Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Surely You're Joking, Sam!

In Starbiz today, you will see an article entitled "Is Bursa too strict?", where the President of the Remisiers Association of Malaysia, Sam Ng Soon Lee was lamenting about the stricter measures implemented by Bursa Securities in order to curb irregular or manipulative dealing activities. Some of the market breaches that are forbidden by the exchange are price manipulation, short selling and trades with no change of beneficial ownership.

Sam feels that the stricter implementation of these rules may impact liquidity in the equities market. “We're semi-liquidity providers but many are put-off by the tightened measures over volume activity (which may breach stock exchange rules) and this will impact trading volume,” Ng said. He observed that market regulators must also consider the consequences of interpreting the rules more strictly as this could impact genuine participants whose business would be affected.

I do not agree with Sam. Firstly, I believe the exchange is very careful in making a distinction between genuine activities and irregular or manipulative activities as it has the powerful surveillance system to track all trades done in the market. From a recent seminar conducted by Bursa, we learned that the exchange has a Market Management process to deal with irregular market activities. The steps involved are:

1) Fact Sharing or Finding

2) Surveillance Query

3) Unusual Market Activities ('UMA') Query

4) Market Alert

5) Designation

The first two steps are preliminary steps taken to inform the remisiers and/or dealers concerned that they are under surveillance. They are given an opportunity to explain their action as well as to cease their activities. If these activities are genuine transactions, the exchange would not take any action against the parties concerned. If the exchange is not satisfied with the explanation given, it would take further action, such as issuing UMA Query. In the case of Harvest, the exchange was not satisfied with the reply to two UMA Queries and it had to issue Market Alert & followed with Designation.

Secondly, we should never condone market manipulation. It is self-serving to argue that a stricter regime would result in poorer liquidity in the market, when in actual fact, what you've wanted is bigger volume in order to generate more business for yourself. I am all for making more money, both for myself and my clients. However, we can see lately that some stocks in our market were played up sharply and these are zero-sum plays, where a fortunate few win handsomely while a whole lot of people lose their shirts. A good market cannot be sustained based on trickery.

Finally, if we want to see our Bursa Malaysia becoming a world-class stock market, we must lay down strict rules on transparency & corporate governance. How can such a market live side-by-side with a third-world mentality, lax rules & poor enforcement where market manipulation is a daily affair? We must lay down good laws and rules and enforce them strictly.

Sam Ng is a very dedicated remisier. He has served as the President of the Remisiers Association of Malaysia for a few terms. He had spoken out on a few issues where the interest of investors were trampled. He had also lobbied for rules and regulations to protect the interest of remisiers as well as investors. However, on the above issue, I feel strongly that Sam took the wrong position. His view does not represent the view of many remisiers who are not happy with the prevalent market manipulation involving 2nd and 3rd liner stocks. I believe the exchange is doing the right thing in trying to rein in such activities.

3 comments:

Mother of Two said...

Hi Alex,
Would you please comment on QL?
Thank you for your time.

CoyPond said...

Mr Lu, I agree with what you said in "Surely You're Joking Sam" except for HARVEST.

What BURSA did initially regarding HARVEST was correct, even up to the designation stage. But what is not correct is for BURSA to go beyond the point of jurisdiction to the realm of emotion, which is what is happening with HARVEST. Let me explain.

It's now 6 weeks since HARVEST was designated on 16 Nov 2011. IRIS was not designated more than 6 weeks. Why must HARVEST be? BURSA may have guidelines and procedures but these must be clear and TRANSPARENT otherwise some of us may hide behind 'hidden guidelines' to make unjust decisions. So what is the guideline to designate HARVEST beyond 6 weeks when there is already a precedent with IRIS.

If guidelines and procedures are not transparent, it will lead to abuse and corruption obviously.

What BURSA is doing now by PROLONGING the designation of HARVEST is not rational for two reasons:
1. IRIS is a precedent - 6 weeks
2. Harvest has proved to BURSA that it has substantial business as per the article published on BURSA's website on 19 & 20 Dec 2011

So what else is needed by BURSA? They must inform HARVEST of any other shortfalls to be corrected instead of just keeping quiet and expect HARVEST to second guess them.

Furthermore, how is it that Bursa did not suspend and designate JETSON when they were so quick to suspend and designate HARVEST. Why is it that Bursa did not take severe action against JETSON or the NAZA people involved when JETSON share price plunged from RM3.00 TO RM1.00+?

Then just recently we saw the ENVAIR fiasco but heard not a word from BURSA? Why? I would not share my personal reasons on these matters for now, maybe at other times. Then maybe you could enlighten us Mr Lu.

BURSA started with wanting to ensure an orderly trade in HARVEST but then when the price started plunging, caused by the designation, was that not DISORDER?

In this case, BURSA has done a great injustice to the minority shareholders and cause them to lose money, and some their savings.

I hope the boss at BURSA will not allow whatever rational has been used to designate HARVEST, if we could call it that, to be continued and escalate to become a test of will.

BURSA and HARVEST do not lose anything in all this. The minority shareholders are the losers.

CoyPond

CheahSweeKuan said...

It is not the question of being strict or not. It is the question of competency and not to let the crooks get away with gross manupulation under Bursa's very nose. To me Bursa is very inapt and practically hopeless and at a loss when some anomalies occur. It takes a long time for it to sink in before they take action or sometimes they have no clue at all what happened. I suspect they have to read in the investor's such as yours to know that and that is why they are slow to act. Is it so hard to find good people? Must ask that Mamakutty this question.