Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Regulators - Incompetent or corrupt?

Joined
8 May 2009
Posts
263
Reactions
1
Every now and then I see some amazing jumps in stocks and there is no news or information. One that springs to mind is FMG. They are always getting the preverbal ‘speeding ticket’, yet they never seem to get caught – that’s if there is anything to catch them at?!

However, what has prompted this new thread is the movement of a particular stock and hence has raise my concern at the ASX, ASIC or any other regulatory body, which refuses to do anything about stock/price manipulation.

I will name the stock, TEY – Torrens Energy. I did own shares in these – until today, and sold them all for a tidy profit. So, my gripe isn’t that I lost money etc., its that a company, which has the knowledge of ‘market relevant’ information to hand yet refuses, or just doesn’t bother releasing that information until the trading day is well underway.

I will come out and say it, I don’t believe this information came to the hands of TEY at 12.16pm 1 minute before they informed the ASX, they had this from the afternoon/day before, or before the start of trade today. Therefore, someone somewhere had access to this information and filtered it around to others and so the price increases yesterday and today.

This stock has been trading in a dead range for months now, up a cent or two, down a cent or two, yet nothing apart from an announcement of a partner (AGL) buying in for a few million has the share price made any significant movements.

So, all of a sudden over the past 2 days this stock moves some 7 cents, and today moved as much as 7 cents again before an announcement to the market. So, they effectively traded yesterday without releasing any information, and traded for the first 2 and half hours today before making a ‘market sensitive’ announcement. Did I see anything from the ASX yesterday saying why the price move? No! Has there been anything today asking, why the price move? Is there any reason why you didn’t release this at 9am, or 10am before trading started? Were you not aware of this information was coming today (or yesterday) and so why did you not ask for a trading halt? And the list of question could go on.

I have in past when I have seen some pretty ‘dodgy’ price movements written to ASIC about my concerns and every time I get back – “thank you, yet it all looks ok to us, or we cant prove anything”. The latter suggests to me, that there could be something to prove yet they don’t have time or the resources to go looking.

Maybe there isn’t anything untoward, yet I think there is!

So, are the regulators just incompetent and don’t care about the job they are suppose to be doing, or are they corrupt and negligent? I’m sure it's not corruption, yet I am dam sure it is negligence and incompetence.

When will there be some real and effective laws put in place so that price manipulation is caught and dealt with in a way that really matters, and will make people think twice about doing it next time?

If you want to stop people doing something, then make a real example out of those first few, so the penalty far outweighs the crime, or misconduct.

Any regulatory body that does issue a ‘speeding ticket’ rarely follows it up. For example, the other day VBA was issue with one. 4 pages from ASX to VBA, and half a page from VBA to ASX, saying ‘no’ to each question. Maybe they don’t know anything about why the price is moving, particularly in this case there has been no announcement a week on so maybe it was just market conditions, yet how can a simple 2 letter answer be suffice?

There are a number of other problems with regulators, and its not just catching the illegal things going on, it’s the way it is shaped and run. I wont go into it much, yet a prime example – a very good one from Cuttlefish is:

"So the ASX is regulated by ... well pretty much the ASX - its largely "self regulating" - i.e. the ASX is the regulator of companies that list on the ASX but the ASX is itself a company listed on the ASX. Well that apparently doesn't matter too much, because the chairman of BCS, another company that is listed on the ASX is also a director of the ASX.

Maybe the CBA chief could get a job as the head of ASIC and then the banks wouldn't have to worry about all these pesky Storm clients or anybody else for that matter."

That was taken from the BCS – BrisConnections Unit Trust thread.

When will this sort of thing be under investigation and changed???????????????
 
I'm not with you, what do you mean OR?

To be incompetent you don’t necessarily need to be corrupt, yet it might help. So, are they corrupt or just simply incompetent, its not to say they might not be both. However, to allow what I believe to be some very serious breaches of market & companies law etc to go on they must fit into one or both of the categories.
 
To be incompetent you don’t necessarily need to be corrupt, yet it might help. So, are they corrupt or just simply incompetent, its not to say they might not be both. However, to allow what I believe to be some very serious breaches of market & companies law etc to go on they must fit into one or both of the categories.

Perhaps his point was that he thinks they are most definitely both? :)

I tend to think it's probably lack of funding, muscle and will. Plus a lot of people in the regulatory body are likely friends with the very people they're asked to keep tabs on.

Also, isn't ASIC separate from the ASX and would thus monitor them supposedly impartially?
 
Perhaps his point was that he thinks they are most definitely both? :)

I tend to think it's probably lack of funding, muscle and will. Plus a lot of people in the regulatory body are likely friends with the very people they're asked to keep tabs on.

Also, isn't ASIC separate from the ASX and would thus monitor them supposedly impartially?

Ohhh, I am sure thats what Timmy meant, if you "read between the lines" thats what I meant as well :). Just dont want to be sued, yet maybe if I was I could expose it all ... mmm ... now there's an idea.

Yes, ASX and ASIC are separate, yet in real terms they should be working 'together' to expose and combat this sort of thing. I'm just lumping them all together, as they are all the same: incompetent or corrupt ;)
 
The conflict of interest by the ASX being the market regulator and a profit making enterprise is a long standing subject of debate.

If a company wants to increase profitability do you think there exists a possibility of turning a blind eye??? Of course.

The role of market operator and market regulator needs to be separated. There is probably too much of an old boys club happening to prevent this at this point in time.

It would take a very big scandal to split the roles. It does need to happen and probably will ..... sometime.... maybe in a hundred years time.
 
well for the example of Madoff... the regulators simply said they just did not have enough resources to be able to thoroughly check companies often enough... they dont have enough people working for them and for the funds to be effective.

I dont think they're either corrupt nor incompetent... get a team of 3 men to walk into an apple plantation to find the .1% of bad apples and they will struggle to find a tenth of that .1%
 
well for the example of Madoff... the regulators simply said they just did not have enough resources to be able to thoroughly check companies often enough... they dont have enough people working for them and for the funds to be effective.

I dont think they're either corrupt nor incompetent... get a team of 3 men to walk into an apple plantation to find the .1% of bad apples and they will struggle to find a tenth of that .1%

However, this is not the case when it comes to the ASX, it might - yet its no excuse for ASIC.

ASIC is independent of the whole shooting match, yet the ASX isnt, and they have plenty of money, plenty of staff, yet its in their interests not to push anything to hard, so yes, when it comes to the ASX it is incompetence or corruption.

As for ASIC, if they are under manned then thats something that will need to be addressed, and yes I know it wont be, however its no excuse. As far as I can see - and this is based on a quick look, there are some 1500+ employees at ASIC, and a budget of around $200m, plus all the fees they reap in. As to how much of that they get I dont know.
 
well for the example of Madoff... the regulators simply said they just did not have enough resources to be able to thoroughly check companies often enough... they dont have enough people working for them and for the funds to be effective.

I dont think they're either corrupt nor incompetent... get a team of 3 men to walk into an apple plantation to find the .1% of bad apples and they will struggle to find a tenth of that .1%

That's fairyland stuff. A child of 2 would have unearthed the crap that was happening in Madoff's organisation. And lack of staff is all just another excuse to get away with a crime.

Got some other lame excuses that they could use such as, lack of appropriate training of audit staff, maybe a communication breakdown or my favorite, emails were lost!:)

Cheers
 
That's fairyland stuff. A child of 2 would have unearthed the crap that was happening in Madoff's organisation. And lack of staff is all just another excuse to get away with a crime.

Got some other lame excuses that they could use such as, lack of appropriate training of audit staff, maybe a communication breakdown or my favorite, emails were lost!:)

Cheers

hahah... i guess, but if it was so obvious, why didnt any of his investors look into it?

I've been reading Warren Buffet's biography.. he kept his trades secret from even partners and stock holders. Is this still legal these days??
 
hahah... i guess, but if it was so obvious, why didnt any of his investors look into it?

I've been reading Warren Buffet's biography.. he kept his trades secret from even partners and stock holders. Is this still legal these days??

All good questions Jono which I don't have any answers.

As for Buffet hes god and all gods have the ability to look into the future.:)

Or he is just an enigma similar to that freak runner breaking all those records at the track & field world champs? One of a kind.

Cheers
 
:)Maybe things might be changing, I just read this in a market watch news letter I get each day:

-------------------------------

The government have announced that they will be moving supervision of the ASX from the ASX itself to ASIC. Changes to take place in Q3 2010. There has always been a conflict for the ASX, a listed commercial venture, enforcing trading rules and fining brokers when the money going into the hands of ASX shareholders. ASIC will perform the supervision of real-time trading on all of Australia's domestic licensed markets and will continue law enforcement role against misconduct within markets. Presently, individual financial markets self-supervise trading on their individual markets. A few are calling it the beginning of the end of ASX Ltd’s current market monopoly. Treasurer Wayne Swan and Corporate Law Minister Chris Bowen said, "Moving to whole-of-market supervision is also the first step in the process towards considering competition between market operators”. They say “as part of the government's drive to improve regulation of the financial industry, the government has decided to transfer supervisory responsibility for Australia's financial markets to ASIC as it is more appropriate for an agency of the government to perform this important function.” It is unlikely to be seen as good news for the ASX...it weakens their monopoly position a touch and removes a revenue stream. Not sure the likely profit impact if any yet. ASX down a bit first thing.
 
The role of market operator and market regulator needs to be separated. There is probably too much of an old boys club happening to prevent this at this point in time.

It would take a very big scandal to split the roles. It does need to happen and probably will ..... sometime.... maybe in a hundred years time.

Famous last words posted 4 days ago by some klown. :banghead:
 
:)Maybe things might be changing, I just read this in a market watch news letter I get each day:

-------------------------------

The government have announced that they will be moving supervision of the ASX from the ASX itself to ASIC. Changes to take place in Q3 2010. There has always been a conflict for the ASX, a listed commercial venture, enforcing trading rules and fining brokers when the money going into the hands of ASX shareholders. ASIC will perform the supervision of real-time trading on all of Australia's domestic licensed markets and will continue law enforcement role against misconduct within markets. Presently, individual financial markets self-supervise trading on their individual markets. A few are calling it the beginning of the end of ASX Ltd’s current market monopoly. Treasurer Wayne Swan and Corporate Law Minister Chris Bowen said, "Moving to whole-of-market supervision is also the first step in the process towards considering competition between market operators”. They say “as part of the government's drive to improve regulation of the financial industry, the government has decided to transfer supervisory responsibility for Australia's financial markets to ASIC as it is more appropriate for an agency of the government to perform this important function.” It is unlikely to be seen as good news for the ASX...it weakens their monopoly position a touch and removes a revenue stream. Not sure the likely profit impact if any yet. ASX down a bit first thing.

Yeah saw this, I reckon the ASX will go down fighting though and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of companies support the ASX. Will be interesting how this unfolds and obviously knowing Labor, none of the details would be ironed out yet - all just an idea.

Cheers
 
While on one hand its a good move to put some more independance into the ASX regulation - on the other hand I've always thought ASIC can be quite inconsistent and unpredictable in what it decides to enforce, when it decides to enforce it, and to what extent. The independance is good but regulation still needs to be applied transparently and consistently and the guidelines for all participants need to be clear so we have the proverbial 'level playing field'. But it certainly seems like a move in the right direction.
 
Top