2006, the financing Fund, including the financing of the pioneer, the financing of the new blue-chip, financing tide 100 and the fund to dry 4 funds to enter the new base. 　　Meanwhile, the new Chinese base rose sharply, rising more than 50% from September 2006 to the end of 2006. 2008 2 Quarter, retail Zhou Yi and financing new blue-chip again at the same time in Guangzhou cold machine before the top ten circulating shares shareholders.　　At the end of the 3 quarter of 2008, Zhou Yi did not enter the top ten circulating stock shareholder sequence, the fund dried up to the third largest circulating shares of Guangzhou Cooler, the Guangzhou Cold machine was finally successfully restructured in November, and became a soybean processing enterprise, and the share price soared. In the second half of 2008, Zhou Yi and the financing of new blue-chip, fund in Hainan Sea medicine "Meet", and "coincidence" is still continuing.　　The Fund's dry, new blue-chip and retail Zhou Yi again appeared in the top ten circulating stock shareholders ' list of the 2008 Annual report of the Sichuan stock company. The coincidence caught the media's attention, April 7, the media took the lead to disclose the financing of the Fund's "Rat Barn" rumors.　　Since then, the financing fund company launched Self-Examination, the SFC is a swift layout verification, in the launch of the investigation within one hours of investigators have arrived in the investigation is often through the early verification, the SFC on April 13, the case was formally filed for investigation. According to the financial network, the investigation of the "Zhou Yi incident" itself has been completed and is now in the administrative process and has been handed over to the police.　　At present, the financing fund has not received the SFC issued a notice of punishment and other documents. Four big doubts to be solved although the financing fund burstMouse Cang protagonist has surfaced, and Zhang Ye has been the financing of the Fund removed, but the incident is still doubtful, still need further details of the future disclosure.　　First, with the mysterious retail Zhou Yi is linked to the fund is the financing of the financing of the new blue-chip and fund to dry, rather than Zhang Ye management of the 100 and the financing of Giant Tide 1002 index fund? 　　Second, Zhang Ye is not a member of the Fund Investment decision-making Committee, in principle, the financing of new blue-chip and the fund to dry the specific operation is not understood, then how he obtained the other people manage the fund investment information? Third, the mysterious retail Zhou Yi is who? There are media reports that the 2nd week after the incident, Zhang Ye chose to actively ask for the case, admitting that the actual control of the Zhou Yi account is a big one, called Zhu Xiaomin, is an old friend of Zhang Ye. The Zhou Yi account's investment in four stocks, such as the New China Foundation, is related to the Zhang Ye recommendation.　　But the details are not yet disclosed.　　Lastly, the legal profession and the fund sector are more concerned that this incident is the first suspected case investigated after the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment (vii), and how will Zhang Ye be punished? April 21, 2008, the Securities and Futures Commission issued the fund "rat storehouse" punishment first.　　The has highlighted of Morgan and the Wang Limin of the South Fund were disqualified from the fund, respectively confiscating the has highlighted, Wang Limin each 1.5272 million yuan and 1.5094 million yuan of illegal income, and each fined 500,000 yuan. Although has highlighted and Wang Limin have not been criminally penalized, the Penal Code Amendment (vii), which came into force March 1 this year, has introduced criminal penalties for "rat positions".　　According to the stipulation, the person who has "mouse storehouse" behavior, the circumstance is particularly serious, will be sentenced to 5 years above 10 years imprisonment, and the illegal income 1 time times above 5 times times the following fine. Beijing asked Tian law firm lawyer Zhangyuanzhong told reporters that although Zhang Ye involved in a case after March 1, but the behavior is in the case before March 1 this year, in accordance with the principle of retroactive law, the relevant parties face criminal punishment is not likely.　　In addition, on the criminal level, the standard of the rat storehouse crime still needs to be refined explanation, how to define "the serious circumstance" need to have more specific stipulation.　　is the system reflective of congestion or neglect?　　The financing fund rat storehouse incident has been characterized as "personal problem", but why the Mouse warehouse incident repeatedly banned, perhaps need more collective reflection. Jiang Saichun, chief analyst at the Trust Research Center, said that the "wealth effect" of capital markets and the lure of huge profits made it difficult for "rat silos" to be completely banned in the fund industry. The system can "plug" some loopholes, but there are always system norms, supervision is not, "mouse storehouse" frequent occurrence, it is urgent to the system itself whether there are loopholes to make a reflection.　　Secondly, the scope of the system can be limited, but also rely on the fund manager's professional ethics and professional quality improvement to do further supplement. A fund analyst who declined to be named said that the Fund's mouse position might be more than 3 cases. Zhou Yi isA "Big mouse", and will not be among the top ten circulating stock shareholders of the list of "little mouse", how can the trail be found?　　The discovery mechanism of "rat barn" remains to be perfected. The analysts believe that the proportion of fund workers in the delivery of benefits may not be high, but the proportion of fund workers to buy shares may be ten to none. In particular, the fund manager, the most domestic income, the most financial ability of the group, its right to buy and sell shares are deprived of the inevitable will "block" some "problems."　　The analyst believes that investment in capital markets is also a right, financial management is a need, even if they ban their investment, they will come up with a variety of ways to deal with, so "blocking" is not to solve any problems. In fact, after the has highlighted "rat storehouse" exposure, there are a number of industry experts put forward the above views. Wang Lianzhou, the first team leader of the draft Fund law drafting group, said that to curb the "rat barn" behavior, should be a combination of plugging, open the main entrance, blocking the wicked.　　It is not appropriate to deprive fund managers of the right to buy and sell stocks, but the specific professional requirements require certain provisions and restrictions on their securities trading, such as the quantity, time, price and other matters needing to be disclosed in securities trading. Economist Gold Rock argues that there has been debate about whether securities practitioners can buy and sell their own investment accounts, and the final conclusion is that they cannot. This is actually a "paradox": "Investment experts do not invest". If securities practitioners cannot invest themselves, how can we talk about investment experience? If fund managers do not have a wealth of investment experience, how can they manage their clients ' money?　　If they do not say, how to evaluate their integrity and law-abiding? In fact, the issue has also been debated in the United States, the Securities Act of the United States is not prohibited, but to make the relevant rules of the right to the company, the principle of the following 3:1, the financial industry to open a securities investment account must be disclosed in writing, the transaction confirmation of such accounts must be double, I a copy, One of the audit department of the company; 2. Any transactions of the employees must comply with the principle of customer priority, because it is difficult to define the transaction time, and some companies clearly stipulate the same day of the same securities sold price customers favorably; 3, there is significant information disclosure before and after, insiders may not trade.