(05-11-2014, 05:05 PM)funman168 Wrote: [ -> ]Really shld wake up there idea, come out w crappy plans to kill off all the liquidity. Now platform become unstable due to add on their useless initiative!
This is the problem of constant practice of no accountability. Let's move on .
The Ministry of Finance and MAS should re-examine what they mentioned in the consultation paper "Review of Securities Market Structure and Practices" in Feb 2014:
"1.3 In addition, MAS and SGX reviewed SGX’s self-regulatory function
over the past year. The review concluded that there are sufficient measures in place to manage potential areas of conflicts. This was recognised in the November 2013 IMF report, which noted that “self-regulation by exchanges remains an integral part of the regulatory framework and is subject to effective supervision."
SGX should have an independent regulatory body to police the efficiency of its operations similar to LTA to monitoring the operations of ComfortDelgro and SMRT.
This is not the first time that SGX has experienced a breakdown and it is not as though its systems were overloaded given the current pathetic trading volumes.
Repeated trading breakdowns harm the reputation of Singapore as a financial centre and SGX should be fined heavily by an independent regulatory body should a breakdown occur again.
Would it be wrong to assume that SGX might have been cutting back on IT maintenance and other operational costs to offset the pressure from slowing revenue growth (similar to SMRT not spending sufficiently on maintenance)?
SGX's website has also experienced repeated downtime due to heavy traffic.
(05-11-2014, 07:15 PM)Gallen Wrote: [ -> ]The Ministry of Finance and MAS should re-examine what they mentioned in the consultation paper "Review of Securities Market Structure and Practices" in Feb 2014:
"1.3 In addition, MAS and SGX reviewed SGX’s self-regulatory function
over the past year. The review concluded that there are sufficient measures in place to manage potential areas of conflicts. This was recognised in the November 2013 IMF report, which noted that “self-regulation by exchanges remains an integral part of the regulatory framework and is subject to effective supervision."
SGX should have an independent regulatory body to police the efficiency of its operations similar to LTA to monitoring the operations of ComfortDelgro and SMRT.
This is not the first time that SGX has experienced a breakdown and it is not as though its systems were overloaded given the current pathetic trading volumes.
Repeated trading breakdowns harm the reputation of Singapore as a financial centre and SGX should be fined heavily by an independent regulatory body should a breakdown occur again.
Would it be wrong to assume that SGX might have been cutting back on IT maintenance and other operational costs to offset the pressure from slowing revenue growth (similar to SMRT not spending sufficiently on maintenance)?
SGX's website has also experienced repeated downtime due to heavy traffic.
It is a monopoly entity. Investors here who want to invest through SGX , need them more than they need the investors. This explains why they can afford to be slow learner.
(05-11-2014, 08:26 PM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ]It is a monopoly entity. Investors here who want to invest through SGX , need them more than they need the investors. This explains why they can afford to be slow learner.
Precisely why they need a kick up their backside
(05-11-2014, 09:11 PM)Gallen Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2014, 08:26 PM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ]It is a monopoly entity. Investors here who want to invest through SGX , need them more than they need the investors. This explains why they can afford to be slow learner.
Precisely why they need a kick up their backside
Yes, I reckon the best way is not to invest in SGX. There are many "real world-class" stock exchanges available elsewhere.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sing...54198.html
Signs that SGX is facing a tough business.
Given SGX's need for volume to drive profits, it is paramount for SGX to encourage trading. In my view, this can only be done with lower commission or the encouragement of the group of brokerages to remove their "nonsense" min commission rule.
Alternatively if SGX wants to encourage genuine retail participation (aka less speculative trading) to generate volume, it has to list companies that are not frauds or "brilliant in financial engineering". Otherwise, retailers will think the stock exchange is a rodeo town, aka gambling. Whenever, i talk to individuals and mention I invest. Within a few sentences, the word "invest" becomes "trade", similarly people recount to me the days they make losses on companies in the past due to speculation. One quote I will always rmb is this guy mentioning "many (SGX-listed) companies are listing papers for money and that's all they do"
To conclude, SGX has to either clean the companies it lists or try to lower commission to encourage trading. Depending on Vb members as a source of revenue definitely will not work.
The issue here is no longer about the commission.
In my opinion, SGX should change their address to Lor Halus...
i) mostly junks are floated - sellers of floaters win at the expense of buyers - POSH, Japfa...
ii) even when there are quality counters that are winners such as Talkmed, Starbursts etc... retail allocation is either zero or negligible.
iii) no lunch hours to increase buzz and treat humans like robots
iv) more rubbish and higher risks companies being floated like E&P
v) protracted investigation on decimated Msian Trios since Sept/Oct last year
Dunno How Much Rubbish is to come
Odd Lots
Disgraced Holder
GG
