Name: SCMP
Telephone: +852-2680-8888

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Shirley Yam

With four issuers on the Growth Enterprises Market board shot down by regulators, should one expect Hong Kong’s farmers of corporate shells and price fixers to be in mourning?
Not at all. It’s business as usual. They say wherever there’s a rule, there’s a way. The name of the new way is Patience.
The story of version 2.0 is best told through the IPOs of two GEM-listed stocks within a week of each other last month.
Dadi Education, a consultancy that advises students on overseas studies, sailed through the tightened regulatory hurdles, with its shares soaring 400 per cent since March 1. GME Group Holdings, an old fashioned civil works subcontractor, had its shares suspended after a mere four hours on the stock market on February 22, during which prices soared fivefold.
The duo are typical of the second board, exhibiting various red flags of a listed shell as defined by the Hong Kong Stock Exchange - small fund raising, minimal market capitalisation and deteriorating profit.
Both launched their share sales within days of a January statement by the Securities & Futures Commission and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange threatening to block stock listings in the case of bogus share allocations.
Let’s start with Dadi’s IPO debut two days after Valentine’s Day.
It was the first company to abandon full placement, selling 10 per cent via public offering to more than 4,400 shareholders.
During its February 16 IPO debut, the stock price fell as much as 5.9 per cent when shares traded for the first time, dropping below the IPO price and breaking the long-held tradition among GEM companies of bumper first days.
Meanwhile, at GME, the story began with a manipulated free flow of stocks via the so-called full share placement. Three shareholders control 67.5 per cent of the company’s stock.
They sold shares by placements to 167 placees, a token gesture over the minimum 100 required by regulators.
This didn’t escape the regulators’ scrutiny. They picked up on the oddity that many placees shared the same addresses and funding sources, and called the company out.
If that wasn’t enough to teach GME a lesson, the company’s share performance did. The stock price surged fivefold within the first hours of trading on February 22, and got itself subsequently suspended.
GME’s three controlling shareholders recently promised to upload 5 per cent of their holdings to another 150 independent investors to broaden the float. The regulators are yet to budge to allow the stock to resume trading.
The SFC was happy enough to point out last week that the average first-day rallies had been slashed to 4.2 per cent since its January ultimatum, compared with the 656 per cent surge in 2016.
That almost made Dadi the poster boy for the newfound discipline amid the regulators’ crackdown.
Except, it isn’t quite. If one zooms out from the first trading day to a month, the emerging picture would rain on the regulators’ parade.
Dadi’s shares hovered around its IPO price of HK$0.34 for almost a month, before staging a three-day rally last week, surging to HK$1.70 on Friday, and then dropping 31 per cent to HK$1.17 two days later. Deja vu.
Whether or not it was orchestrated, the February 17 dive in Dadi’s stock price -- as much as 19 per cent off its IPO price -- would have scared minority investors into dumping whatever they have received via the public offer.
More than 300 million shares, almost twice Dadi’s publicly offered shares, have changed handed during that period. A significant part of that went to clients with Head & Shoulders Securities, the company’s sole bookrunner.
In between, Head & Shoulders’ holding increased from 14.45 per cent to over 21 per cent, leaving fewer than 4 per cent with other brokers, according to records by the Hong Kong Securities Clearing Co.
If the stocks have been cornered by a few, the subsequent price surge would hardly be a surprise. Whoever smart or lucky enough to bottom fish last month would be sitting on a profit of over HK$100 million.
Money Matters asked Dadi’s financial controller and company secretary Hedley Tam if the company was aware of any reason behind its stellar performance and whether they suspected anyone cornering its stock.
“The company is not in a position to comment on both of your enquiries,” Tam said .


Money Machine Part 1: When Mao’s former barefoot doctor helped a US fund buy a Chinese state bank

China’s ‘she economy’ booms as young and financially independent women spend for themselves

Chinese stocks are likely to sell-off in the next two quarters as Beijing refrains from activating full-scale stimulus: BCA Research

Sri Lanka to tax car crashes in drastic austerity budget, raising money and ‘reducing accidents’

Money Matters

Roller coaster ride exposes Hong Kong GEM’s weaknesses

The share price of Dadi Education Holdings fell then they traded for the first time in Hong Kong last month, seemingly breaking the long tradition of first-day bumper gains. The stock began a three-day surge last week in which it soared fivefold, and fell 31 per cent in two days. Photo: SCMP

graphic for online

GEM board seen as not fulfilling its mission of growing companies

Moses Cheng Mo-chi (left) of HKEx and Edward Chow Kwong-fai, chairman of CIG Yangtze Ports, which listed on the GEM in 2005. Questions have been raised about the mission of the market. Photo: David Wong

Gem emerges from the rough

GEM rule change seen as 'flexible' solution to Alibaba listing impasse

Christopher Cheung

Hong Kong hasn’t tightened GEM rules far enough, lawmaker says

GEM should raise the minimum number of shareholders to 300, from 100, lawmaker says

Traders work on the trading floor at the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in Central. Photo: Dickson Lee

Integrity of Hong Kong’s main board and GEM threatened by wholesale regulatory arbitrage

<p>HKEx came upon ethical challenges that took it completely by surprise</p>

Traders work on the trading floor of the Hong Kong stock exchange. Photo: Bloomberg

New | Roller coaster ride exposes Hong Kong GEM’s weaknesses