We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2016, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect

A new beginning or a false dawn for corporate governance in China?

Home / Hermes EOS Blog / Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect – A new beginning or a false dawn for corporate governance in China?

Lacklustre launch
There was much excitement when the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect trading link finally launched on 17 November. It opened the Chinese mainland’s A- share-market to foreign investors without a special licence. There were hopes for significant flows of foreign investment into listed companies on the mainland and – perhaps more fancifully – related corporate governance improvements. However, since a lively start on the first day of the Stock Connect’s operation, little cash has been flowing towards Shanghai stocks.

There are a number of reasons why much of the daily Shanghai stock quotas have remained unused since then. Little notice of the launch date of the platform  was given, questions about capital gains tax remained unanswered until the last minute and investors continue to be concerned about ownership mechanisms. Moreover, operational complexities relating to the short settlement cycle of trades exist. More fundamentally, investors may already have exposure, or it could simply be down to valuations and the fact that some of the most attractive Chinese stocks are listed in Shenzhen rather than Shanghai.

Could the corporate governance of Shanghai-listed companies, specifically state-owned enterprises which make up the majority of the market capitalisation of the mainland’s A-share market, have played a role?

Two recent studies, one by the Asian Corporate Governance Association (ACGA) and broker CLSA (September 2014) and another by Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) (November 2014), suggest that for the Stock Connect to live up to its expectations corporate transparency and disclosures need to be improved in China and – more fundamentally – the way state-owned enterprises (SOE) are run needs to be reformed.

The ACGA study scored 11 Asian markets based on their corporate governance framework and practices. China, with a score of 45 out of a possible 100, was ranked ninth followed only by the Philippines and Indonesia. In spite of slight improvements, China’s score slipped in some categories relative to other markets, highlighting that it remains a market with weak corporate governance. In comparison, Hong Kong and Singapore ranked joint first in the study, scoring 65 and 64 respectively.

The ISS study, which included a survey of institutional investors, confirmed the results of the ACGA study and demonstrated the practical impact of China’s poor corporate governance. Indeed, one of its key findings is that concerns about corporate governance are the main reason for not investing in China. While corporate governance may have been widely interpreted in the study, according to the research, investors are clearly worried about the lack of transparency, related-party transactions (RPTs) and share issuances without pre-emption rights.

Need for reforms
What needs to happen? First and foremost, there needs to be a push for more corporate transparency and better disclosures as well as improved communications between companies and investors. This is particularly important with regard to RPTs and capital measures.

Secondly, the government has to push on with reforms of SOEs. The high-level announcements following the third plenum of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in November 2013 were encouraging. The overall ambition seems to be to reduce the role of the government in listed entities. The role of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission  is expected to change from one of a close supervisor of SOEs to more of a manager of capital. However, progress on the reforms appears slow. The sluggish start of the Stock Connect may send a powerful message to the government that more momentum is required.

It will take more than a trading link between Shanghai and Hong Kong to boost the attraction of the mainland’s A-share market and improve corporate governance practices. However, the new link presents a crucial part of the infrastructure required to facilitate change over time.

Share this post:
Hans-Christoph Hirt Dr Hans-Christoph Hirt is an executive director and board member at Hermes EOS and as Co-Head of the organisation responsible for the sustainable success of the business. He leads and oversees the global engagement programme and the quality of the services Hermes EOS provides to its clients around the world. Hans also leads some high-profile stewardship activities, including priority engagements with major companies in Asia and Germany, as well as interactions with key regulators and organisations. rnrnPrior to joining Hermes EOS, Hans worked with international law firm Ashurst. He is the author of numerous publications on corporate governance and law, responsible investment and stewardship. Currently, he is a member of the Steering Committee of the UN PRI Investor Engagement Clearinghouse and the Shareholder Responsibilities Committee of the International Corporate Governance Network. In 2015, he joined the Institutional Investor Council in Malaysia. Hans is a UK-qualified lawyer, holds degrees in Business Administration from universities in Germany and the UK, the ACCA qualification and a PhD from the London School of Economics (LSE). He continues to be involved in academia as a Corporate Governance Fellow at the LSE’s Financial Markets Group and a Teaching Fellow at University College London. Hans speaks French, German and Mandarin.
Read all articles by Hans-Christoph Hirt

Find posts by author

  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Emma Hunt
  • Freddie Woolfe
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Jennifer Walmsley
  • Jon Brager
  • Justine Lutterodt
  • Karin Ri
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Lui Goldie
  • Mais Hayek
  • Manuel Isaza
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martina Macpherson
  • Matthew Doyle
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Viehs
  • Naheeda Rashid
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nina Rehrbein
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Victoria Barron

Find posts by category

  • Select category
  • eos
  • governance