Friday, April 26, 2013

Do You Want More China Based Companies To Be Listed Here?

Saw the link to the article on Star Business: Kanger set to be 10th China-based company to list on the local bourse

I did not even want to read about it.

First thing on my mind was 10th!

Do we really need all these Chinese companies to be listed in our stock exchange?

Come on Bursa!

Stop thinking like a commission based  salesman! These companies are stinking our stock exchange! Come on. You can't smell it? You guys complain about the lack of retail investors all the time and here you are, inviting all these China based companies to be listed here.

You just don't get it, yes?

More quantity is not going to increase retail investing participation.

QUALITY is the only word that is important.

What is stock investing?

Stock investing is investing in good quality businesses at a good price.

Investors don't want to invest in all these poor quality companies only to find the value of their investment shrink like hell after a few months!

Here's proof.

The three most recent listed Chinese stocks.

China Automobile Parts Holdings Limited
IPO Price: 68 sen
Listed 30/1/2013
Current Price: 36 sen

China Stationery Limited
IPO Price: 95 sen
Listed: 24/2/2012
Current Price: 34 sen

Maxwell International Holdings Bhd
IPO Price: 54 sen
Listed: 6/1/2011
Current Price: 31 sen

Compare the current share price as of this morning versus the IPO price of these 3 China based stocks. All IPO investors of these Chinese stocks would be cursing at the stock performance as of today.

The following table shows the current price versus the IPO price and the % change of all Chinese listed companies.

On average, investors of these Chinese stocks are starring at an average loss of 63% since listing!!!!


Bursa Malaysia, are you aware of this stat?

If so, why?

Why are you pushing for another Chinese stock to be listed on our stock exchange?

Do you care for the quality of the stock exchange?

Or do you just list such companies hoping just for more revenue for the exchange????

Here are the charts showing the performance of all these Chinese stocks since listing.

Chinese Automobile Parts (CAP)

China Ouhua Winery Holdings Ltd (CNOUHUA)

 China Stationery Limited (CSL)

HB Global Limited (HBGLOB) (Old name: Sozo Global)

K-Star Sports Limited (KSTAR)

Maxwell International Holdings Bhd (Maxwell)

Multi Sports Holdings Limited (MSPORTS)

XiDeLang Holdings Limited (XDL)

Xinquan International Sports Holdings Limited (XINQUAN)

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

One Of The Best Manchester United Goal!

Kagawa squares the ball to Rooney.

Rooney in his own half sees Van Persie making the run.

A Hail Mary pass was lobbed towards the path of Van Persie's run.

The pass was right on the money. Van Persie didn't even need to break his run. All was needed was concentration. Eyes on the ball, mate.


Bang Bang Van Persie lets fly.

Van Persie didn't even need the ball to bounce. He lashes the ball and kaboom!

Ball was in the net!

What a volley! What a goal!

One of the best Manchester United ever!

Absolutely brilliant!

This is the goal of the season for me!

Well done United!

Champions again!

Monday, April 22, 2013

Maintain Neutral But Stock Is Trading Higher Than Target Price

Since I have commented on the UNFAIR but REASONABLE advise dished out by Independent Advisors, I feel I should also point out another type of wonderful advice from our stock market research houses.

This was published on

  • Venturing into biodiesel  
    Business & Markets 2013
    Written by   
    Monday, 22 April 2013 10:49

    Felda Global Ventures
    Holdings Bhd
    (April 19, RM4.60)
    Maintain neutral at RM4.60 with a target price of RM4.32:
    We are overall “neutral” on FGV’s acquisition of a 100,000-tonne biodiesel plant in Malaysia. This will allow the group to expand its product offerings to include biodiesel. However, this is offset by our concern over the historical losses reported by the business.

    We expect FGV to turn around this business given the potential synergy to be derived from this asset with its existing businesses. In view of this, we expect this acquisition to have a minimal impact on the group’s future earnings. We maintain our “neutral” call with an unchanged sum of parts-based target price of RM4.32.

    FGV has signed an agreement with Mission Biotechnologies Sdn Bhd to acquire a 100,000-tonne per annum biodiesel refinery at Kuantan Port, Pahang for US$11.5 million (RM34.9 million).

    The biodiesel plant is located on six acres (2.4ha) of prime land and has a 16,000-tonne storage tank connected to a deep water jetty via import and export pipelines. The plant is expected to be fully operational by July 1.

    This new development is in line with the group’s strategy to venture further into downstream operations. The plant is located close to FGV’s estates in Pahang as well as the group’s refinery and oleochemical plant. This will allow the group to integrate this plant into its existing operations more efficiently and save on transport costs.

    The acquisition will also allow FGV to channel its high free fatty acids (or lower quality) CPO for biodiesel production and achieve better pricing for its palm products. The acquisition price for the asset looks fair to us as it is below RM100 million, which was the price quoted for building a biodiesel plant in 2006.

    However, FGV’s acquisition is most costly compared with Genting PLANTATION []s Bhd’s acquisition of a 200,000-tonne biodiesel plant in Lahad Datu for US$13.3 million in 2011.

    The potential synergy to be derived is offset by the historical pre-tax losses chalked up by the biodiesel business of A$4.5 million (RM14.04 million) to A$5 million in 2011 financial year (FY11) and FY12.

    We expect FGV to turn around the business through improved utilisation rates and better procurement of raw materials. Overall, the earnings impact from this is projected to be minimal. Maintain “neutral”. — CIMB Research, April 19

    This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on April 22, 2013.
Well what's wrong with this 'neutral' recommendation?

The stock is trading at 4.60 but the research house's target price is 4.32.Which means the stock is worth more than the target price set!

Yet the research house recommendation is a NEUTRAL.


If the stock is trading more than the target price, shouldn't the recommendation be a simple SELL?

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

The Independent Advisor For MBF Speaks Again....

Posted recently: If The OFFER is NOT FAIR, how can it be REASONABLE...

On theSunDaily Business:

  • MBf take-over offer not fair but reasonable
    Posted on 25 March 2013 - 10:12pm
    Last updated on 25 March 2013 - 10:51pm

    PETALING JAYA (March 25 ,2013): The offer for the shares and warrants of MBf Holdings Bhd by a consortium of three companies led by major shareholder Tan Sri Ninian Mogan Lourdenadin, are deemed not fair but reasonable, according to independent adviser Affin Investment Bank Bhd.

    "However, we are of the view that the offer for the shares and the warrants are reasonable based on our evaluation and also taking into consideration that there have been no alternative offers received to date," it said, advising that shareholders and warrant holders accept the offer.

    In an independent advice circular yesterday, Affin Investment said the offer for the shares is not fair, given that the share offer price is below the derived valuation range of MBFH shares of between RM2.45 and RM3.20.

    The offer represents a 30.6% and 46.8% discount to the adjusted net asset range of the group. The offer for the warrant is also not fair, given that the warrant offer price is derived by reference to the share offer price.

    Tor Pte Ltd, Nadin Holdings Sdn Bhd, Impact Action Sdn Bhd and Market Share Investment Ltd through Hong Leong Investment Bank Bhd has proposed to acquire all the remaining shares in MBf Holdings and all the remaining warrants which are not already held by the joint offerors for RM1.70 per share and RM0.70 per warrant

    Affin Investment Bank said the sale of MBF Cards was a loss of significant contribution to the group's profitability.

    The fact that the group's business is largely concentrated in the South Pacific Island, which are perceived as remote markets, following the disposal of the MBF Cards, was also seen as a negative point.

    The heavy losses incurred by the group's shipping segment since FY ended Dec 31, 2010 which had drained the group's cash reserves, was another.

    MBf's revised offer will be open for acceptance until 5pm on April 3.
They told the minority shareholders to ACCEPT the deal which is unfair.....

MBF revised the offer UPWARDS to RM1.775 per MBfH share and 77.5 sen per warrant.

Guess what the INDEPENDENT ADVISOR has to say this morning...

Also from theSunDaily:
  • MBfH advisor recommends acceptance of 2nd revised offer
    Posted on 17 April 2013 - 05:40am

    PETALING JAYA (April 17, 2013): Affin Investment Bank Bhd, which is the independent advisor to the minority shareholders of MBf Holdings Bhd (MBfH), has given the thumbs-up to MBfH's controlling shareholder and group CEO Tan Sri Dr Ninian Mogan Lourdenadin's latest attempt to take the group private.

    In a filing with Bursa Malaysia yesterday, MBfH said while Affin Investment had deemed the second revised offer of RM1.775 per MBfH share and 77.5 sen per warrant "not fair but reasonable", it is advising its shareholders to accept it.

    "The board (save for the interested directors) concurs with the recommendation of Affin Investment. Accordingly, the board's comments, opinions and recommendation as contained in the Independent Advice Circular remain unchanged," said MBfH.

    The joint offerors for the rest of the MBfH shares are Tor Pte Ltd, Nadin Holdings Sdn Bhd, Impact Action Sdn Bhd and Market Share Investments Ltd. Ninian has accumulated 98.51% or 568.8 million shares in MBfH.

    In a separate filing, MBfH said the joint offerors will still require further acceptances of 2.4 million shares or 0.42% to invoke the compulsory acquisition of the remaining MBfH shares.

    "If it fails, shares not held by the joint offerors as at the close of the offer on April 26, 2013 may not be compulsorily acquired."

Saturday, April 13, 2013

SAY NO to The Relisting Of IOI Properties!

On Star Business, a ghastly news was announced!

  • Saturday April 13, 2013
    Mixed views on IOI’s plan to re-list property division

    PETALING JAYA: Analysts have mixed views on whether the possible re-listing of IOI Corp Bhd's property division would create value for it.

    Early this week, a wire report had stated that IOI Corp was planning an initial public offering (IPO) of its property arm in the fourth quarter of 2013, speculating the total value of the listing to be in the region of RM10bil.

    This would be a huge improvement in size, considering that it was only in 2009 that IOI Corp had bought back its then-listed property arm IOI Properties Bhd for a mere RM310mil in cash and shares, valuing the unit at about RM1.3bil.

    “The plan to re-list its property arm is not new. In our sum-of-parts, we value the property business at close to RM9bil.

    “We would be positive if the group lists its property arm, as it would allow it to unlock value and for investors to better appreciate its property division,” said a CIMB Research analyst.

    She explained that at the moment, the property division was “hidden” and that there wasn't much visibility in terms of its value, future plans and launches in the pipeline.

    “For now, no one knows what IOI Property is worth because it is hidden inside IOI Corp. With the listing, we would obtain more information. We would know a lot more about its launches and future developments.

    “If it were to be listed on its own, then IOI Property would eventually be able to find its own value,” said the CIMB analyst.

    An Alliance Research analyst pointed out that back in 2009, IOI Corp had taken IOI Properties private as the company was undervalued, trading at 8.4 times versus IOI Corp, which was trading at 15 times back then.

    She said that as at IOI Corp's financial year ended June 30, 2012, the total asset value of the property development and investment segments stood at RM7.7bil, contributing a pre-tax profit of RM538mil or 20% of IOI Corp's total pre-tax profit.

    “While details on the listing are not known, we have doubts whether the move would add value to IOI Corp, given the latter's rich valuations as compared to most property companies.

    “This raises the issue of whether IOI Corp's property division's IPO could be priced at more attractive valuations than IOI Corp,” said the analyst.

    She said that IOI Corp was currently trading at a forward price earnings of 20.7 times on 2013 earnings.

    Another property analyst added that as IOI Property was currently 100% owned by IOI Corp, there was room for value creation.

    “If it were to go for a separate listing, this would mean that the parent company sells down its stake and gets back some value from its assets.

    “Perhaps, it could use that money to expand its business or give it back to shareholders,” said the analyst.

    The analyst pointed out that a separate property listing would also reduce the risk for the plantations side.

    This was because at present, funds from IOI Corp were being used to buy and develop land for its property segment. 

Like I had said before, due to the fact that Bursa Malaysia is a listed BUSINESS entity, a relisting simply means a new IPO and new IPO means more business and I have no doubt that Bursa Malaysia would welcome this relisting with open arms.

I doubt that Bursa Malaysia would care about the minority shareholders who were mightly screwed when IOI Properties were delised back in 2009.

That ghastly and unreasonable privatisation is explained in detail in the posting:Why Is Retail Investing Lacking? (Part II)

In 'short'...
  • Now consider this story (the story of IOI Privatisation)

    You read about the company venturing into another country, just when that country is announcing some interesting projects. You get optimistic about the company, right? Analysts are optimistic too.

    So you invest in it.

    Then came another opportunity.

    Company announce a share split plus rights issue.

    Rights issue can't be that bad, right? Especially when the company is now having hot new project in another country. Times are exciting and the company 'invites' you to invest more money into the company by subscribing to the rights issue.

    So you decided to invest more, more so since you noted that the company was also buying back their own shares.

    The company shares meanwhile started to announce weak set of earnings. Stocks started to decline.

    7 months after you had subscribed to the rights issue, the stock, due to continued weak earnings, fell to its historical lows. The owners of the company too agree that the stock was cheap. So cheap that  they decided to privatise it!

    Now get this.

    Your cost of shares after the rights issues was 6.25.

    The company privatisation offer was a very generous 2.60!!!!!!!


Now do consider what was written on the Star Business today.

So previously, IOI saw IOI Properties was undervalued. Like a vulture, IOI capitalised on the cheap valuations by taking it private.

Did IOI care about its minority shareholders who had subsribed to the rights issue at 6.25 7 months earlier? My opinion is a simple NO since IOI privatisation offer was a generously ridiculous offer of 2.60!

And IOI even denied publicly the early privatisation rumours!!!!

Yeah, denied publicly but yet the company did the privatisation!!! 

So when the subsidiary was considered cheap, it took it private.

Now to UNLOCK value, IOI Corp wants to relist it again!

Fair game for the minority investors???

You tell me!


Think about it.

Given such rampant delisting and relisting of companies, how is the stock exchange going to attract retail investors????

Yeah, don't cry if the market lacks retail investors!!!

Remember think about the GAME that it is being played.

When a stock is undervalued, careful... the stock could be delisted via a cheap privaisation offer.

And yeah, they will even dare to tell you it is unfair but hey, the offer is reasonable!!! (Duh!!!)

And now when they want to seak (unlock) value, they want to sell you the shares by relisting it once more!

You like such games?

    Monday, April 08, 2013

    MSWG Turn To Raise Issue Against NOT FAIR BUT REASONABLE


    On SunDaily:

    • Investors cry foul over "not fair but reasonable" advice
      Posted on 8 April 2013 - 05:37am

      Presenna Nambiar

      PETALING JAYA (April 8, 2013): The Minority Shareholders Watchdog Group (MSWG) has come out to say that there may be a need to re-look the methodology in which independent advisers base their advice to minority shareholders, as more and more investors cry foul over the increasing number of "not fair but reasonable" recommendations.

      CEO Rita Benoy Bushon (pix) told SunBiz in an interview that the watchdog has been receiving an increasing number of complaints on independent advisers' call to accept takeover offers that are "not fair but reasonable".

      Listing requirements stipulate that listed companies that are targets of a disposal of all or substantially all of its assets that may affect its listing status, appoint an independent adviser to objectively assess the merits of the deal for the benefit of minority shareholders.

      The "not fair" statement is normally attached to the pricing of the offer when compared to quantitative considerations such as the company's net asset value, whereas the reasonableness of it is based on non-quantitative considerations such as market conditions and liquidity of the market.

      Bushon sees merit in investors' frustrations, saying that as an investor who is ultimately faced with the compulsion to exit a listed entity, a major consideration would be getting a fair exit value of their investment.

      "The fair pricing is very important and it depends on various factors including the sector the company is in and potential of the business in terms of numbers," Bushon said.

      "From MSWG's observation, on the aspect of reasonableness... too much of emphasis is placed on this subjective element with final recommendations to accept the offer in all cases where there is a clear intention to delist the company even though the offer price is grossly unfair with a huge discount to the intrinsic value. This is what the minority shareholders are complaining about," she added.

      Bushon also noted that past experiences have seen examples of companies that have not revalued their land for 14 years.

      "So (in instances like this) how can you (an independent adviser) ever come up with an advice based on a valuation done 14 years ago. That is difficult to comprehend,
      " she added.

      Bushon suggested that perhaps there is a need to re-look the yardsticks and criteria that independent advice letters (IAL) work on, considering investors are reluctant to heed the advice given, as observed by MSWG.

      The recent failed attempt by Hong Leong Financial Group Bhd (HLFG) to take Hong Leong Capital Bhd private is an example of one advice which did not convince minority investors, even as independent adviser Affin Investment Bank Bhd had opined that the offer was "fair and reasonable".

      HLFG only managed to acquire a 2.24% stake during its offer period.

      Petroliam Nasional Bhd's (Petronas) offer for MISC Bhd also saw resistance from minority shareholders despite the independent adviser on the deal, AmInvestment Bank, asking minority shareholders to accept it, after calling it "unfair but reasonable".

      This resistance eventually made Petronas, which had been adamant that RM5.30 a share was the "right price", to revise its offer to RM5.50 per share at the eleventh hour on Friday.

      The rules governing IALs have undergone a few changes over the years, kicked off by a consultation paper published in March 2010, seeking feedback on proposed updates to guidelines on offer documentation of the Malaysian Code on Take-overs and Mergers.

      What started out as a call for comment and advice by independent advisers on the reasonableness of an offer, evolved to one which set standards that needed to be adhered to when analysing the fairness and reasonableness of a takeover offer.

      Then in September last year, it was decided that the two considerations: fairness and reasonableness, be independent of each other. This allowed for independent advisers to recommend that investors accept an offer even if one of the considerations was not up to mark.

      Three months later in December last year, the Securities Commission (SC) released another document called the "Best Practice Guide on Independent Advice Letters" for another round of public comment.

      The SC said the guide is to clarify the SC's and Bursa Malaysia's views on the role of an independent adviser, and to provide guidance on the standards of disclosures in IALs; and augment both regulators' continuous efforts in raising standards of corporate governance through the promotion of high quality disclosures.

      "Perhaps another suggestion is to have an over-the-counter platform for those minorities who wish to still remain in the delisted entity until and unless a compulsory acquisition is triggered," said Bushon.

      "This would motivate majority shareholders to offer a better price at the outset and the minority would be more fairly
      dealt with. (But) this suggestion needs to be studied more in detail with the implications." 
     Remember this....

    If we continue to allow NOT FAIR BUT REASONABLE advise to continue to be dished out to the minority shareholders, we are sending one clear message, which is, you minority shareholders, it is reasonable to accept offers that are not fair!!.

    Is that acceptable??????

    Sunday, April 07, 2013

    Investment Adviser: Just Who Are You Advising For?

    From the posting: Business Times Writes About Unfair And Reasonable!

    limko said...

    • What comes to mind is the two occasions when Pharmaniaga planned for privatisation.
      On the first privatisation, "independant adviser" advised not to accept the offer, and the exercise did not go through. Subsequently, the price of Pharmaniaga slummed.
      On the second privatisation, another "independant adviser" advised to accept, and the exercise completed. Subsequently, the price of Pharmaniaga soars.
      On both occasions, the mionrity shareholders got screwed.
      Advise or lie?
     Good point.

    For me, right now, there's indeed some changes when compared to previous years but I would say it's nor enough.

    The next step is, we need our minority shareholders to be better advised.

    An unfair order is unfair. End of.

    It should be rejected.

    Calling it 'unfair but reasonable' is just not acceptable.

    Saturday, April 06, 2013

    Business Times Writes About Unfair And Reasonable!

    After making several postings on this issue, If The OFFER is NOT FAIR, how can it be REASONABLE?. and How could it be reasonable to accept an offer which is deemed not FAIR?, Business Times decided to post an opinion on it too. :)

    • Investors want 'KISS', not word games

      Published: 2013/04/06

      STICK TO THE BASICS: Shareholders need crystal clear explanation from those independent advisers

      WHAT is "not fair but reasonable"? For the life of me, I cannot understand the meaning of it.

      These days, such term is used so frequently by independent advisers when advising minority shareholders on the worthiness of a corporate exercise.

      Who pays the independent advisers? If a public-listed company does, then, in theory, all of its shareholders pay for their service. Hence, the shareholders should get a crystal clear explanation from the highly-paid independent advisers.

      The catch is not on who pays them, but rather, who is in charge of hiring them.

      Are corporate fees too tempting that layman investors are forced to put up with reports that highlight proposals as being "not fair but reasonable"?

      Looking back, the only thing that pops into my mind as being unfair but reasonable is being caned in school.

      Mind you, my "not fair but reasonable" assesment on being caned at schools comes more than two decades after the incident had happened.

      I had aged and, presumably, gained some wisdom in coming to that conclusion.

      In the action-packed world that we live in, an average investor does not have the liberty to wait for 10 or 20 years to see if a deal, proposed in the current time, is indeed "not fair but reasonable".

      As my first boss in Business Times once told me, KISS! (short for "keep it short and simple") So, why can't independent advisers (aka merchant bankers in disguise ) just stick to facts and keep their Shakespearean instinct in their closets?

      Independent advisers who fancy themselves as talented writers and poets should quit the merchant bank industry altogether.

      Let's go back to the basics. Independent advisers must only be allowed to recommend to shareholders either to accept or reject a deal.

      If they ask shareholders to accept a certain proposal, then it should be on the assumption that it is a fair and reasonable one.

      Rejecting the proposal should be on the basis that it is unfair and unreasonable.

      Independent advisers should not be allowed to be politically correct by disguising a bad proposal as "unfair but reasonable".

      Before the next independent adviser contemplates keying in a proposal as "unfair but reasonable", take a minute to unwind by listening to Bob Dylan's "Gotta Serve Somebody".

      The lyrics go something like this: "You may be the heavyweight champion of the world. You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls. But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed. It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."

    Tuesday, April 02, 2013

    Stock Market Is To Make A Big Buck From The Fool Of All Minority Shareholders...

    kine said...

    • Stock market is for any company to make big buck out from the fool of all the majority of shareholders. They need to sell/distribute at very high price to the very greedy & excited investing public & collect/buy at the very damn dirt cheap price through buy back from their short selling activities or forceful privatization at the expense of the very ignorant public.
      This is the very uncomfortable harsh reality of true life.
     Yeah it's sad.

    There are so many ways Bursa Malaysia, the country's STOCK EXCHANGE could be better.

    But sadly, because it's a listed company, a business, I find it difficult to see changes.

    ALL the CEOs, the present and the past, had repeatedly announce the COMPANY is seeking more revenue.

    When you hear a stock exchanging seeking revenue, it clearly states the STOCK EXCHANGE is business motivated. The stock exchange just wants to make more money! Which means, company will continue stand a chance of relisting again despite how horrible it treated its minority shareholders in the past.

    And yeah, less than quality stocks will be listed in our stock market.

    Just look at those companies from China listed in our stock exchange.

    Can you smell........

    Monday, April 01, 2013

    Why Is Retail Investing Lacking? (Part II)

    Posted the other day: More On Bursa CEO Pay And Lack Of Retail Investor...

    Consider the following.

    You hear these advice always. Invest and don't punt. Invest long term. The longer you hold the stock, the better your investment return. When the stock falls, just buy more. Same investment is now cheaper, invest more!

    Now consider this story.

    You read about the company venturing into another country, just when that country is announcing some interesting projects. You get optimistic about the company, right? Analysts are optimistic too.

    So you invest in it.

    Then came another opportunity.

    Company announce a share split plus rights issue.

    Rights issue can't be that bad, right? Especially when the company is now having hot new project in another country. Times are exciting and the company 'invites' you to invest more money into the company by subscribing to the rights issue.

    So you decided to invest more, more so since you noted that the company was also buying back their own shares.

    The company shares meanwhile started to announce weak set of earnings. Stocks started to decline.

    7 months after you had subscribed to the rights issue, the stock, due to continued weak earnings, fell to its historical lows. The owners of the company too agree that the stock was cheap. So cheap that  they decided to privatise it!

    Now get this.

    Your cost of shares after the rights issues was 6.25.

    The company privatisation offer was a very generous 2.60!!!!!!!


    Now seriously you tell me, who in the right mind want to be a retail investor when incidents like this occur? And to add serious salt to your injury, last year, the local business papers suggested the company was planning to relist its shares again!!!!


    Isn't this delisting and relisting giving the stock exchange such a horrible stench?

    And you know very well, since the stock exchange is a listed entity, it is a business and as a business, the business will most likely allow the relisting because such exercise will generate revenue for the stock exchange.

    But at what cost?

    You tell me....

    So if retail investors shun our stock exchange, can you really blame them?

    And oh, this story is real. This incident did happen.

    See and

    This chart says it all...

     And this is the link about the possible relisting...


    Think about it.

    When you see incidents like this happen in our stock exchange, won't it scare away retail investors?

    My point again?

    Let me paste what I wrote in my last posting.
    • Bursa, remind yourself you are a stock exchange. Look after the exchange. Make sure you protect your other customers, the minority shareholders, fairly. That's the most important thing. Who wants to invest when they run the risk of being treated unfairly and not being compensated for taking the risk to invest their hard earned money in shares? Once the protection is there, slowly but surely, the retail investors will flow back into the market.