The Financial Supervisory Commission last week announced that it would implement new listing requirements for so-called “penny stocks” next quarter to improve the quality of local equities.
The commission has accepted the Taiwan Stock Exchange’s suggestion to drop shares with a net value of less than NT$3 to facilitate managing the nation’s publicly listed companies. The new rules would also apply to companies that certified public accountants doubt can continue to operate soundly, the commission said.
Penny stocks — also called “egg-and-dumpling shares” because of a share price of NT$5 or less — are not uncommon around the world. They are attractive to some investors because they are more affordable than mid or large-cap stocks.
The allure of penny stocks — as seen by the number of advertisements for them or by how often stock market shows on local TV channels discuss them — is that people hope to win big with little expense, despite the generally higher risks and significant losses.
Investors can be interested in penny stock companies for other reasons. Employees could become their own boss by holding a majority of their company’s shares; some investors help turn around a money-losing business venture so that they can reap the profits; and other investors view the companies as assets that can be repackaged and resold at a profit.
Regardless, companies with penny stocks are suspected of inadequate and less-than-transparent financial reporting.
Certain events might warrant buying penny stocks. For instance, a company is to be launched or a new patent is being granted, making the stocks seem like good investments for investors with plenty of experience and an appetite for high-risk stocks.
How a publicly traded stock becomes a penny share has a lot to do with a company’s performance and the underlying fundamentals of the industry that the company is in. As such, it should surprise no one if the company is one day delisted from the local bourse.
Companies are usually delisted in Taiwan after financial statements are not submitted to the stock exchange, their net value per share drops below zero and fails to recover within a specified period, or they undergo corporate restructuring due to financial difficulty.
No exit mechanism is mandated for penny shares, so the commission’s new requirements would give the companies a grace period of three years in which to make improvements — such as pushing for recapitalization or other reforms to improve their profitability — before seeing their shares delisted.
As the commission is not targeting shares with low transaction volumes or those consistently priced below a par value of NT$10, but rather shares in companies whose owners or major shareholders have shown no interest in running their core business, have ignored their shareholders and appear to be just hanging on until good offerings come along, the planned delisting mechanism is not expected to put much pressure on small-cap stocks.
The new requirements are well-intentioned and fitting. Their implementation would allow investors to re-examine their investment portfolio and distinguish between valuable small-cap stocks and penny stocks that have all too often proved ripe for manipulation and prone to fraud.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS