I only have this to say:
Massive con job.
Why?
1) Very specific "news" released earlier about the one for four offer, purportedly at $2.2. This "news" was given to brokers, and allowed to circulate for half a day before Capland issued a denial---which was not even a denial, but that "they were considering the proposals". Understandable that a company cannot say more, so they can't be faulted here. The leak was likely not from them. Now here's the thing: a more general rumor would have just been "rights issue". But to be able to give the details down to 1:4 @ 2.2? Who else can give it?
2) Look at the big names that were shorting down Capland the past two weeks: I had named them in the capland and other posts before (so there can't be any "swapping" on my part here) : UBS, Merrill Lynch, JPM.
3) Guess who the three underwriters of the Capland rights issue are? That's right. DBS, Merrill Lynch and JPM. Actual offer? 1:2 @ 1.3.
Now, who thinks it's "just a coincidence"?
Massive con job.
Why?
1) Very specific "news" released earlier about the one for four offer, purportedly at $2.2. This "news" was given to brokers, and allowed to circulate for half a day before Capland issued a denial---which was not even a denial, but that "they were considering the proposals". Understandable that a company cannot say more, so they can't be faulted here. The leak was likely not from them. Now here's the thing: a more general rumor would have just been "rights issue". But to be able to give the details down to 1:4 @ 2.2? Who else can give it?
2) Look at the big names that were shorting down Capland the past two weeks: I had named them in the capland and other posts before (so there can't be any "swapping" on my part here) : UBS, Merrill Lynch, JPM.
3) Guess who the three underwriters of the Capland rights issue are? That's right. DBS, Merrill Lynch and JPM. Actual offer? 1:2 @ 1.3.
Now, who thinks it's "just a coincidence"?
-------------
I've
written twice to SGX before, about such cases. Once involving a
specific counter, in which I also suggest banning shortselling since it
is liable to manipulation, the other was when they asked for general
feedback on how to improve market clarity and trading transparency.
The
first received a typical high-handed condescending response, of "Market
movements are typically volatile (blah blah blah)" and "We will not ban
shortselling". Well, less than a couple of months later, they banned
shortselling temporarily when every other country in the world did it.
The second letter was even better. Not even a "thank you for the
feedback" response.
So n00bs, listen up. Don't ever expect the authorities to protect you in such cases. The
market is a dirty place all the way; you'd best learn survival on your
own. Only proper money management and risk management will protect you
from such stuff in the long run.
