MICHAEL BUBLE

By Martin Hayes

LONDON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - The big loss-making short position that a Chinese trader is said to have built up in copper futures will not cause the London Metal Exchange (LME) to melt down, although its brokers could end up out of pocket.

Trades on the LME are centrally-cleared and guaranteed by a clearing house. But LME brokers would have to cover losses if their customer walks away from the debt, although they would then initiate legal action.

"That is the real issue -- and it is not as if it has not happened before," a senior trader said, referring to principals walking out on contracts. "We've seen this before in tin and copper."

Liu Qibing, a senior trader working for an entity of China's State Reserves Bureau (SRB), is rumoured to have taken a short position of between 150,000 and 200,000 tonnes as a bet that copper prices would fall. Instead it hit new peaks.

Sources said Beijing-based Liu might have built the positions through eight brokers in London at prices of below $3,500 a tonne.

If China took its short position last spring, as traders believe, it could translate into losses of $200 million.

Prices are now at $4,100 a tonne, having hit a record $4,174 on Tuesday.

The SRB said Liu was on leave and any short position was undertaken on his behalf and not by the SRB, adding to uncertainty over whether the bureau will recognise obligations.

"Are they (China) going to default? The brokers will have to cover the position, and then go legal," another trader said.

"If the paperwork stands up -- and I'm sure it does -- then they (China) don't have a leg to stand on," he added.

MARKET POSITIONS COVERED

On the LME, LCH.Clearnet is the central counterparty to clearing members, but has no legal relationship or direct exposure to non-clearing members or to other clients of members. "Clearing members must meet all their proprietary and client-linked responsibilities to LCH.Clearnet. LCH.Clearnet would take no action unless client failure forces a member or members to fail to perform to LCH.Clearnet," a spokesman said.

Traders said most of the brokers, subsidiaries of large parents, would have funds to meet losses when the positions mature in December if they are not rolled forward or delivered.

"But if that happens, it makes it more difficult for the Chinese to do business in the West -- no one reputable would want them as a customer or give credit," a third trader said.

"Ultimately, they should bite the bullet and learn their lesson," he said.

ITC AND CITIC

Whatever happens, the LME is in a much stronger position then a generation ago, when the tin crisis threatened its very existence.

In October 1984, the ITC, which was a United Nations multi-governmental agency, defaulted on its long LME tin position, lacking the funds to maintain prices at artificially high levels.

The LME, which was a market of principals, not using clearing, was forced to suspend the contract. Brokers had to settle contracts at an arranged price -- called a "ring-out" -- and it took four years of legal action before the ITC agreed a settlement paying back just 30 percent of losses.

The LME re-organised radically, shaking up its governance structure, but also introducing clearing, which removed the domino effect of one broker's losses pulling others down.

Chinese traders have also come a cropper before in copper, and then tried to wriggle out of losses.

In mid-1994 it emerged that a Shanghai unit of CITIC (China International Trust and Investment Corp) had run up debts of $40 million to some 14 brokers on unauthorised trade in LME copper.

The losses had accumulated as the traders had taken advantage of special credit lines offered by LME brokers.

Four members of CITIC's Shanghai staff were later arrested while talks on the debt dragged on between CITIC and brokers. CITIC managed to survive the losses, eventually settling with brokers in March 1995.

The key figure in CITIC's trading was Chen Tongsheng, in his early 30s, who worked at the CITIC Shanghai office. He was subsequently jailed.

(Additional reporting by Polly Yam in Hong Kong and Lucy Hornby in Shanghai)

“夏商周断代工程”争议难平

［ 作者：陈宁 转贴自：社会科学院报 ］

    本文在《社会科学报》发表时有所删节，以下为原文。

前  言

    由政府资助上千万人民币、轰虫烈烈地搞了五年的“夏商周断代工程”  (以下简称为“工程”  )在中国大陆几乎是家喻户晓、人人皆知。有的媒体甚至把它称为“中国文化史的最伟大的事件”  ，超越了明代《永乐大典》和清代《四库全书》的纂修。2000年10月，“工程”发表了《夏商周断代工程1996—2000年阶段成果报告(简本)》。《简本》的结论也全部通过了国家科技部的验收，并且荣获“全国十大科学进步奖”。而就在《简本》发表的前後，抨击的声浪不断在海外出现。有的评论认为，+“工程”有政治背景，是政府在搞民族主义；有的则从学术角度提出批评。斯坦福大学的大牌教授『』avidNivison在《纽约时报》所下的“国际学术界将把工程报告撕成碎片”的断言，也成为一句学术界广泛流传的名言。中国媒体将这些抨击视为“敌对势力”、“帝国主义”。今年4月，“工程”专家组组长李学勤、首席科学家仇世华等应邀赴美参加了有猡“工程”讨论的学术会议。这次会议是“工程”两种不同的观点在国际上的第一次正式的面对面的交锋。在会议上，海外的学者对“工程”的方法和结论提出了尖锐的批评，从而引起了学术界的轩然大波。“夏商周断代工程”究竟是什么工程?“工程”在学术上是否有硬伤?其结论是否可靠?本文作者在海外从事中国历史的教学和研究工作，和一些与“工程”有关的学者有直接或间接的联系，对“工程”的方方面面有比较细致的辽解，从而也就有一个比较客观的认识。在此我们姑且抛开政治背景和媒体的激烈言论，仅围绕学术上的问题，向读者介绍一下有关“工程”的前前後後。

 缘  起

    中国人都听说中华民族有五千年的文明史，这是因为古代文献中清楚地记录了夏、商、周三个最早的朝代。但是，就有案可稽的最早的年代来说，司马迁的《史记》也只能追溯到西周晚期的共和元年，即公元前841年。再往前的西周早、中期和夏、商两代，只有帝王的世系而无年代。这就是说，五千年文明史中仅有三千年“有史可查”。  对国民来说，“这事儿很煞风景”  ，使人说起五千年文明史来，“理不直，气不壮”  ；对学者来说，“五千年的文明史一直不能得到中外史学界的公认”而令人愤愤不平。

    为填补中国文明史的空白，“夏商周断代工程”于1996年正式设定，成为中国”九五”期间重点科技攻关计划项目。为了使工程规定的目标能顺利实现，国务院成立了由国家科委副主任邓楠为组长、七个部委领导为成员的领导小组，李铁映、宋健二人为工程特别顾问。聘任历史学家李学勤、碳-14专家仇士华、考古学家李伯谦、天文学家席泽宗为工程“首席科学家”  ，主持由21位不同学科的专家组成的专家组工作。这个科研项目，涉及历史学、考古学、天文学、科技测年等学科，分9个课题，44个专题，直接参加的专家学者就有200人。据报道，这一高层次的科研工程，连办公室秘书都是博士后。

    “工程”要达到以下的具体目标：

    1．西周共和元年(公元前841年)以前，包括西周早、中期和晚期前芈段各王准确的年代；

    2．商代后期从商王武丁至帝辛(纣)，确定比较准确的年代；

    3．商代前期，提出比较详细的年代框架；

    4．夏代，提出基本的年代框架。

    成  果

    “工程”主要依靠两条途径来建立三代年代学系统，一是对传世的古代文献和出土的甲骨文、金文等古文字材料，进行搜集、·整理、鉴定和研究，对其中有关的天文、历法记录，通过现代天文计算：推定其年代；二是对有典型意义的考古遗址和墓葬材料进行整理和分期研究，并作必要的发掘，取得系列样品，进行碳-14测年。

    经过四年多的努力，“工程”终于发表了《夏商周年表》。这份《年表》定夏代始年大约为公元前2070年，夏商分界大约为公元前1600年，商周分界具体为公元前1046年。又将具体的帝王年代从公元前841年向前推移到前1250年，即武丁元年。武丁是商代後期的王，在他以後的各王都给予了具体的在位年代。另外，西周从武王到幽王的所有年代也有了更具体的划分。西周诸王年表的建立，甚至商王武丁以来年代的建立，主要基础于武王伐纣之年(即西周之元年)和懿王的元年的确立：其他的年代依据这两个年代进行安排和调整。

    质  疑

    自“工程”的《简本》公布以来，海外学者对此进行了三次规模较大的辩论，其中持怀疑和批评立场的似乎多于“工程”的拥护者。

    互联网——第一次辩论

    开始于2000年11月，通过互联网进行，其议论主题有政治性与学术性两类。学术性的则围绕夏朝的存在与否。工程不仅相信夏代的存在，还列出了夏代各王的世系表。对此，不少西方学者持怀疑态度。在西方有关中国古代史的教科书中夏朝只是传说中的一个朝代而非信史；而商朝被认为是中国的第一个朝代，这是因为甲骨文证明了商的存在。因此，有些西方学者批评“工程”想当然地视夏为商的前朝并定二里头（在河南省）为夏都，在目前情况下证据尚未充足。综合看来，支持“工程”的学者的依据主要有四：其一，河南西部和山西南部是周代文献认为的夏人的中心地区，而这个地区的二里头文化最有可能是夏文化的代表；其二，二里头遗址发现了宫殿基址，表明已经有了国家的存在。其三，碳-14测年结果表明，二里头文化的时间在商代之前。其四，既然司马迁所论的商朝被证明是信史，那么，他所说的夏也应当是信史。一些西方学者则认为，周代文献中论述的夏人的活动很可能是周人出于政治目的而编造的，不能尽信。再则，二里头文化的水平还不足以证明“文明”（一般指有文字、城市、政府、贫富不均的社会）的发生，“除非我们能够在二里头发现文字、青铜器和车等，或者任何文明的标志，否则史前和历史时期的基本分界线还将是商。”至于司马迁《史记》的可信性，一海外学者反驳说，《史记》也提及商的第一个王是他的母亲踩到一只大鸟的脚印而受孕以及有关黄帝、尧、舜、禹等超自然行为，难道这样的记载也能视为信史吗？

    面对面的交锋——第二次辩论

    今年4月4日至7日，美国“亚洲学协会”的年会在美国华盛顿召开。会议专门邀请了“工程”的学者来美讨论。中国方面参加会议的是“工程”的专家组组长李学勤、考古学家张长寿、碳-14专家仇世华、天文学家张培瑜。这场讨论中心问题一直围绕“工程”的西周年代学研究。不少海外学者以口头的和书面的形式对“工程”的结论提出了疑问。下举数例：一，“分野”的理论晚出，很可能出现在东周时期列国形成之后，西周时就有“鹑火”与周相搭配的观念是不可能的，因此，不能以晚出的理论用于西周时期。二，青铜器《利簋》铭文中“岁鼎克闻夙有商”的“岁”字更可能做“年”讲，并非指“岁星”。三，“工程”否定公元前1044年而选定公元前1046年为克商年代的天文学依据是不符合王国维对于金文中月相的“四分法”，而“四分法”则普遍得到学者的认同。四，“工程”不依靠《今本竹书纪年》有关西周年代的记载，一味断定其为伪造，而学术界对其真伪尚未有定论。五，“工程”使用的碳-14计算程序仅有68．3％的置信度。六，“工程”对一个晋侯墓的碳-14测量得出若干个差距较大的数据，而“工程”在不同的论文中使用了不同的数据，这似乎有漏洞。

    另外，一些海外学者对“工程”的学术道德产生怀疑。如：芝加哥大学的EdwardShaughnessy教授提问说：“公元前899年周懿王‘天再旦于郑’的日蚀是《简本》的关键年代之一，中国国内的报纸、电视均作了广泛的报导。然而，在国外，早已经有人指出这个日蚀及其对西周年代的意义。一些海外学者觉得《简本》完全没有提到国外学术成果是缺乏一定的学术道德的。”另外，通过天文学研究而将武王伐纣的年代定为公元前1046年是美国学者DavidPankenier在上世纪80年代初提出的，而《简本》对此只字未提。Shaughnessy的批评是有道理的。我们知道，甲骨文专家董作宾早就指出“天再旦”是发生在天明时刻的日蚀现象，并将此一天文现象发生的年代定为公元前966年。后来，韩国学者方善柱在1975年发表的论文中进一步指出，公元前966年有误，正确的年代应为公元前899年。

    由於华盛顿会议的时间有限，与舍的“工程”学者未能对以上所有的问题作充分的解答，但李学勤强调，“工程”的学术观点不受政府的支配，完全由学者决定。他坚持“工程”施行“民主集中制”是有必要的，因为“我个人从来认为，科学真理有时掌握在少数人，甚至个别人手里”。至於“天再且”的问题，李学勤解释说，《简本》篇幅有限，未能将前人的工作一一罗列。张培瑜则承认对“天再旦”的报导有不妥当之处。

    仇世华对碳-14方面的背景知识提供了进一步的介绍和解释。

    芝加哥大学——第三次辩论

    4月12日这次辩论的热烈和效果远远超越前两次，甚至出现了惊人的辩论高潮。批评“工程”的学者中，最值得介绍的是现任斯坦福大学宗教文化中心的兼职研究员蒋祖棣。他向会议提交了一篇题为《西周年代研究之疑问——对夏商周断代工程方法论的批评》的文章(以下称为《蒋文》)。《蒋文》最重要的内容是讨论“工程”对“武王克商”年代的研究。《蒋文》作者注意到“工程”使用的是OxCal系列样品程序，他特地向牛津大学求得这一程序，并以此验算了“工程”发表的、为数不多的碳-14数据。结果，他算出的年代置信范围远远大于《简本》公布的“拟合”数据。《蒋文》介绍说，OxCal程序系列样品计算法，虽可获得较窄的置信区间，但只有68．2％的置信度；此计算程序的精确度备受国际碳-14学者的批评。“工程”以这样低的置信度作为衡量西周具体王年的标尺很不科学。

    “工程”为何不使用置信度已达到95．4％或99．7％的其他方法呢?《蒋文》分析说，其原因是後者的  置信范围此前者增多一、二百年，从而达不到“工程”领导规定的“碳·14年代数据的精度，要达到正负20年左右”的要求。而挑选置信范围小的计算法可以将武王伐纣的年代压缩到几十年内，从而排除44种说法中的大部分。也就是说，“工程”为了排除更多的观点，宁愿牺牲其方法的置信度。

    《蒋文》又指出，“工程”依据的OxCal程序的系列样品计算法不代表国际公认的树轮校正法。国际碳-14专家已指出这一算法的过程中夹杂了人为加工的成分，所得到的年代并不准确。其人为成分是指在计算中碳-14专家需要考古专家提供考古的“系列样品”，即一组分期明确而又有每一期的上限年代和下限年代的考古样品。而考古学家很难提供如此精确的样品，勉强为之，则带有很大的猜测或人为成分。《蒋文》以“工程”在澧西的考古报告为例。“工程”的断代方法将澧西各个文化层以西周各王为名称，如：第一期是“文王迁澧至武王伐纣”  ，等等，这样的断代法称为“间隔的”。而《蒋文》作者本人曾在澧西主持过考古发掘，其报告在1992年公布。他所用的断代方法称为“渐序的”  ，就是将各个文化层以大概的年代范围标出，如：第一期是“先周期”。二者的区别在于“间隔法”要求各期在具体年代上有明确的上下界限，相邻各期在时间上必须彼此断开，不能有交错；而“渐序法”则没有这样的要求，只标出笼统的王朝的早中晚期。《蒋文》强调，在商周考古中，“工程”的“间隔法”非常不实用，因为出土的陶器、谷物、木头等物品并非随新王的即位而改变。再者，从某下层取出的样品并非肯定代表这一层的年代。比如：做棺材的木料可能在过去就已经准备好，并非在死者去世的那年砍伐的；因此它的碳-14数据就不能视为它隶属的那个文化层。

    《蒋文》的结论是，“工程”所谓的“多学科研究”的创造，主要还是用非文字证据的研究来解决西周年代问题。而考古地层的划分、出土陶器的分期以及年代误差有数百年的碳-14技术，对史前考古很有帮助，根本不能应用在需要具体年代要求的西周年表的研究方面。从学术角度看，《蒋文》对“工程”的批评有理有据，是非常客观的。“工程”所犯的错误，不是某个学术观点上的，而是方法上的，是致命的。

    在会议上，蒋祖棣向与会者(李学勤缺席，他在华盛顿会议之後便回国)口头介绍了他的文章的主要观点，并以自己带去的计算机和OxCaI序列程序当场对“工程”公布的碳-14的若干数据重新进行验算，结果明显与“工程”的有差距。仇士华对蒋祖棣提出的问题表示认同，并表示他个人也对《简本》的碳-14数捷持有疑问。张长寿也明确表示他个人同意蒋祖棣对于澧西考古分期的意见。在场的Shaughnessy教授为之大震，他拍案问道：既然如此，建立在碳-14与澧西考古的基础之上《西周年表》还站得住脚吗?参与会议的张立东(曾任“工程”的秘书，现为芝加哥大学的博士生)将会议内容介绍在国内的2002年5月24日的《中国文物报》上，其中对“工程”专家同意蒋祖棣的观点也做了的报道。报导立刻在国内学术界引起轩然大波。两个多月後，《中国文物报》—于-8月16日刊登了一篇题为《美国之行答问——关于“夏商周断代工程” 》的文章，是作者苏辉采访有关专家後写的，声明张立东的报导不符合事寅，“在关键环节上引起读者的误解”。如，依据苏辉，仇士华回忆在芝加哥的会议情况时说：“蒋祖棣要求当场用计算机验算数据，根据我提供的条件，结果发现只相差1年，我笑道：‘再算一遍有可能相差2年，但这都在误差允许的范围内，并不能说明什么问题。’”为了判断两种完全相反的报导孰是孰非，本文作者电话采访了几位当时参加芝加哥讨论会的海外学者。他们都说自己亲耳听到仇士华表示同意蒋祖棣的意见，而且还为仇世华的这种不严肃的态度感到惊讶。

    无独有偶，被《蒋文》批评的《97年澧西发掘报告》作者徐良高也有类似的表现。徐氏在最近的《中国文物报》上，申辩他在报告中使用的分期术语是“年代约相当于”某王时期，而《蒋文》在引用时，“均将之删去”。为此，笔者特地核实了《发掘报告》，原文是：“第一期：我们推定其年代为文王迁澧至武王伐纣，”第二期：我们推定其时代为西周初年武王至成王前期。故《蒋文》引文完全忠实于原文。从仇世华不论自己在讲座会上的发言，到徐良高不承认已经发表的文字，我们怀疑“工程”的一些主要学者的治学能力和态度。难怪有人在《文物报》的网站上评论说，“他们连最近发生的事情都说不清楚，对“三代”（夏商周）的事又怎能说清？”

思  考

    《蒋文》和张立东的报导在国内学术界引起了很大反响。《蒋文》也正在得到越来越多的海内外学者(包括“工程”的参加者)的支持。此文现已被中国考古学会会长、德高望重的考古学家宿白先生选入由文物出版社出版的《宿白先生八秩华诞纪念文集》之中。由于《蒋文》的批评，“工程”召开了数次有关西周年代的会议，商量如何回应，但至今未能拿出有效的方案。据国内知情者透露，在学术上，“工程”内部已无力回击《蒋文》的质疑(这一点我们已经可以从仇世华和徐良高的回应文字中看出来了)。其实，《简本》中的很多内容，并不是“工程”学者的共识，他们尤其对《西周年表》的制定持有异议。因此，在今年8月底(即芝加哥会议之后的4个月)召开的讨论《繁本》的专家会议上，不少与会学者采取了慎重的态度，他们公开要求对每个学术上有争论的问题都列出各种不同意见。由于学者们的这一主张，已经大致写好的、仅代表一家之言的《繁本》未能获得通过，致使“工程”自启动以来首次搁浅。笔者认为，“工程”学者这样的态度是负责的，符合学术规范的。

    平心而论，“工程”并非完全失败，参加“工程”的某些学者个人的研究就获得了很好的学术成果，如天文学家张培瑜等。但是，《简本》的确存有这样或那样的学术硬伤，在这些问题解决之前，其观点肯定不会被学术界普遍接受。还有，我们知道，包括埃及在内的古代文明的年代学，主要依靠国际学术界共同的努力而建立的。“工程”既然是一个与国防无关、难度很高的文化项目，就应该邀请国际有关专家参加，起码要听取他们的意见和建议。“工程”没有这样做，而是闭门造车。“拟合”的具体过程至今没有公开，所公布的碳-14数据也仅仅是一小部分公开。另外，对“工程”成果的审核，也没有任何海外的专家参加。如此搞出来的年表，怎么能让国际学术界接受？

    笔者仔细读过一些海外学者批评“工程”的文章，尤其是预书“工程”报告将会被国际学术界“斯成碎片”的Nivison教授的文章。他是美国漠学界研究中国古代年代学的领头人，并创立了一种新的年代学理论，前文提到的Shaughnessy就出於他的门下。笔者注意到，Nivison完全是从学术的角度讨论问题，在每一个问题上都有文献材料或者金文、·天文学的证据。他曾多次表示他的不同意见，但皆被“工程”忽略了。他指出，“工程”结论之所以站不住是因为“工程”在众多不同的解释或观点之中挑选一种而排除其他，而在排除时，没有提供足以另人信服的理由与证据。Nivison的感受并非孤立，最近日本学者成家彻郎发表的文章也谈到“工程”对他提出的疑问置之不理，成家并且以实际的例子指出“工程”学者“忽视不利的(文献)资料”，“改变不利的(金文)记述”等。也就是说，无论是身为华裔的蒋祖棣，还是美国的Nivison以及日本的成家彻郎，他们都是学者，都是本著严谨的治学态度来对待和衡量“工程”的结论的。虽然他们的批评使“工程”未能实现其原定的目标，但他们的工作是有积极意义的，体现了学术容不得半点虚假的态度。

        到目前为止，虽然《繁本》还没有通过，但《简本》已经在社会上造成了一定的影响。如，《夏商周年表》就已被《辞海》和一些字典采用，而且也要写入中、小学甚至大学课本。近期还有中学教师在出高考的模拟考题时，将《夏商周年表》视为惟一的正确答案。如果《繁本》的内容未经修改而强行通过，其错误的观点将被社会视为定论而全部接受，必将误导中华子弟。如果“工程”发扬严肃的治学态度，不仅不会改变人们已经形成的中华民族有著悠久文明的看法，而且有助于民族自豪感的提高。

治理学术不端刻不容缓

——评周长城疑似学术剽窃案

杨玉圣

抄袭剽窃、伪注、数据作假、学术荣誉注水等学术不端行为，愈演愈烈，已经凸显到了令人忍无可忍的地步。其一，疑似学术不端行为者，近年来越来越多，呈不断攀升之势。其二，几乎所有的名牌大学都无一幸免地陷入学术不端的泥潭，教人惋惜、尴尬和难堪，令整个高校学术共同体的形象蒙羞。其三，除了个别的例外情况，各大学几乎对于学术不端行为采取不作为、甚至是掩护和遮蔽的消极做法，大事化小，小事化了，已跌破学术伦理的底线。其四，学术不端行为的当事人，即使铁证如山，依然理不直而气壮，“老鼠喊打”，“恶人先告状”，颇有正不压邪之势。

以上四点，是就当前学界的总体情形而言的。不久前的天津外国语学院副教授沈履伟抄袭剽窃案是一个例子。武汉大学法学院副院长周长城教授涉嫌抄袭剽窃案，无非是提供了又一个莫可思议的鲜活个案而已。

《经济社会学》是周长城教授的主要代表作，无论是填表还是自我介绍，均是如此。但是，这本“21世纪社会学重点教材”，据学者评论，“全书共12章，约40万字，竟在10章、115页、436个段落发现抄袭他人著作，总字数接近10万字。”（详见张斌《学术规范的重要性————评武汉大学教授周长城的学术剽窃问题》，学术批评网2005年9月19日）其实，还在七个月前，相关的批评文章即已上网，但无论是当事人周教授还是周教授所任职的武汉大学，均采取了视而不见的立场，“任凭风吹雨打，我自巍然不动。”直到9月15日，王进等七位武汉大学社会学系的教授、副教授联名就周教授的抄袭剽窃问题向该校党政领导和全校教师发出公开信，这一并不复杂的学术事件才艰难地浮出水面。随着《新京报》的长篇深度报道（2005年10月14日），周长城案终于开始进入公众视野。

周长城教授认为这不是学术事件，因为他认为这是由于有人想反对他做法学院副院长和即将独立出来的社会学系的系主任，他还认为他的书的问题没有批评文章所说的那么严重，并有他的书是教材等说辞。

面对张斌的批评文章以及王进等七位教授、副教授的公开信，无论武汉大学法学院和武汉大学校方的主观意图如何，但客观上久拖未决，客观上给人以掩护家丑的印象。本来，面对公开的批评，有关方面应当对疑似剽窃问题加以认真调查。如果疑似剽窃的指控不足以成立，那么就理应还周教授以学术清白，并对批评者采取反批评乃至法律手段。如果周教授万一不幸被确诊为抄袭剽窃者，那么就应该按照教育部《关于加强学术道德建设的若干意见》和《高等学校哲学社会科学研究学术规范（试行）》有关规定，加以严肃处理。正如武汉大学党委书记顾海良教授去年11月在教育部社政司主办的“全国高校学术规范与学风建设论坛”所作的重要报告——《学术规范与学术道德：他律与自律》所指出的：“加强学术规范不仅要成为学术界的一种强势舆论，而且要有针对性地对当下学术失范现象给予根本性的制止。治理当下学术界的学术失范现象，是实施学术规范的第一步，也是加强学术规范制度建设的基础工程。”顾书记在报告中曾特别提到“应重点加以制止”的“学术规范建设的大敌”，如学术成果的粗制滥造、学术成果的低水平重复、学术成果东拼西凑、隐匿学术源流、抄袭剽窃他人的学术成果、抄袭国外学术成果的核心观点（见《社会科学论坛》2005年第1期）。对照这位周姓武大法学院副院长的《经济社会学》，顾书记的上述批评真可谓点穴到位、切中时弊了。

很可能，正因为校方的无所作为，周教授才可以无所畏惧。于是，周教授自我辩解说“张斌的文章大多数名不副实，有很多是不成立的”，其根据之一是《经济社会学》“是一本教材，显然不能写成专著那样”。可是，教材就可以把别人的成果抄袭成自己的吗？请不要忘记：退一步，即使《经济社会学》是“教材”，但这本书的封面、扉页和版权页上都是明明白白地印着“周长城著”的字样。这位周教授居然还强硬地表示：“我在《经济社会学》中是严格按照APA的格式和标准来做的。严格来讲，里面有一些不规范，这一点我承认，但不属于剽窃。”我不晓得这位从华中科技大学的副教授被作为人才引进到武汉大学做教授、现在名头很大的武大学者，是真的不懂“APA的格式和标准”还是故意玷污APA（美国心理学会）的格式和标准？试想：一本40万字的《经济社会学》，不用说抄袭了10万字，哪怕是抄袭了1万字，如果还是“学高为师、身正为范”的大学教授的话，也是无颜面对同行和读者的。除了这位武大的教授外，还有人见过比这更拙劣、更滑稽的辩词吗？

针对张斌的批评，这位武大的法学院副院长还莫名其妙地表白：“早期的论文中，我承认有学术不规范的地方，但是，那时我还是讲师，[19]98年以后才被提为教授，以现在的标准来评判过去的论文也不见得合适，因为那个时候很多人写论文都不规范，就是学术杂志本身也不明白学术规范是怎样的。”但周副院长恰恰忘记了这样一个基本事实：他的这些“还是讲师”时写“有学术不规范的地方”（实际上是大量抄袭剽窃他人成果）的“早期的论文”，在他当了五年教授后出版的《经济社会学》这样一本自称“对经济社会学的发展历史、基本概念及理论体系进行了系统的梳理，并应用社会学的研究方法对相关主题进行了深刻细致的分析”的代表作中，问题依然严重存在，因为他自称的那些“有学术不规范的地方”又原文照搬进了《经济社会学》。其区别在于、也仅仅在于：写作和发表“有学术不规范的地方”的“早期的论文”的时候，周长城先生“还是讲师”；写作和出版同样“有学术不规范的地方”的《经济社会学》的时候，当初“还是讲师”的周长城先生不仅“被提为教授”，而且还贵为武汉大学这所名牌大学的法学院副院长了，并且还是一系列学术荣誉和社会荣誉头衔的拥有者——联合国开发署（UNDP）项目技术顾问、教育部人文社会科学重大攻关项目首席专家、湖北省第九届政协委员、湖北省政协经济委员会委员、武汉市人民政府参事、武汉市社会学会副会长、九三学社湖北省政法经济委员会主任、九三学社湖北省委员会委员、九三学社武汉大学委员会文理支社主委、湖北省社会主义学院客座教授。

周长城教授质疑说：“没有找到张斌这个人，怎么进行调查？”我很纳闷：这真的是个问题吗？如果周教授觉得是个问题，那么我们不妨看看北京大学英语系是怎么解决这个问题的：当钟山虎先生2005年1月2日在学术批评网批评北大英语系副教授黄宗英博士《艾略特——不灭的诗魂》“基本上直接剽窃自彼得·阿克罗伊德著《艾略特传》（刘长缨、张筱强翻译），一些在国内不大可能查找的注释直接剽窃自《艾略特传》的英文原著”后，立即引起该系领导班子的高度重视，随即委托系内同事进行技术性初查。1月6日，系主任致信英语系全体同事和同学，告知系里对此案“正在审处”。2月3日，系主任致信学院领导，说明黄宗英“有重大剽窃嫌疑，应立即进行正式的查处”，核查程序正式启动。19日，系主任建议“在学术小组的领导下，认定其中的事实，并评估其对英语系可能造成的危害”。此后，核查组在黄宗英自查的基础上，对其1999-2003年底的著作、论文进行仔细调查，并提供评价报告。5月21日，北大英语系系务会和系学术小组联席会议就黄宗英剽窃行为的性质进行讨论，并以无记名投票表决的方式就其定性意见和处理意向达成决议，28日，英语系专业学科全体教授会议对上述决议进行无记名投票表决。该决议的结论是：“黄宗英2004年2月18日提交的《自查报告》系统地否认了1999年到2003年间他所发表的著作中大量存在的剽窃情节，与事实明显不符。英语系系务会、系学术小组、英语专业学科教授会议均认为，黄宗英严重违反《北京大学教师学术道德规范》，剽窃行为特别严重，应予以解聘。”对黄宗英抄袭案的查处，不知能否为周长城教授的问题提供一个答案？

周长城教授在接受记者采访时要求：“如果他们真的指控我剽窃，应当由学校出面，组织北大、清华、社科院专家来认定，而不是由他们几个反对我做法学院副院长的当事人说了算。”应该说，这个要求并不过分，不但合乎情理，而且实施起来也没有什么障碍。那么，为什么武汉大学就不能满足自己的一个教授如此朴素的愿望和要求呢？

周长城教授还相当自信地表示：“我为什么这么长时间没有站出来发表任何意见？就是因为这个事情不是一个纯粹的学术批评，而是涉及到权力之争、利益分配等问题。这个问题暴露得越充分越好，自然有人会出来评价，有些人将被订在历史的耻辱柱上，由后人来评说”。与周教授从事社会学的教学与研究的背景不同，我本人二十五年来一直是学历史、教历史、搞历史的，因此对历史一直抱持敬畏之心。恕我直言，周教授在历史老人面前大约还是显得太过年轻、过于轻率、也自信过头了。就平常心而论，像周教授遭遇的这样一个疑似抄袭剽窃的学术案，恐怕既不用“由后人来评说”，也不用担保“将被钉在历史的耻辱柱上”，因为历史是自己写的，学者的历史就是靠自己的言传身教（包括著作和论文）而写的。

作为学者，活在当下，认真做人，踏实为学，写好自己的个体史，难道不更真切、也更重要吗？

2005年10月13日

杨玉圣：学术批评网创办人暨主持人、中国政法大学教授

 

Oct 27, 2005

HK stocks end down 0.5 pct, CCB flat

HONG KONG, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Hong Kong stocks closed down 0.53 percent on Thursday, with China Construction Bank (0939.HK: Quote, Profile, Research) settling unchanged at HK$2.35 after its trading debut.

The benchmark Hang Seng index ended down 77.08 points at 14,381.06, wiping out Wednesday's 0.23 percent gain.

 

Oct 27, 2005

HK stocks open up 0.12 pct, CCB up 1.06 pct in debut

HONG KONG, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Hong Kong stocks opened slightly higher on Thursday, after a weak Wall Street and with China Construction Bank (0939.HK: Quote, Profile, Research) gaining 1.06 percent in its trading debut to HK$2.375.

The benchmark Hang Seng index opened up 0.12 percent at 14,475.66 points. 

Oct 22, 2005

Temasek fails to raise investment in CCB-sources

HONG KONG, Oct 22 (Reuters) - The Hong Kong stock exchange has refused to let Singapore's Temasek buy more shares in China Construction Bank's IPO because shares for institutional investors are in short supply, sources close to the deal said.

The Hong Kong stock exchange declined to comment on Saturday.

Temasek already owns 5.1 percent of China Construction Bank (CCB), which is due to begin trading on the exchange on Thursday. It is the world's largest initial public offering in four years, raising US$8 billion.

Temasek, an investment arm of the Singapore government, requested several weeks ago to double its investment in the bank to US$2 billion, the sources said.

CCB, which operates China's second-largest branch network and has 145 million active retail accounts, attracted orders for about 10 times more shares than were on offer as investors clamoured for a piece of China's economic boom.

CCB sold 26.486 billion shares, or 12 percent of its enlarged share capital, at HK$2.35 a share, near the top end of an indicated price range.

The retail portion was lifted to 7.5 percent from 5 percent following strong demand. Institutional investors placed orders worth around HK$60 billion (US$7.7 billion), sources said.

 

Oct 21, 2005

CCB shares trade up 1.28 pct in grey market

HONG KONG, Oct 21 (Reuters) - Five million shares in China Construction Bank (0939.HK: Quote, Profile, Research) traded at HK$2.38 apiece in the grey market on Friday, ahead of their US$8 billion Hong Kong debut next week, according to electronic trading network Instinet.

The deal represents a mere 1.28 percent gain from the firm's IPO price and could indicate a lacklustre debut when the stock begins trading in Hong Kong on Oct. 27, fund managers said.

After attracting US$80 billion worth of orders, the country's third-largest bank sold 26.486 billion shares, or 12 percent of its enlarged share capital at HK$2.35 each, almost the top of an indicated range of HK$1.90-$2.40.

The offering was the world's largest IPO in four years.

Market sources said some big institutional buyers were allocated about 80 percent of their orders, which could cap demand in the secondary market.

Investors seeking ways to tap China's strong economic growth are also wary about the near-term outlook for global equities markets amid fears of higher inflation and interest rates.

China Construction Bank's offering would be expanded to US$9.2 billion after a 15 percent overallotment option is exercised.

CCB [CCB.UL] shares were priced at 1.96 times book value or 13 times 2005 earnings of HK$0.18 each -- a discount to smaller rival Bank of Communications (BoCom) (3328.HK: Quote, Profile, Research).

Shanghai-based BoCom trades at about 2.2 times book or 19.7 times forward earnings.

 

Oct 19, 2005

CCB's IPO over 40 times subscribed by retail investors

HONG KONG, Oct 19 (Reuters) - China Construction Bank (0939.HK: Quote, Profile, Research)[CCB.UL] will increase the retail portion of its US$8 billion IPO to 7.5 percent instead of an expected 10 percent after attracting lower-than-expected retail orders, people involved in the deal said on Wednesday.

CCB has attracted orders of about HK$140 billion or over 40 times the shares initially earmarked for retail investors -- less than the 50 to 60 times level estimated by Hong Kong brokerages.

Demand for the offering has been strong as Construction Bank is the first among China's "Big Four" state-owned bank to go public. But a demanding valuation plus a weak stock market have put off some smaller investors.

Hong Kong stocks closed at their lowest level in over three months on Wednesday, falling 1.5 percent, after strong U.S. inflation data renewed worries about further interest rates rises.

Construction Bank lifted its IPO price range by about 6 percent to HK$1.90 to HK$2.40, or 1.7 to 2 times book value on Oct. 10.

Oct 19, 2005

UPDATE 1-China's CCB lashes out at U.S. SEC chairman

Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:14 AM ET

(Recasts, adds comments from CCB's statement, details)

By Tamora Vidaillet and Daisy Ku

BEIJING/HONG KONG, Oct 19 (Reuters) - China Construction Bank, which is launching the world's biggest stock offering in four years, lashed out at the top U.S. securities regulator on Wednesday for his recent remarks on its listing preparations.

Construction Bank (0939.HK: Quote, Profile, Research), which is raising up to $8.15 billion in its IPO this month, said Oct. 16 comments by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox were "inappropriate" and "irresponsible."

Cox, speaking on the sidelines of a Group of 20 meeting in Xianghe last weekend, raised questions as to why Construction Bank did not list on the New York Stock Exchange.

"I think the answer is because it couldn't meet the NYSE regulatory requirements," he said.

"As a result, some of the questions that are being asked ... about the health of CCB's balance sheet, about management, and what percentage of its loans will becoming non-performing loom large and the question is where will it be in a year," he said.

Construction Bank said it had never applied to list in the United States.

"Whether or not we met regulatory standards of another country is irrelevant as we chose to list in Hong Kong," China's third-largest lender said in a statement on its Web site.

Demand for the offering, scheduled to begin trading on Oct. 27, has been strong as Construction Bank is the first among China's "Big Four" state-owned banks to go public.

Hong Kong brokerages expect Construction Bank to double the retail portion of its huge IPO to 10 percent, or 2.64 billion shares, as they estimate the deal has attracted over 50 times more shares initially earmarked for small investors.

Construction Bank opened its IPO on Friday to local retail investors, who have until Wednesday noon to apply for the shares.

"We estimate CCB's offering to be 50 to 60 times oversubscribed by retail investors. It's unlikely that the deal will hit the 100-times mark after CCB revised its indicative price range," said Tony Leung, chief operating officer at Sun Hung Kai Securities.

If the retail portion is doubled to 10 percent, it could be worth as much as HK$6.34 billion ($812 million). If retail investors apply for 100 times the shares earmarked for them, the retail portion rises to 20 percent.

But Construction Bank lifted its IPO price range by about 6 percent to HK$1.90-HK$2.40, or 1.7 to 2 times book value, after attracting strong demand from institutional investors, and those higher prices have put off some smaller investors.

"Compared with BoCom, investors seem less excited this time with a more demanding valuation and a higher margin financing cost," said Stephen Tse, a senior research analyst at Phillip Securities.

Bank of Communications (BoCom) (3328.HK: Quote, Profile, Research), the first Chinese bank listed overseas, had attracted orders for 205 times the shares initially on offer to retail buyers in one of the most popular Hong Kong deals that tied up US$19.6 billion.

The Shanghai-based bank raised US$2.16 billion after selling shares at 1.7 times book.

If the deal prices at the top of its range, it will be the world's biggest IPO since Kraft Foods (KFT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) raised $8.7 billion in Jnue 2001, according to market data provider Dealogic.

Construction Bank and underwriters China International Capital Corp. (CICC), Morgan Stanely (MWD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Credit Suisse First Boston will price the deal early on Thursday after the institutional book closes around 5 a.m. Hong Kong time.

(US$1=HK$7.8)

Oct 18, 2005

CCB likely to double retail tranche of its IPO

Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:40 PM ET

 

HONG KONG, Oct 19 (Reuters) - Hong Kong brokerages expect China Construction Bank (0939.HK: Quote, Profile, Research) to double the retail portion of its huge IPO to 10 percent as they estimate the deal has attracted over 50 times more shares initially earmarked for small investors.

CCB, the first among the "Big Four" state-owned bank to go public, opened its IPO worth as much as US$8.15 billion on Friday to local retail investors, who have until Wednesday noon to apply for the shares.

"We estimate CCB's offering to be 50 to 60 times oversubscribed by retail investors. It's unlikely that the deal will hit the 100-times mark after CCB revised its indicative price range," said Tony Leung, chief operating officer at Sun Hung Kai Securities.

CCB lifted its IPO price range by about 6 percent to between HK$1.90 and HK$2.40, or 1.7 to 2 times book value, after attracting strong demand from institutional investors.

CCB and its underwriters -- China International Capital Corp. (CICC), Morgan Stanely (MWD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Credit Suisse First Boston, will price the deal early on Thursday after the institutional book closes around 5 a.m. Hong Kong time.

The Beijing-based bank is selling 1.32 billion shares, or 5 percent of the IPO, to retail investors.

This portion, worth as much as HK$3.168 billion ($406 million), will be lifted to 10 percent of the offering when retail investors apply for 50 times the shares earmarked for them and to 20 percent if it top 100 times.

Hot IPOs can be massively oversubscribed, tying up billions of dollars of applicants' funds.

"Compared with BoCom, investors seem less excited this time with a more demanding valuation and a higher margin financing cost," said Stephen Tse, a senior research analyst at Phillip Securities.

Bank of Communications (BoCom) (3328.HK: Quote, Profile, Research), the first Chinese bank listed overseas, had attracted orders for 205 times the shares initially on offer to retail buyers in one of the most popular Hong Kong deals that tied up US$19.6 billion.

The Shanghai-based bank raised US$2.16 billion after selling shares at 1.7 times book.

Link REIT, a property trust offered by the Hong Kong government, hit a record by drawing applications worth over $36 billion last year before it was cancelled.

Denway Motors (0203.HK: Quote, Profile, Research), which went public in 1993, pulled retail orders worth $30.6 billion.

(US$1=HK$7.8)

Oct 14, 2005 HK shares end off as CCB IPO, rate hike fears loom Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:07 AM ET

(Adds Friday close, comment, detail)

 

HONG KONG, Oct 14 (Reuters) - Hong Kong shares ended over 100
points, or almost one percent, lower on Friday with many
investors sidelined ahead of the release of U.S. inflation data
due later in the day, expected to raise the likelihood of another
rise in interest rates.

 

A lot of market liquidity is also expected to be soaked up by
the huge initial public offering from China Construction Bank
[CCB.UL] (CCB), which opened to retail investors on Friday with
order books set to close on Oct. 19.

 

CCB is due to raise as much as $8.15 billion in what is set
to be the world's largest IPO this year.

 

"Interbank rates have firmed recently because of the CCB IPO
and that was already negative for the stock market in that
liquidity has been drying up," said Philip Chan, head of research
at Capital Securities.

 

The one-month interbank rate rose to 4.41 percent on Friday
from 4.29 percent a week ago.

 

Hong Kong's blue-chip Hang Seng Index closed 0.93
percent, or 135.95 points, lower at 14,485.88. Turnover increased
to HK$21.86 billion (US$2.80 billion) from HK$16.26 billion on
Thursday.

 

Investors were also sidelined ahead of key U.S. inflation
data.

 

"It is an important indicator for future interest rate
moves," said Herbert Lau, research director at Celestial Asia
Securities. "A higher than expected inflation figure may deepen
investor worries over further interest rate hikes, which will hit
the market as a whole."

 

According to analysts polled by Reuters, U.S. consumer prices
likely rose in September due to a surge in energy prices after a
pair of powerful hurricanes hammered the oil-producing U.S. Gulf
region. Economists polled by Reuters on average expected that the
Consumer Price Index likely climbed 0.9 percent last month
following August's 0.5 percent increase.

 

Oct 13, 2005

 

China Construction Bank to launch IPO

BEIJING - Shares in China Construction Bank (CCB) will start being traded in Hong Kong on October 27 following the bank's global launch of this year's biggest initial public offering (IPO), according to a leading financial newspaper. The IPO may reach US$7.7 billion, the newspaper reported.

CCB has been declining to comment, but media reports about its impending overseas market listing abound. The October 10 edition of China Securities Journal, run by Xinhua News Agency, described the bank's listing details, saying the shares will be

priced in a range of HK$1.80-2.25 and that the CCB share trading number on the Hong Kong stock exchange will be 0939.

The CCB IPO - expected to raise US$6.1-$7.7 billion - will also be the biggest-ever of any Chinese enterprise, eclipsing another mainland bank, Bank of Communications, which offered shares at 1.6 times book value in its US$1.9 billion IPO last June.

The paper reported that CCB board chairman Guo Shuqing was busy launching his bank's road show for institutional investors in leading US and European financial hubs ahead of the bank's retail share sale. Citing sources familiar with the CCB move, the paper said that shares for institutional investors, accounting for 95% of the bank's planned total, have been fully booked. "Considering the hot market response, the CCB may price its shares at the upper end of the range." Investment bankers for the deal include Credit Suisse First Boston, China International Capital Corporation and Morgan Stanley.

Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting called by CCB to launch the marketing roadshow, Colin Lam, vice chairman of Hong Kong property developer Henderson Land, said that chairman Lee Shau-Kee plans to buy US$200 million worth of CCB shares. Cheng Yu-tung, chairman of local property giant New World Development, also signaled his intention to invest about US$200 million in the bank. He said the decision was made after ascertaining that CCB's thorny bad debt problem can hopefully be solved.

Foreign investments in CCB have attracted great attention in recent months. Bank of America, a "strategic CCB investor," has already poured an investment of US$2.5 billion into the bank and said it would invest another US$500 million to maintain its 9% stake in CCB when it is listed. The total investment of Temasek Holdings Ptd Ltd, the investment arm of the Singaporean government, would reach US$2.47 billion for a 5.1% stake, according to Securities Journal.

Foreign banks are making strategic investments in order to gain a foothold in the fast-growing and increasingly competitive Chinese banking market. In China, authorities have been encouraging Chinese banks to seek foreign partnerships in order to build up their capital and improve management before China fully opens its banking industry to foreign competition in late 2006. Current limits cap equity stakes in a Chinese bank by any one foreign institution at 20%, with total foreign holdings limited to a maximum of 25%. Those limits are apparently aimed at preserving state control of major lenders, industry observers say.

Just before the CCB roadshow, the China Banking Regulatory Commission called a meeting on the corporate governance of large banks. The CCB is China's biggest property lender. "When big banks go public, it should be a key goal for them to maximize their market value," said Liu Mingkang, the country's top banking regulator. "In their management, [the banks] should thoroughly understand how to balance credit risks, market risks and yields."

China's banks have long struggled with severe debt problems, a major hangover from the country's central planning days when easy credit was granted without concern about repayment of the loans. CCB would be the first of China's "big four" state-owned banks - which includes the CCB, the Bank of China, the Agricultural Bank of China and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China - to list shares overseas. In December 2003, the CCB and Bank of China received US$22.5 billion each from the central government to tidy up their balance sheets.

Regulators hope that pushing state banks to go public will bring greater transparency to the sector. In 2004, CCB's pre-tax profits reached 50.22 billion yuan (US$6.19 billion). Its capital adequacy ratio, a measure of available capital in proportion to outstanding loans, reached 11.29% - significantly above the international 8% requirement.

(Asia Pulse/XIC)

 

 

 

Oct. 11, 2005

China Construction Bank IPO seen priced at premium

By Daisy Ku

Updated: 5:33 p.m. ET Oct. 11, 2005

HONG KONG - China Construction Bank (CCB) , preparing what is expected to be the world's largest IPO this year worth as much as $8.15 billion, looks like it could be priced at a premium to other Asian banks outside China and Japan after raising its target price range.

The IPO, which would be China's largest ever, is expected to generate heavy demand as many investors regard Beijing-based CCB as a proxy for China's fast growing economy. It is the first among the "Big Four" state-owned banks to go public.

At this newly revised price, CCB is offering 26.486 billion shares, or 12 percent of its enlarged share capital, at about 1.66 to 2 times forward book value, or 10.5 to 13.3 times expected 2005 earnings per share of HK$0.18 each.

That book value multiple, which is higher than the earlier indicated range of 1.59 to 1.9 times 2005 book, is still at a discount to number-five mainland lender Bank of Communications , whose shares trade at about 2.2 times.

But as so many investors want a piece of CCB, it is likely the bank would price the deal towards the high end of the revised range, according to sources.

"CCB decided to lift the price range ... due to strong investor demand. The institutional book has been well over five times covered," one source said.

CCB has generated orders for all 95 percent of its shares earmarked for big investors on Oct. 5, the first day of book building.

HEADING TO MARKET

"More often than not, raising your price target means the road show has been successful and that institutional investors want to buy a little bit more than expected," said Francis Gaskins, president of IPODesktop.com, an IPO research firm, speaking of the marketing effort.

"It's a very good sign for the company."

The country's top property lender is set to price the deal on Oct. 19, ahead of a listing on Oct. 27.

The retail portion of the deal, which is set to open on Friday, will be expanded to 20 percent of the deal from 5 percent if it is more than 100 times subscribed.

If priced at the top of the target range, CCB would be valued at a premium to Asian banks outside China and Japan, which on average trade at 1.67 times book and 12.9 times forward earnings.

Shares in BoCom, the only Chinese bank with an overseas listing, have surged over 30 percent since their June listing. The Shanghai-based bank raised $2.16 billion by offering its shares at about 1.7 value, or 14.5 times forward earnings.

CCB, which plans a dividend payout of 35 percent to 45 percent, has IPO commitments totalling $1.5 billion from strategic investors Bank of America Corp. and Singapore's Temasek Holdings.

CCB's bad loan ratio has fallen to 3.9 percent, or 92.8 billion yuan, from 17 percent in 2002, thanks to Beijing's capital injections. The average nonperforming loan ratio was 4.4 percent for mainland-listed banks in 2004.

But government measures to rein in growth are causing an uptick in nonperforming loans.

The ratio of nonperforming loans of CCB's corporate loans to new customers made since 2001 rose to 2.36 percent in mid-2005, from 2.12 percent in 2004 and 0.67 percent in 2003.

Morgan Stanley, China International Capital Corp. and Credit Suisse First Boston are the joint underwriters for the deal. (US$1=HK$7.8)