(31-12-2015, 11:27 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 10:12 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 09:45 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ]Why is our MAS with so many top talents not doing anything to salvage the situation , unwilling or incapable ?
It depends on what is the expected "salvation"? If the "salvation" is to intervene the market, as China CSRC has done on china market, than probably MAS/SGX didn't do much, which is a blessing. If the "salvation" is to improve the older weaker processes, and structures, than probably SGX/MAS have done quite a few as in the link below, among others. Haven't they?
SGX introduces 3 new listing committees
http://www.straitstimes.com/business/com...committees
(not vested)
Although they have done quite a few, but still cannot attract good companies to list here and also unable to stop companies being delisted .
US Fed has definitely done a lot since 2007, with trillion of tax payers $, and three rounds of QE, but its economic recovery still not clearly seen by all. If the US, been the world's largest national economy, has relied on best effort, than what is SGX? All are part of the larger global eco-system, which best effort doesn't equal to success with desired timeline. Do they?
(31-12-2015, 03:04 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 11:27 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 10:12 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 09:45 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ]Why is our MAS with so many top talents not doing anything to salvage the situation , unwilling or incapable ?
It depends on what is the expected "salvation"? If the "salvation" is to intervene the market, as China CSRC has done on china market, than probably MAS/SGX didn't do much, which is a blessing. If the "salvation" is to improve the older weaker processes, and structures, than probably SGX/MAS have done quite a few as in the link below, among others. Haven't they?
SGX introduces 3 new listing committees
http://www.straitstimes.com/business/com...committees
(not vested)
Although they have done quite a few, but still cannot attract good companies to list here and also unable to stop companies being delisted .
US Fed has definitely done a lot since 2007, with trillion of tax payers $, and three rounds of QE, but its economic recovery still not clearly seen by all. If the US, been the world's largest national economy, has relied on best effort, than what is SGX? All are part of the larger global eco-system, which best effort doesn't equal to success with desired timeline. Do they?
Why HKSE doing so well , daily trade vol of 100B HK$ is so common for them , they can also attract so many Blue chip IPO then SGX , and why they are not part of the larger global eco-system ?
(31-12-2015, 03:10 PM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 03:04 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 11:27 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 10:12 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 09:45 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ]Why is our MAS with so many top talents not doing anything to salvage the situation , unwilling or incapable ?
It depends on what is the expected "salvation"? If the "salvation" is to intervene the market, as China CSRC has done on china market, than probably MAS/SGX didn't do much, which is a blessing. If the "salvation" is to improve the older weaker processes, and structures, than probably SGX/MAS have done quite a few as in the link below, among others. Haven't they?
SGX introduces 3 new listing committees
http://www.straitstimes.com/business/com...committees
(not vested)
Although they have done quite a few, but still cannot attract good companies to list here and also unable to stop companies being delisted .
US Fed has definitely done a lot since 2007, with trillion of tax payers $, and three rounds of QE, but its economic recovery still not clearly seen by all. If the US, been the world's largest national economy, has relied on best effort, than what is SGX? All are part of the larger global eco-system, which best effort doesn't equal to success with desired timeline. Do they?
Why HKSE doing so well , daily trade vol of 100B HK$ is so common for them , they can also attract so many Blue chip IPO then SGX , and why they are not part of the larger global eco-system ?
Why China (the same for other EMs) had high growth, while US was suffering during the same period from 2007-2014? Probably the same answer to both questions.
It has becomes a vicious cycle for SGX now.
When they open the flood gate for rotten S-chip, it deteriorate the quality of the whole exchange. Better quality companies wouldn't want to choose SGX simply because their share price can get depressed valuation easier than being appreciated. And when SGX cannot attract quality listing and with the need to "grow" they have no choice but the allow more rotten eggs to come here. I think SGX has more or less given up on this and is focusing on other products.
SGX has a regulatory function but I think they simply based it on their listing rules. Many coy can play around this by making whatever "business decisions" that suits them. When they breach the listing rules, they only get a warning. When they didn't breach the listing rules, SGX cannot touch them at all. SGX invited wolves into the houses and entitled them to all the good food in the fridges. Now there are so many wolves in our exchange even if SGX wants to invite them out also difficult.
Also the introduction of MTP really shows how lousy our SGX really is since they cannot no longer differentiate between "value" and "price".
(31-12-2015, 03:48 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 03:10 PM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 03:04 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 11:27 AM)cfa Wrote: [ -> ] (31-12-2015, 10:12 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]It depends on what is the expected "salvation"? If the "salvation" is to intervene the market, as China CSRC has done on china market, than probably MAS/SGX didn't do much, which is a blessing. If the "salvation" is to improve the older weaker processes, and structures, than probably SGX/MAS have done quite a few as in the link below, among others. Haven't they?
SGX introduces 3 new listing committees
http://www.straitstimes.com/business/com...committees
(not vested)
Although they have done quite a few, but still cannot attract good companies to list here and also unable to stop companies being delisted .
US Fed has definitely done a lot since 2007, with trillion of tax payers $, and three rounds of QE, but its economic recovery still not clearly seen by all. If the US, been the world's largest national economy, has relied on best effort, than what is SGX? All are part of the larger global eco-system, which best effort doesn't equal to success with desired timeline. Do they? [emoji14]
Why HKSE doing so well , daily trade vol of 100B HK$ is so common for them , they can also attract so many Blue chip IPO then SGX , and why they are not part of the larger global eco-system ?
Why China (the same for other EMs) had high growth, while US was suffering during the same period from 2007-2014? Probably the same answer to both questions.
I would reckon its the low interest easy money from USA flowing to higher risk and higher yielding em markets.
However the tide has started reversing since China stock crash 2015 and should be quickening if rates continue to go up in the states. Bad news for em.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
I am against the change. Quarterly report is required, for a fast-moving biz environment today. The ”short-termism” is always there, with MAS disclosure-based regime in Singapore. Cost of compliance should be acceptable, since I have never seen company with significant expense in the compliance cost.
What do you think?
(not vested)
Singapore Exchange reviewing quarterly financial reporting rule
SINGAPORE (Jan 11): Singapore Exchange Ltd. ( Valuation: 2.10, Fundamental: 2.30) is reviewing a 13-year-old rule requiring listed companies to provide quarterly financial reports in light of moves by other regulatory jurisdictions including the U.K. to drop the practice.
“We are aware that there are strong proponents and arguments on both sides of the quarterly reporting debate,” SGX said in an e-mail Monday. “The arguments need to be viewed against a regulatory landscape that has changed since 2003. We will consult the public if there is to be any change in the listing rules.”
Companies with a market value of at least $75 million are currently required to provide quarterly financial reports.
Proponents of maintaining the rule argue that quarterly reports give more timely disclosure in volatile markets and instil financial discipline, said the bourse. Those calling for the scrapping of the requirement point to the risk of ”short-termism” that quarterly reporting may encourage as well as the cost of compliance, it added.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...rting-rule
SGX continues on their course to destroy market confidence.
Why not weekly or even monthly report?
If consolidated reports are yearly or semi-annually, will that defeat the purpose of quarterly reporting as a sort of go-in-between these time frames?
(11-01-2016, 04:18 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I am against the change. Quarterly report is required, for a fast-moving biz environment today. The ”short-termism” is always there, with MAS disclosure-based regime in Singapore. Cost of compliance should be acceptable, since I have never seen company with significant expense in the compliance cost.
What do you think?
(not vested)
Singapore Exchange reviewing quarterly financial reporting rule
SINGAPORE (Jan 11): Singapore Exchange Ltd. ( Valuation: 2.10, Fundamental: 2.30) is reviewing a 13-year-old rule requiring listed companies to provide quarterly financial reports in light of moves by other regulatory jurisdictions including the U.K. to drop the practice.
“We are aware that there are strong proponents and arguments on both sides of the quarterly reporting debate,” SGX said in an e-mail Monday. “The arguments need to be viewed against a regulatory landscape that has changed since 2003. We will consult the public if there is to be any change in the listing rules.”
Companies with a market value of at least $75 million are currently required to provide quarterly financial reports.
Proponents of maintaining the rule argue that quarterly reports give more timely disclosure in volatile markets and instil financial discipline, said the bourse. Those calling for the scrapping of the requirement point to the risk of ”short-termism” that quarterly reporting may encourage as well as the cost of compliance, it added.
http://www.theedgemarkets.com/sg/article...rting-rule
I suspect companies who push for removal is the very ones who likely need to spend a lot of their time decorating their numbers.
If they treat it is as part of business process management of their own company financials, the cost should be minimal.