Here is an update to the blog posting I made on Is Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan buying Kencana?
The Denials from Kencana.
Posted on the edge
- Kencana: No talks with Quek 26 Dec 2006 6:47 PM
Kencana Petroleum Bhd said yesterday neither its directors nor any of its major shareholders were in talks with Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan for the sale and purchase of its shares.
MORE>>
Posted on the Bursa website.
22/12/06 Article Entitled : "Quek to emerge a major shareholder in Kencana?"
We refer to the above news article in the New Straits Times, Business Times, page 39, on Thursday, 21 December 2006, in particular to the following extract:
"… Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan….. emerge as a substantial shareholder of …. Kencana Petroleum Bhd….""Quek… buy between 12 and 15 per cent of the company's shares…"
The Board of Kencana Petroleum Berhad wishes to inform that as of todate, the Company has not received any notice of interest of substantial shareholder pursuant to Section 69 E (1) of the Companies Act, 1965 from Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan.
Article Entitled : "Quek to emerge a major shareholder in Kencana?"
- Further to our reply to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad on 22 December 2006 in relation to the above news article, the Board of Directors hereby confirm that neither the Directors nor the major shareholders of the Company are currently in negotiation with Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan with regards to any sale and purchase of the Company's shares.
How?
Now the story is denied.
So who are these sources supplying such news to our reporters?
Are they even real?
Did these sources ask the press to publish news so that they can profit from the news?
How?
How do one rate the chances for our investors in Bursa Malaysia when they are fed with nothing but fake (can i use such a phrase since the story has been flatly denied?) news?
What chances do the investors have in such an environment?
Put this way, which investor would want to invest in a market when the game odds are totally against them?
How?
Posts
14 comments:
Moola,
You are doing a great job with good intention so please don't be put off by our opposite opinion.
The question I wanted to ask is that why the news can specifically named Tan Sri QLC as the purchaser? Why Tan Sri doesn't personally come out and deny the news? See the big picture? :)
In stock market we have to take risk and Mr. Market only rewards those who are willing to take risk and Mr. Market loves uncertainty!
Zen,
Interesting question you have raised:
Why the news can specifically named Tan Sri QLC as the purchaser? Why Tan Sri doesn't personally come out and deny the news? See the big picture? :)
I have no answer for such question. Honestly. :)
Anyway.. my simple question is this.. if the newsmedia keeps churning out news that are constanly being denied by sources involved, aren't we, the readers being fed with 'fake news'?
Is this acceptable?
We, the readers, we are the consumers of the newsmedia. If the newsmedia keep churning out 'fake' news, then for whom does the newspaper serve?
This is my simple issue.
Or is it acceptable that the newsmedia be a source and a tool to churn out rumours to pump up a stock?
Is this really acceptable?
rgds,
(ps: Wishing you a prosperous 2007! Cheers! )
Moola, have been a regular reader - thanks for many interesting reads.
My only issue with you taking issue with "rumour-mongering" is that I also want to hear the rumours. Especially market moving ones. In a market that is often influenced by these rumours, it is good to be in the know, even if you don't have a habit of acting on such rumours. I would like these to be labelled clearly as market rumours though, rather than as from dubious unnamed sources.
"Is this acceptable?"
My answer is 100% NO! But what to do? Even the news quoted from company's director can be revised next day as misquoted by news reporter.
Happy new year! Time really fly. :)
How come SC is not taking action against those irresponsible writers? These irresponsible writers are enriching themselves at the expense of the public. SC should come down very very very hard on those irresponsible writers.
I agree that if these irresponsible writers are enriching themselves at the expense of the public!!
Wake up SC!!!!
Me, I'll treat all these fairy stories in the media as no better (or worse) than the market rumours passed on by auntees & uncas.
Just being pedantic - Ya can't say Mr Market likes uncertainty, just that he can be a manic depressive when trading shares with you. Poor chap probably doesn't realise his malady.
Best for 2007!
Everyone should realise that the press has a duty to verify all the information provided by its so called sources. If this fails, the press loses all its integrity!!!
I think those reporters also have hard time to tell which news is real or not real. Most of the time it was the company insiders themselve purposely leaking out the so called insider news. The problem is that how to tell this insider news is solid or not? I think reporter also human and they also cannot predict the tomorrow event today. Just like stock market trader, they also playing the game of probability and hopefully to report ONE big news one day. Not sure it is real or not but in the movie those reporter really digging hard for good news, you know call this person that person and running here and there and sometime really have to jump out of the wall or pretend to be a police official or utility man in order to get first hand news ... and then come out in the new print with the title "according to the source ..." :)
Hi Zen,
Yes, I do understand the issue that you have brought up, but as a reporter, would I be wrong to suggest that one of their duty is to verify the story given by the source before publishing them? Yes?
And here is another issue. Say the reporter is not at fault and that the reporter was fed by a dubious source. Ok. I will accept that this can happen. But my issue is why does some reporter have a long, long history of reporting stories (based on such dubious sources) that keeps getting denied by the parties mentioned in the article?
I see your point but not easy to answer this question. Maybe I talk in general but yours is more detailed one. :)
As I see it, reporters write irresponsible articles for two reasons: [1] some 3rd party pay them to push up the shares they are holding, [2] they already bought a lot of the shares themselves and want to push it up for profits. Bottom line is someone is making BIG BIG bucks on these irresponsible articles (at the expense of public).
More examples of irresponsible writers writing garbage:
[1] http://announcements.bursamalaysia.com/EDMS/edmsweb.nsf/LsvAllByID/48256E5D00102DF3482572520033A064?OpenDocument
[2] http://announcements.bursamalaysia.com/EDMS/edmsweb.nsf/LsvAllByID/48256E5D00102DF3482572520031BB8E?OpenDocument
But very often their reply to Bursa also one kind. They like to use word with double meaning.
When they reply "I am not aware ..." is this mean you did not aware but maybe something is going on?
When they reply "Currently not in negotiation ..." is this mean you have talked before but just that not now with currently?
Why can't they simply say Yes or No kind of answer.
OK. Now to be fair to those company executives who replied those bursa query ... they als human and they cannot tell tomorrow event today so to cover their backside they are forced to use such a double meanig word. They also not really sure what is going on afer all. :)
Post a Comment