This study is the first to empirically examine stock market manipulation on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The dataset contains 40 cases of market manipulation from 1996 to 2009 that were successfully prosecuted by the Hong Kong Securities & Futures Commission. Manipulation is found to negatively impact market efficiency measures such as the bid-ask spread and volatility. Markets appear incapable of efficiently responding to the presence of manipulators and are characterised by information asymmetry. Manipulators were successfully able to raise prices and exit the market. This finding contradicts views that trade-based manipulation is entirely unprofitable and self-deterring. The victimisation of information-seeking investors and the market as a whole provides a strong rationale for all jurisdictions, including Australia, to have effective laws that prohibit manipulation and for robust enforcement of those laws to further deter market manipulation.

Despite the capital asset pricing model being one of the most influential models in modern portfolio theory, it has also been a victim of criticism in numerous academic papers. Its assumptions which seem to be rather unrealistic, have caused many academics to improve the model by relaxing some of its restrictive statements. In this journal article, we compare the performance of an optimal portfolio of securities in the Australian securities market by constructing two theoretical portfolios; one using the capital asset pricing model which uses a single beta throughout a static investment horizon; and another, which allows the optimal portfolio to be rebalanced each week with an adjusted beta. The performance of the two theoretical portfolios is compared to determine the superior model. Overall, findings showed that due to rebalancing of the portfolio, the multiple period model was the superior model based on before and after transaction cost returns. AbstractDespite the capital asset pricing model being one of the most influential models in modern portfolio theory, it has also been a victim of criticism in numerous academic papers. Its assumptions which seem to be rather unrealistic, have caused many academics to improve the model by relaxing some of its restrictive statements. In this journal article, we compare the performance of an optimal portfolio of securities in the Australian securities market by constructing two theoretical portfolios; one using the capital asset pricing model which uses a single beta throughout a static investment horizon; and another, which allows the optimal portfolio to be rebalanced each week with an adjusted beta. The performance of the two theoretical portfolios is compared to determine the superior model. Overall, findings showed that due to rebalancing of the portfolio, the multiple period model was the superior model based on before and after transaction cost returns.JEL Classification: G10, G20, C30

In this article, the authors investigate whether there has been an improvement in the quality of independent expert reports following ASIC's revisions to RG111 and RG112. These revisions include additional disclosures on the valuation methodologies used and explanation if the valuation was materially different from the company's recent trading price. It was expected that these revisions have led to an improvement in report quality where quality is determined by the accuracy of the expert's valuation. Results show that after the 2011 revisions, valuations became more accurate based on updated measures of report quality. However, experts with higher fees did not provide higher quality reports on average. The findings indicate that the independence provisions within the new rules were effective. Furthermore, they warn commissioning firms that higher fees are not necessarily indicative of higher quality reports.

Globally, financial system regulators are susceptible to deliberate and inadvertent influence by the industry that they oversee and, hence, are also susceptible to acting to benefit the industry rather than the public interest – a phenomenon known as ‘regulatory capture’. Australia, arguably, has an optimal model of financial system regulation (a ‘Twin Peaks’ model) comprising separate regulators for prudential soundness on the one hand, and market conduct and consumer protection on the other. However, the current design of the Twin Peaks model has not been sufficient to prevent and address prolonged and systemic misconduct that culminated in a public Royal Commission of Inquiry into misconduct in the industry. Subsequent to the Royal Commission and other inquiries, the Department of Treasury has proposed legislation to establish an Assessment Authority to assess the effectiveness of the Twin Peaks regulators. The proposal includes enquiries by an Assessment Authority into the regulators’ independence, so as to identify instances of, and thereby mitigate, their capture. As with all financial system regulators, the Assessment Authority itself may be susceptible to regulatory capture, either by the Twin Peaks regulators, or by the financial industry. Thus, this paper poses the question: how can the new Assessment Authority be optimally constituted by legislation, and operated, to effectively oversee the effectiveness of the regulators, but itself remain insulated from the influence of the regulators and industry? We analyse the primary sources of influence over financial system regulators that the Assessment Authority will likely face and recommend ways in which a robust design of the Assessment Authority can mitigate those sources of influence. In doing so, we adopt an inter-disciplinary approach, drawing upon not only regulatory theory but also for the first time in relation to this question, organisational psychology. Our findings address gaps in the proposed legislation currently before Federal Parliament and propose methods by which those gaps may be filled, in order to ensure that this important reform to Australia’s financial regulatory regime has the greatest chance of success.