C

Yet none was forthcoming from any of the key players in the initial public offering: Not from the company, not from its managers and underwriters (UBS and Morgan Stanley), not from the Singapore Exchange nor from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

One was proferred by

New Century’s IPO was to have been the biggest so far this year with plans to raise some $666.4 million through the issue of 560 million shares at up to $1.19 each. The shipbuilder had originally planned to raise as much as $1.5 billion but decided to halve the number of shares on issue as market sentiment began to wane as a result of the unfoldingGreek tragedy.

Fortunately no investor has lost any money in applying for New Century shares as the company has promised to refund all application monies.

But as this incident has clearly embarrassed not only New Century but also Singapore as well, some answers to the mystery of the pullout should be in order from all parties concerned, including the company as well as its managers and underwriters.

Otherwise all kinds of rumours will prevail, and that cannot be good for the stock market.

As it is, Chinese listings — better known as S-chips — have already come for plenty of bad press in the past year due to corporate scandals and in some cases, poor returns. Leaving the situation open to speculation will just make it worse. Just a couple of weeks ago, the Exchange named and shamed about half a dozen listed companies for breaching its listing rules. All but one — Oculus — were S-chips.

If the authorities demand transparency from their members and all those listed on the Exchange, then they too should be just as OPEN — as far as they possibly can be.

They cannot hide behind responses like: “We do not publicly comment on our interactions with individual companies”, as in the case of the Exchange; likewise the MAS with its reply: “MAS does not comment on its dealings with individual parties”.

What then does one call the reprimands and the postings on their respective websites of fines and other actions taken by these two bodies?

The MAS, in response to press queries, has also said: “Entities offering securities to the public in Singapore are required to comply with the Securities and Futures Act which, among other things, requires proper disclosure of the features and risks of the product.

Where there is a breach of regulation or law, MAS will take appropriate regulatory action.”

Why does the MAS have to be so COY? Were it to give the reasons behind the withdrawal of the IPO, what will it jeopardise?

If New Century’s pullout is due to a possible breach of the Securities and Futures Act, then it could lead to criminal action from the MAS. The parties concerned in the IPO, which includes its board of directors, could be fined up to $150,000, and/or jailed for up to two years if convicted.

Is it not in the public interest to know if New Century’s withdrawal of its IPO was indeed due to a criminal omission of facts?

And indeed, New Century’s directors and at least one of the issue managers are said to have sought legal advice.

There have also been questions asked if the silence from the authorities has anything to do with the reputation of the managers and underwriters involved.

It was pointed out that a few years ago the Exchange rapped Hong Leong Finance’s IPO team for the latter’s failure to disclose despite queries by the regulator, that Fibrechem Technologies, a company it was lead managing for a public offering, had previously applied for a Hong Kong listing.

That failing led to the Exchange’s withdrawal of the letter of eligibility for Fibrechem’s public offering and the slapping of a three-month ban on Hong Leong from seeking new IPO mandates.