Summary for Second Round Online Feedback on HKSFA Rebranding

Following the town hall gathering on 21 March (please click the
link for the full minutes), a second round online consultation* was held between May 8 and 24, 2019.

59 eligible responses* were collected with over 80% of the respondents are supportive to the name change with two key points listed below. Opposition views are also shared below.

The major benefits of rebranding raised by the respondents include brand strengthening by the association with an international entity. For the contrarian views, the major concerns were the autonomy in advocacy area and the standing of HKSFA in the face of regulators. Both sides pursue the Society to fight for a representative seat in Legco.

Please find the summary below, as well as the full responses in no-name basis in the document at the bottom of this webpage.

If you are our Regular Member and would like to provide additional feedback to us, you can send an email to with your name and HKSFA membership ID. After verifying your identity as our Regular Members, your views will circulate further in no-name basis.

Summary for Second Round Online Feedback

1.    HKSFA’s Branding
  • Supportive views to rebranding:
    • Aligning our society with the CFA name reduces confusion outside of the CFA universe. The HKSFA name does not match with other CFA societies
    • Better brand recognition.
    • Stronger brand consistency.
    • Good to put emphasis on our connection with CFA Institute, as this will enhance the professional image of the society in Hong Kong. As for the concern on US-China trade war, it will be better for our association to obtain an image that we are not a local group but an international association serving the local society.
    • As long as we still retain our own autonomy and control of our direction & objectives, we should leverage on this brand change to shed off the old, traditional image that the HKSFA brand gives the public.
  • Opposition views to rebranding:
    • HKSFA will be negatively impacted by the rebranding. There is little to gain and much to lose by rebranding. The strong brand of "HKSFA" is very valuable and should be protected. "CFA Hong Kong" has negative value, will be viewed as a small branch of a US entity. 
2.    HKSFA’s standing in the face of regulators
  • Supportive views to rebranding:
    • HKSFA is not making significant impact in advocacy after so many years, in my view. It would benefit from being closely aligned to the CFA global family and utilise resources available to industry participants. I would have though(t) it would give us stronger standing in front of regulators.
    • Succeeding in pursuing a seat in LegCo and a pursuit of seat in regulator's committee should be top priority at the moment.
    • Should take this opportunity to make CFA a regulatory requirement for investment industry
  • Opposition views to rebranding:
    • Low level of representation in term of number of respondents (17 members) in the townhall.
    • The arguments about loss of local advocacy if the name is changed to CFA society HK feels like it could ring true. If the HK regulator wants input from CFA Society HK, wouldn't they be getting their views from a global society, not headquartered in HK. As such the local regulators might decide not to seek CFA Society HK for any opinion at all as it could be seen as non-local opinions
    •  Keep the name HKSFA as we are representing local society and are in a better position to speak in Legco and to local regulatory authorities.

1) The second consultation was conducted in survey sent to regular members in weekly edm during the period with the verification of member identity. In addition to the 59 responses, two responses are excluded because the respondents didn’t provide valid membership numbers for us to verify their identity.
2) Please refer to the below for the full responses and other responses received after the end of the second consultation.

Full Responses of the second round consultation View
Response(s) received after the end of the second round consultation (last updated: Jun 13, 2019) View