Blumont

[cyclone]

You might notice that moderator (and admin) were busy deleting inappropriate posts in this thread.

We will continue to moderate the thread. Please refrain from posting accusation without fact(s) or "cut and paste" them from nowhere.

Regards
Moderator

Dear Moderator,

Yes, I cut and paste because my English is poor. But my intention is to warn people and I did change the words "let this stock" to "xxx" and the sentence ends with a question mark. Is there accusation without facts? If yes, I'm sorry and I will not do it. And you can tell me directly and no need to "cut and paste" them from nowhere. We do not know what is SGX next step. From history, Jade is a good example.
I am not vested here. Are you vested here,Cityfarmer san?

In the post, it seemed a direct cut-and-paste, without any further comment. You might has the intention to warn, but it isn't read as so, IMO

Furthermore, the statement doesn't origin from fact, does it? May be a hearsay or rumor? from somewhere?

I appreciated the initiatives, especially the "xxx".

(not vested, but actively reading it due to moderator role, otherwise, I might just ignore it totally)

Dear forummers,

Please post based on facts, backed up by hard evidence. Please also understand the moderators role : to keep to forum running smoothly. For the role, they might need to delete some posts, warn users, etc.
Recently, about 1 week ago, VB was just served with a legal letter again, regarding defamatory posts. I think no need to refer which thread. So it is the third time now. I hope that all forummers can cooperate to keep the forum running smoothly. Thank you very much.

[Clement]

a lot of people kanna hit.....

in my view, SGX came in too late to deflate the bubble......without SIAS 'questioning', the bubble might have continue longer.....

but then SGX needs people to trade......

something is wrong some where.....

Why should SGX bites the hands that feed them ?

In US, there's the SEC and the respective stock exchanges.

In Singapore, there is the MAS and Securities Industry Council (SIC), on top of the only exchange, SGX

They have difference roles and functions, as stated in SFA, Company Act etc.

For some reason, even with all these regulators, it just seems that far too few people are convicted of trading on material non public information. This is despite frequent share price crashes on our exchange, right before the announcement of unfavorable news. I feel this is the largest impediment to retail confidence in our market.

[cfa]

What have they done to those S chips management who committed fraudulent and conned the investors monies ?

[specuvestor]

You might notice that moderator (and admin) were busy deleting inappropriate posts in this thread.

We will continue to moderate the thread. Please refrain from posting accusation without fact(s) or "cut and paste" them from nowhere.

Regards
Moderator

Dear Moderator,

Yes, I cut and paste because my English is poor. But my intention is to warn people and I did change the words "let this stock" to "xxx" and the sentence ends with a question mark. Is there accusation without facts? If yes, I'm sorry and I will not do it. And you can tell me directly and no need to "cut and paste" them from nowhere. We do not know what is SGX next step. From history, Jade is a good example.
I am not vested here. Are you vested here,Cityfarmer san?

In the post, it seemed a direct cut-and-paste, without any further comment. You might has the intention to warn, but it isn't read as so, IMO

Furthermore, the statement doesn't origin from fact, does it? May be a hearsay or rumor? from somewhere?

I appreciated the initiatives, especially the "xxx".

(not vested, but actively reading it due to moderator role, otherwise, I might just ignore it totally)

Dear forummers,

Please post based on facts, backed up by hard evidence. Please also understand the moderators role : to keep to forum running smoothly. For the role, they might need to delete some posts, warn users, etc.
Recently, about 1 week ago, VB was just served with a legal letter again, regarding defamatory posts. I think no need to refer which thread. So it is the third time now. I hope that all forummers can cooperate to keep the forum running smoothly. Thank you very much.

This forum is obviously very monitored I think forumers here are mostly very credible and hence give credibility to the statements we make. So I agree we might have to back up what we said. Maybe a link will help ease the pressure on this forumer and direct the monitoring to the "other sites"

my 2cts and great apprecaition for this forum that takes the heat and the effort.

[mulyc]

VB is by far one of the best value forums for stock investing discussions in SG.

I think it is very important that we do our part to post comments responsibly and constructively to ensure the longevity and continuity of this forum. We may at times have a tendency to jump the gun in what we post at times (fat fingers/eagerness/retaliation/rashness), but if everyone here consciously makes a note of what they type and think twice about potentially unnecessary comments, we may continue to have a forum here for constructive discussions down the road.

Makes the moderators' job easier too.

[Contrarian]

> For some reason, even with all these regulators, it just seems that far too few people are convicted
> of trading on material non public information. This is despite frequent share price crashes on our
> exchange, right before the announcement of unfavorable news. I feel this is the largest impediment
> to retail confidence in our market

1. Must prove the management possess the info

2. They prefer the rule "CAVEAT EMPTOR". Expensive to police right???

3. I think our retail investors also must do some homework. Do some FA works wonders, can avoid the fishy ones. One of the broker friend I know well, he will know exactly which one is punter favorite or chngkay stock, which one is not.

[Clement]

> For some reason, even with all these regulators, it just seems that far too few people are convicted
> of trading on material non public information. This is despite frequent share price crashes on our
> exchange, right before the announcement of unfavorable news. I feel this is the largest impediment
> to retail confidence in our market

1. Must prove the management possess the info

2. They prefer the rule "CAVEAT EMPTOR". Expensive to police right???

3. I think our retail investors also must do some homework. Do some FA works wonders, can avoid the fishy ones. One of the broker friend I know well, he will know exactly which one is punter favorite or chngkay stock, which one is not.

Well, Blumont and the other musketeers have shown that a "growth" story, "chingkay" stock, contra trading and high frequency trading can lead to a rather unpleasant situation. We need to change the risk-reward ratios for all these "chingkays" and other would be syndicates. S-chip scams would be less profitable for the insiders too, if it was more difficult to extract value out of it before everything crashed.

I wonder if SGX is required to foot the bill for it's own investigations into irregular trading, if that is the case, maybe the regulatory and market surveillance division can better serve the market being separated from the general exchange and listing operations and be funded by the government.

[Contrarian]

> We need to change the risk-reward ratios for all these "chingkays" and other would be syndicates.

Chngkay, broker reports, tips, speculators, bids ... all must work together to become punter favorite.

THe only way to change this game is NOT TO GET INVOLVED.

How many people can resist gambler instincts?

[CityFarmer]

For some reason, even with all these regulators, it just seems that far too few people are convicted of trading on material non public information. This is despite frequent share price crashes on our exchange, right before the announcement of unfavorable news. I feel this is the largest impediment to retail confidence in our market.

Let me share one news in recent The Straits Times, that caught my attention. It was an acquittal of former Airocean chief, Mr Tay and his trio, who were charged under the SFA, for non-disclosure and making misleading statements.

The acquittal was base on the CJ Chan statement below
"It had not been proven that the undisclosed information was likely to materially impact Airocean's share price and that the company acted recklessly in failing to disclose the information"

It means not all non-disclosures and misleadings will lead to $240K fine. Only in situation where it materially impacts the share price.

Reference: http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/forme...ed-charges

[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.