AssGX 2-Head CEO: It Could Have Been WORSE!

[makapaaa]

Sounds familiar? Still have the gall to ask for 40% pay hike!


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=452 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=452 colSpan=2>Published October 4, 2008

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=452 colSpan=2>SGX board stemmed investment loss: CEO
Board members objected to SGX management's decision to continue investing some $150 million in hedge funds

By JAMIE LEE
<TABLE class=storyLinks cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=1 width=136 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR class=font10><TD align=right width=20> </TD><TD>Email this article</TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD align=right width=20> </TD><TD>Print article </TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD align=right width=20> </TD><TD>Feedback</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
(Singapore)

A $150 million Singapore Exchange (SGX) investment in hedge funds could have been wiped out by today's financial crisis if not for the board's intervention, SGX chief executive Hsieh Fu Hua said at the company's annual general meeting yesterday.

<TABLE class=picBoxL cellSpacing=2 width=100 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD></TR><TR class=caption><TD>STANDING FIRM
The sound advice from the board was proof that SGX needed strong directors in turbulent times, rather than cut back on directors' fees to save costs, MrHsieh told shareholders </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>He raised the issue after some shareholders questioned a proposed 40 per cent hike in directors' fees, which was eventually passed. The investors asked whether it was appropriate to raise the fees now, when the capital markets are expected to fare badly because of the credit crisis.
In August 2004, SGX pumped $150 million into a market-neutral funds portfolio, which returned $131 million in redemption proceeds this fiscal year 2008 - 12.7 per cent less than the principal.
Such funds are aimed at helping to 'neutralise' the effect of market movements by matching long and short equity positions in different stocks.
SGX management wanted to continue investing in such funds at the end of a three-year investment mandate in mid-2007, but the idea was shot down by board members, who said the company should liquidate the fund instead.
'The board stood strongly against management' on this issue, said Mr Hsieh. SGX management obliged and liquidated the portfolio from July 2007 - the start of financial year 2008 - to December 2007.
The sound advice from the board was proof that SGX needed strong directors in turbulent times, rather than cut back on directors' fees to save costs, Mr Hsieh told shareholders.

=> Expect the Papayas to demand another round of pay hike? So has the AssGX management been fired?

SGX chairman JY Pillay also said directors' rates had to be raised to 'a more competitive level' to attract more talent. 'I don't think we are rewarding them too handsomely at all,' he said, pointing out the fees were equivalent to just 0.22 per cent of full-year 2008 net profit.
SGX raised total directors' fees to $1.07 million. The basic fee for each non-executive director has been upped to $55,000, from $40,000 in fiscal year 2007. Audit committee chairman Lee Hsien Yang - who is also the chairman of listed conglomerate Fraser and Neave - will receive $30,000, up 50 per cent from $20,000 the previous year.
Mr Hsieh assured shareholders at the meeting that the bourse will remain profitable, and that the variable bonus component for staff will help mitigate costs.
He told reporters on the sidelines of the shareholders' meeting that the curbs relating to naked short-selling are expected to 'remain in place for a long time to come'. But he said it has 'not been our philosophy' to ban short-selling completely.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[DIVISION1]

Competitive salaries is a good way to attract talent. Selection of types of talent is a different issue. You may not like this answer, but it is likely you are less unhappy than had it been the hedge fund was pounded during the financial crisis.

 

[makapaaa]

Competitive salaries is a good way to attract talent. Selection of types of talent is a different issue. You may not like this answer, but it is likely you are less unhappy than had it been the hedge fund was pounded during the financial crisis.

And sweep the $20M under the carpet? Talk cock also dunno how to.

 

[DIVISION1]

Anger achieves little.

 

[madmansg]

my dim view of sgx management is now proven correct

 

[2standards]

He has to say that to make sure his own director's fees do not decrease and to protect his old boys' network

Sounds familiar? Still have the gall to ask for 40% pay hike!


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=452 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=452 colSpan=2>Published October 4, 2008

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=452 colSpan=2>SGX board stemmed investment loss: CEO
Board members objected to SGX management's decision to continue investing some $150 million in hedge funds

By JAMIE LEE
<TABLE class=storyLinks cellSpacing=4 cellPadding=1 width=136 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR class=font10><TD align=right width=20> </TD><TD>Email this article</TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD align=right width=20> </TD><TD>Print article </TD></TR><TR class=font10><TD align=right width=20> </TD><TD>Feedback</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
(Singapore)

A $150 million Singapore Exchange (SGX) investment in hedge funds could have been wiped out by today's financial crisis if not for the board's intervention, SGX chief executive Hsieh Fu Hua said at the company's annual general meeting yesterday.

<TABLE class=picBoxL cellSpacing=2 width=100 align=left><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD></TR><TR class=caption><TD>STANDING FIRM
The sound advice from the board was proof that SGX needed strong directors in turbulent times, rather than cut back on directors' fees to save costs, MrHsieh told shareholders </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>He raised the issue after some shareholders questioned a proposed 40 per cent hike in directors' fees, which was eventually passed. The investors asked whether it was appropriate to raise the fees now, when the capital markets are expected to fare badly because of the credit crisis.
In August 2004, SGX pumped $150 million into a market-neutral funds portfolio, which returned $131 million in redemption proceeds this fiscal year 2008 - 12.7 per cent less than the principal.
Such funds are aimed at helping to 'neutralise' the effect of market movements by matching long and short equity positions in different stocks.
SGX management wanted to continue investing in such funds at the end of a three-year investment mandate in mid-2007, but the idea was shot down by board members, who said the company should liquidate the fund instead.
'The board stood strongly against management' on this issue, said Mr Hsieh. SGX management obliged and liquidated the portfolio from July 2007 - the start of financial year 2008 - to December 2007.
The sound advice from the board was proof that SGX needed strong directors in turbulent times, rather than cut back on directors' fees to save costs, Mr Hsieh told shareholders.

=> Expect the Papayas to demand another round of pay hike? So has the AssGX management been fired?

SGX chairman JY Pillay also said directors' rates had to be raised to 'a more competitive level' to attract more talent. 'I don't think we are rewarding them too handsomely at all,' he said, pointing out the fees were equivalent to just 0.22 per cent of full-year 2008 net profit.
SGX raised total directors' fees to $1.07 million. The basic fee for each non-executive director has been upped to $55,000, from $40,000 in fiscal year 2007. Audit committee chairman Lee Hsien Yang - who is also the chairman of listed conglomerate Fraser and Neave - will receive $30,000, up 50 per cent from $20,000 the previous year.
Mr Hsieh assured shareholders at the meeting that the bourse will remain profitable, and that the variable bonus component for staff will help mitigate costs.
He told reporters on the sidelines of the shareholders' meeting that the curbs relating to naked short-selling are expected to 'remain in place for a long time to come'. But he said it has 'not been our philosophy' to ban short-selling completely.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[makapaaa]

Anger achieves little.

And bootlicking is totally destructive.