Gains and governance overshadow politicised "national Interests" in a globalised economy : proposed Singapore-Australian Stock Exchange merger

Most articles on the issue of the proposed Singapore-Australian stock exchanges merger have been replete with emotional outbursts on national interest and the impact on investors' profits.

Here are some objective analysis by economic, industry, legal and regulatory experts that should be considered seriously than politicising an economic issues.

The main players are keen but each side is worried that they have the short end of the deal. Most Australians' concerns focus on compromises on regulations of companies' listing, complaince such as disclosure requirements and independence. Singaporean analysts, on the other hand, are uncomfortable that the venture is overpriced and laden with obstacles on approval as well as potential management and competition issues from Chi-X.

It is a perennial challenge to achieve an optimal balance between regulation and economic vibrance.

QUOTE :

[Lawyers Michael Wilton and Jill Gauntlett say : ... shareholders should be comforted by the long historical links in regulation between Australia and Singapore. When Singapore fashioned its corporations law almost 50 years ago, it modelled it on the uniform Companies Act passed by all Australian states in 1961. Revised uniform listing rules took effect in Australia at the same time.]

[Singapore has different financial track record requirements and does not have an equivalent of Australia's assets test that allows mining exploration companies to list before they turn a profit.]

[Jennifer Hill, Professor of Law in University of Sydney says :
Australia and Singapore allow their exchanges to grant waivers case by case. This ''may potentially constitute a form of selective regulation'' ... the corporate governance consultancy ISS released a report in 2007 that concluded that the Australian waiver scheme lacked transparency, especially compared with New Zealand, but was substantially more transparent than London or New York .... such disparities could be a concern as global competition among exchanges increases.]

[''During the 1990s, it was often assumed that the trend towards cross-listing of foreign firms in the United States was itself a new form of regulatory competition, under which foreign companies from jurisdictions with poor corporate governance would cross-list to gain regulatory credibility,'' she says.

But this assumption was questioned after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002, when many high-profile Asian companies bypassed the New York Stock Exchange in favour of other international exchanges.

''This suggested that overly stringent governance may repel, rather than attract, cross-listing,'' Hill says. ''This remains a danger for securities exchanges, particularly given increased competition for listing and trading revenues.'' ]

http://www.theage.com.au/business/asx-merger-plan-raises-questions-of-governance-20101028-175s7.html

Laptop - the way to go, prevails over desktops

Laptops are ostensibly getting more popular in the last two years because of the vast improvements made in speed, storage space, battery life and weight, significantly closing the gap with desk top. The demand and supply factors are mutually reinforcing. Naturally, more investments would be poured into R&D of laptop computers, which will turn accelerate improvements in technology and present better prices for consumers with volume sales.

I'm no geek but fortunate to be surrounded by some, and so can't help getting sound advice and good deals. These days, one could get a decent, practical, brand name laptop for under $500. With at least 1 G Ram memory, more than 100 G disk space and 10 hour battery, it can adequately meet the needs of most students and professionals on the move. The only inconvenience is charging the battery when not using it. Experimenting with the new toys on the market, it is certainly leaps ahead of a three year desktop.

A $1,500 budget can get you a fairly high end and sophisticated laptop. Compare this with spending $2,000 on a desktop that is not portable, guess what most modern day consumers would choose?

However, procrastinators are advised not to wait too long. If you really need a computer for work, now is probably one of the better times to buy one as the technology has moved to a higher plane and retail trade reeling from the quietness in the aftermath of the stimulus package, are offering great bargains. Also noteworthy is that workers in China who produce the components for electronics may be getting higher pay after some success in their agitation for better work conditions. This is likely to translate into higher prices for the final electronic products in future. Since computers have become a necessity in modern times, as Intel puts it, its demand is becoming more inelastic. Companies are more likely to raise prices to make up for higher labour cost than to maintain prices which will eat into their profits for the consumers' sake.