DBS did an analysis on Ezion buying into Ocean Sky. Details of the article can be found
here
_______________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: This is not a buy or sell stock tip. Please do your own research.
Value investing blog:
http://valuestocksinvesting.blogspot.sg/
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Ezion_Me...eID=257948
http://infopub.sgx.com/Apps?A=COW_Corpor...&F=1012676
A lousy deal for Ocean sky
An 'in play' stock.....
Ocean Sky proposed to issue 440m shares at $0.108 and 165m share options at $0.108.
The 440m shares at current price meant that Ezion is at least $90m in the book.
When Ezion gets the 440m shares.......would they be tempted to take profit.......would you if you are them?
A bad deal for Ocean Sky..... Surprise that the price did not collapse meaning that it is very likely that it is .......hhmmm what word should I use......in play'......hee hee....who wants to hold a baby? kee chiu.............
TRADE WITH CARE
Does anyone notice the trio of linked stocks Ocean Sky, Charisma Energy and Ezion holdings today?
Something seems to be happening to Ocean Sky. Halted pending announcement and it is causing its linked stocks to drop.
SGX halt Ocean Sky but Gallant up 30% is allowed to fly even higher! Not sure who is regulating what its trying to regulate? Regulating fear and depressing market - if it works why not?
I just hope we are not bankrupt of idea?
(12-02-2014, 04:22 PM)ValueBeliever Wrote: [ -> ]SGX halt Ocean Sky but Gallant up 30% is allowed to fly even higher! Not sure who is regulating what its trying to regulate? Regulating fear and depressing market - if it works why not?
I just hope we are not bankrupt of idea?
Ocean Sky requested for a trading halt and hence trading was halted.
Why should SGX query Gallant since news of their development plans for Bintan was announced yesterday evening.
Maybe you should read the announcements.
I can't think of anything very big to be announced, unless maybe the Ezion deal with Ocean Sky has gone sour one way of another?
(12-02-2014, 05:37 PM)mulyc Wrote: [ -> ]I can't think of anything very big to be announced, unless maybe the Ezion deal with Ocean Sky has gone sour one way of another?
Bingo!! Ezion deal is terminated. Oh...no Sky is falling to the ocean. By the way, it seems like news of the termination is leaked out this morning..
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/Ezion_Up...eID=274380
This kind of counter still better than china man stock. At least the major shldrs are scouting for the best deal for themselves and hopefully also has a heart for the loyal shldrs.
I guess they are unfamiliar with offshore or port business? But they are good businessman. They never lost money and were generous in dishing out dividend to support the share price.
Since they didnt sell or buy - most likely new theme and players will have to come in to support the share price.
Not sure what is going to happen, so better be cautious even a 36% drop may not support the share price?
For China man stock, once dead means money lost forever from individual and the market.
Business Times
14 Feb 2014
Author
R. Sivanithy
IF anyone wanted an example of a stockmarket incident that perfectly highlights the deficiencies in existing surveillance arrangements and one that is crying out for greater official scrutiny all rolled into one, they need look no further than the crash in Ocean Sky International (OSI) shares on Wednesday.
Retail brokers and small investors are up in arms at the handling of this affair, and although these parties are not averse to occasional exaggeration, a close and objective examination of the sequence of events indicates their concerns this time are justified.
Offshore marine company Ezion Holdings had announced its intention to take over civil engineering/ property management firm OSI last September at 10.8 cents per share - an announcement that sent OSI's shares shooting up from around 20 cents the month before the announcement to a high of 45 cents shortly after.
There were several updates since then, the most recent of which was on Jan 30 to the effect that the parties were in the process of finalising the conditions necessary for the takeover, including preparation of a circular to shareholders.
This week, OSI's shares traded around 30 cents and started on Wednesday at 29 cents. Mid-morning that day, they suddenly came under tremendous pressure in high volume, quite naturally drawing a query from the Singapore Exchange (SGX). This was duly dispatched at 1.36pm.
This is all well and good, and would be familiar ground for most market observers. The problem is that - incredibly - SGX sent its standard template asking OSI to explain the substantial increase in its share price when it should have asked about the decrease.
Sixteen minutes later, at 1.52pm, possibly because it realised its error (though this is not explicitly stated), SGX issued a notice to ignore the previous query but did not mention anything else.
At 2pm, after the shares had collapsed nine cents or 31 per cent to 20 cents, OSI requested a trading halt pending release of an announcement.
At 2.07pm, seven minutes after the shares were suspended and 15 minutes after withdrawing its earlier query, SGX sent off its standard query template but with "decrease" mentioned in place of "increase". Some seven hours later, at 9.04pm, Ezion said in a filing that the deal had been terminated. This was followed a minute later by OSI filing the same announcement.
SGX's queries, including its blunder, raise questions over just how vigilant its surveillance really is, and highlights how far behind the curve it operates. Even if it had asked the right questions at 1.36pm, thus satisfying its brief as mainly a signaller of caution to the market, it would have made almost no difference - OSI's shares, at 21.5 cents at that time, had already crashed spectacularly.
Furthermore, the correctly worded query was issued seven minutes after the company suspended trading. So it carried no signalling or informational value whatsoever because nobody could have acted on it even if they had wanted to.
It is therefore difficult to refute the widely held belief that the exchange's archaic querying process as it stands today is weak and ineffective. Fortunately, the process is currently under review and proposals to raise the surveillance and querying bar were issued for public consultation last week.
If the exchange and regulators wish to redeem themselves, they should embark on a thorough investigation of the hurried sales which hit the market on Wednesday during the five hours of trading from 9am to 2pm.
Hopefully, when this is actually done, the findings will be divulged quickly. Wait too long and the incident will slip quietly into the annals of the local market's history - which is teeming with similar cases over the years that appear to have escaped official scrutiny.
Thank goodness we finally had a writer nailed the point. But who is the official. Not MAS? When gov behavior condone bad industry practice what more can we say of the country and its image it project to international investor. We used to have a larger following of corporate activities.
Since the standard does not exist anymore and its more lip service more talk that leads to vague secrecy, more people will avoid the Singapore market.
What has happened to the Goldman Sach case against those stock manipulator of Blumont, Asianons and LionGold. May be waiting for London court to point up more issue?