I doubt Popular management will be involve in market manipulation.
Why would one want to risk one's reputation when you already have more wealth than most of us?
^^ Charlie munger calls it hubris. My guess is stock manipulation, especially small caps, happen more than we know. Problem is it is difficult to prove unless people in the know sabo you. Case in point is serial system a decade ago.
(03-04-2013, 10:12 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]^^ Charlie munger calls it hubris. My guess is stock manipulation, especially small caps, happen more than we know. Problem is it is difficult to prove unless people in the know sabo you. Case in point is serial system a decade ago.
I had followed serial system case a decade ago. It is not a case on stock manipulation, but a case to mislead regulator on party in concert in the GO.
Do you think he was trying to ramp up the stock but end up being saboed to do a MGO? Or he all the while wanted to do a GO with financing ready?
I use it as case in point because USUALLY these kind of things are not easily proven or detectable. Without looking at a decade ago, even the married deals in recent FNN fight is interesting
(03-04-2013, 10:37 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think he was trying to ramp up the stock but end up being saboed to do a MGO? Or he all the while wanted to do a GO with financing ready?
I use it as case in point because USUALLY these kind of things are not easily proven or detectable. Without looking at a decade ago, even the married deals in recent FNN fight is interesting
In a battle to gain control within founders, co-founder Eddie Chng's friend acquired shares to support him, and indirectly financed by him. It should be taken as party in concert, and thus breached the Take-over Code. Eddie paid a heavy penalty with his 24.9% of Serial System stake, since he was not financially ready for the GO
A sell and buy back should not taken as manipulation automatically, unless buyer and seller are from same person or persons in concert.
There was never meant to be a GO since he was not financially ready. Why he used his friends as proxy is up to individuals' interpretation
SIC announcements on the saga can be found at the bottom of this page:
http://www.mas.gov.sg/sic
Point is it is inappropriate to say he was misleading in the GO because GO was not even part of the plan.
(03-04-2013, 10:23 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I had followed serial system case a decade ago. It is not a case on stock manipulation, but a case to mislead regulator on party in concert in the GO.
I am not insinuating anything about popular chairman buying and selling since it seems he has a habit of doing so. I'm just saying market manipulation is not as rare as people thinks, nor bribery in Singapore.
Like I said it is difficult to prove manipulation or acting in concert. Past 5 years in Singapore I think only Pheim was charged when so many hedge funds blossomed.
Sorry I digress and will bow out
(04-04-2013, 12:01 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]There was never meant to be a GO since he was not financially ready. Why he used his friends as proxy is up to individuals' interpretation
SIC announcements on the saga can be found at the bottom of this page: http://www.mas.gov.sg/sic
Point is it is inappropriate to say he was misleading in the GO because GO was not even part of the plan.
(03-04-2013, 10:23 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I had followed serial system case a decade ago. It is not a case on stock manipulation, but a case to mislead regulator on party in concert in the GO.
I am not insinuating anything about popular chairman buying and selling since it seems he has a habit of doing so. I'm just saying market manipulation is not as rare as people thinks, nor bribery in Singapore.
Like I said it is difficult to prove manipulation or acting in concert. Past 5 years in Singapore I think only Pheim was charged when so many hedge funds blossomed.
Sorry I digress and will bow out
Eddie Chng had no intention for a GO. He breached the rule, for an edge in the controlling battle among founders. He tried to mislead regulator on his compliance, but he failed, and admit guilty later.
I always cheekily tag a friend of mine as "loanshark", with his behavior of claiming big favour over small help. It doesn't mean he should be charged on court as illegal lender.
I enjoy the discussion, and bow out.
Mr Chou Cheng Ngok buys again - 489,000 ordinary shares @ SGD 142,299. Must be still attractively prized.
And I was waiting for it to drop below its book value to add more to my portfolio.
(Vested)
Increase in shareholding in a subsidiary
More on
A&I
It is an E-learning software company.
The Education Bureau of Hong Kong has recently awarded a contract for A&I to publish e-textbook on a subject under the e-Textbook Market Development Scheme (EMADS). This wholly-owned subsidiary will provide more resources and synergies for PeHK to grow its e-learning business.
Sounds good for Popular E-learning biz?
Education is always a good business especially when Govt supports.