I think this is going to be a good debate...
I as a investing public will go with Jimmy Ho as noone can reinvent when the playing field is not level and when quality of listings are just not there...
Disgraced Shareholder of SGX
GG
Dear Members(Public),
Please read this letter & the earlier letter by our President Jimmy Ho.
Let us have your views on the state of affairs on the trading floor.
We want to hear from all of you, including those earning $400k a month
and "a few remisiers earning more than S$100,000 a month".
Do you agree or disagree with the views expressed by both writers.
Send your contributions to natarajan@amfraser.com.sgfor me to
compile and share with all our members.
Rajan
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
It's not a 'quality market' for retail investors
12 Nov 2014
I REFER to the recent article, "Share traders calling it a day as market volumes dries up" (BT, Oct 23), in which our stock market was described by some as a "quality market". Unfortunately, retail investors would beg to differ. There are various reasons behind the current malaise.
One common grouse centres around the dominance of algo traders who employ sophisticated computer programs to trade the markets, making it difficult for retail investors to buy and sell. There is also some talk that the lunch break, which the local market used to enjoy for decades, was unilaterally removed (despite vehement opposition from other stakeholders) to reduce the daily programming required by these traders. Bid sizes were slashed to razor-thin levels to suit their trading style. This has affected retail traders tremendously as they now find it difficult to profit from minor fluctuations and they have voted to stay away.
We have misfocused marketing. Every now and then, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) comes out with sophisticated products, like the American Depository Receipts (ADR) and Extended Settlement (ES) contracts, to lure retail investors as if the poor participation was due to inadequate product offerings. In fact, all that the Exchange needs to do now is to revive the basic "plain vanilla" market. The solution does not lie with promoting or introducing sophisticated products.
Singapore is hardly an ideal market for fund-raising, despite claims to the contrary. How can the funding supply be of long-term value when retail investors get hurt investing in the stock market for both IPOs and in routine trading? A case in point is the recent listing of EMAS Offshore, listed at S$1.21 on Oct 8. It was last traded at S$0.74 - a whopping drop of 38 per cent after only four weeks of trading.
Our stock market is not properly regulated. Stockmarket regulation is a delicate balancing task. One must allow normal fluctuations in the market, brought about by much needed speculators. At the same time, it is also important to pre-empt and curb wild gyrations that may result eventually in a crisis. To stay at either extreme of the regulatory regime will not help the market. Constantly querying minor price fluctuations will kill off market momentum and drive away the much sought after liquidity.
We harbour the wrong mindset that speculation in a stock market is undesirable. This has led to the recent proposed introduction of collateral requirements, minimum share pricing initiative (which may not address the fundamental weakness inherent in the stocks) and a shortened settlement period. We believe these initiatives, if implemented, would further suppress any remaining meagre interest from retail investors. Like any other market, a little speculative spark is necessary to provide the much sought after liquidity that a vibrant market needs. Yet we are introducing initiatives to do just the opposite.
We have disproportionate regulation for the sake of the Exchange's operational convenience. For example, even for innocent mistakes that have no directional impact on the share price, there is a penalty of S$1,000 for accidental overselling that leads to settlement failures. Despite appeals for its removal, this overkill measure remains to this day.
The above factors, though not exhaustive, have contributed significantly towards the declining interest in our stock market over the years. Yet the public is told that market volume is not a good gauge of market quality. It makes one wonder what exactly constitutes a "quality market". We submit that the proof of the pudding is really in the eating. If it is really of good quality, retail investors will flock back without any cajoling from the Exchange. Sadly, this is yet to happen.
Jimmy Ho Kwok Hoong
President
The Society of Remisiers (Singapore)
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Remisiers should stop complaining
Comments
Share
12 Nov5:50 AM
I REFER to the article, "Share traders calling it a day as market volume dries up" (BT, Oct 23). It is true that trading volume on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) has trended lower for a couple of years now; figures released by SGX bear this out. The financial performance of broking houses shows a similar trend. It is also undeniable that remisiers who are self-employed have seen their take-home pay reduced as a consequence.
However, I am intrigued as to how the figure of net income of S$6,000 to S$8,000 a decade ago was derived. Similarly, how did the figure of S$1,000 average net commission come from? Were these figures just plucked from the air? Or perhaps, as Kishore Rochey stated, he heard it on the grapevine? One local broking house recently stated the average gross commission was around S$5,000. A more reliable data set - say, from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) - would give us a better picture of the state of affairs.
In any profession or trade, there is a wide range of remuneration, from the very high to the very low. Just as there may be some remisiers earning S$1,000 a month, there remain a sizeable number who earn more than S$10,000 a month and who are not complaining. One local broking house has its top remisier earning gross commissions of more than S$400,000 a month and a few remisiers earning more than S$100,000 a month. If the average pay of remisiers is S$1,000 a month, more would have left the industry rather than just 400 in the last two years (down from 4,300 to 3,900, according to the BT article).
It is not possible to survive on S$1,000 a month, bearing in mind that if the remisier cannot meet the quota set by his broking house, he would have to pay a penalty of about S$8,000 per annum. That would leave him with only S$4,000 to survive for the year - which would not even cover his expenses to run his remisier business, considering bad debts he may have to absorb in contra losses if his clients cannot pay. He would be better off leaving the industry and staying at home. Thus, if the figure of S$1,000 a month is to be believed, more than 50 per cent or about 2,150 remisiers would have left the industry by now.
Mr Rochey made a very telling remark: "You need a whole new breed of investors (more like speculators to me) to come in and create the volume who didn't experience the pain of 2008 and 2009." In effect, he is saying that the market needs "new blood" as there is no more "old blood" to be sucked by the ever preying market vultures. It is not easy to make money in the stock market - or any market, for that matter. If it is so easy, anyone could quit his job and become a full-time trader or speculator.
In this context, the stock market must be seen as a place to invest and not as a place where one can blindly speculate or punt to make a fast buck. As Warren Buffet says, "if you want to gamble or speculate, go to a casino". It is unethical and irresponsible to want to make the stock market a place for speculation. No doubt, investing involves a bit of speculating but it has to be "informed" risk-taking whereby all due diligence has been exercised about the listed entity, An exchange can very well function if you take out the speculative element. By emphasising the speculative element, the remisier is exposing the retail client to heightened risks.
I now refer to another article in BT on the same day: "SGX: Market is stronger, even if not more active". SGX is to be lauded for taking initial steps to create a better-quality market. There is still a long way to go, but at least it has taken baby steps and is heading in the right direction. It would be a retrograde step if it heeds the voices of those who want to turn the Exchange into a casino. Then, remisiers could very well be called "junket operators" rather than remisiers.
Recently, your writer R Sivanithy also wrote that "everyone has a role to play" to make the markets more lively. To blame the SGX or the CEO of SGX (as one online petition tries to do) is not only unreasonable but ethically and morally reprehensible. A good workman will know how to carve out a piece of art from any type and shape of wood, but all a bad workman does is blame the wood or the tools he uses. Eventually, the bad workman will not be around anymore.
Times have changed. The good old days where "phones rang non-stop and off the hook and (you) held them till your ears got hot" are gone. They will never come back; there is no point in being nostalgic about it. In the past, there was no Internet broking, no smartphones, and retail investors had no choice but to call up their remisiers for news. Now, retail investors are more tech-savvy and have access to more and better news and other trading platforms. In fact, some are even more knowledgeable than their remisiers.
The world does not owe anyone a living, including remisiers. Remisiers need to reinvent themselves if they want to survive. They cannot stay as just order takers and hope for the phones to ring non-stop again.
Vincent Khoo
Homepage
PR Newswire
System not working just take it as market trading sideways loh. So long as they dun delete my CDP records.