Asia Enterprise Holdings

[weijian]

Frankly speaking, it is of no concern to me whether an external shareholder (big or small) buys or sells his shares. In fact, I hope he sells more at this level.

Same here, it provides some liquidity to purchase without too large of a bid-ask spread. But just interested to know why the transactions weren't announced? Isn't it compulsory for substantial shareholder above 5% to declare all transactions?

My guess is that these Substantial shareholders are holding the stock indirectly through multiple nominees (principally brokerages). As such, any sell up or down through multiple nominees doesn't need to be reported as long as it is worked within the 5% boundary.

[CityFarmer]

Frankly speaking, it is of no concern to me whether an external shareholder (big or small) buys or sells his shares. In fact, I hope he sells more at this level.

Same here, it provides some liquidity to purchase without too large of a bid-ask spread. But just interested to know why the transactions weren't announced? Isn't it compulsory for substantial shareholder above 5% to declare all transactions?

My guess is that these Substantial shareholders are holding the stock indirectly through multiple nominees (principally brokerages). As such, any sell up or down through multiple nominees doesn't need to be reported as long as it is worked within the 5% boundary.

SSHs are only required to report, when the holding stake cross a threshold of 1 pct point, not on every trade.

[slowandsteady]

Frankly speaking, it is of no concern to me whether an external shareholder (big or small) buys or sells his shares. In fact, I hope he sells more at this level.

Same here, it provides some liquidity to purchase without too large of a bid-ask spread. But just interested to know why the transactions weren't announced? Isn't it compulsory for substantial shareholder above 5% to declare all transactions?

My guess is that these Substantial shareholders are holding the stock indirectly through multiple nominees (principally brokerages). As such, any sell up or down through multiple nominees doesn't need to be reported as long as it is worked within the 5% boundary.

SSHs are only required to report, when the holding stake cross a threshold of 1 pct point, not on every trade.

Thanks for the information. Didn't know that.

[weijian]

Same here, it provides some liquidity to purchase without too large of a bid-ask spread. But just interested to know why the transactions weren't announced? Isn't it compulsory for substantial shareholder above 5% to declare all transactions?

My guess is that these Substantial shareholders are holding the stock indirectly through multiple nominees (principally brokerages). As such, any sell up or down through multiple nominees doesn't need to be reported as long as it is worked within the 5% boundary.

SSHs are only required to report, when the holding stake cross a threshold of 1 pct point, not on every trade.

hi CityFarmer,
That was what I remembered too but I wasn't able to find anything on the 1% threshold in the SFA (Securities and Future Act). I did remember that there is a 1% increment threshold within 6months to prevent one from launching a GO (when >30%). My experience is that I have seen a lot of SSH reporting their minority (<1%) changes in their stakes on a frequent basis.

SFA: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/di...II-P21-P32-.

[specuvestor]

Hi Weijian

it is not under SFA it is under takeover code... see page 13 of the guide:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...5TUkZa7faw

[CityFarmer]

Same here, it provides some liquidity to purchase without too large of a bid-ask spread. But just interested to know why the transactions weren't announced? Isn't it compulsory for substantial shareholder above 5% to declare all transactions?

My guess is that these Substantial shareholders are holding the stock indirectly through multiple nominees (principally brokerages). As such, any sell up or down through multiple nominees doesn't need to be reported as long as it is worked within the 5% boundary.

SSHs are only required to report, when the holding stake cross a threshold of 1 pct point, not on every trade.

hi CityFarmer,
That was what I remembered too but I wasn't able to find anything on the 1% threshold in the SFA (Securities and Future Act). I did remember that there is a 1% increment threshold within 6months to prevent one from launching a GO (when >30%). My experience is that I have seen a lot of SSH reporting their minority (<1%) changes in their stakes on a frequent basis.

SFA: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/di...II-P21-P32-.

Hi weijian,

How about SFA Part VII, Sub-Div 2 (136)? You have referred to similar part, right? SGX listing rule book should have similar clause, but I didn't search for it.

[weijian]

hi specuvestor,
From your link, take a look at pg20 under 'Shareholder disclosure' and it refers to SFA/Companies Act.

hi CF,
It seems like from SFA Part VII, Sub-Div 2 (136), 3b suggests that it is indeed 1%? (I guess my ENG is not good enough)

136.—(1)  Where there is a change in the percentage level of the interest or interests of a substantial shareholder in a corporation in voting shares in the corporation, the substantial shareholder shall give notice in writing to the corporation within 2 business days after he becomes aware of the change.
(2)  A notice under subsection (1) shall be in such form and shall contain such information as the Authority may prescribe.
(3)  In subsection (1), “percentage level”, in relation to a substantial shareholder in a corporation, means the percentage figure ascertained by expressing the total votes attached to all the voting shares in which the substantial shareholder has an interest or interests immediately before or (as the case may be) immediately after the relevant time, as a percentage of the total votes attached to —
(a) all the voting shares (excluding treasury shares) in the corporation; or
(b)where the share capital of the corporation is divided into 2 or more classes of shares, all the voting shares (excluding treasury shares) in the class concerned,
and, if it is not a whole number, rounding that figure down to the next whole number

[CityFarmer]

hi CF,
It seems like from SFA Part VII, Sub-Div 2 (136), 3b suggests that it is indeed 1%? (I guess my ENG is not good enough)

Hi Weijian,

It has been stated clearly in the clause below, right?

136.—(1)  Where there is a change in the percentage level of the interest or interests of a substantial shareholder in a corporation in voting shares in the corporation, the substantial shareholder shall give notice in writing to the corporation within 2 business days after he becomes aware of the change.

[weijian]

hi CF,
It seems like from SFA Part VII, Sub-Div 2 (136), 3b suggests that it is indeed 1%? (I guess my ENG is not good enough)

Hi Weijian,

It has been stated clearly in the clause below, right?

136.—(1)  Where there is a change in the percentage level of the interest or interests of a substantial shareholder in a corporation in voting shares in the corporation, the substantial shareholder shall give notice in writing to the corporation within 2 business days after he becomes aware of the change.

hi CF,
Thanks for the clarification, I got it. I was looking for a number and didn't see it. Had assumed 'change in the percentage level of the interest....' to be 'change in the interest....'

[CityFarmer]

hi CF,
It seems like from SFA Part VII, Sub-Div 2 (136), 3b suggests that it is indeed 1%? (I guess my ENG is not good enough)

Hi Weijian,

It has been stated clearly in the clause below, right?

136.—(1)  Where there is a change in the percentage level of the interest or interests of a substantial shareholder in a corporation in voting shares in the corporation, the substantial shareholder shall give notice in writing to the corporation within 2 business days after he becomes aware of the change.

hi CF,
Thanks for the clarification, I got it. I was looking for a number and didn't see it. Had assumed 'change in the percentage level of the interest....' to be 'change in the interest....'

Hmm, a case of confirmation bias?