Blumont

[Clement]

I agree with you on this. Each case will have to be looked at on a case by case basis. The more common experience in s-chips especially has been big plunge, then halt, then announcement of irregularities or poor results. It would be hard to argue that those announcements have no material impact. Furthermore increasing the number of such investigations will improve the risk for any potential violators of getting caught, thus reducing incentive for foul play.

I have seen "blames" on SGX on regulation, especially on S-Chips. SGX should bear part of the "blames", as the vetting body for listing applications. But is SGX bearing its fair share of the "blames"? May be not, IMO

SGX key roles are day-to-day supervision of market, regulation base on existing SGX Rules, and of course, the listing application base on Listing Manual.

The expectation on SGX, seems more of a private banker, than a regulating body, base on the "blames", IMO

Let's me borrow a term learned from Mr. specvestor, SGX has been a "kitchen sink", although SGX shouldn't be fully excused from the "blames"

On paper I agree with you. Investors are expected to bear risk and have their eyes open. No one was coerced into investing, trading or speculating. However, the current approach will frustrate the objective of greater retail participation. The problem is our regulators do not seem to be trying hard enough to fight the perception of a rigged market.