anyone monitoring billabong? i have been looking at this thing but still havent taken a position (not yet)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
IB customers lose 68m on Spore stocks
- Thread starter freedinner
- Start date
An outline of article here
http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/busi...o-asiasons-blumont-liongold-on-oct-4-why.html
If anybody is in SG I would guess they can buy the mag there - if so would really appreciate a scan of it being uploaded here or PM me.
http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/busi...o-asiasons-blumont-liongold-on-oct-4-why.html
If anybody is in SG I would guess they can buy the mag there - if so would really appreciate a scan of it being uploaded here or PM me.
This came out in the Bangkok Post.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/news/378044/the-great-singapore-sell-off
http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/news/378044/the-great-singapore-sell-off
Frequently the first article on a lawsuit is sketchy and more meat comes out later but this article doesn't really point to any wrongdoing on the part of GS. Here is what I mean: She also said that Goldman neglected to contact Hong Kong-based Vicario Investments Limited, which had agreed to buy 10 million shares each in LionGold and Blumont from her in cash, according to the filing.
If it was already a negotiated deal Vicario should of had their broker call Goldman and buy it. It doesn't sound like Goldman had instructions to find a buyer or negotiate a deal. If this is the meat of the suit it is very weak. I also don't see anyone accusing Goldman of putting the stuck up. Someone manipulated these stocks up to sell at inflated prices. My bet is on Malaysia and not GS.
If it was already a negotiated deal Vicario should of had their broker call Goldman and buy it. It doesn't sound like Goldman had instructions to find a buyer or negotiate a deal. If this is the meat of the suit it is very weak. I also don't see anyone accusing Goldman of putting the stuck up. Someone manipulated these stocks up to sell at inflated prices. My bet is on Malaysia and not GS.
Looks like IB has taken robust action and should be able to recover a substantial proportion of their losses.
http://business.asiaone.com/news/broker-seeks-recover-us68m-10-clients
http://business.asiaone.com/news/broker-seeks-recover-us68m-10-clients
If my memory is correct one of the articles makes reference to a US investment bank being short - initially I assumed maybe that they had confused forced selling with shorting, but would be interesting to know if a certain US investment bank* was short before making a decision to force sell the stock..................
If the Malaysians were selling stock from their box and financing the other side at IB's margin rate they must have assumed that they were untouchable as far as legal recourse - this situation exists in some SE Asian countries and maybe also Malaysia and even Singapore, but it seems if the assets have actually been frozen by IB's court order if this was the Malaysians assumption it was wrong.
*Popular belief has it that a certain US investment bank blew up a lot of clients by trading against their positions in the 2007/8 crisis because they worked out that the trading desk would make more doing this than the prime brokerage would make in fees over the next 5 years (a lifetime/unknowable horizon in investment banking employment.). I am referring to the bank that, according to its CEO, just wants to bring joy to children and bunny rabbits around the world.
If the Malaysians were selling stock from their box and financing the other side at IB's margin rate they must have assumed that they were untouchable as far as legal recourse - this situation exists in some SE Asian countries and maybe also Malaysia and even Singapore, but it seems if the assets have actually been frozen by IB's court order if this was the Malaysians assumption it was wrong.
*Popular belief has it that a certain US investment bank blew up a lot of clients by trading against their positions in the 2007/8 crisis because they worked out that the trading desk would make more doing this than the prime brokerage would make in fees over the next 5 years (a lifetime/unknowable horizon in investment banking employment.). I am referring to the bank that, according to its CEO, just wants to bring joy to children and bunny rabbits around the world.
Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen any evidence that an Investment Bank had a short position in these companies. It would be very surprising if they did in such speculative stocks. Really they might as well just go down to Marina Bay if that's their business.
I lived in the region for many years and was very surprised by the earlier posts in this thread suggesting IB would simply write off the monies owed by those disparagingly referred to as 'Asians'.
Singapore's Commercial Courts are known for being extremely robust and wholly incorruptible(just don't fall foul of the PAP).
Malaysia does have major issues with corruption but the legal system is based on English Law and largely clean (again don't bother suing anyone closely connected to the ruling party).
If the Malaysians were selling from their box with the intention of blowing up their accounts at IB they'll have more to worry about than the arbitrator ruling against them as it's clearly fraudulent behaviour.
I lived in the region for many years and was very surprised by the earlier posts in this thread suggesting IB would simply write off the monies owed by those disparagingly referred to as 'Asians'.
Singapore's Commercial Courts are known for being extremely robust and wholly incorruptible(just don't fall foul of the PAP).
Malaysia does have major issues with corruption but the legal system is based on English Law and largely clean (again don't bother suing anyone closely connected to the ruling party).
If the Malaysians were selling from their box with the intention of blowing up their accounts at IB they'll have more to worry about than the arbitrator ruling against them as it's clearly fraudulent behaviour.