Sino Grandness

[Wildreamz]

Your analogy does not make sense.

Firstly, subscription agreement was a commitment with conditions layed out. The 61cents was not a valuation but a mutually commited price. The conditions of the original agreement contained no terms that allowed for adjustment of the price due to market volatility. Anyway market volatility has always been prevalent in the stock market ever since it was created.

Your analogy is as good as saying I bought Blumont a week before the crash but since I have not paid for the Buy Contract as the contra period is not due yet, I should be given the right to adjust down my price to the post crash price as I need to account to my family too.

Price integrity mechanics must be honored in the stock market. Will SGX allow such a deal to be approved? Will they approve the listing of shares done on a price that questions the price integrity of markets? Will this set a precedence for future questionable deals? Can the public also not honor their trades done on the market?

I hope the regulators will do something seriously. This is undermining the basic mechanics of the stock market.

Not vested. Not short. Shocked.

While I agree it is not an honourable thing to do. This is the real world, there is no honour to be found in cold hard business transaction. Even Warren Buffett took advantage of market volatility and buy cheap business at cut-throat price at times.

But that said. I am not sure if there is absolutely no term that allowed for change in placement price, for one thing, has anyone went to inspect the Subscription Agreement at 6 Battery Road?