Others   

Dual Listing Phenomenon

Yes screening is something SGX is trying to do. Let's face it too. Do you think the issuing manager, and all related parties do not want to get a bigger cut out of the listing? Do you think SGX would mind having more companies listed in the exchange?

 

The crux of all this is that SGX is a listed company and is also a regulator. Do you think there is no moral hazard? Best is to have a impartial regulator.

 

In the first place we in Spore have to screen those IPO companies.  You just look at previous IPOs before PEC and MaryC. All are thrashed or trash when it comes to first day trading.  Something obviously is wrong.  What I personally view abt this thrashing they received is somehow the ratings by the approving authorities might be unrealistic thus shun by traders or dumped by irresponsible shareholders whose private shares turned glittering gold when they became tradeable.  How nice to be in that kind of situation.  You could be very rich too.!  So let us examine our own criteria next time before accepting an intending IPO company if you are afraid they are junks. If we have junks, do you think other X-changes want our junks? I doubt it. 

 

very encouraging to ppl view here. I agreed with open competition.

 

The concern here is if every tom dick and harry migrate to H-League with low credential. WHat will happen to H-League. The obvious thing is to increase screening to flash those out of toilets. Of course they can create a bourse like AIM in UK but this becomes not interesting.

 

Anyway, it would be good to wait and see how the first hero goes to H-league. Maybe a victory or a bad thrash.....

 

Need more real life data to see what is the eventual outcome.

 

We should encourage dual or cross listings, as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.  Listing fees could easily be offset if the second listing could generate more trading volumes.  Naturally if a company comes to a conclusion that it is better to seek listing in another X-change, the reasons are already telling.  Shareholders would be the ultimate winners.  The SGX should not fear of losing income because after all, any thinly traded counter already makes little for the SGX. The local bourse syndicates are the ones that may be disadvantaged because they no longer can monopolistically call the shots, (I hope you know what I mean by that.) and this has been the most detastable thing that everyone hopes to erase.  Good time shall come to the small investors when dual listings become more and more the way to grow a company! Cheers.

 

I agreed with some of your views. In my opinion the company must be sizable, and with good profit records. This is necessary to do well in another market. Too small no fund managers would even bother no matter how hard u shout. Take YongNam case. Good profit records means the management would not be so creative, see how our S-chips are doing and getting into trouble and infecting the entire S-chips to sink.

 

Those who are weaker even in S-League should not attempt to play in H-League. This would not only create another phenomenon of self disgrace of Hong Konger saying S-Chips coming to H-League and got doubly beaten. Why make yourself a clown if u have not make the grade. I am not here to belittle S-Chips.

 

Any company can seek dual listing if it really adds to shareholder values, gain access to wider investors and hence price appreciation. But how many of our s-chips can muscle with the HK peers. They are usually the smallest among the biggers  or not even a fraction of them.

 

Those with real track records would by Yanlord, Pacific Andes, and China Fishery, to name a few. Perhaps companies above $1b market cap should consider player well in H-League.

 

Published August 26, 2009

S-chip issues - crux lies in enforcement By LYNETTE KHOO Email this article Print article Feedback THE wide-ranging measures proposed by Singapore Exchange (SGX) last week have driven home a strong message - that the exchange views the failure of issuers and the problems plaguing them with gravity. Measures such as imposing disclosure of pledged shares and custodising shares of controlling shareholders have plucked right at the heart of issues plaguing S-chips (China-based companies listed in Singapore). It was also comforting to hear from SGX that there is no pervasive fraud risk relating to China companies. But the jury is still out on whether this move will restore investors' confidence and prevent some issuers from entertaining thoughts to move to other stock exchanges offering better valuations. This week, Sihuan Pharmaceutical's parent company, China Pharmaceutical, has decided to initiate a move to take Sihuan private, citing thin trading volumes. Just a few days ago, Z-Obee Holdings said that it was looking into the possibility of a dual primary listing on the Hong Kong bourse, shortly after China XLX filed its application for a dual listing there. It is unclear if these are isolated cases or part of a wider trend of some S-chips seeking greener pastures. There have been market whispers that some S-chips are contemplating such a move if their valuations continue to stay depressed. The two S-chips eyeing dual listing have cited as reasons a desire to gain access to two different equity markets, to widen their investor base and to raise share trading liquidity. But there is some speculation that S-chips contemplating a dual listing in both Singapore and Hong Kong could eventually pull out of one stock exchange to avoid paying two separate listing fees. Such a decision would probably hinge on how well the S-chips' shares perform in Hong Kong and how soon Singapore would catch up in the valuation race. All eyes will thus be on how handicraft and furnishing maker Passion Holdings - the first Chinese IPO here this year - will fare on its debut next week. The latest proposed measures by SGX are a welcome move to instil market confidence. But it would be presumptuous to assume things will look up right away for the S-chips sector. There remains lingering doubts over the listing compliance of some existing issuers and the problem of enforcement. One of the proposed measures is for new listings on the mainboard to appoint governance advisers for the first two years post-listing to help companies institute a robust framework of reporting accountability, internal controls and other components of good corporate governance. It is good to have an extra pair of eyes on new listings, which are green in the ways of a listed company. Most S-chips tend to head for the mainboard instead of Catalist, which means that future new S-chips will need to appoint governance advisers. But on practical grounds, it does beg the question of how effective the proposed measures would be for foreign listings. If independent directors here find it hard to oversee companies whose operations are mostly offshore, what more the governance advisers? Corporate governance concerns about S-chips have not fully blown over yet. Of about 10 cases of listed companies with irregularities since the beginning of 2008, half are Chinese listings, whose problems are still largely unresolved. At FibreChem, external auditors Ernst & Young could not finalise an audit of its trade receivables and cash balances for the year ended Dec 31, 2008. Until now, it is unable to report its financial results for fiscal 2008 and the two quarters of this year. China Sun has also faced an accounting mess. But the services of its chairman appeared to be indispensable as after the independent directors suspended him for failing to attend a board meeting to explain missing cash, he was reinstated three weeks later, albeit with conditions. In the case of Oriental Century, even after police reports have been filed by its board for the massive fraud perpetuated by its chairman-cum-chief executive, the question shareholders like to ask is the outcome of the investigation and the action to be taken. The proposed measures by SGX are laudable and would strengthen corporate governance here. But enforcement over existing S-chip issues has to be part of the equation to restore faith in this market segment. SGX's reiteration of high baseline standards as a frontline regulator is assuring, and has been demonstrated in its proactiveness with the planned measures. Having new rules to pre-empt future problems is a good thing, but the heart of the issue is still that of enforceability.

 

Dual listing helps in the check and balance against parochialism or narrow minded mindsets in one market so as to allow another mind to offset this paranoia to give a fair market interaction.  As an example, a sector disliked by the local market might well receive strong support in another. Take the medical sector for eg. in SGX it is like shit, while in the US it is like gold.  In Singapore electronics and computers are junks while in other markets, electronics and computers are gold.  So having dual listings brings in the action for small shareholders and does a service to companies striving to progress and help with increased capitalization in their counters with good demands in their shares.

 

I beg to differ. Though they listed here with cool response as a result low liquidity in market daily traded volume while the price depressing day by day, and subjected to resoanably high maintaining listing administrative cost in SGX. They come to the solution by dual listing somewhere, and the best place is HKSAR, as such the arbitral trade price in HK could be taken as a good reference against SGX. More and more S* stocks especially penny, small cap will be on trend doing so!

buylist      ( Date: 27-Aug-2009 11:24) Posted: In late, few companies have been announcing dual listing and hence causing a upsurge in price. So far there is no regulatory on this matter and my concern would be ppl are using this to increase share price that may have hidden motives. By comparing, SGX is a small market compared to HSI. Most of those announcements are small or mini cap companies with low or poor liquidity and no track earning records. If they are as "popular" in SGX, then I would presume that they would be worse off in the bigger league for simple reason that they are not even comparable with the HK peers.   Should companies be penalized for this? Expressing an intent is no where near lodging a prospectus. The high cost of listing is something that would eat into the weak earnings (even at good time).   Should this be regulated as it could potentially manipulate share price? IF so, I would see those companies returning to the miserable price position again.   What is your view?

 

In late, few companies have been announcing dual listing and hence causing a upsurge in price. So far there is no regulatory on this matter and my concern would be ppl are using this to increase share price that may have hidden motives. By comparing, SGX is a small market compared to HSI. Most of those announcements are small or mini cap companies with low or poor liquidity and no track earning records. If they are as "popular" in SGX, then I would presume that they would be worse off in the bigger league for simple reason that they are not even comparable with the HK peers.

 

Should companies be penalized for this? Expressing an intent is no where near lodging a prospectus. The high cost of listing is something that would eat into the weak earnings (even at good time).

 

Should this be regulated as it could potentially manipulate share price? IF so, I would see those companies returning to the miserable price position again.

 

What is your view?