China Sky Chemical Fibre

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#91
SGX should just accuse them of misappropriating the company funds.
See if they will take action to sue SGX for defamation.

I am quite sure they will just hide in China.
Reply
#92
wow...this article makes it appear that SGX has been shortchanging retail investors for such a long time without requiring personal undertaking from directors, without an in-house special inestigative/audit team, etc..
Reply
#93
pianist Wrote:SGX has been shortchanging retail investors for such a long time

SGX has never been run for the retail investor. But it is a good thing that Philip Fong chose to stick it to SGX. Maybe the embarrassment of being called out by a partner of a law firm will make SGX finally do something about this foreign-company-listed-on-SGX debacle. Certainly the public mood is souring on SGX's effectiveness as a regulator.

I personally think HKSE's requirement for directors to be personally liable for ensuring compliance with the Listing Manual is a great idea for SGX to adopt, though for real effectiveness it has to be part of the Companies Act (so that a breach would be a criminal offence making the director liable for jail time) rather than merely a "rule" of the Listing Manual (which can be ignored since the only punishment is a public censure and a monetary fine).

Alternatively, if SGX wants to let "the market" decide then it should implement a system to make short-selling easy. Then short-sellers will have a financial incentive to expose the fraudulent companies, and the marketplace will become self-policing. Right now, short-selling is inconvenient and expensive, so frauds can stay around for a long time, and they do a lot of damage when they finally blow up. With easier short-selling, price discovery is faster, and frauds get taken out more quickly so less damage is done.

Imagine if all the S-chip scandals had been exposed at half their peak prices - much less shareholder wealth would have been destroyed. Plus, with smaller blow-ups, the damage to SGX's reputation as a listing venue would have been reduced, and better valuations would have been awarded to the "real" companies. We might not have lost companies like Want Want, Sihuan and Man Wah (who all left SGX and re-listed in HK at twice their SGX valuations - or even higher).
Reply
#94
(27-01-2012, 10:24 PM)pianist Wrote: wow...this article makes it appear that SGX has been shortchanging retail investors for such a long time without requiring personal undertaking from directors, without an in-house special inestigative/audit team, etc..

I kind of disagreed from a cheeky perspective. Singaporeans and PR are daft to invest in them in the the first place despite so many cases.

You went in with your eyes open. ^^

Just my Diary
corylogics.blogspot.com/


Reply
#95
(30-01-2012, 10:16 AM)Behappyalways Wrote: From TheEdge Singapore....

Sunny Hui CFO at China Sky, was just as surprised as everyone else over the U-turn that SGX made. "I don't know what happened on Monday," he says, referring to the day of the court hearing. "We need to talk to our lawyer about the next step." But Hui says SGX's change of heart wasn't because China Sky had softened its own stance ahead of the court date. "We didn't contact them," Hui says. "Our stand is the same."

ROFL....
Basically, SGX is telling all the S-chip that it is ok to ignore the directives. The damages that were resulted from this call off were unmeasurable.
Reply
#96
Afraid of Chinaman .
Reply
#97
Can be the script for a new movie,

"Toothless Tiger, Prancing Dragon"

or more accurately,

"Toothless Lion, Prancing Dragon"

Hey! Sounds like CNY, what with Lion Dance and Dragon Dance, some more Year of Dragon! Tongue
Luck & Fortune Favours those who are Prepared & Decisive when Opportunity Knocks
------------ 知己知彼 ,百战不殆 ;不知彼 ,不知己 ,每战必殆 ------------
Reply
#98
The S-chips that had dutifully following the directive to appoint independent auditors must be banging their balls now.
China Sky has indeed broken new ground in corporate governance.

It's time for SGX to give up its regulatory role.
Reply
#99
To look at it in the correct perspective. What's the fish? A little red dot trying to tell Companies in China what to do? Even some rogue Chinese Companies listed in Wall Street, just smiling all the way to the banks. i believe even the PRC's STOCK EXCHANGE REGULATOR has a hard time trying to regulate their own Chinese Companies. Another words, "Caveat Emptor" always apply to your investment, no matter what.
i know i just lost 30k+ in S chip in 2011. And the company is suspended.
WB:-

1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.

Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.

NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Reply
Latest - CEO has resigned claiming health reason.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)