Home
Login Register
OLS Enterprise   

Transcu

 Post Reply 581-600 of 676
 
risktaker
    27-Oct-2009 10:24  
Contact    Quote!
Newbies please stay out of this fully controlled baby. The BBs are very nasty tricks.....  
 
 
abc2xyz
    27-Oct-2009 10:22  
Contact    Quote!

It is a no brainer for anyone who has a little bit of gray matters up north despite not being gifted with wisdom to guess that the brokerage and company whose imposition of the so-called "trading restriction" could easily make them a fortune at the expense of the innocent retail investors, the so called aunties and uncles while at the same time impoverish many a holder of the stock.

Woe to rules and regulations, and congrats to the SGX for its tolerance of such acts..



ROI25per      ( Date: 27-Oct-2009 10:04) Posted:



 

I believe very good chance it will below placement price; who knows 1 mth later, u see it @ 5cents...


 

Published October 26, 2009


Trading curbs: the curious case of Transcu


By R SIVANITHY



THE recent circumstances surrounding UOB-Kay Hian's imposition of trading curbs on the shares of life sciences firm Transcu Group, which precipitated a collapse of those shares, raises a few important regulatory issues for the authorities to ponder.


The most pressing question is of course the most obvious, namely, how such announcements are to be communicated to the public in the future.


In Transcu's case, rumours of an impending trading curb circulated as early as the morning of Tuesday, Oct 20, and placed the stock under intense pressure throughout the day - hours before the broker actually confirmed that it was to restrict trading in the counter.


If the playing field is to be level for all investors, then given the potentially material impact such stockbroking decisions can have on a stock's price, it is essential that the Singapore Exchange (SGX) work with the broking community to establish a set of procedures on how brokers who want to properly manage their risks can best accomplish this without disadvantaging any segment of the investing public.


For example, it may be necessary to make it a compulsory requirement for houses like UOB-Kay Hian, who believe that speculative fever in a particular stock like Transcu has reached dangerously risky levels not justified by the fundamentals and who have decided to limit their exposure to that stock, to alert the SGX and the company's management as soon as the decision is made to impose trading restrictions. Once this is done, trading must be halted with minimum delay while the information is disseminated to the market.


Of course, such steps may not prevent the stock crashing, but they would at least recognise that crucial, price-sensitive information need not always come from the company concerned but may also come from external sources whose actions can influence trading. Moreover, having a proper set of procedures for handling trading curbs would minimise uncertainty and help preserve, as far as possible, an 'orderly market'. Instead, in Transcu's case, there was no information forthcoming that day, leading to 218 million shares changing hands, general bewilderment among investors as to what was going on, and a 21 per cent crash in the share price.


The other interesting angle, of course, is to look at why such curbs are imposed in the first place since brokers are revenue-maximising entities. Any firm that takes steps which could limit that revenue suggests something drastic has occurred.


In Transcu's case, for the six trading days preceding UOBKH's curbs, the share price had inexplicably shot up from 11.5 cents on Oct 8 to 19.5 cents on Oct 19, a gain of 70 per cent that made it the local market's top performer when the Straits Times Index only managed a 2 per cent rise over the same period. This, for a company which has reported mainly losses and whose latest quarterly report is a loss of $7 million from revenue of just $1.4 million.


Other than an announcement of a private placement of 320 million shares at 9.6 cents each on Oct 12, which is news that cannot reasonably be expected to get the pulses racing and send a stock's price shooting, some might even argue quite correctly that placements are dilutive and so should cause the price to fall. There were no other developments to account for the sharp rise.


Curiously, over the period when Transcu's price was rising in increasing volume there was also no query from SGX on possible reasons for the sudden spike in price and volume, as is often the case for other stocks which display similar odd behaviour. Surely surveillance personnel would have been alert to the fact that here was a company which has reported consistent losses but has suddenly seen its shares surge by a large amount in high volume, and as a result, would have at least sent a perfunctory query to the company.


No matter, what is important is that all concerned learn from the incident and take steps to ensure that, as far as possible, there is smooth handling of trading curbs when a broker decides to impose them on a speculative, runaway stock.


 
 
risktaker
    27-Oct-2009 10:05  
Contact    Quote!
0.10 is too expensive to enter :) Do not enter

risktaker      ( Date: 21-Oct-2009 08:23) Posted:



if u can exit -- run now :)

 

 
ROI25per
    27-Oct-2009 10:04  
Contact    Quote!


 

I believe very good chance it will below placement price; who knows 1 mth later, u see it @ 5cents...


 

Published October 26, 2009


Trading curbs: the curious case of Transcu


By R SIVANITHY



THE recent circumstances surrounding UOB-Kay Hian's imposition of trading curbs on the shares of life sciences firm Transcu Group, which precipitated a collapse of those shares, raises a few important regulatory issues for the authorities to ponder.


The most pressing question is of course the most obvious, namely, how such announcements are to be communicated to the public in the future.


In Transcu's case, rumours of an impending trading curb circulated as early as the morning of Tuesday, Oct 20, and placed the stock under intense pressure throughout the day - hours before the broker actually confirmed that it was to restrict trading in the counter.


If the playing field is to be level for all investors, then given the potentially material impact such stockbroking decisions can have on a stock's price, it is essential that the Singapore Exchange (SGX) work with the broking community to establish a set of procedures on how brokers who want to properly manage their risks can best accomplish this without disadvantaging any segment of the investing public.


For example, it may be necessary to make it a compulsory requirement for houses like UOB-Kay Hian, who believe that speculative fever in a particular stock like Transcu has reached dangerously risky levels not justified by the fundamentals and who have decided to limit their exposure to that stock, to alert the SGX and the company's management as soon as the decision is made to impose trading restrictions. Once this is done, trading must be halted with minimum delay while the information is disseminated to the market.


Of course, such steps may not prevent the stock crashing, but they would at least recognise that crucial, price-sensitive information need not always come from the company concerned but may also come from external sources whose actions can influence trading. Moreover, having a proper set of procedures for handling trading curbs would minimise uncertainty and help preserve, as far as possible, an 'orderly market'. Instead, in Transcu's case, there was no information forthcoming that day, leading to 218 million shares changing hands, general bewilderment among investors as to what was going on, and a 21 per cent crash in the share price.


The other interesting angle, of course, is to look at why such curbs are imposed in the first place since brokers are revenue-maximising entities. Any firm that takes steps which could limit that revenue suggests something drastic has occurred.


In Transcu's case, for the six trading days preceding UOBKH's curbs, the share price had inexplicably shot up from 11.5 cents on Oct 8 to 19.5 cents on Oct 19, a gain of 70 per cent that made it the local market's top performer when the Straits Times Index only managed a 2 per cent rise over the same period. This, for a company which has reported mainly losses and whose latest quarterly report is a loss of $7 million from revenue of just $1.4 million.


Other than an announcement of a private placement of 320 million shares at 9.6 cents each on Oct 12, which is news that cannot reasonably be expected to get the pulses racing and send a stock's price shooting, some might even argue quite correctly that placements are dilutive and so should cause the price to fall. There were no other developments to account for the sharp rise.


Curiously, over the period when Transcu's price was rising in increasing volume there was also no query from SGX on possible reasons for the sudden spike in price and volume, as is often the case for other stocks which display similar odd behaviour. Surely surveillance personnel would have been alert to the fact that here was a company which has reported consistent losses but has suddenly seen its shares surge by a large amount in high volume, and as a result, would have at least sent a perfunctory query to the company.


No matter, what is important is that all concerned learn from the incident and take steps to ensure that, as far as possible, there is smooth handling of trading curbs when a broker decides to impose them on a speculative, runaway stock.

 
 
oinkoink1999
    27-Oct-2009 09:58  
Contact    Quote!

thanks ROI25per. Now I know why i din see the deal done on the exchange...cos its a private placement...

cheers~



ROI25per      ( Date: 27-Oct-2009 09:38) Posted:


 
 
ROI25per
    27-Oct-2009 09:38  
Contact    Quote!
 

 
oinkoink1999
    27-Oct-2009 09:31  
Contact    Quote!


HI ROI25per,

                     can I confirm if the placement share exercise already happened? I din see any married deals so far after the announcement..i may have missed it. Thanks.

oinkoink
 
 
ROI25per
    27-Oct-2009 09:19  
Contact    Quote!
let's see it go down to placement price 9.6 (lowest was 9.5), then maybe i will consider.
 
 
ROI25per
    26-Oct-2009 15:30  
Contact    Quote!


 Transcu concludes successful Phase 2 clinical trial
for its improved active transdermal delivery
technology
 Iontophoretic Drug Delivery System (IDDS) Containing Lidocaine and
Epinephrine is effective in reducing pain associated with insertion of an
intravenous catheter

 


Please take note that there are so many pple doing these kind of products , eg as below since 2005

so nothing great


Vyteris
 
 
rage11
    26-Oct-2009 15:14  
Contact    Quote!
Good buy now?
 

 
carsem
    26-Oct-2009 12:15  
Contact    Quote!
Top volume now
 
 
ROI25per
    26-Oct-2009 09:52  
Contact    Quote!
seems quiet today
 
 
keepnosecrets
    22-Oct-2009 10:17  
Contact    Quote!
This various business they are in, very good types.

ROI25per      ( Date: 22-Oct-2009 09:50) Posted:



no more 1% convertible notes , no more dilution to existing shareholders.

fund can last til next year aug, by then hopefully phase 3 pass and FDA clear. 

 
 
ROI25per
    22-Oct-2009 09:50  
Contact    Quote!


no more 1% convertible notes , no more dilution to existing shareholders.

fund can last til next year aug, by then hopefully phase 3 pass and FDA clear. 
 
 
keepnosecrets
    22-Oct-2009 09:39  
Contact    Quote!

This counter recovering liao.  Won't be surprised if it turn green today.

http://info.sgx.com/webcoranncatth.nsf/VwAttachments/Att_FCD26CB458293538482576560040DEAD/$file/Transcu-MediaClarification.pdf?openelement

The above link can help you avert a disaster if you have shorted. 

 



perfectstorm      ( Date: 21-Oct-2009 11:41) Posted:



luckily we warn our fellow member to run ahead of time because the designation could possible spread to many counters.

http://www.sgsharetalk.com/forum/index.php


 

 
keepnosecrets
    21-Oct-2009 15:42  
Contact    Quote!
It is all about trusting the clients or not. If you trust the customers can pay if he loses, then mostly you will allow him to trade even whatever shares he chooses to trade.  As I say, this appears quite undemocratic way of doing things.  You think the counter is shit, someonethinks it is a gem.  How to restrict?  Restricting is only applicable in-house regulations and not global.  So restricting a share is just like passing some bad rumours and hoping it falls to benefit you, the shortists.

ch99_lee      ( Date: 21-Oct-2009 13:50) Posted:

Is it means, UOB-KH trader will not buy anymore but only sell? Means it will further dropped again?

 
 
ch99_lee
    21-Oct-2009 13:50  
Contact    Quote!
Is it means, UOB-KH trader will not buy anymore but only sell? Means it will further dropped again?
 
 
keepnosecrets
    21-Oct-2009 12:05  
Contact    Quote!
Frankly speaking, restriction of trading of a counter is nothing new.  It is but a tool used by BBs to prevent you from buying too much of a very volatile counter, thus imposing too heavy risks to their business.  It is just a risk management, though sometimes one may view it as undemocratic or even illegal in as much as the investors are concerned.
 
 
perfectstorm
    21-Oct-2009 11:41  
Contact    Quote!


luckily we warn our fellow member to run ahead of time because the designation could possible spread to many counters.

http://www.sgsharetalk.com/forum/index.php

 
 
cloudscreen
    21-Oct-2009 11:34  
Contact    Quote!
Business Times - 21 Oct 2009

Trading curb talk sends Transcu stock reeling

UOB-KH imposing trading restriction on counter from today: sources

By JAMIE LEE

THE wind was knocked out of the stock of bio-medical company Transcu
Group yesterday as talk of a trading restriction by UOB-Kay Hian - which
has since been imposed - ignited a heavy dumping of its shares, sources
told BT.

Shares of Transcu opened unchanged at 19.5 cents and made a slight gain
of half a cent in the first 15 minutes of trading.

But from there on, the stock made a swift nose-dive, with most of the
heavy selling done in the afternoon trading session.

By the end of the day, the stock had plunged 20.5 per cent, or 4 cents,
to 15.5 cents and was the most heavily traded counter on the market,
with 218 million shares changing hands. The day saw its market value
drop some $69 million to $267 million.

'I got a call saying, 'if you have loved ones holding on to this stock,
tell them to get rid of it now',' said one source.

Sources who declined to be named said UOB-Kay Hian - Singapore's largest
brokerage - announced the trading restriction from today to the trading
room over the PA system around 5pm yesterday.

With this trading restriction, any investor who buys at least $30,000
worth of Transcu shares must put down a deposit, said one source. One
observer saw this as effectively a ban on contra trading for the
counter.

The exact reason for the trading restriction was unclear, though brokers
were told that the house's trading exposure on the stock was too high
for this penny stock.

The source added that this move by UOB-Kay Hian has sparked talk on
whether the other brokerages would follow suit.

The stock had been hit in early-September this year by another severe
sell-down. The counter similarly lost one-fifth of its market value
following a series of married deals.

Out of the 53 million shares traded then, about half - or some 24
million units - were traded through married block deals at 14.5 cents
and 15 cents. The stock closed 4 cents lower at 15 cents that day.

Shares of Transcu have plummeted 75.62 per cent since the start of the
year, against the 48.17 per cent gain by the Straits Times Index.

When contacted, the company declined to comment on the share plunge.

Transcu - which makes trans-dermal patches that can deliver drugs via
the skin - has been on a fund-raising trail.

It said last week that it would raise $29.4 million through a share
placement.

This follows an issue of up to $80 million of one per cent convertible
notes to subscriber Advance Opportunities Fund earlier this year.

Transcu - which was listed through a reverse takeover of Eng Wah
Organisation - posted a net loss of US$7.27 million for the first
quarter ended June 30, widening its losses from the US$5.28 million
posted a year ago.

Copyright (c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
 
Important: Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy .