It is time to change our attitudes

Now days SEC do more affect than the fundamentals do. They play with demand and supply big manner.

Look like…. It is difficult to change the government attitude towards credit…

osmand wrote:


i think we all are rely on rumors & information not about fundamentals & rechnical analysis. we used to it one year ago. but our attitudes have been changed by idiots@ sec. they r playing with us. we all are for + info. to me it is time to chage our attitude. our companies are poforming well, aren't they ?. Financial sector eranings are seems good. dividends are paying. other environmental factors are getting better for businesses. most of the fudamentals are undervalued. but we are chasing info & rumors. lets imagine, if the sec will not release the T+5 what will happen. dark red period of weeks will cover us, unless we change our attitudes.

Totally agree with you view above. I’m sick of being let down thrown up and down and watch what I built-up gradually being eaten away by trying to follow these hot tips. But I cant blame anyone else but my self, because if not for greed thing’s would have been much more different.

No matter what the out come of the regulators I have decide to move on to under valued fundamentally strong stocks. A slow and steady climb is better than gambling at the CSE.

SEC making profit out of like SEC and CDS charges but end of the taking revenge from that poor investors. What they do opening branches across the country without protection investors.

Osmand, it's true what you say.
But my question is, why do we pay fees to SEC from each of our transactions, if they are not capable of doing their job?

Deva wrote:Osmand, it's true what you say.
But my question is, why do we pay fees to SEC from each of our transactions, if they are not capable of doing their job?

agreed. no need to pay even a cents.they should pay for us to the damage ther are doing to the mkt.



anyone knows thier qualifications. we know about sugathadasa, she haven't anything regarding this field, how about Mr. M?????????

Even though the SEC remove or relax the regulation, market wouldn’t be Bull Run with the current situation of Sri Lanka as well as the Global crisis.

Foreign investors withdraw their investment day by day and no more new funds to CSE.

Without new funds there will not be green.

prabashk wrote:Even though the SEC remove or relax the regulation, market wouldn’t be Bull Run with the current situation of Sri Lanka as well as the Global crisis.

Foreign investors withdraw their investment day by day and no more new funds to CSE.

Without new funds there will not be green.

friend, did you ever think why the foreigners moving away???. they are not like us. they are not following spaculations. (there are may be some). they are loving with fundamentals.eg - banking sector, JKH, ............



what has happen to the fundametals? not moving because of the created senario by sec. so they are moving. not because of the other reason. if our market doing well, we can attract more foreigners from the other markets because of global crisis.

Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

raa wrote:Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

why to brokers????? they can not sell or buy without having permission from the investor. if they do so any one can complain that to the SEC. i know they are doing it. but no action to them by sec.

raa wrote:Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

@ raa
The SEC don't do their duty.
But earn from our transactions
In that case public , share holder , etc must react

raa wrote:Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

Of course we have our own risk in investing money in the market, but we should not forget that the SEC is there to monitor the smooth function of the market, by ways of stopping violations and manipulations, and giving the investors confidence to continue. If the investors loose their confidence and turn to other (legal) means to make money and the market is ruined day by day, what is the purpose of having a SEC? Investors take risk after evaluating kind of measurable facts and figures, we can't predict the impact of manipulations and violations. Being captured in and hammered by the intended manipulations of few few people don't mean taking a risk.

raa wrote:Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

I think more than SEC being inefficient, ineffective..the problem is their inconsistency..just look how many times they played around with this broker credit issue..the deadlines to clear credit was delayed by two times on the request of Brokers. So ppl know that SEC could change their mind any time if Brokers request..if they were firm on their decisions previously this would never happen..

Does any one know how much credits remaining there to clear. it should be 25%. isnt it?

prabashk wrote:Even though the SEC remove or relax the regulation, market wouldn’t be Bull Run with the current situation of Sri Lanka as well as the Global crisis.

Foreign investors withdraw their investment day by day and no more new funds to CSE.

Without new funds there will not be green.

If they remove the credit clearance T+5... investors have funds and market will be green. As seen in the previous post from the investor portfolio they can give the credit at least 20% with interest so on... it is good.

for the big investors they don't have any problem, lot of money, easy loans etc.. so nothing to worry...

Ransiri Silva wrote:

raa wrote:Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

Of course we have our own risk in investing money in the market, but we should not forget that the SEC is there to monitor the smooth function of the market, by ways of stopping violations and manipulations, and giving the investors confidence to continue. If the investors loose their confidence and turn to other (legal) means to make money and the market is ruined day by day, what is the purpose of having a SEC? Investors take risk after evaluating kind of measurable facts and figures, we can't predict the impact of manipulations and violations. Being captured in and hammered by the intended manipulations of few few people don't mean taking a risk.

Investors also cannot expect miracles ……credit based growth is not real, inevitably market becomes red after few days if all are buying on credit….. “Aandi hath denage kanda haliya wage”…. then..there is a natural selection….. Stocks not dependent on credit tend to slowly appreciate...real investors follow those high cap stocks which attract real funds... as there are no gains in other stocks…who is going to loose initial investment also by joining a run or a rally which is going to collapse due to credit after few days and burn the fingers ..…

Aamiable wrote:

Ransiri Silva wrote:

raa wrote:Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

Of course we have our own risk in investing money in the market, but we should not forget that the SEC is there to monitor the smooth function of the market, by ways of stopping violations and manipulations, and giving the investors confidence to continue. If the investors loose their confidence and turn to other (legal) means to make money and the market is ruined day by day, what is the purpose of having a SEC? Investors take risk after evaluating kind of measurable facts and figures, we can't predict the impact of manipulations and violations. Being captured in and hammered by the intended manipulations of few few people don't mean taking a risk.

Investors also cannot expect miracles ……credit based growth is not real, inevitably market becomes red after few days if all are buying on credit….. “Aandi hath denage kanda haliya wage”…. then..there is a natural selection….. Stocks not dependent on credit tend to slowly appreciate...real investors follow those high cap stocks which attract real funds... as there are no gains in other stocks…who is going to loose initial investment also by joining a run or a rally which is going to collapse due to credit after few days and burn the fingers ..…

This is the very truth those who are crying for credit have to realize. Fundamentals come first!

fear and greed of people runs the market..how hard we try we cannot overcome those feelings

osmand wrote:

prabashk wrote:Even though the SEC remove or relax the regulation, market wouldn’t be Bull Run with the current situation of Sri Lanka as well as the Global crisis.

Foreign investors withdraw their investment day by day and no more new funds to CSE.

Without new funds there will not be green.

friend, did you ever think why the foreigners moving away???. they are not like us. they are not following spaculations. (there are may be some). they are loving with fundamentals.eg - banking sector, JKH, ............

what has happen to the fundametals? not moving because of the created senario by sec. so they are moving. not because of the other reason. if our market doing well, we can attract more foreigners from the other markets because of global crisis.

Osmand,
I cannt agree with you. Most of these foreign funds invested at CSE prior to Jan 2010. So they managed to buy all these fundamentally sound shares for dirt cheap. They are leaving CSE not mainly because of fundamentally sound shares not going up but as a result of a simple business strategy. You need to understand its not because of someone's fault. Most of these foreign funds made more than enough money from CSE. So they should have every right in the book to withdraw money from CSE.

Since you mentioned JKH let me give you an example.

If you check the top 20 shareholders in JKH you can see that since the beginning of this year
"The Emerging Market South Asian fund" is no longer there.
This fund entered into JKH prior to March 2008 and

31.03.2008 they had 9.2M (7.2M before the subdivision of shares)
31.03.3009 they had 26.8M (20.1M before the subdivision of shares)
30.09.2009 they had 31.0M (peaked)
31.03.2010 they had 26.1M
31.12.2010 they only had 6.9M shares.

This shows that they gradually disposed their JKH shares at the right time. Raj Rajaratnam also disposed his shares at the right time. Both disposed JKH shares with hefty gains..

So please tell me what is wrong with any of these transactions?
People blame SEC for every single thing..

Academic wrote:

Aamiable wrote:

Ransiri Silva wrote:

raa wrote:Don't blame the SEC. Yes they may be inefficient, ineffective and not doing their jobs to the best of their ability BUT... they didn't ask us to chase speculative stocks...

The SEC isn't there to make us rich...

The SEC isn't there to tell us which stocks to buy and not to buy...

The SEC isn't there to tell us what rumors are real and not real...

I blame brokers. They don't educate the investor, they don't protect the investors in the market, they misdirect and misinform.

Of course we have our own risk in investing money in the market, but we should not forget that the SEC is there to monitor the smooth function of the market, by ways of stopping violations and manipulations, and giving the investors confidence to continue. If the investors loose their confidence and turn to other (legal) means to make money and the market is ruined day by day, what is the purpose of having a SEC? Investors take risk after evaluating kind of measurable facts and figures, we can't predict the impact of manipulations and violations. Being captured in and hammered by the intended manipulations of few few people don't mean taking a risk.

Investors also cannot expect miracles ……credit based growth is not real, inevitably market becomes red after few days if all are buying on credit….. “Aandi hath denage kanda haliya wage”…. then..there is a natural selection….. Stocks not dependent on credit tend to slowly appreciate...real investors follow those high cap stocks which attract real funds... as there are no gains in other stocks…who is going to loose initial investment also by joining a run or a rally which is going to collapse due to credit after few days and burn the fingers ..…

This is the very truth those who are crying for credit have to realize. Fundamentals come first!

True , market is in this sad state due to credit issue, not due to fundamentally sound stocks.

@ UKboy, you are 100% correct on this. These foreign funds are always one foot infront. When they sense an opportunity, they will grab with both hands and when they have made enough money they will not hesitate to leave. As they operate globally, they have much more options than our domestic retail investors in the market.

They might have realized the formation of a bubble early last year and they have been on the selling side eversince. Can we blame SEC for that?

StocksWatch wrote:@ UKboy, you are 100% correct on this. These foreign funds are always one foot infront. When they sense an opportunity, they will grab with both hands and when they have made enough money they will not hesitate to leave. As they operate globally, they have much more options than our domestic retail investors in the market.

They might have realized the formation of a bubble early last year and they have been on the selling side eversince. Can we blame SEC for that?

Unfortunately, when there is a credit bubble and fake inflated rallies investors and foreigners leave.

UKboy wrote:

osmand wrote:

prabashk wrote:Even though the SEC remove or relax the regulation, market wouldn’t be Bull Run with the current situation of Sri Lanka as well as the Global crisis.

Foreign investors withdraw their investment day by day and no more new funds to CSE.

Without new funds there will not be green.

friend, did you ever think why the foreigners moving away???. they are not like us. they are not following spaculations. (there are may be some). they are loving with fundamentals.eg - banking sector, JKH, ............

what has happen to the fundametals? not moving because of the created senario by sec. so they are moving. not because of the other reason. if our market doing well, we can attract more foreigners from the other markets because of global crisis.

Osmand,
I cannt agree with you. Most of these foreign funds invested at CSE prior to Jan 2010. So they managed to buy all these fundamentally sound shares for dirt cheap. They are leaving CSE not mainly because of fundamentally sound shares not going up but as a result of a simple business strategy. You need to understand its not because of someone's fault. Most of these foreign funds made more than enough money from CSE. So they should have every right in the book to withdraw money from CSE.

Since you mentioned JKH let me give you an example.

If you check the top 20 shareholders in JKH you can see that since the beginning of this year
"The Emerging Market South Asian fund" is no longer there.
This fund entered into JKH prior to March 2008 and

31.03.2008 they had 9.2M (7.2M before the subdivision of shares)
31.03.3009 they had 26.8M (20.1M before the subdivision of shares)
30.09.2009 they had 31.0M (peaked)
31.03.2010 they had 26.1M
31.12.2010 they only had 6.9M shares.

This shows that they gradually disposed their JKH shares at the right time. Raj Rajaratnam also disposed his shares at the right time. Both disposed JKH shares with hefty gains..

So please tell me what is wrong with any of these transactions?
People blame SEC for every single thing..

I agree with you UK boy. but try to underastand my point. who made them to disposed. SEC. r u agree with that. the decisions taken by SEC made this situation.. actually i do not want to blame them, but they are not acting according to the ethics. we can see it very clearly. before these things no one blame them. some are even do not know about them.

lets think about some of the decison made by them,
1. Price band - very good rule to me. But do they impose it properly. NOOOO. examples. CLND. they put arround 30s only. GRAN. BLUE. PMB - when coming down. ECL after subdivision.
2. Credit clearence. - Good but approach is very bad. In this world there is no any business without credit. what they do. giving dead line to clear. then extended it twice. but if they imposed that rule with a good broker monitoring approach how wise they are.

lets immagine, if all the banks announce to their customers to clear the loans before this date, what will happen. SEC imposed such a rule to the mkt & they make it a mess rather than make it polish.

osmand wrote:I agree with you UK boy. but try to underastand my point. who made them to disposed. SEC. r u agree with that. the decisions taken by SEC made this situation..

NO
No Osmand you got it wrong. When these funds made enough money, they ready to leave the market. They know that they dont belong to the market and the market does not belong to them.
Please calcuate how much money " The emerging market south Asian fund" made out of JKH?. Its not just these funds, you and I also do the same thing.

osmand wrote: actually i do not want to blame them, but they are not acting according to the ethics. we can see it very clearly. before these things no one blame them. some are even do not know about them.

Brother I can see sheer frustration from you & at the same time I feel sorry for many of the retailers.

osmand wrote: before these things no one blame them. some are even do not know about them.

People made huge profits in last two years. So they did not want to know about SEC. But things has changed.

osmand wrote:lets think about some of the decison made by them,
1. Price band - very good rule to me. But do they impose it properly. NOOOO. examples. CLND. they put arround 30s only. GRAN. BLUE. PMB - when coming down. ECL after subdivision.

Unless its sooo erratic, they cannt/should not implement the price bands. If they do so people will say SEC looks like an old school master.

osmand wrote:2. Credit clearence. - Good but approach is very bad. In this world there is no any business without credit. what they do. giving dead line to clear. then extended it twice. but if they imposed that rule with a good broker monitoring approach how wise they are.
lets immagine, if all the banks announce to their customers to clear the loans before this date, what will happen. SEC imposed such a rule to the mkt & they make it a mess rather than make it polish.

Eventhough I don’t use credit facility I think people should have the rights to have about 15%-25% credit facility. Cannt you remember those days there were so many brokers and retailers cried and ask SEC to extension the credit facility?
Please read what actually happened in the bottom of this link. There is a comment from a guy called Kanchana ( Tubal) thats exactly what happened.
http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=167994075

Kanchana wrote:I really hope that the SEC is not stupid enough to dance to the brokers' tune. It should be the other way round. Just because a bunch of naive investers(?!) made a series of stupid decision it does not give them and their shady brokers the right to hold the country's entire financial system hostage.
The market went up from 1600 to 7700 in two years. That's a bubble, be thankful that the CSE is deflating it gradually. Be thankfull that the house of cards that is the SEC didn't collapse like other houses of cards namely Sakvithi, Golden Key and Danduwam mudulali

The SEC did not suddenly introduce a T+5 force selling rule. Brokers were always supposed to force sell after T+3. They didn't obey that rule between 2009 and 2010. (there's plenty of evidence that they are still not strictly enforcing it) What the CSEactually did is give brokers two extra days

The SEC did not suddenly introduce a 50% margin limit on credit. Brokers were never supposed to provide more than 50% of portfolio value as credit. They didn't obey that rule between 2009 and 2010 and sometimes gave a wopping 1000% that's all.

--Tubal