ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

(23-10-2014, 08:58 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]

(23-10-2014, 06:37 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]CF,

The bond market is a sucker game and trust me its going to hit the fence for retailers soon.

I stand by my above opinion. I have been warning my buddies who are plying their trade in the high net worth industry to be extremely carefully when peddling the instruments to their clients. The risks are high that a junk bond crisis that has never been heard of is brewing silently in Singapore already. When retailers gain access, I m afraid it will be ITE - another CLOB (where quality of listings are so shitty that there was no real fundamental investments to talk about), S Chip and Junior resources con game that is already under way.

Fixed income provides a false hope that it is less risky and private banks are extending credit very freely on names that sometimes are fundamentally questionable.

Anyway, if you can't make your equity market attractive to have quality listings, speculation alongside with fundamental investments will ebb. That is the tough reality.

What is the main issue here - casino / bucket shop mentality. This mentality is deeply rooted with SGX IMHO.

GG

GG,

I have no strong opinion on the quality of SGX listed bonds. They are highlighted to support my view on liquidity and participation in SGX, which is opposing to your and BlueKelah's view.

BTW, FCL's $600 million issue of PS, is one of the listed bonds mentioned.

Dear CF,

Neither do i have strong views on asset classes.

To me, from my extensive reading, bonds are very risky consider this stage of the global economic cycle where rates are poised to rise.

From the flow of bonds that I m noticing, Tom, Dick, Beng, Seng and Lians are all rushing to tap the market... It is flashing amber. While I have access to new issues, I have chosen to just be a by-stander.

As for resources issue - these are high risks companies that traditionally have their audience in resources rich countries like Australia or Canada. While I m not faulting SGX for diversifying, Singapore simply does not have the expertise to understand the real fundamentals of these high risks ventures apart from the trading of these commodities.

Frankly, has anyone ask oneself - why did Linc for example decided to delist from ASX and relist on SGX. To me, Linc cannot convince ASX experts and decided to head to SGX in hope to have a better future. However, in the first place, Linc's fundamentals must have turned off the experts on ASX.

Then, we had the unresolved penny trio saga. All these companies were trying to convince the public with their resources foray. Unfortunately, their forays are none other than the ultra high risks junior miners that are plentiful and readily available to investing public on ASX.

I seriously dunno but it pains me to pen my above observations. In my days as a remiser and till now as an investor, I have always been cautioning my friends and my ex-clients about the risks of investments. The need to find the right GODfather which is tough and extremely difficult. Many have tried but many have failed as they are none other than a passing darling making a lot for themselves and leaving behind a trail of destruction post the bursting of the stocks' bubble - Informatics, Raffles Edu, Ezra...

To me Dr Wee of UOB, FF Wong of Boustead, CK Ow of St****** and Sp Ship are rare GODfathers that have proven track record that many faithfuls can testify. More importantly, they have ride the various cycles both domestically and globally and they never once ask public to buy their shares. These GODfathers are fast reaching their legacy age and we need renewal. SGX's actions IMHO doesn't help the course of such renewal.

GG

Everyone knows SGX is hardup for listing company , they just take in S chips and many others without really going through due diligence . What have SGX done for the investors who were conned by the S chips ?
Just look at these IPOs , how many of them still above water after listing ?
Why not even a big PRC bank chose to list on SGX ?
I am not a victim of S chip but feel unfair for the victims.

(23-10-2014, 09:24 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]

(23-10-2014, 08:58 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]

(23-10-2014, 06:37 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]CF,

The bond market is a sucker game and trust me its going to hit the fence for retailers soon.

I stand by my above opinion. I have been warning my buddies who are plying their trade in the high net worth industry to be extremely carefully when peddling the instruments to their clients. The risks are high that a junk bond crisis that has never been heard of is brewing silently in Singapore already. When retailers gain access, I m afraid it will be ITE - another CLOB (where quality of listings are so shitty that there was no real fundamental investments to talk about), S Chip and Junior resources con game that is already under way.

Fixed income provides a false hope that it is less risky and private banks are extending credit very freely on names that sometimes are fundamentally questionable.

Anyway, if you can't make your equity market attractive to have quality listings, speculation alongside with fundamental investments will ebb. That is the tough reality.

What is the main issue here - casino / bucket shop mentality. This mentality is deeply rooted with SGX IMHO.

GG

GG,

I have no strong opinion on the quality of SGX listed bonds. They are highlighted to support my view on liquidity and participation in SGX, which is opposing to your and BlueKelah's view.

BTW, FCL's $600 million issue of PS, is one of the listed bonds mentioned.

Dear CF,

Neither do i have strong views on asset classes.

To me, from my extensive reading, bonds are very risky consider this stage of the global economic cycle where rates are poised to rise.

From the flow of bonds that I m noticing, Tom, Dick, Beng, Seng and Lians are all rushing to tap the market... It is flashing amber. While I have access to new issues, I have chosen to just be a by-stander.

As for resources issue - these are high risks companies that traditionally have their audience in resources rich countries like Australia or Canada. While I m not faulting SGX for diversifying, Singapore simply does not have the expertise to understand the real fundamentals of these high risks ventures apart from the trading of these commodities.

Frankly, has anyone ask oneself - why did Linc for example decided to delist from ASX and relist on SGX. To me, Linc cannot convince ASX experts and decided to head to SGX in hope to have a better future. However, in the first place, Linc's fundamentals must have turned off the experts on ASX.

Then, we had the unresolved penny trio saga. All these companies were trying to convince the public with their resources foray. Unfortunately, their forays are none other than the ultra high risks junior miners that are plentiful and readily available to investing public on ASX.

I seriously dunno but it pains me to pen my above observations. In my days as a remiser and till now as an investor, I have always been cautioning my friends and my ex-clients about the risks of investments. The need to find the right GODfather which is tough and extremely difficult. Many have tried but many have failed as they are none other than a passing darling making a lot for themselves and leaving behind a trail of destruction post the bursting of the stocks' bubble - Informatics, Raffles Edu, Ezra...

To me Dr Wee of UOB, FF Wong of Boustead, CK Ow of St****** and Sp Ship are rare GODfathers that have proven track record that many faithfuls can testify. More importantly, they have ride the various cycles both domestically and globally and they never once ask public to buy their shares. These GODfathers are fast reaching their legacy age and we need renewal. SGX's actions IMHO doesn't help the course of such renewal.

GG

GG,

Thank you for this insightful article which help me to believe that there is actually "hope" for us in SGX.

I got scarred from the S chip - CAO and was really the better part of the 80% who always lose out in the market. This forum has helped me to believe in the market again and hopefully to be able to stay within the other camp of 20% minorities who has the temperament to gain something out of the market.

Now, having a good fundamental can make a stock good.. but never great. It is only with a great captain or Godfather then, can it become a great stock. From your posting so far and also our moderator's good work, I can safely say that at least we have good owners ( Wee, Ow, FF Wong). it is not so lao kui, for us to rely only on USA's market to search for well managed equities.

Also I happened to have a look at linc energy 's IPO profile before its listing on SGX. It is not managing their budget well while at ASX. Very speculative stock at best and we can only hope for it to strike gold in the oil field.

Looking forward to you posting more future articles and also continue to provide with your witty commentary.

Cheers,
Belg

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/companie...t-sgxs-job

Instilling market confidence is not just SGX's job
By
R Sivanithy
SingSph0606.jpg PHOTO: SPH
24 Oct5:50 AM
FOR much of this year, it has been fashionable to heap blame on Singapore Exchange (SGX) for the local stock market's twin woes of poor liquidity and low volatility. Granted, markets all over the world have experienced a drop in equity trading volume because central banks have reduced their

SGX should fix real problems, not miss the woods for the trees
24 Oct5:50 AM

I REFER to the report "Share traders calling it a day as market volume dries up" (BT, Oct 23). I have been in this industry for 20 years as a trading representative and I haven't seen such a lack of interest among the investing public for such a prolonged period.

The Singapore Exchange (SGX) view that "it cannot jeopardise long-term market quality for short-term liquidity droughts" is like missing the woods for the trees. What the Singapore market is severely lacking now is confidence. We urgently need to bring in better quality companies to market to spark investing interest. At the moment, some companies are being listed with only placement shares, without any shares being offered to the public. It begs one to wonder - why list in the first place?

Following the penny stock collapse in October 2013, SGX has moved to tighten regulations, such as requiring brokerages to collect collateral and shortening the settlement period from three days to two days. This is akin to closing the gate after the horse has bolted. What we need now is better surveillance and effective penalties to maintain the integrity of the market.

The recent introduction of "trade with caution" for large price movements does not really provide any useful information to market participants. The larger issue at hand is - the market operator and regulator should be separate as there is clearly a conflict of interest.

SGX needs to create a proper platform for the investing public and broking community to express their views. At the moment, it is done on an ad hoc basis and some measures are introduced without due consultation. For instance, the removal of lunch breaks for remisiers a few years ago was done without any consideration for the other market players. It was said then that market volumes would improve but obviously that hasn't happened, and in fact, volumes are now much worse.

In short, what we need now is adequate consultation with all interested market players, with due consideration given to their views, to take our Singapore market back to its glory days.

S Nallakaruppan

'' the market operator and regulator should be separate as there is clearly a conflict of interest.''
SGX just wants to make all the money they wish , they are not aware of this ?

(24-10-2014, 09:51 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]'' the market operator and regulator should be separate as there is clearly a conflict of interest.''
SGX just wants to make all the money they wish , they are not aware of this ?

Didn't SGX/MAS aware and proposals already are raised for public consultation??

---
SGX will establish three independent committees: the Listings Advisory Committee, the Listings Disciplinary Committee and the Listings Appeals Committee. These will further strengthen SGX's listings process, improve transparency of its disciplinary process and enhance SGX's ability to enforce listing rules.
---
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/busi...92928.html

(24-10-2014, 10:04 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-10-2014, 09:51 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]'' the market operator and regulator should be separate as there is clearly a conflict of interest.''
SGX just wants to make all the money they wish , they are not aware of this ?

Didn't SGX/MAS aware and proposals already are raised for public consultation??

---
SGX will establish three independent committees: the Listings Advisory Committee, the Listings Disciplinary Committee and the Listings Appeals Committee. These will further strengthen SGX's listings process, improve transparency of its disciplinary process and enhance SGX's ability to enforce listing rules.
---
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/busi...92928.html

After so many years of feedbacks from the public , then aware and talk about strengthening SGX's listings process, improve transparency of its disciplinary process and enhance SGX's ability to enforce listing rules.

(24-10-2014, 04:25 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-10-2014, 10:04 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-10-2014, 09:51 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]'' the market operator and regulator should be separate as there is clearly a conflict of interest.''
SGX just wants to make all the money they wish , they are not aware of this ?

Didn't SGX/MAS aware and proposals already are raised for public consultation??

---
SGX will establish three independent committees: the Listings Advisory Committee, the Listings Disciplinary Committee and the Listings Appeals Committee. These will further strengthen SGX's listings process, improve transparency of its disciplinary process and enhance SGX's ability to enforce listing rules.
---
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/busi...92928.html

After so many years of feedbacks from the public , then aware and talk about strengthening SGX's listings process, improve transparency of its disciplinary process and enhance SGX's ability to enforce listing rules.

Better late than never, right? Is SGX a slow-leaner. I agree.

SGX shouldn't bear all the blames, MAS should bear part of it.

(24-10-2014, 05:04 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-10-2014, 04:25 PM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-10-2014, 10:04 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]

(24-10-2014, 09:51 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ]'' the market operator and regulator should be separate as there is clearly a conflict of interest.''
SGX just wants to make all the money they wish , they are not aware of this ?

Didn't SGX/MAS aware and proposals already are raised for public consultation??

---
SGX will establish three independent committees: the Listings Advisory Committee, the Listings Disciplinary Committee and the Listings Appeals Committee. These will further strengthen SGX's listings process, improve transparency of its disciplinary process and enhance SGX's ability to enforce listing rules.
---
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/busi...92928.html

After so many years of feedbacks from the public , then aware and talk about strengthening SGX's listings process, improve transparency of its disciplinary process and enhance SGX's ability to enforce listing rules.

Better late than never, right? Is SGX a slow-leaner. I agree.

SGX shouldn't bear all the blames, MAS should bear part of it.

But World Class !