If he is good he needs no one to defend him , and he also doesn't need to be so thick skin to hold on to this job and keep making mistakes.
I agree with GG , if he is good , head hunters will look for him and he can move to other exchange.
Why need to bear humiliations after his lousy performance ?
(04-12-2014, 07:53 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]Background story
TRADING DISRUPTIONS ON SINGAPORE EXCHANGE
Dec 3, 2014
Software glitch; length of disruption: 31/2 hours
Nov 5, 2014
Power supply issues; more than three hours
April 1, 2014
Hardware trouble; more than three hours
April 9, 2013
Technical glitch; three hours
Feb 5, 2007
Technical glitch; more than three hours
after 2007 disruptions they relocated, location shall remain secret. After they relocated things seems to be better.
Then according to industry knowledge quite recent like over a year ago many finance related market participants decided to host their services together with sgx if one looks at the outages timing seems there is some matching?
And according to even more insider info the building where they are located only that floor seems to be having issues the other tenants on other floors are not having the same issues.
bad luck or system overload?
(04-12-2014, 11:00 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ]If he is good he needs no one to defend him , and he also doesn't need to be so thick skin to hold on to this job and keep making mistakes.
I agree with GG , if he is good , head hunters will look for him and he can move to other exchange.
Why need to bear humiliations after his lousy performance ?
I have a different view. Why let him "escape" and run away from the messes. Let other do the clean-up for him, while he happily got all previous salary/bonus/share-option and walk away?
You are all too kind to him liao...
Personalities aside, I think there are hard truths out here:
i) lunch or no breaks has little bearings on trading volume. Frankly, lunch breaks are better as it allows all to have time to have a break to get away from markets to be human afterall and do whatever they want. Markets are stressful enough so there is always leeways to have a break and reboot;
ii) quality of listings and not quantity of listings matter. Investors education remains paramount but without quality, then in no time, investors with good educational background can't even demonstrate their ability to uncover good companies. I m one such disillusion investor and seriously I can't help to lament about the cons that I keep uncovering;
iii) accountability - moving on and remaining under investigation is not enough to console various vested interests... We had that infamous crash of penny stocks in 2013 and there remains no conclusion... while it affected the trios but there remains a cobweb of companies and many investors that are badly affected by the crash... I seriously don't want to sound like a old recorder... we need answers and we need them urgently
iv) leveling of playing field for bonds that are currently available to high net worth individuals... there has been a lot of talks but also no conclusions...
We don't need quantity of products that are not visible and accessible to retailers... we don't need product offerings riding on other exchange that are not relevant to us in a market place that has little geographical boundaries restrictions in this internet age. I hope I have aired my views clear...
GG
(04-12-2014, 11:08 AM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2014, 07:53 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]Background story
TRADING DISRUPTIONS ON SINGAPORE EXCHANGE
Dec 3, 2014
Software glitch; length of disruption: 31/2 hours
Nov 5, 2014
Power supply issues; more than three hours
April 1, 2014
Hardware trouble; more than three hours
April 9, 2013
Technical glitch; three hours
Feb 5, 2007
Technical glitch; more than three hours
after 2007 disruptions they relocated, location shall remain secret. After they relocated things seems to be better.
Then according to industry knowledge quite recent like over a year ago many finance related market participants decided to host their services together with sgx if one looks at the outages timing seems there is some matching?
And according to even more insider info the building where they are located only that floor seems to be having issues the other tenants on other floors are not having the same issues.
bad luck or system overload?
Mismatched KPIs.
As long as service resumes within 4 hours, they meet their KPI as far as disruptions are concerned. Nobody gets the sack, everyone keeps their jobs, get their salaries and better still, bonus and performance fees.. cos they meet KPI. Hell with the customer... not in the equation.
(04-12-2014, 11:10 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2014, 11:00 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ]If he is good he needs no one to defend him , and he also doesn't need to be so thick skin to hold on to this job and keep making mistakes.
I agree with GG , if he is good , head hunters will look for him and he can move to other exchange.
Why need to bear humiliations after his lousy performance ?
I have a different view. What let him "escape" and run away from the messes. Let other do the clean-up for him, while he happily got all previous salary/bonus/share-option and walk away?
You are all too kind to him liao...
Why still need to keep him to clean up all the messes when he had proven he couldn't ? Moreover Keeping rubbish is not cheap !
OK, let's do more fruitful exchanges of view.
(04-12-2014, 11:15 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]Personalities aside, I think there are hard truths out here:
i) lunch or no breaks has little bearings on trading volume. Frankly, lunch breaks are better as it allows all to have time to have a break to get away from markets to be human afterall and do whatever they want. Markets are stressful enough so there is always leeways to have a break and reboot;
Once upon a time, I was questioning on management decision on a cost cutting measure. It is a minor one, but an obvious one. The answer given was it was more of a clear signal, than a tangible result. I reckon the SGX lunch-break is one similar...
(04-12-2014, 11:15 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]ii) quality of listings and not quantity of listings matter. Investors education remains paramount but without quality, then in no time, investors with good educational background can't even demonstrate their ability to uncover good companies. I m one such disillusion investor and seriously I can't help to lament about the cons that I keep uncovering;
I agree with your view on the mess. What I have also observed are remedies installed to address it. Will the new remedies work? Well, it worked in SEHK, so should work here as well. Let's see
(04-12-2014, 11:15 AM)greengiraffe Wrote: [ -> ]iii) accountability - moving on and remaining under investigation is not enough to console various vested interests... We had that infamous crash of penny stocks in 2013 and there remains no conclusion... while it affected the trios but there remains a cobweb of companies and many investors that are badly affected by the crash... I seriously don't want to sound like a old recorder... we need answers and we need them urgently
iv) leveling of playing field for bonds that are currently available to high net worth individuals... there has been a lot of talks but also no conclusions...
We don't need quantity of products that are not visible and accessible to retailers... we don't need product offerings riding on other exchange that are not relevant to us in a market place that has little geographical boundaries restrictions in this internet age. I hope I have aired my views clear...
GG
I agree that the recent incidents should be accountable. Let's see the MAS regulatory action.
IMO, there are products for retail investors. They are also products mean for other market players e.g. Inst investors. Those groups have different needs e.g. retail investors need more protection, while inst investors need more choices...
IMHO he was hired to do M&A if you guys recall
Similarly the ex CEO of SMRT was a marketing gal
They are not ops people. To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. Fit job to right skill is the Directors' role.
(04-12-2014, 06:23 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]IMHO he was hired to do M&A if you guys recall
Yeah, he was the head of OMX, itself a merger of several exchanges. So, he did came in with a reputation for been the 'merger guy' although I don't recall whether he was EXPECTED to do M&As. That said, his only M&A attempt (ASX) failed terribly with the company footing the 20-30mil bill. I wonder whether his animal spirits will be stirred up again when the ASEAN link comes online in 2015..haha (that said, his contract seems to be up for renewal soon, so maybe he may not even get there)
Big Boys coming to town.
Intercontinental Exchange to list five futures contracts in S’pore next year
SINGAPORE — Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) will start its first five futures contracts to be listed and cleared in Singapore next year, including products on the Chinese currency, Brent crude and gold.
A mini contract on the European energy benchmark as well as products on the yuan, Chinese cotton and sugar will be cash settled, while a one-kilogramme gold contract will be physically settled, ICE said. Trade will start on March 17, subject to regulatory approval from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, it said yesterday.
http://www.todayonline.com/business/inte...-next-year