This huge IPO shows we don’t need a ‘third board’ to attract tech stocks
‘So why do stocks like this need the new trash board that stock exchange boss Charles Li Xiaojia wants to set up?’
Zhong An Online Property and Casualty Insurance, China’s first online-only insurer, closed 9 per cent up from its IPO price on Thursday in its Hong Kong debut. With an oversubscription of nearly 400 times from retail investors, the company had priced its IPO at the top end of the expected range, raising US$1.5 billion in the city’s biggest ever fintech offering.
SCMP, September 29
Let’s have this again. A China financial technology company, complying with all the listing rules of the main board of our stock exchange, was 400 times oversubscribed by retail investors on an already inflated new issue price, which then jumped a further 9.5 per cent on the first trading day.
So why do stocks like this need the new trash board that stock exchange boss Charles Li Xiaojia wants to set up?
Here we have proof that our main board, operating with common sense safeguards for the protection of investors, has no problem at all in attracting investors to a “new economy” stock, even when it is only a ribboned-up insurance company with dubious profit prospects and without its own distribution.
But Charles still says that removing all these safeguards and allowing dual class listings in which corporate sharks can take investors’ money while not sharing their risks is instead the best way to keep the public coming.
It certainly would, coincidentally of course, be a good prescription for cashing him out of his stock exchange options at top prices when he goes looking for his next job.
In order to maintain a high standard of service to their customers, the participating member lines of the AADA (Asia Australia Discussion Agreement) will be implementing a rate restoration program ... AADA is a voluntary discussion forum of 12 ocean carriers.
Don’t you just love the English language? You can use it to say anything you want in terms of opposite sentiments and aims.
A price increase is a “rate restoration program” undertaken not to make more money but to “maintain a high standard of service”.
Better yet, this fellowship, shall we call it, of the major container lines serving Australia is not a price rigging cartel but a “Discussion Agreement”.
That’s all it is, just a “forum” for discussion, nothing more, and it is entirely “voluntary”. Imagine that it had been compulsory. That would have been bad indeed. But, no, they did it entirely on their own, and so that’s alright then.
The government has exceeded its annual target of supplying 18,000 new private homes in Hong Kong – with six months to spare.
SCMP, September 30
Whoopee, hurrah, bravo, bring out the brandy glasses and let’s toast this wonderful achievement in some of that paint thinner they use for festive occasions up north.
Meanwhile, will someone please find a curtain and drape it over the first two thirds of the chart here.
The chart says that we are not at present running much above the average of the last 10 years in new housing completions and that this is only half of what it was in the previous 10 years and only a third of the mid-1990s.
It’s not my data. This comes from Census and Statistics. It’s the official article. That bit of boasting about 18,000 new homes comes from the Development Secretary, Michael Wong Wai-lun, and referred only to private sector completions, normally about 60 per cent of the total.
But the trend is no different. Put that paint thinner back up on the shelf.