SGX should set standard for corporate disclosure
The Singapore Exchange, apart from being a listed counter itself, is also one of the regulatory bodies when it comes to listings and trade.
It often emphasizes the importance for listed companies to be transparent to shareholders and to disclose any news that may affect their shares.
So it is no wonder that investors will take more notice if it gets queried by the Monetary Authority of Singapore over the sudden surge in its share price or if its shares get traded in unusually large volumes.
In other words, the SGX should practise what it preaches and set the standard for such corporate disclosures.
On 11 June, its share price spike prompted a query from the MAS, to which it replied that it “is not aware of any information not previously announced concerning the business of SGX...which, if known, might explain the price increase” and that it was not in any “negotiations or agreements which are disclosable under the Listing Rules”.
It provided a couple of reasons for the surge in its share price, citing a UBS Equities Research report which named SGX as their key sector pick and “Bloomberg and Dow Jones reports on the rise of SGX share prices amid speculation of takeovers and acquisitions.”
Attached to those are disclaimers about how it has not received notice from any party about acquiring 5% or more of its shares, or confirmed any collaborations or acquisitions of SGX shares, pretty much the same broad-based (non-committal) remarks you'd read from any other “response to MAS query”.
Four days later, it announced being informed by the Tokyo Stock Exchange that the latter has acquired about 4.99% of SGX's issued share capital.
Like, hello?
Doesn't the Listing Manual say that a company must, at any time, disclose any information that could possibly “materially affect the price or value of its securities”?
It already seems somewhat unreal that the SGX could not have anticipated this enough to have warned shareholders about any possible changes in share ownership.
After all, it has been collaborating with the TSE since last December and the TSE has, according to the Business Times, “agreed in principle to licence TOPIX-related indices to the SGX to create derivatives and electronic transfer fund products for trading on the local bourse”. They have also gone on to exploring other collaborative efforts.
So why didn't the SGX even give a hint of the possibility of such an acquisition?
It really should set the standard, being the regulator for all listed companies in Singapore.
Otherwise, it would be like the pot calling the kettle black.
Serene Lim
ArchivesIt often emphasizes the importance for listed companies to be transparent to shareholders and to disclose any news that may affect their shares.
So it is no wonder that investors will take more notice if it gets queried by the Monetary Authority of Singapore over the sudden surge in its share price or if its shares get traded in unusually large volumes.
In other words, the SGX should practise what it preaches and set the standard for such corporate disclosures.
On 11 June, its share price spike prompted a query from the MAS, to which it replied that it “is not aware of any information not previously announced concerning the business of SGX...which, if known, might explain the price increase” and that it was not in any “negotiations or agreements which are disclosable under the Listing Rules”.
It provided a couple of reasons for the surge in its share price, citing a UBS Equities Research report which named SGX as their key sector pick and “Bloomberg and Dow Jones reports on the rise of SGX share prices amid speculation of takeovers and acquisitions.”
Attached to those are disclaimers about how it has not received notice from any party about acquiring 5% or more of its shares, or confirmed any collaborations or acquisitions of SGX shares, pretty much the same broad-based (non-committal) remarks you'd read from any other “response to MAS query”.
Four days later, it announced being informed by the Tokyo Stock Exchange that the latter has acquired about 4.99% of SGX's issued share capital.
Like, hello?
Doesn't the Listing Manual say that a company must, at any time, disclose any information that could possibly “materially affect the price or value of its securities”?
It already seems somewhat unreal that the SGX could not have anticipated this enough to have warned shareholders about any possible changes in share ownership.
After all, it has been collaborating with the TSE since last December and the TSE has, according to the Business Times, “agreed in principle to licence TOPIX-related indices to the SGX to create derivatives and electronic transfer fund products for trading on the local bourse”. They have also gone on to exploring other collaborative efforts.
So why didn't the SGX even give a hint of the possibility of such an acquisition?
It really should set the standard, being the regulator for all listed companies in Singapore.
Otherwise, it would be like the pot calling the kettle black.
Serene Lim
Labels: corporate disclosure, SGX
January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 January 2009
