Swiber   

Swiber Holdings Limited

 

1) In the IJM report, they mentioned that OMX would like to unwind Swiber Mexico transaction. What is the update? Anyone knows? Is the reason for their unwinding because they realise that the books are cooked and the ' projects' are not as attractive and they paid a super over-valuation for Swiber' s fanciful story again? Can someone assist to find out?

2) Sheerluc wind2 dragonboy. You are absolutely right. If one complains, SGX and CAD may ignore. But if everyone complains, power lies in the force of the group. What happen to this SGX probe since August? They take it easy and let the directors go free?

http://business.asiaone.com/news/sgx-goes-after-swiber-potential-rule-breach

The Singapore Exchange (SGX) is going after Swiber Holdings for potential breaches to the exchange' s Rule 703 pertaining to disclosure of material information.

In the letter obtained by The Business Times relating to the potential breaches, SGX made reference to Swiber Holdings' disclosure lapses on the US$710 million (S$963 million) West Africa project first announced in late 2014 and two separate litigation claims by Likpin International Ltd and Greene Energy Group Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.

SGX said citing disclosure lapses on the US$710 million project, Swiber has potentially breached paragraph 25 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703.

SGX in its letter alluded to the fact that since Swiber' s first SGX filing on Dec 15, 2014, for the US$710 million project, the listed group in addition to an observed lapse in disclosing a delay in the project execution, did not proactively identify the client nor flag any pre-conditions tied to the project.

The project, as disclosed in Swiber' s SGX filing on July 8 in its response to a private query from SGX, has been deferred indefinitely due to a weakness in the oil and gas sector.

The listed group in its second response to an SGX query on July 29, acknowledged that the award from RoyalGate Energy is a letter of intent that still needs to be formalised as a contract in due course. This confirmed BT' s report on July 9, which pointed out that Equatorial Guinea-based RoyalGate has signed on Swiber for a project tied to Block Z field development off the West African country.

In its Aug 12 response to a third SGX subsequent query for an update, Swiber further clarified that no contract has yet to be entered into between the listed group' s subsidiary, Swiber Offshore Construction and the end client. The listed group added the contract award has been held back due to a delay in an appraisal drilling that is a pre-requisite for front-end engineering and design studies to commence. It blamed the delayed drilling on a persistent weakness in the O& G sector.

SGX, in taking in Swiber' s responses, has however, noted disclosure lapses on the listed group' s order book.

" The company did not inform its shareholders and the investing public about the delay in the US$710 million project during a prolonged period from Dec 15 2014 to July 8 2016," SGX wrote.

In addition, the US$710 million project was accounted for " in all (Swiber' s) disclosures on the group' s order book without any qualification that the contract has yet to be signed or the project has been delayed" , the regulator added.

On Dec 15, 2014, Swiber laid claims with the alleged US$710 million project award, it had clinched contracts totalling US$1.03 billion. BT also understood following Swiber' s dramatic reversal from its now aborted winding-up petition, the interim judicial managers of the distressed group has included the US$710 million LOI in the US$1.67 billion secured projects tabled under a report filed with the High Court for the judicial management application.

SGX in invoking Paragraph 8 of Appendix 7.1 to Rule 703 also noted Swiber has not made any announcement on material litigation claims by Likpin and Greene Energy amounting to S$10.7 million and S$9.6 million, respectively.

The exchange viewed these litigation claims as significant taking into account Swiber' s profits recorded for the financial year 2014 and for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Swiber posted a net loss of US$2.5 million for Q1 FY2015 and a net profit of US$21.7 million for FY2014.

 

 

 

Should penalise the whole board.   Cannot blame retailer for not being careful for this case.   Even their financiers who needs to monitor their borrower situation closely also kanna shows how sneaky this bunch of scums are.

By the way, MAS, CAD and SGX still on ABL case?   Then this one needs to wait how long?   5 years? 

mepkoh      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 18:35) Posted: sgx should penalise directors plenty $$$...who do  bs minority shareholders as in swiber case   Khoolie      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 17:42) Posted: Gd that the default making MAS to reshape their policy to better manage risks with different groups of people based on their wealth. But I think SGX should do more to screen the listed companies. Why do they allow lapses in announcements and reports.   Nobody going to investigate the 1.67 billion dollars projects claim?

 

Swiber is one of the most dangerous stock in the world.
A management which announce big project win before suddenly commit corporate harakiri..

 

U guys got so many valid point and grievances. Instead of posting on SJ which is totally useless, why dun u guys write to BT or straits time. 1 person write they can ignore. If 20 person write, they may consider to post ur articles on the forum, etc.

 

sgx should penalise directors plenty $$$...who do  bs minority shareholders as in swiber case
 

Khoolie      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 17:42) Posted: Gd that the default making MAS to reshape their policy to better manage risks with different groups of people based on their wealth. But I think SGX should do more to screen the listed companies. Why do they allow lapses in announcements and reports.   Nobody going to investigate the 1.67 billion dollars projects claim?

 

Gd that the default making MAS to reshape their policy to better manage risks with different groups of people based on their wealth. But I think SGX should do more to screen the listed companies. Why do they allow lapses in announcements and reports.   Nobody going to investigate the 1.67 billion dollars projects claim? 

 

https://www.bondsupermart.com/main/bond-info/bond-factsheet/SG6V83983738

this is the bond they recoomended Mapletree Treasury services

vivivava      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 14:19) Posted: Not trying to rub salt into wound but hoping all can learn something frm this episode.   I bgt similar type of bond (perpertuals) but thank god the Standard chartered RM recommended Mapletree Logistic backed by Temasek (so called but didnt verify).   Coupon was 5.375%...held it for almost 2 yrs and then liquidated.   Coupon was good but there was no clear bid/offer price and has to come from Standard Chartered trader.....so the spread is often wide and frustrating.   Tried to offload it through Fund supermart but I have to jump through a few hoobs.   Finally sold it and made some profits.   But the interest was good. If the standard chartered RM introduced Swiber bond, I am not sure if I wd go for it?   Not govt backed and offering so high coupon some more. But because there was no real bid & offer, investors are often left to the banks dictating the price.   The landscape has changed slightly with fundsupermart coming in.   At least now you know the banks cannot quote bid/offer too far away from fundsupermart. Once again only trying to bounce off ideas and another with similar experience can contribute franklinfour      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 10:06) Posted: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/bond-losses-show-vulnerability-of-singapore-s-not-really-rich When Elaine Tham signed an &ldquo accredited investor&rdquo form with her bank in Singapore two years ago, she took a fateful step toward losing all the money she had set aside for her children&rsquo s education. Based on her financial profile and investment priorities -- her need for S$150,000 ($110,000) to pay university fees -- a local branch of HSBC Holdings Plc had initially categorized her as a &ldquo medium risk&rdquo investor. But because the value of her property and car entitled her to &ldquo accredited&rdquo status, a category reserved for wealthy investors, Tham says she was persuaded to take a riskier path. She agreed to invest S$250,000 in the bonds of a small Singapore energy-services company, Swiber Holdings Ltd., which said in August that it won&rsquo t be able to repay its bondholders. Tham is one of many Singaporeans who lost money by investing in Swiber, which sold an unusually high proportion of its bonds to the wealthy clients of banks in Singapore. Amid signs last week that more local energy-services companies are being dragged down by the prolonged slump in global oil prices, some are urging quick action to plug loopholes in Singapore&rsquo s investor-protection rules.   &ldquo It&rsquo s time for Singapore&rsquo s regulators to rethink how they define the accredited-investor regime,&rdquo said Christopher Chen, an assistant law professor at Singapore Management University.  &ldquo Here, if someone happens to own a landed property, likely that person will become an accredited investor.  If investors are really rich, it&rsquo s not a problem. But some people are semi-rich, or look rich on paper.&rdquo A Singapore-based spokesman for HSBC declined to comment on Tham&rsquo s case, referring inquiries about the sales practices of the bank&rsquo s relationship managers to its 2013 annual report. In that report, HSBC said it stopped linking  wealth-management relationship managers&rsquo incentives to sales volumes for the U.K. and France that year, and would make that effective in most markets by 2014. Singapore law allows banks to automatically classify individual investors as &ldquo accredited&rdquo if they have at least S$2 million of assets or earned at least S$300,000 in the previous 12 months. By entering the category, the wealthy are given a greater range of investment choices but lose some of the key protections offered to ordinary investors -- such as restrictions on selling them certain riskier products. Swiber bonds were only available to accredited investors or those investing a minimum of S$250,000, according to Robson Lee, a Singapore-based partner at the U.S. law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Property Riches As property prices surged over the past decade, many middle-class Singaporeans entered the accredited investor category due to the high value of their homes. A mass-market 1,000 square-foot suburban apartment was worth S$1.26 million on average in the second quarter, Savills Plc data show, while a same-sized luxury apartment in the center of town would be worth S$2.34 million. About 20 percent of Singaporean  households live in private housing, government  data  show.   &ldquo They are wealthy by technical definition, but in reality they may not have enough disposable assets to withstand such losses,&rdquo said Lee at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. &ldquo There are many Swiber bond investors who are left high and dry as they were persuaded by their bankers to buy such high-yield products with money they can ill afford to lose.&rdquo More than 80 percent of some Swiber bond issues were sold to clients of Singapore private banks, which cater for the wealthiest investors. Swiber is currently under interim judicial management and missed a payment on a bond coupon in August, which triggered cross defaults on all its issues. Legal Changes Asked about the implications of the Swiber default for investor protection, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said it&rsquo s proposing revisions to the law which will prevent banks from assigning accredited investor status to those whose wealth is mostly in property, as well as allowing individuals to opt out of accredited status and retain the protections afforded to ordinary investors. The MAS plans to introduce the  revisions  to Parliament by the fourth quarter, it said Sept. 2 in an e-mailed response to questions from Bloomberg News. Allowing wealthy investors to opt out of the accredited investor regime will bring Singapore up to the investor protection standards of Hong Kong and the European Union, the MAS said in its proposed amendments to the law. Hong Kong introduced safeguards earlier this year for wealthier people in the &ldquo individual professional investor&rdquo category,  requiring banks  to ensure that products they sell are appropriate for a client&rsquo s risk profile and financial situation. Lehman Losses Regulators in both Singapore and Hong Kong have sought to boost investor protection after mis-selling scandals at the time of the 2008 global financial crisis caused investors millions of dollars of losses. The most notorious was the sale of structured products linked to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- investments that soured rapidly following the U.S. bank&rsquo s collapse in September 2008. Sixteen Hong Kong banks were forced to repay about $800 million to investors, while 10 financial services institutions in Singapore were banned temporarily from selling structured products. Regulators had been &ldquo too relaxed&rdquo about the selling process back in 2008, said David Webb, a Hong Kong-based shareholder activist and deputy chairman of the city&rsquo s takeovers panel. &ldquo Just because someone is wealthy it doesn&rsquo t mean that they are also sophisticated as investors. Regulators need to adopt an approach which can handle both ends of the spectrum of sophistication.&rdquo The growing signs of stress in Singapore&rsquo s domestic bond market suggest wealthy investors may face further losses. Last week, Rickmers Maritime and  Marco Polo Marine Ltd.  said they are having difficulty with bond repayments, as their operations have been hurt by weaker oil prices. The wealthy are especially vulnerable because of their large exposure to the local bond market. Private-bank clients bought about 44 percent of Singapore-dollar bonds issued in 2014, the most of any investor group, MAS figures show. By comparison, private banks and retail investors accounted for just 11 percent of purchases of U.S. dollar-denominated Asian credit in the same year, according to a Deutsche Asset Management presentation.   The revisions to the law proposed by the MAS might have helped another Singaporean bondholder, Sandeep Kapoor, who says he is facing losses after buying S$250,000 of Swiber bonds in 2014. The 50-year-old engineer said he only found out he was an accredited investor last month, some two years after the purchase, via his relationship manager at DBS Group Holdings Ltd. Under the proposed revisions, he would have been given the chance to opt out of accredited investor status, rather than being automatically assigned to the category because of his wealth.   Close all those tabs. Open this email. Get Bloomberg' s daily newsletter. Sign Up   In an e-mailed reply to questions, DBS said: &ldquo Our relationship managers are focused on investor suitability and go through a robust process to ensure that our clients fully understand the product before making their investments." The bank&rsquo s accredited investor clients " are kept informed of their AI status at various stages, including at the time of account opening, account review, and after every trade conducted," DBS added.   Kapoor said he would choose to opt out of his accredited investor status, given the chance. &ldquo Who would understand the full consequence of being an accredited investor? It can be a grey area."

 

Not trying to rub salt into wound but hoping all can learn something frm this episode.   I bgt similar type of bond (perpertuals) but thank god the Standard chartered RM recommended Mapletree Logistic backed by Temasek (so called but didnt verify).   Coupon was 5.375%...held it for almost 2 yrs and then liquidated.   Coupon was good but there was no clear bid/offer price and has to come from Standard Chartered trader.....so the spread is often wide and frustrating.   Tried to offload it through Fund supermart but I have to jump through a few hoobs.   Finally sold it and made some profits.   But the interest was good.

If the standard chartered RM introduced Swiber bond, I am not sure if I wd go for it?   Not govt backed and offering so high coupon some more.

But because there was no real bid & offer, investors are often left to the banks dictating the price.   The landscape has changed slightly with fundsupermart coming in.   At least now you know the banks cannot quote bid/offer too far away from fundsupermart.

Once again only trying to bounce off ideas and another with similar experience can contribute

franklinfour      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 10:06) Posted: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/bond-losses-show-vulnerability-of-singapore-s-not-really-rich When Elaine Tham signed an &ldquo accredited investor&rdquo form with her bank in Singapore two years ago, she took a fateful step toward losing all the money she had set aside for her children&rsquo s education. Based on her financial profile and investment priorities -- her need for S$150,000 ($110,000) to pay university fees -- a local branch of HSBC Holdings Plc had initially categorized her as a &ldquo medium risk&rdquo investor. But because the value of her property and car entitled her to &ldquo accredited&rdquo status, a category reserved for wealthy investors, Tham says she was persuaded to take a riskier path. She agreed to invest S$250,000 in the bonds of a small Singapore energy-services company, Swiber Holdings Ltd., which said in August that it won&rsquo t be able to repay its bondholders. Tham is one of many Singaporeans who lost money by investing in Swiber, which sold an unusually high proportion of its bonds to the wealthy clients of banks in Singapore. Amid signs last week that more local energy-services companies are being dragged down by the prolonged slump in global oil prices, some are urging quick action to plug loopholes in Singapore&rsquo s investor-protection rules.   &ldquo It&rsquo s time for Singapore&rsquo s regulators to rethink how they define the accredited-investor regime,&rdquo said Christopher Chen, an assistant law professor at Singapore Management University.  &ldquo Here, if someone happens to own a landed property, likely that person will become an accredited investor.  If investors are really rich, it&rsquo s not a problem. But some people are semi-rich, or look rich on paper.&rdquo A Singapore-based spokesman for HSBC declined to comment on Tham&rsquo s case, referring inquiries about the sales practices of the bank&rsquo s relationship managers to its 2013 annual report. In that report, HSBC said it stopped linking  wealth-management relationship managers&rsquo incentives to sales volumes for the U.K. and France that year, and would make that effective in most markets by 2014. Singapore law allows banks to automatically classify individual investors as &ldquo accredited&rdquo if they have at least S$2 million of assets or earned at least S$300,000 in the previous 12 months. By entering the category, the wealthy are given a greater range of investment choices but lose some of the key protections offered to ordinary investors -- such as restrictions on selling them certain riskier products. Swiber bonds were only available to accredited investors or those investing a minimum of S$250,000, according to Robson Lee, a Singapore-based partner at the U.S. law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Property Riches As property prices surged over the past decade, many middle-class Singaporeans entered the accredited investor category due to the high value of their homes. A mass-market 1,000 square-foot suburban apartment was worth S$1.26 million on average in the second quarter, Savills Plc data show, while a same-sized luxury apartment in the center of town would be worth S$2.34 million. About 20 percent of Singaporean  households live in private housing, government  data  show.   &ldquo They are wealthy by technical definition, but in reality they may not have enough disposable assets to withstand such losses,&rdquo said Lee at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. &ldquo There are many Swiber bond investors who are left high and dry as they were persuaded by their bankers to buy such high-yield products with money they can ill afford to lose.&rdquo More than 80 percent of some Swiber bond issues were sold to clients of Singapore private banks, which cater for the wealthiest investors. Swiber is currently under interim judicial management and missed a payment on a bond coupon in August, which triggered cross defaults on all its issues. Legal Changes Asked about the implications of the Swiber default for investor protection, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said it&rsquo s proposing revisions to the law which will prevent banks from assigning accredited investor status to those whose wealth is mostly in property, as well as allowing individuals to opt out of accredited status and retain the protections afforded to ordinary investors. The MAS plans to introduce the  revisions  to Parliament by the fourth quarter, it said Sept. 2 in an e-mailed response to questions from Bloomberg News. Allowing wealthy investors to opt out of the accredited investor regime will bring Singapore up to the investor protection standards of Hong Kong and the European Union, the MAS said in its proposed amendments to the law. Hong Kong introduced safeguards earlier this year for wealthier people in the &ldquo individual professional investor&rdquo category,  requiring banks  to ensure that products they sell are appropriate for a client&rsquo s risk profile and financial situation. Lehman Losses Regulators in both Singapore and Hong Kong have sought to boost investor protection after mis-selling scandals at the time of the 2008 global financial crisis caused investors millions of dollars of losses. The most notorious was the sale of structured products linked to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- investments that soured rapidly following the U.S. bank&rsquo s collapse in September 2008. Sixteen Hong Kong banks were forced to repay about $800 million to investors, while 10 financial services institutions in Singapore were banned temporarily from selling structured products. Regulators had been &ldquo too relaxed&rdquo about the selling process back in 2008, said David Webb, a Hong Kong-based shareholder activist and deputy chairman of the city&rsquo s takeovers panel. &ldquo Just because someone is wealthy it doesn&rsquo t mean that they are also sophisticated as investors. Regulators need to adopt an approach which can handle both ends of the spectrum of sophistication.&rdquo The growing signs of stress in Singapore&rsquo s domestic bond market suggest wealthy investors may face further losses. Last week, Rickmers Maritime and  Marco Polo Marine Ltd.  said they are having difficulty with bond repayments, as their operations have been hurt by weaker oil prices. The wealthy are especially vulnerable because of their large exposure to the local bond market. Private-bank clients bought about 44 percent of Singapore-dollar bonds issued in 2014, the most of any investor group, MAS figures show. By comparison, private banks and retail investors accounted for just 11 percent of purchases of U.S. dollar-denominated Asian credit in the same year, according to a Deutsche Asset Management presentation.   The revisions to the law proposed by the MAS might have helped another Singaporean bondholder, Sandeep Kapoor, who says he is facing losses after buying S$250,000 of Swiber bonds in 2014. The 50-year-old engineer said he only found out he was an accredited investor last month, some two years after the purchase, via his relationship manager at DBS Group Holdings Ltd. Under the proposed revisions, he would have been given the chance to opt out of accredited investor status, rather than being automatically assigned to the category because of his wealth.   Close all those tabs. Open this email. Get Bloomberg' s daily newsletter. Sign Up   In an e-mailed reply to questions, DBS said: &ldquo Our relationship managers are focused on investor suitability and go through a robust process to ensure that our clients fully understand the product before making their investments." The bank&rsquo s accredited investor clients " are kept informed of their AI status at various stages, including at the time of account opening, account review, and after every trade conducted," DBS added.   Kapoor said he would choose to opt out of his accredited investor status, given the chance. &ldquo Who would understand the full consequence of being an accredited investor? It can be a grey area."

 

You can if you still got creditibility.   Swiber lose all when it sabo DBS by having a bridging loan from them and then stab them in the back by going got liquidation once they used up the money.   If Swiber dare to do this to one of our largest local banks, you think Swiber still cares about the remaining creditors?   Is every man for himself now with Swiber.

Nobody trust Swiber mgmt now.   This bunch of useless crap, gotten fat pay for years quit the momentthe ship sunk.   Before they jump they still invite people onboard.   Hai si lang big time.   Who will trust Swiber mgmt.

How about Vallianz?   Sprung off from Swiber.   Period.

 

swv001      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 10:16) Posted: Other O& G companies such as Marpolo can talk with bondholders to delay the redemption of the bonds. Why can not Swiber and Vallianz ?

 

Other O& G companies such as Marpolo can talk with bondholders to delay the redemption of the bonds. Why can not Swiber and Vallianz ?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/bond-losses-show-vulnerability-of-singapore-s-not-really-rich

When Elaine Tham signed an &ldquo accredited investor&rdquo form with her bank in Singapore two years ago, she took a fateful step toward losing all the money she had set aside for her children&rsquo s education.

Based on her financial profile and investment priorities -- her need for S$150,000 ($110,000) to pay university fees -- a local branch of HSBC Holdings Plc had initially categorized her as a &ldquo medium risk&rdquo investor. But because the value of her property and car entitled her to &ldquo accredited&rdquo status, a category reserved for wealthy investors, Tham says she was persuaded to take a riskier path. She agreed to invest S$250,000 in the bonds of a small Singapore energy-services company, Swiber Holdings Ltd., which said in August that it won&rsquo t be able to repay its bondholders.

Tham is one of many Singaporeans who lost money by investing in Swiber, which sold an unusually high proportion of its bonds to the wealthy clients of banks in Singapore. Amid signs last week that more local energy-services companies are being dragged down by the prolonged slump in global oil prices, some are urging quick action to plug loopholes in Singapore&rsquo s investor-protection rules.

&ldquo It&rsquo s time for Singapore&rsquo s regulators to rethink how they define the accredited-investor regime,&rdquo said Christopher Chen, an assistant law professor at Singapore Management University.  &ldquo Here, if someone happens to own a landed property, likely that person will become an accredited investor.  If investors are really rich, it&rsquo s not a problem. But some people are semi-rich, or look rich on paper.&rdquo

A Singapore-based spokesman for HSBC declined to comment on Tham&rsquo s case, referring inquiries about the sales practices of the bank&rsquo s relationship managers to its 2013 annual report. In that report, HSBC said it stopped linking  wealth-management relationship managers&rsquo incentives to sales volumes for the U.K. and France that year, and would make that effective in most markets by 2014.

Singapore law allows banks to automatically classify individual investors as &ldquo accredited&rdquo if they have at least S$2 million of assets or earned at least S$300,000 in the previous 12 months. By entering the category, the wealthy are given a greater range of investment choices but lose some of the key protections offered to ordinary investors -- such as restrictions on selling them certain riskier products. Swiber bonds were only available to accredited investors or those investing a minimum of S$250,000, according to Robson Lee, a Singapore-based partner at the U.S. law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Property Riches

As property prices surged over the past decade, many middle-class Singaporeans entered the accredited investor category due to the high value of their homes. A mass-market 1,000 square-foot suburban apartment was worth S$1.26 million on average in the second quarter, Savills Plc data show, while a same-sized luxury apartment in the center of town would be worth S$2.34 million. About 20 percent of Singaporean  households live in private housing, government  data  show.

&ldquo They are wealthy by technical definition, but in reality they may not have enough disposable assets to withstand such losses,&rdquo said Lee at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. &ldquo There are many Swiber bond investors who are left high and dry as they were persuaded by their bankers to buy such high-yield products with money they can ill afford to lose.&rdquo

More than 80 percent of some Swiber bond issues were sold to clients of Singapore private banks, which cater for the wealthiest investors. Swiber is currently under interim judicial management and missed a payment on a bond coupon in August, which triggered cross defaults on all its issues.

Legal Changes

Asked about the implications of the Swiber default for investor protection, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said it&rsquo s proposing revisions to the law which will prevent banks from assigning accredited investor status to those whose wealth is mostly in property, as well as allowing individuals to opt out of accredited status and retain the protections afforded to ordinary investors. The MAS plans to introduce the  revisions  to Parliament by the fourth quarter, it said Sept. 2 in an e-mailed response to questions from Bloomberg News.

Allowing wealthy investors to opt out of the accredited investor regime will bring Singapore up to the investor protection standards of Hong Kong and the European Union, the MAS said in its proposed amendments to the law.

Hong Kong introduced safeguards earlier this year for wealthier people in the &ldquo individual professional investor&rdquo category,  requiring banks  to ensure that products they sell are appropriate for a client&rsquo s risk profile and financial situation.

Lehman Losses

Regulators in both Singapore and Hong Kong have sought to boost investor protection after mis-selling scandals at the time of the 2008 global financial crisis caused investors millions of dollars of losses. The most notorious was the sale of structured products linked to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. -- investments that soured rapidly following the U.S. bank&rsquo s collapse in September 2008. Sixteen Hong Kong banks were forced to repay about $800 million to investors, while 10 financial services institutions in Singapore were banned temporarily from selling structured products.

Regulators had been &ldquo too relaxed&rdquo about the selling process back in 2008, said David Webb, a Hong Kong-based shareholder activist and deputy chairman of the city&rsquo s takeovers panel. &ldquo Just because someone is wealthy it doesn&rsquo t mean that they are also sophisticated as investors. Regulators need to adopt an approach which can handle both ends of the spectrum of sophistication.&rdquo

The growing signs of stress in Singapore&rsquo s domestic bond market suggest wealthy investors may face further losses. Last week, Rickmers Maritime and  Marco Polo Marine Ltd.  said they are having difficulty with bond repayments, as their operations have been hurt by weaker oil prices.

The wealthy are especially vulnerable because of their large exposure to the local bond market. Private-bank clients bought about 44 percent of Singapore-dollar bonds issued in 2014, the most of any investor group, MAS figures show. By comparison, private banks and retail investors accounted for just 11 percent of purchases of U.S. dollar-denominated Asian credit in the same year, according to a Deutsche Asset Management presentation.

The revisions to the law proposed by the MAS might have helped another Singaporean bondholder, Sandeep Kapoor, who says he is facing losses after buying S$250,000 of Swiber bonds in 2014. The 50-year-old engineer said he only found out he was an accredited investor last month, some two years after the purchase, via his relationship manager at DBS Group Holdings Ltd.

Under the proposed revisions, he would have been given the chance to opt out of accredited investor status, rather than being automatically assigned to the category because of his wealth.

 

In an e-mailed reply to questions, DBS said: &ldquo Our relationship managers are focused on investor suitability and go through a robust process to ensure that our clients fully understand the product before making their investments." The bank&rsquo s accredited investor clients " are kept informed of their AI status at various stages, including at the time of account opening, account review, and after every trade conducted," DBS added.

 

Kapoor said he would choose to opt out of his accredited investor status, given the chance. &ldquo Who would understand the full consequence of being an accredited investor? It can be a grey area."

 

They definitely would default on loan and interest as it would not impact daily operations.
They may have no choice but to pay some suppliers, so that they will deliver the goods and service needed.
Employees salary also need to pay.
And of course must also pay the JM manager.

terencefok      ( Date: 20-Sep-2016 00:28) Posted:   Just my thought on this, in the normal course of business, people deal at arms length basis, offer you credit terms. But the way humans work is like this, when all is well no one will demand payment, but when they find out you have trouble, everyone will start demanding payment for fear that if they are too slow nothing will be left. This is human nature, it probably explains why the claims have been climbing. And the people who file claims, cannot blame them. yes it may be even USD4m, looks small for this industry but it could mean life and death for a sub-contractor. So I believe we have a case here of many smaller sized contractors filing claims between a few million to as much as 100 million each. or maybe not a single claim is 100 million, but its the number of claims in total that makes up the total amount. Not so familiar with JM law, but default on bond interest, if the first tranche due and you default, to pay the second tranche will mean you must have money to first pay off the first tranche, so if you don' t have money for the full payment of what' s due to the first tranche, it is natural you will default on the second.   Hope someone who knows more about JM law can clarify.

 

 

Just my thought on this, in the normal course of business, people deal at arms length basis, offer you credit terms. But the way humans work is like this, when all is well no one will demand payment, but when they find out you have trouble, everyone will start demanding payment for fear that if they are too slow nothing will be left. This is human nature, it probably explains why the claims have been climbing. And the people who file claims, cannot blame them. yes it may be even USD4m, looks small for this industry but it could mean life and death for a sub-contractor. So I believe we have a case here of many smaller sized contractors filing claims between a few million to as much as 100 million each. or maybe not a single claim is 100 million, but its the number of claims in total that makes up the total amount.

Not so familiar with JM law, but default on bond interest, if the first tranche due and you default, to pay the second tranche will mean you must have money to first pay off the first tranche, so if you don' t have money for the full payment of what' s due to the first tranche, it is natural you will default on the second.

 

Hope someone who knows more about JM law can clarify.

 

Pls Swiber is no swindler.

franklinfour      ( Date: 19-Sep-2016 22:27) Posted: I think this is all a joke. If you read their announcements dated 25 July, when probed by SGX on whether they have other material proceedings that they have not announced, they replied that the total amount of claims has risen to USD $15mil. When someone asks A, they answer B. And then SGX now announce that there are 2 litigation cases that are significant lipkin and greenes energy. If you ask me do I believe that the ' initial' claim by vendors against Swiber is USD $4mil and then now balloon to USD $231mil, I think anyone who believes it is an absolute joke. Surely the warning signs and claims and letters of demand would have come much earlier, and these Swiber directors knew all along that they were coming, and then just boom go bust. Everyone money disappear at the same time (including our biggest bank DBS). I think this is very inacccurate and misleading. Someone should get CAD to check up on them.

 

I think this is all a joke.

If you read their announcements dated 25 July, when probed by SGX on whether they have other material proceedings that they have not announced, they replied that the total amount of claims has risen to USD $15mil.

When someone asks A, they answer B. And then SGX now announce that there are 2 litigation cases that are significant lipkin and greenes energy.

If you ask me do I believe that the ' initial' claim by vendors against Swiber is USD $4mil and then now balloon to USD $231mil, I think anyone who believes it is an absolute joke. Surely the warning signs and claims and letters of demand would have come much earlier, and these Swiber directors knew all along that they were coming, and then just boom go bust. Everyone money disappear at the same time (including our biggest bank DBS).

I think this is very inacccurate and misleading. Someone should get CAD to check up on them.

 

I guess some may deliberately refuse to pay, and see who can last longer. The accountant would not do the job FOC.

Khoolie      ( Date: 19-Sep-2016 15:29) Posted: Their only fund probably comes from DBS. If only India projects are left, there will not be any income since it is monsoon in west India and not possible to execute any projects. There will be an updated IJm report but we layman wont have a copy.  swv001      ( Date: 19-Sep-2016 12:48) Posted: Why does not Swiber announce how much it has received from customers since IJM?

 

Their only fund probably comes from DBS. If only India projects are left, there will not be any income since it is monsoon in west India and not possible to execute any projects. There will be an updated IJm report but we layman wont have a copy. 

swv001      ( Date: 19-Sep-2016 12:48) Posted: Why does not Swiber announce how much it has received from customers since IJM?

 

Why does not Swiber announce how much it has received from customers since IJM? 

 

Swiber defaults on notes again as claims soar past $230m

 

Integrity of court, judge is important