Wiser choice to invest more and try to see can leecover
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Investments gone bad
- Thread starter LITTLEREDDOT
- Start date
Altogether now!!! HUAT AH!!!
Wiser choice to invest more and try to see can leecover
Please take note of this potential investment opportunity this Friday. You may lose your investment, but at least this is legal and you tried.
Altogether Now! Huat Ah!
View attachment 133509
trouble ?.................she'll be promoted.................banks are scams..................
and what chiobu ?..................i see a guy with long hair with a girl's name...............
UBS sued for US$500 million by fugitive Chinese tycoon over deal gone awry
Guo Wengui (left) with Steve Bannon at a news conference in New York on Nov 20, 2018. PHOTO: REUTERS
NOV 6, 2020
NEW YORK (BLOOMBERG) - Guo Wengui, a wealthy Chinese businessman with close ties to Steve Bannon, stepped up his fight to claim US$500 million (S$674.9 million) from UBS Group that he lost after the bank called in a margin loan.
Mr Guo, who's lived in exile in New York for more than five years, sued UBS in London, saying the bank pressured him into agreeing to borrow money tied to the purchase of shares in Chinese brokerage Haitong Securities. Mr Guo said UBS forced the sale of the stock amid a market rout and a 45 per cent plunge in Haitong's Hong Kong-traded shares in 2015, wiping out his investment.
UBS said in a statement it "strongly disagrees with the claim and will vigorously defend itself."
It's not the first time Mr Guo has brought such a lawsuit, after failing to get the claim heard in New York. He said he wasn't initially aware that UBS had inserted margin call agreements into the contracts.
UBS advised Mr Guo to structure the deal through an intermediary to avoid breaching thresholds that would require him to disclose his holding, he said in a legal filing. He agreed that the shares in Haitong would be first acquired by a Chinese state-backed investment fund. But after dumping the stock, the firm passed on the loss to Mr Guo.
The fugitive tycoon has used social media to hurl allegations at Chinese government leaders from afar. He has linked up with Mr Bannon, saying he likes the former adviser to Us President Donald Trump because he takes seriously Mr Guo's allegations that China seeks to create turmoil in the US.
Mr Bannon was on Mr Guo's yacht off the coast of Connecticut when he was arrested in August and charged with conspiring to siphon hundreds of thousands of dollars from a campaign to raise funds for a wall on the US southern border.
UBS had internal policies not to make margin calls to "highly valued customers" such as Mr Guo if prices tied to the loan moved in the short term, a lawyer for the businessman said in the filing. In another high-profile financing transaction, involving Chinese insurer Ping An Insurance Group, UBS had also agreed not to make margin calls, the lawyer said.
UBS loses bid to dodge Chinese billionaire's $671 million lawsuit
Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui alleges UBS gave negligent advice that led him to borrow money tied to the purchase of shares in a Chinese brokerage. PHOTO: REUTERS
Feb 10, 2022
LONDON (BLOOMBERG) - UBS Group has lost its bid to throw out a US$500 million (S$671 million) lawsuit brought by an exiled Chinese billionaire over a costly margin call in 2015.
A London judge ruled that Britain does have the right to hear the case brought by Mr Guo Wengui, a wealthy businessman with close ties to former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon, meaning the suit can continue to trial.
It is a blow for UBS, which had sought to get part of the case dismissed on jurisdiction grounds.
UBS and a lawyer for Mr Guo did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mr Guo alleges that the bank gave negligent advice that led him to borrow money tied to the purchase of shares in Chinese brokerage Haitong Securities. He says that investment was almost completely lost when UBS forced the sale of the stock after the Hong Kong-traded shares plunged during a market rout.
The London judge on Wednesday (Feb 9) said that she could oversee the case because London is where the "harmful event" occurred and UBS' London unit "sufficiently and significantly participated in several elements" of the action forming the claims.
Usd500 mil you can get so many kfc and mcdonalds franchise.
Well she ain't no helpless ignorant uneducated elderly hor.
Ng
Photographer: Juliana Tan for Bloomberg Businessweek
Businessweek - The Big Take
The Billion-Dollar Nickel-Swap Scandal That Shocked Singapore
Singaporeans invested a billion dollars in Ng Yu Zhi’s nickel-trading company. He’s accused of taking the money and skipping the nickel.By Matthew Campbell and Chanyaporn Chanjaroen
February 11, 2022
Not long after the novel coronavirus arrived in Singapore, forcing the hyperconnected city-state to shut its borders for the first time, a rumor circulated among its many wealthy people—and among others who weren’t so well-off. A little-known investment manager was apparently delivering an astonishing 15% quarterly profit to anyone who invested with him, by trading nickel.
As word spread, more and more Singaporeans clamored to give their money to the investment manager, a 34-year-old ex-accountant named Ng Yu Zhi. Soon Ng’s fund, Envy Group, had raised almost S$1.5 billion ($1.1 billion) from hundreds of clients. He certainly seemed to be making good on the hype, returning steady gains quarter after quarter and giving every appearance of great success, with a mansion in one of Asia’s most expensive neighborhoods, a 126-foot yacht, and a fleet of luxury cars.
Trusting Ng would prove to be catastrophic. Singapore police arrested him last February and accused him of running perhaps the largest scam, in terms of dollars lost, in the small country’s history. According to police and forensic accountants appointed to examine Ng’s books, the trades he claimed to be making had simply never occurred. Instead, they say, he was engaged in an elaborate fraud, transferring S$475 million of investors’ money to himself and using it to enjoy a lifestyle that was lavish even by the standards of the setting for Crazy Rich Asians. Ng has yet to enter a plea in response to the 75 charges against him, and he declined to provide a comment for this story, citing ongoing police investigations.
Featured in Bloomberg Businessweek, Feb. 14, 2022. Subscribe now.
Source: DEEPOL/plainpicture
His clients included some of Singapore’s most successful citizens: senior lawyers, former bank executives, and businesspeople who should have known better than to invest in what appears, in retrospect, to have been a Ponzi scheme, and not a particularly sophisticated one. They weren’t the only people who failed to ask enough questions. According to legal filings, Ng made more than a thousand transfers from Envy’s corporate and investor funds to bank accounts he likely controlled, misappropriating hundreds of millions of dollars before being stopped.
Investment scams occur all over the world and can last far longer than Envy survived; Bernie Madoff ran a giant Ponzi scheme under the noses of investors and regulators for decades. Still, the allegations against Ng are awkward for Singapore, which is navigating a sensitive national transition. With its stable politics, relatively open borders, and respected legal system, the city is closer than ever to displacing Hong Kong as Asia’s main financial center, a development that would turbocharge its already robust economy. Yet despite Singapore’s orderly reputation, it’s seen more than its share of high-profile scandals in recent years, including the collapse of Noble Group Ltd., a commodity trading company accused of cooking its books, and an alleged fraud at Hyflux Ltd., a water utility that entered a court-mandated debt restructuring in 2018, infuriating retail investors.
To some in the city, the apparent ease with which Ng operated suggests that its authorities need to keep a closer eye on the rising tide of cash that’s sloshing in. “I absolutely think Singapore needs to step up its enforcement and oversight of white-collar crime,” says Mak Yuen Teen, a professor of accounting at the National University of Singapore Business School. In the Envy case, “there were many red flags indicating possible fraud. So we have to ask, ‘Where were the circuit breakers?’ ”
Ng incorporated Envy Group in 2015 and decided to focus on nickel.
Photographer: Juliana Tan for Bloomberg Businessweek
Until a few years ago, little about Ng would have marked him as bound for the world of high finance. Soft-spoken and unfailingly polite, with a round, full face, he studied accounting at one of Singapore’s public universities then joined audit firm KPMG LLP. One of the main clients he worked with was BHP Group, the world’s largest mining company, and Ng found that he was fascinated by the metals business, with its huge, liquid markets, real-world industrial needs, and 24/7 volatility. He began trading commodities on the side, and in 2015 he left KPMG to develop his interest into a full-time career.
It was a fortuitous moment to start a trading company. Global commodity prices had declined by roughly half from their 2008 peak, offering the potential for huge profits to anyone with the courage and capital to ride them back up. And there were few better places to do it than Singapore. Always a busy regional hub, the city was emerging as a global financial contender, attracting investments not only from other parts of Southeast Asia but increasingly from India, China, and beyond. Everyone seemed to want a piece of its success. Over the next several years, billionaires including Ray Dalio and Sergey Brin would open local offices to invest their personal wealth; British vacuum-cleaner tycoon James Dyson also set up one and spent a reported S$74 million on a five-bedroom downtown penthouse.
Ng incorporated Envy Group in 2015, taking its name from a slightly cringey line KPMG used in its training sessions: that the company’s goal was to be “the envy” of other accounting providers. He decided to focus on nickel, which was an unusual strategy for a small commodities outfit. The trade was dominated by a handful of well-connected operators, making it challenging to build a business from scratch. But Ng saw nickel as seriously undervalued, with markets failing to price in its growing utility: It’s so crucial to rechargeable batteries that Tesla Inc. co-founder Elon Musk once asked suppliers to “please mine more.”
Business was excellent, as far as anyone outside of Envy could tell. Nickel prices went on a bull run for most of the second half of the 2010s, and Ng steadily expanded his client list, sometimes with help from Veronica Shim, a successful wealth manager who was impressed enough by Ng that she invested with him herself and offered Envy’s trades to her own clients.
Singapore is a flashy place. On Orchard Road, the main shopping drag, chauffeur-driven Bentleys pull up outside flagship stores for the likes of Harry Winston and Dolce & Gabbana; at the waterfront Marina Bay Sands casino, high rollers can wager millions before retiring to a 6,400-square-foot “Chairman Suite” on the 53rd floor. But even in a city where the rich delight in showing off their success, Ng stood out. Envy operated from a luxuriously appointed office, arranged around a fully stocked bar from which visitors might be offered a glass of 21-year-old Hibiki whisky, a Japanese treasure that can sell for more than S$200 per pour. Ng liked to meet clients and colleagues at top-drawer sushi restaurants, roaring between engagements in vehicles from a fleet that included a Ferrari, a Lamborghini, and Singapore’s only Pagani Huayra supercar, which he’d spent more than S$7 million to buy.
Cai on the cover of Prestige.
His home life was no less luxurious. Ng and his Chinese-born wife, Coco Cai, rented a mansion near the lush Botanic Gardens, and he was in the process of buying two others. The pandemic hardly dented their lifestyle. In December 2020, she told Prestige, an Asian society magazine, how a team of salespeople from Italian jewelry brand Bulgari had come to their home to present a “curated selection” of new pieces “flown in specially for her.” Cai bought four.
Ng did little marketing, but news of the outsize returns he was delivering to investors was spreading, discussed at birthday parties and on golf courses or passed between yacht owners at the Sentosa Cove marina, where Singapore’s super rich keep their vessels. In turn, more and more members of the city’s financial elite sought to entrust him with their money. From Pek Siok Lan, the general counsel of state investment company Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd., came S$5.6 million. Arun Murthy, former global head of commodities at Standard Chartered Plc, put in a little less than S$1 million. Finian Tan, one of Singapore’s most prominent venture capitalists, was a major backer; he and partners invested a total of S$26 million.
Few, if any, were perturbed by a March 2020 decision by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the nation’s main market watchdog, to place Envy on its “investor alert list,” which flags companies that may be “wrongly perceived as being licensed or regulated by MAS,” and thus appear to be safer. One Envy investor, who asked not to be identified discussing his loss, says it didn’t seem like a major concern: Dozens of funds are placed on the list each year. Nor did it stop hundreds of less wealthy investors, including restaurateurs and doctors, small-business owners and retirees, from giving Ng their money, swelling the total handed over to Envy to almost S$1.5 billion by early 2021. In a city where so many people seemed to be finding ways to get rich, why shouldn’t they?
Put simply, Envy had almost never bought any of the nickel it claimed to be trading
The tropical sun was barely over the horizon when a team of officers from the Commercial Affairs Department, the antifraud unit of the Singapore Police Force, arrived at Ng’s mansion last Feb. 16. He was already up, preparing to send his daughter to school. The officers let him shower and change before taking him to gather documents from Envy’s office and then to a police station.
It turned out Ng had been on investigators’ radar for at least several months. The MAS had received tips about Envy’s operations in mid-2020 and referred the matter to the police later that year. Once Ng was in custody, officers held him for more than two days, questioning him at length about Envy’s operations. After his release, according to people familiar with the matter who asked to remain anonymous in order to describe private conversations, Ng told staff and investors that his detention was the result of a misunderstanding—one that might result, at most, in a slap on the wrist for Envy. Many believed him, one of the people says. Ng appeared more relaxed about the police’s interest in Envy than most of his employees, giving every impression he had little to worry about.
That outward calm was shattered on March 22, when prosecutors filed their first criminal charges against Ng, accusing him of channeling S$300 million of investor money to his own accounts. (Subsequent legal filings pushed the alleged total to just under a half-billion Singapore dollars.) The charges outlined the broad strokes of what police and, later, a team of court-appointed accountants from Ng’s alma mater, KPMG, concluded was an audacious but simple fraud. Put simply, Envy had almost never bought any of the nickel it claimed to be trading, and the returns investors thought they were receiving were in fact drawn from new clients’ deposits—a classic Ponzi structure. Indeed, Poseidon Nickel Ltd., the Australian mining concern that Ng told investors he was sourcing the metal from, informed KPMG auditors that it had “no business relationship” with Envy and had never entered any transaction with it.
When they looked over Envy’s purported contracts with Poseidon, the accountants, led by Bob Yap, one of Singapore’s best-known restructuring specialists, noticed what they dryly described in an update for the court as “numerous irregularities” in the documents. For one thing, the name of a “director” whose signature appeared on two contracts on behalf of the Australian company did “not appear to match the initials or names of any of Poseidon’s directors in the relevant period.”
Meanwhile, according to the auditors, investor money was being moved in tranches of S$200,000 to accounts likely controlled by Ng, sometimes in dozens of wire transfers per day. Two of Singapore’s major banks, Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. and United Overseas Bank Ltd., were concerned enough by Ng’s activities to close his accounts well before his arrest. Other lenders, including DBS Group Holdings Ltd. and HSBC Holdings Plc, filed suspicious-transaction reports with the authorities but continued doing business with him. DBS and HSBC declined to comment on Ng’s accounts; spokespeople for both lenders said that they have comprehensive systems for flagging suspicious transactions and cooperate fully with law enforcement. An MAS spokesperson said in a statement that the agency expects banks to “implement robust measures to monitor for suspicious transactions” and would take action against firms that fell short of regulatory requirements.
As they dug further, investigators concluded that everything about the nickel deals had been faked, and not especially well. In communications with investors, Envy had said it was selling cargoes to a trading operation called BNP Paribas Commodity Futures Ltd., a London-based unit of the French bank. But U.K. corporate records indicated that this entity had ceased operations in February 2019. Envy’s records nonetheless contained 11 trading statements from after that date—documents that would have to have been forged.
The investigation did find that Envy had conducted one genuine nickel deal. In July and August of 2020, the company spent S$42 million to buy more than 2,000 metric tons of the commodity from Raffemet Pte Ltd., a large trading house. Ng went to a local warehouse to inspect the load, with colleagues recording a video of him looking over loads of nickel pellets. Envy sent the video to its investors, then sold the nickel right back to Raffemet.
The cityscape at dusk.
Source: Anekoho/Agefoto
Ng is awaiting trial in somewhat more straitened conditions than he enjoyed before his arrest. Out on S$4 million bail—one of the largest in Singapore history—he’s swapped his mansion for a serviced apartment. After recent court hearings, he’s departed not in a souped-up sports car but an Audi sedan. He’ll soon face a difficult choice. If he opts to contest the charges against him, he could remain free for years, albeit without the ability to leave Singapore, as the case winds its way through the courts. If he pleads guilty, he’ll likely receive a lengthy sentence, though one that’s shorter than the 20-year maximum he’d probably face if convicted at trial.
The broader damage of Envy’s collapse is still being tallied. Several investors who asked not to be identified in order to avoid being publicly associated with Envy say they don’t expect to recover the bulk of what they lost. It’s not clear how much will be raised from ongoing sales of Ng’s assets, including cars, art, and jewelry. The same is true of a lawsuit filed against him by the KPMG auditors, who are seeking more than S$500 million in damages.
Whatever the ultimate financial cost, the Envy scandal will nudge along efforts to prevent fraud in Singapore as it becomes a more important global hub. Ravi Menon, managing director of the MAS, acknowledged not long before Ng’s arrest that detecting financial irregularities is “an area that needs to be addressed.” The national stock exchange recently expanded its enforcement mechanisms, making it mandatory for public companies to institute whistleblower policies and giving itself the power to require a director or executive to resign. Other proposals would give regulators more tools to ensure that accounting companies comply with anti-money-laundering regulations.
But even the most finely tuned regulatory systems can be frustrated by a sufficiently audacious swindler, especially one that’s in tune with the psychological needs of his marks. To win the confidence of so many sophisticated people, Ng appears to have grafted the timeless appeal of get-rich-quick schemes onto a more particular desire: to share in the spoils of a city rising faster than almost any other. Above all, Ng’s investors “trusted the individual,” says Chenthil Kumarasingam, a partner at the law firm Withers KhattarWong, who advises on white-collar crime but wasn’t involved in the Envy case. “He made a very good show of living a lifestyle that everybody aspired to.” —With Joyce Koh and Yoolim Lee
It’s been 5.5 months since I left and the malicious dogs cottonmouth aka glockman aka Jeremy Quek as per hint by jw5 (and sweetiepie etc) are allowed by Leongsam to smear and insult me slut whore mistress with no consequence. I have to inform Leongsam to delete the posts and sometimes to no avail and i am sick of it. So Leongsam did not follow his deal to get his moderators to remove posts speaking ill of me so here I am carrying out my vow to spam the forum if cottonmouth is allowed to spam in my threads without consequence - which cottonmouth obviously did and was allowed - and he has been allowed in this 5.5 months no need follow his agreement to stop insulting me and continued to smear and insult me whore just yesterday and insulted me have std one day before that and everyday with no consequence.
Another thing to highlight is I realised after I left forum that @strawberry = @kaninabuchaojibye and I already know @nightsafari = @kaninabuchaojibye i.e despicable nightsafari is the strawberry that started the thread Who is Ginfreely sugar daddy and then keep upping it on the pretext of asking about strawberry. No wonder so pretentious always pretending to like my Hokkien threads while stabbing me non stop.
Another thing to highlight is I realised after I left forum that @strawberry = @kaninabuchaojibye and I already know @nightsafari = @kaninabuchaojibye i.e despicable nightsafari is the strawberry that started the thread Who is Ginfreely sugar daddy and then keep upping it on the pretext of asking about strawberry. No wonder so pretentious always pretending to like my Hokkien threads while stabbing me non stop.
Grab could face class action suits in US following recent share price dive
Grab's CEO Anthony Tan (left) and co-founder Tan Hooi Ling (right) with Nasdaq APAC chairman Robert McCooey at the Nasdaq bell-ringing ceremony on Dec 2, 2021. PHOTO: REUTERS
Choo Yun Ting
Business Correspondent
Mar 8, 2022
SINGAPORE - Nasdaq-listed super-app Grab could face class action lawsuits, with several United States law firms calling for shareholders to contact them to investigate claims on their behalf.
The mounting of such investigations, which is fairly commonplace for listed firms in the US, comes after Grab's shares crashed last week, falling about 37 per cent on March 3 after it announced a fourth-quarter net loss of US$1.1 billion (S$1.5 billion).
Its results came amid a worse-than-expected drop in revenue, due to higher incentives being paid out to attract drivers and consumers.
Singapore-headquartered Grab's shares last closed at US$3.36 on Monday (March 7), a far cry from the US$13.06 it reached on the day of its listing last December.
At least eight law firms have announced their intention to investigate Grab for matters such as false and misleading statements, possible fraud and other violations of US federal securities laws.
Grab declined to comment when contacted by The Straits Times.
Professor Lawrence Loh, director of the Centre for Governance and Sustainability at the National University of Singapore Business School, noted that listed firms in the US regularly face class action suits in a variety of matters, including possible violations of securities laws.
"In recent years, there are, in particular, class action suits against non-US issuers, especially those from China. The trend for class action suits is primarily driven by the permissibility of contingency fee arrangements, where the lawyer receives a pre-agreed percentage of the awarded damages," he said.
In addition, there are many law firms that specialise in class action suits for securities laws, and actively monitor unusual stock losses and seek shareholders who incurred significant damages to lead the suits, Prof Loh added.
In stock drop lawsuits, lawyers seize on a plunge in stock price as evidence that a company failed to be forthcoming about looming bad news.
Calls for investors to mount securities class action lawsuits are fairly common in the US, even if most cases do not make it to court.
Shareholder rights litigation company Schall Law Firm is also similarly focusing on whether Grab issued false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors.
Securities litigation practice Pomerantz Law Firm, meanwhile, is investigating whether Grab and its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or unlawful business practices, it said in a release dated March 6.
Pomerantz had also last month called for shareholders of Sea to contact the firm, announcing its intent to investigate the Singapore-based tech giant for similar reasons. It is among a number of US law firms that regularly puts out calls for investors to contact them for investigation into listed firms.
According to statistics from Stanford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse database, 211 securities class action cases were filed in federal and state courts last year, lower than the 319 cases filed in 2020.
So far, this year, 35 cases have been filed.
The number of filings involving special purpose acquisition companies (Spacs) also rose significantly, in line with the rise of Spac-related mergers last year.
In class action suits, there are generally one or more lead plaintiffs, who represent the group of plaintiffs, or in the case of Grab, the group of investors. The lead plaintiffs are typically those with the largest losses and with the most incentive to get a higher settlement.
If a settlement is reached, the lawyers usually take a percentage of the settlement amount, with the lead plaintiffs next, and normally getting paid a higher share than other members, followed by the rest of the members of the class.
Prof Loh highlighted that Grab should always be ready to defend its actions and disclosure of information rigorously in the course of its business, and not just because of potential class action suits.
"The (firm's next) steps will have to depend on the specific contentions in each of the class action suits that may arise, but one thing is clear: there is certainly much gripe about the heavy share price drops after the Spac listing."
Grab, Sea price slump could affect S-E Asian unicorns going public
Grab listed on the Nasdaq last December through a US$40 billion special purpose acquisition company (Spac) deal. PHOTO: ST FILE
Choo Yun Ting
Business Correspondent
Mar 24, 2022
SINGAPORE - The slumping share prices of South-east Asian tech giants Sea and Grab combined with geopolitical tensions and surging inflation could derail the listing ambitions of leading Singapore and regional start-ups, industry observers said.
Super app Grab, which listed on the Nasdaq last December through a US$40 billion (S$53 billion) special purpose acquisition company (Spac) deal, has seen its share price fall to around US$3.75, a far cry from its listing intra-day high of US$13.06 and debut close of US$8.75.
Sea, which owns e-commerce platform Shopee and gaming arm Garena, has suffered a US$150 billion plunge in its market value since late last year. The stock is trading at around US$114, about a third of its peak of US$367 last November and below the US$200 it was trading at a year or so ago.
Mr Terence Wong, founder and chief executive of Azure Capital, said investors will be even more cautious given current global uncertainties. "Interest rates are going up even if they are still low compared to historical levels. The best days of cheap and easily available liquidity are coming to an end."
Investors will be forced to ask hard questions against this backdrop of tightening liquidity, he said.
Some of the region's biggest tech-related firms are still keen to chance their arm on the share market.
Singapore-based property listings platform PropertyGuru, which was valued at more than US$1 billion in the private sphere, started trading on the New York Stock Exchange last Friday after merging with a Spac, Bridgetown 2 Holdings.
And Indonesia's GoTo, which was formed last year through the merger of ride-hailing firm Gojek and e-commerce player Tokopedia, is looking to raise US$1.3 billion in its initial public offering, with an estimated listing on April 4.
Professor Mak Yuen Teen from the National University of Singapore Business School said that unless start-ups can convince investors that they have a clear path to profitability in the not-too-distant future, they may struggle.
Valuations must be more realistic, he said, adding: "Investors will be even more sceptical if the listing is through a Spac, given how poorly many have performed recently."
Mr Wong said investors have growing concerns about the high valuations and potential of some unicorns - privately held firms valued at US$1 billion or more - given the US Federal Reserve's interest rate hike and rising inflation.
"It's a sign of the times," he said, noting that the market was waxing lyrical in 2020 about how unicorn start-ups and their business models would be well suited to a post-pandemic world.
Associate Professor Vijay Yadav from ESSEC Business School said that uncertainties around valuations are usually more severe in the case of young companies that are in their initial growth phase and yet to generate any profit.
In such cases, market sentiment plays a big role so the poor performance of companies like Grab would probably affect the valuations and post-listing performances of new companies that have yet to become profitable.
He said that investors have become more sceptical of Spacs given the poor performance of companies that listed through this route in recent years, with many trading below their debut price.
Prof Mak noted that Sea's recent share price decline is likely due to a combination of factors - its poor financial performance, the ban of Garena's popular Free Fire game in India and the pull-out of Shopee from France.
"I think investors must wonder how it is going to be profitable when it is still making big losses despite the success of the Free Fire game and Shopee in this region," he said.
"The pullout of Shopee from France also indicates that their business model may not work in certain markets."
Prof Mak noted that Sea's recent share price decline is likely due to a combination of factors. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG
Nonetheless, DBS Bank analyst Sachin Mittal remains confident about Sea's prospects, with the bank recommending a target price of US$256. Its guidance for Grab is a "hold" with a target price of US$5.60.
Mr Mittal noted on March 16 that GoTo Group's overall Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation) losses are significantly higher than its South-east Asian peers and reaffirmed that Sea would be a preferred investment pick.
While institutional investors generally have the patience to withstand short-term losses and could stand to reap profits from long-term investments in such companies, the same does not apply for retail investors, Prof Yadav said.
"Retail investors who have neither the resources to evaluate such companies nor the patience to withstand short-term losses should invest only a small part of their portfolio in young and unprofitable companies," he added.
Were you invested in Russian shares?
Song boh?
Buying opportunity? Can't go lower than zero, correct?
Song boh?
Buying opportunity? Can't go lower than zero, correct?
Temasek-backed Zilingo’s CEO suspended pending investigation, board confirms
CEO Ankiti Bose has disputed allegations of wrongdoing. PHOTO: ZILINGO
Choo Yun Ting
Business Correspondent
Apr 13, 2022
SINGAPORE - Temasek-backed e-commerce start-up Zilingo has suspended its chief executive Ankiti Bose pending an investigation.
In a media statement on Wednesday (April 13), the Zilingo board said the major investors of the company had authorised it to suspend Ms Bose while an investigation is conducted into matters that surfaced in March.
The statement did not mention what the matters of concern are.
“In March 2022, shareholders of Zilingo and members of the board received information which required investigation. The major investors of the company authorised the board to put the CEO, Ankiti Bose, on suspension pending an investigation of the matters raised,” the statement said.
Bloomberg had earlier reported that Ms Bose was suspended after new funding efforts led to questions about the company’s accounting.
The concerns centred on the way that Singapore-headquartered Zilingo had accounted for transactions and revenue across a platform spanning thousands of small merchants, according to Bloomberg’s sources.
Zilingo had been trying to raise US$150 million (S$205 million) to US$200 million with help from Goldman Sachs Group, and the funding round was expected to lift its valuation above US$1 billion.
Besides Singapore state investment firm Temasek, Zilingo also counts venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and Burda Principal, as well as Singapore's Economic Development Board’s investment arm EDBI, among its investors.
The Zilingo board said the company’s major investors have hired an independent firm to investigate the matter, and Zilingo is working closely with the investors and the independent firm for the probe.
“Proper due process has been and will be followed. The board is committed to protecting the interests of all stakeholders in a just manner while fulfilling its fiduciary obligations,” it added.
“Apart from the above, the specific details of these investigations – and the affairs of the company – are strictly confidential.”
Temasek declined to comment when contacted.
Bloomberg reported that Ms Bose has disputed allegations of wrongdoing and contends her suspension was due in part to her complaints about harassment.She has also called the investigation a “witch hunt”, the news agency reported.
The Straits Times has contacted Ms Bose’s lawyer for more information.
Regulatory checks show that Zilingo’s last financial statement was filed in March 2019.
The start-up, which provides technology solutions to support the fashion supply chain, was set up by Ms Bose and co-founder Dhruv Kapoor in 2015.
The suspension of Zilingo CEO Ankiti Bose, seen here in 2017, is scheduled to run until May 5. PHOTO: BT FILE
Commenting on the suspension, National University of Singapore Business School Professor Mak Yuen Teen noted that it is normal for investors to require due diligence when a start-up looks to raise more funds.
There have been situations, such as for co-working firm WeWork, where such due diligence has uncovered issues with accounting and other matters, such as conflict of interest, he added.
“As start-ups are often valued based on revenue or gross merchandise value (GMV), rather than profits, how revenues or GMV are computed is clearly an area of significant risk from an accounting and reporting standpoint,” Prof Mak explained.
He said the board does have the power to order an investigation and to put the CEO on leave or suspend the executive in such situations, but there has to be due process and natural justice, which includes fairness to the accused party.
“It is generally not appropriate for the CEO to still be running the business during the period of the investigation. It is not an easy situation to handle,” Prof Mak added.
The company made an aggressive pitch in its latest effort to raise fresh capital. Late last year, it forecast that core net revenue would rise from about US$40 million in fiscal 2021 to roughly US$60 million in fiscal 2022 and US$100 million the year after, according to presentation documents reviewed by Bloomberg News.
Zilingo said it anticipated breaking even on core Ebitda - or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation - in fiscal 2023 and then reaching almost US$200 million in fiscal 2026.
On March 31, Ms Bose was called to a meeting with three board members and told about "serious" complaints about discrepancies in accounts and mismanagement, according to the correspondence reviewed by Bloomberg.
She was later questioned by two people from Kroll, the investigations firm.
Her suspension is scheduled to run until May 5.
Ms Bose, through her lawyer, has argued that the directors did not follow proper procedures during the process and questioned their right to suspend her, according to the correspondence from her attorney to Zilingo.
"We are of the view that our client's suspension has been procured by invalid and defective means; that the investigation commenced into her is unfair and lacking in due process; and that she has been suspended without proper and reasonable cause," her attorney wrote.
About Zilingo’s Ankiti Bose
Zilingo’s suspended chief executive Ankiti Bose co-founded the Singapore-based e-commerce start-up with Mr Dhruv Kapoor in 2015, when she was just 23.The Indian national, who is a Singapore permanent resident, was inspired to set up the technology platform after visiting Thailand’s Chatuchak weekend market several years ago.
The visit seeded the idea for the start-up, which initially sought to provide an avenue for small business owners to market their products online.
It has since broadened its focus across the fashion supply chain, providing procurement, distribution and trade services as well.
Before setting up Zilingo, Ms Bose was an investment analyst at venture capital firm Sequoia Capital in India, where she was immersed in Asia’s fast-growing tech scene.
Her achievements as a young female entrepreneur have been widely celebrated, and she has spoken in media interviews about inspiring other young women to start their own businesses and chase their dreams.
Ms Bose and Mr Kapoor were named on Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia in 2018, and she was featured in the Singapore 100 Women in Tech List in 2020.
She has also been a speaker at several global and regional conferences, including the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore last year (2021).
John Soh, Quah Su-Ling found guilty of 349 charges in Singapore's $8b penny stock crash
The stock market manipulation was masterminded by John Soh Chee Wen and his girlfriend Quah Su-Ling. PHOTOS: LIANHE ZAOBAO, KEVIN LIM
Grace Leong
Senior Business Correspondent
MAY 6, 2022
SINGAPORE - Malaysian John Soh Chee Wen and his girlfriend Quah Su-Ling, the masterminds of Singapore’s most serious case of market manipulation that wiped out more than $8 billion from the stock market in October 2013, were convicted on 349 counts of market manipulation, deception and cheating financial institutions.
High Court judge Hoo Sheau Peng on Thursday afternoon (May 5) found Soh guilty of 180 charges of the 188 he was facing, while Quah was convicted on 169 of 177 she faced.
Both were acquitted of eight deception charges. Their sentencing will take place at a later date.
According to the police, they face imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for each charge under the Securities and Futures Act; imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine, for each charge under section 420 of the Penal Code; and jail of up to seven years, a fine or both for each charge under section 204A of the Penal Code.
They also face imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both for each charge under section 148 of the Companies Act.
The pair were convicted over manipulating the share prices of Blumont Group, Asiasons Capital and LionGold Corp - known collectively as BAL - between August 2012 and October 2013, through a web of 187 trading accounts held with 20 financial institutions in the names of 58 individuals and companies.
“Participation in criminal conspiracy itself is an offence,” Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said in her verdict delivered on Thursday.
Having considered the trading practices, evidence and conduct of the accused, “I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there existed a conspiracy between the two accused persons to manipulate the market" for the BAL shares, she said.
The duo manipulated the market and price of BAL shares by controlling and using the 187 trading accounts to make thousands of manipulative trades in each of the three stocks, the police said in a statement Thursday.
“In particular, the trades between the controlled accounts were conducted to generate artificial liquidity and demand for these shares, to cause the (BAL) share prices to rise over time, and to retain control of large amounts of shares without disclosing this to the market. The 58 account holders had handed over control of their accounts to Soh and Quah,” the police said.
The judge noted that Soh and Quah remained "extensively involved with matters pertaining to the accounts even after the crash on October 4, 2013".
This included negotiations of settlements with the financial institutions and settlement of losses.
The judge also found “the volumes of wash trading clearly support the conclusion that the accused persons’ use of the 187 controlled accounts was illegitimate”.
Wash trading refers to using one controlled account to sell to, or buy from another controlled account, manufacturing false trading volumes in the process.
Another way the scheme was funded was by deceiving Goldman Sachs International and Interactive Brokers into extending margin financing and delivering payment of more than $230 million for the purchase of securities, by offering BAL shares as collateral, while concealing from the financial institutions that the market for BAL shares was manipulated.
“It cannot seriously be doubted that it is relevant and material for a bank to know that a share being pledged as collateral for financing is the subject of manipulative practices. To suggest otherwise would be to encourage concealment.
“Given the lack of disclosure of such information by (Quah), I find that a deception was practised on Goldman Sachs,” the judge said.
The judge also dismissed as “entirely unmeritorious” allegations put up by the defence that “the case constructed by the prosecution was blinkered by their ill-formed and uncompromising belief in the accused persons’ guilt, as well as their desire to pin the blame on them.
“It is important for me to state that allegations of such nature, especially of impropriety by counsel, should never be lightly made. They distract from the substantive issues to be determined, and they have the potential to cast doubt on the fair administration of justice,” Judge Hoo said.
Soh, 62, who looked visibly thinner, was also charged under the Companies Act (CA). He has been in remand since November 2016, while Quah, the former chief executive of Ipco (now renamed Renaissance United), is out on bail of $4 million.
More than 40 people including Quah’s family and friends attended Thursday’s court hearing after the verdict was delivered, which came after 194 days of trial over the past three years, with close to 100 prosecution witnesses giving testimony.
Singapore's penny stock crash masterminds convicted: How the saga wiped out $8 billion
(From left) John Soh Chee Wen, Quah Su-Ling and Goh Hin Calm. PHOTOS: ST FILE, KEVIN LIM
Grace Leong
Senior Business Correspondent
MAY 5, 2022
SINGAPORE - After 194 days of trial over the past three years, the Singapore High Court on Thursday (May 5) found penny-stock saga masterminds John Soh and Quah Su-Ling guilty of a whopping 349 charges, nearly all involving market manipulation, deception and cheating.
Soh was found to have conspired with his girlfriend Quah to manipulate the share prices of penny stocks Blumont Group, Asiasons Capital and LionGold Corp through a web of 187 trading accounts held with 20 financial institutions and 58 individuals and companies.
When their shares collapsed on Oct 4, 2013, some $8 billion in total market value was wiped out.
The Straits Times takes a look at the key points of this saga.
1. What happened?
The infamous 2013 penny stock crash wiped out $8 billion in market capital in what the prosecution called "the most audacious, extensive and injurious market manipulation scheme ever in Singapore".The massive fraud attracted international media attention, and the loss of investor confidence and harm to Singapore's reputation as a financial centre was "immeasurable and enduring", it said.
On Oct 4, 2013, the Singapore Exchange (SGX) suspended the trading of three counters - Blumont Group, Asiasons Capital and LionGold Corp - when they crashed shortly after the opening bell. This triggered a run on other penny stocks in the larger market.
The three stocks, known collectively as BAL, had surged by at least 800 per cent in the nine months before the rout. When trading resumed on Oct 7, 2013, they plunged further, even though the SGX had banned contra trading and short-selling to try to stamp out speculative activities on the trio.
With market confidence battered, SGX's average daily traded volume plunged by more than 60 per cent in the 12 months after September 2013. The trading value over the same period fell by more than 30 per cent, as the crash made investors more cautious about small and medium-sized firms.
In the aftermath, regulators moved to tighten trading rules and add circuit breakers, among other things, to protect investors from excessive price swings and speculation.
But the fiasco led to criticisms of whether SGX could have acted earlier to protect the interests of retail investors caught up in the bubble, and calls for a probe by authorities. Just weeks after the crash, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the SGX conducted an extensive review into the circumstances surrounding the trio's phenomenal price surge that could not be justified by their fundamentals, before their spectacular crash.
At the time, analysts said shareholders of the three firms racked up losses of almost $1.5 billion when trading restrictions were in place for two weeks. One investor told ST that he had forked out $120,000 of his retirement savings on 50,000 shares in mining firm Blumont when they were at $2.40 a piece just days before the stock crashed. After the rout, his stake was worth only $5,850. "I'm one of many saddened and disheartened investors who will have to live with this painful memory for a long time," he said.
2. What did the authorities do?
In April 2014, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) launched the widest-scale investigation into possible breaches of the Securities and Futures Act arising from suspected trading irregularities in the BAL shares.At the time, the probe involved eight firms and 13 individuals, many of whom are top executives, for alleged false trading and market rigging.
The penny stock rout also triggered lawsuits by several broking firms and banks against those connected to some of the firms in a bid to recover hefty losses. Former Ipco International chief executive Quah was among several parties sued over $79 million in losses sustained by US stock trading firm Interactive Brokers in the wake of the penny stock crash.
On Jan 27, 2016, ST was first to break the news of Malaysian businessman John Soh Chee Wen assisting the CAD in investigations into the penny stock crash.
Soh, who was 57 at the time and whose passport had been impounded since April 2014, had asked to return to Malaysia. But his request was rejected.
On Nov 24, 2016, Soh, along with Quah and co-conspirator Goh Hin Calm, former independent director at Annica Holdings and ITE Electric, were arrested by the authorities and charged the following day.
3. What happened in court?
In November 2016, Soh was slapped with 181 charges under various sections of the Securities and Futures Act, the Companies Act and the Penal Code. In February 2017, Soh was hit with seven charges of witness tampering, bringing the total count to 188 charges.Quah faced 177 charges. These included conspiring to create a false appearance with respect to the market for the three companies' shares between Aug 1, 2012, and Oct 3, 2013.
Other charges included conspiring to manipulate and support the three firms' share prices in August, September and October 2013 shortly before they collapsed on Oct 4, 2013.
Quah Su-Ling arriving at the High Court on May 5, 2022. ST PHOTO: KEVIN LIM
She was also accused of cheating financial institutions into extending vast amounts of credit to accounts she and Soh controlled, and of giving instructions on the trading accounts without obtaining the financial institutions' consent.
Goh was among those asked by the CAD to assist in investigations starting in 2014.
He was charged with six counts of intentionally aiding Soh and Quah to create a false appearance with respect to the market for the BAL shares between Aug 1, 2012, and Oct 3, 2013.
Goh Hin Calm arriving at the Supreme Court on March 20, 2019. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG
In 2019, Goh pleaded guilty to two of six counts of abetment, with four other charges taken into consideration. The Singaporean was sentenced to three years’ jail.
it would be a titanic challenge to find a more ugly motherfucker in this world
how the fuck does she even imagine him humping her everynight?
how the fuck does she even imagine him humping her everynight?
Similar threads
