Initially say expected to resume at 2pm, then say no. Then say will resume 4pm, now say no again.
Nuff said.
Just wondering if the "settlement date" would be adjusted accordingly?
pity, the I.T. folks there. must be undergoing tremendous stress now.
The handling of announcement by SGX, imo, was very badly managed.
Making 2 announcements of the reopening hours, then not holding up to their commitment and also mentioning the outage was not a "major problem" shows bad handling on the crisis. While it may be normal for outages, the handling of the issue/crisis falls severely short. This is something many organisations have to learn: the handling of a problem and relaying to the public.
CPF board learnt this the hard way in the introduction of the basic sum in 2013 and has improved its communication channels tremendously since. Fast forward to 2016, I am surprised this "communication problem" is still prevalent among Singapore organisations with local roots (both private and public sector).
(14-07-2016, 04:29 PM)Boon Wrote: [ -> ]Just wondering if the "settlement date" would be adjusted accordingly?
It depends on whether order matching was affected or not.
I once worked at a program trading outfit overseas. They released tens of thousands of orders during an index arb event. Turned out the sequence number of the internal messaging was only a signed 16bit number. An order number that hit 32767, then proceeded to rollover. This resulted in thousands of mismatched orders versus executions. Trying to recover this before the end of day was a horrendous affair - especially with people breathing down your back.
Multiply this by about 100 times for an exchange, and you can see why SGX would suspend operations at the slightest hint of a order matching issue and why, if SGX asked its members to verify order matching, it would take much longer than expected. Even if there was no actual mismatch that happened!
