MAS proposes streamlining disclosure requirements in IPO prospectuses
SINGAPORE – Disclosure requirements for companies considering initial public offerings (IPOs) here could be simplified to make the listing process easier and help firms provide more relevant information to investors.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said on May 15 that it is consulting the public on proposed amendments to regulations under the Securities and Futures Act.
The exchange regulator, Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo), is also conducting a concurrent public consultation on the relevant amendments to listing rules.
The moves come after an MAS-led review group announced new measures in February aimed at reviving trading on the SGX. These include getting selected fund managers to invest at least $5 billion of seed capital in promising non-index SGX stocks, and requiring family offices here to also invest in the stock market.
The proposed regulatory changes towards a less prescriptive and more disclosure-based system for IPOs are part of these measures.
Streamlining disclosures for primary and mainboard listings
Companies seeking a primary listing on the SGX will be required to disclose information that is most relevant to investors.
For example, the issuer is now required to disclose the list of all entities owned by the company's directors or controlling shareholder that operate in the same business as the issuer. This generates excessive details about these entities.
'The existing requirement will be streamlined to require issuers to provide clear disclosure on the core substance of conflicts faced, instead of purely factual information about the entities,' noted the MAS consultation paper.
There are also proposals to ensure that the time and costs needed to compile the information is commensurate with the informational value to investors.
For example, companies have to get an outside expert to confirm their profit predictions when they list on the stock market.
The MAS is proposing to remove the requirement for such a third-party expert to confirm an issuer's profit forecasts, citing challenges in obtaining such endorsements due to the judgment involved.
Instead, the issuer's board should be responsible for ensuring the forecasts are prepared in line with accounting policies and based on reasonable assumptions. This aligns with practices in the EU and Britain.
Meanwhile, interim financial statements may be required in a prospectus only if the most recent full-year financials are more than nine months old at the time the offer document is lodged.
This change would give issuers a longer window to launch their IPOs without having to prepare interim statements, a process which usually takes several months. 'A longer launch window is especially important in times of high market volatility,' the MAS said.
There are also proposals to reduce the scope of disclosures required of past events or historical details where these are less relevant to investors.
SGX RegCo is also consulting the public on easing the criteria for mainboard listings, while upholding the quality of applicants.
SGX RegCo chief executive Tan Boon Gin noted that the regulator plans to retain a prescriptive approach in critical areas such as financial health, the track record of directors, management and controlling shareholders.
However, for other aspects, the focus will shift towards enabling issuers to ensure clear and robust disclosures that allow investors to make well-informed decisions, without the regulator mandating how specific issues must be addressed.
Simplifying process for secondary listings
The MAS is looking to align Singapore's disclosure requirements for secondary listings with international standards.
Issuers that want a secondary listing in Singapore and to offer shares to retail investors are now required to comply with the same prospectus disclosure requirements as issuers seeking a primary listing here.
A proposed amendment will allow companies already listed overseas to use their existing prospectus with minimal adjustments when seeking a secondary listing on the SGX.
Industry experts have welcomed the proposals.
Ms Stefanie Yuen Thio, joint managing partner at TSMP Law Corporation, noted that the granularity with which IPO prospectuses are reviewed, with multiple rounds of comments and questions, has been a longstanding grouse in the market.
'It's good the new proposals will centre on financial and management integrity,' she said.
'IPO aspirants will still need to make full disclosure – that has not changed – but a lot of friction will be taken out of the process.'
She noted that under the new regime, investors will have to make more informed and considered decisions and must be prepared to seek recourse in the event of inadequate or wrongful disclosure.
'This also means the law must change to give investors more easy access to information and improved levers to enforce against bad companies.'
Investor protection avenues are expected to be addressed in the next round of measures to be announced by the review group later in 2025.
Mr Robson Lee, a partner at Kennedys Legal Solutions, noted that shifting from a hybrid prescriptive-disclosure based regime to one where issuers take more responsibility for their disclosures is a move in the right direction, one that will draw more IPOs and secondary listings without compromising standards.
'The spirit of a disclosure-based regime entails the directors of the issuer bearing full responsibility for the statutory and regulatory compliance requirements,' Mr Lee said.
It also fosters more market discipline through the principle of caveat emptor, or buyer beware, as investors take personal responsibility for their investment and securities trading decisions, he added.
Deloitte South-east Asia accounting and reporting assurance leader Tay Hwee Ling agreed, noting that the shift towards a disclosure-based regime places stronger emphasis on the timeliness, consistency and materiality of information disclosed.
Material information is anything that a reasonable investor would want to know before buying or selling a security, as it could affect the company's stock price or the investor's view of the company.
'This empowers investors to make better-informed decisions while requiring issuers to present clear, accurate and comprehensive disclosures – especially in how their financials support their growth narrative and long-term value proposition.'
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Olivia Lum trial: What counts as non-disclosure?
[SINGAPORE] After years of struggling with the Tuaspring project, Hyflux was ordered to be wound up in 2021, closing a critical chapter in one of Singapore's most significant corporate collapses. Along with about 34,000 retail investors who lost S$900 million on the company's preference shares and perpetual securities, its lenders were also previously reported to have suffered close to S$1 billion in losses. While the liquidators, on behalf of the company, filed civil suits against former chief executive Olivia Lum for over S$690.6 million and former auditor KPMG for over S$684.6 million, public prosecutors went after Lum and other key executives for allegedly not disclosing material information regarding the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant. The charges In the trial that opened on Aug 11, Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, and four independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – are contesting the charges under Section 203 of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). They are accused of intentionally failing to notify the Singapore Exchange (SGX) of crucial information about the Tuaspring project. The prosecution argues that Hyflux won the tender for the project with a bid that priced the desalinated water at a loss. The project's viability was allegedly contingent on a co-located power plant, which was to sell surplus electricity to the national grid. Revenue from this was meant to cover losses from the desalination plant. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up This pivot into the volatile energy market – a business in which Hyflux had no experience – was a fundamental risk that prosecutors say was not properly disclosed to retail and institutional investors who funded the project through a S$200 million preference share issue in 2011. The law assigns different degrees of culpability for this alleged failure. Lum is charged with consenting to the non-disclosure, Cho for conniving in it, and the independent directors for neglect. A second charge alleges that Lum and the four independent directors omitted the same material information in the offer prospectus for the preference shares in 2011. The capital-raising exercise was therefore supported by a deliberate omission of material information regarding Tuaspring's reliance on electricity sales and the associated risks from volatile power prices. What is non-disclosure? Under Rule 703(1)(b) of the SGX Listing Manual, a listed company is obliged to disclose information it knows about itself, its subsidiaries or associated companies if the information 'would be likely to materially affect the price or value of its securities'. According to the Singapore Institute of Directors, under Section 203 of the SFA, the intentional, reckless or negligent failure to notify the SGX of any such information is a criminal offence. Not announcing the material information immediately could create a 'false market' in the trading of its shares. A 'false market' is one where investors trade on incomplete or misleading information. The materiality test For the prosecution to succeed in a non-disclosure action, the withheld information must be proven to be 'material'. Singapore courts apply a two-pronged test to determine this. First, the information must prove to be 'materially price-sensitive', meaning it would likely cause a significant change in the price of the company's securities. The impact of the non-disclosed information on the share price is evaluated over a reasonable period of time, and not just on the first trading day after the announcement is released, according to case study notes by Venture Law. In the Hyflux case, the prosecution argues that revealing the Tuaspring project's dependence on the volatile electricity market would have fundamentally altered its risk profile and negatively impacted Hyflux's share value. Second, prosecutors in non-disclosure cases must show that the omitted information is 'trade-sensitive', meaning it would likely influence a reasonable investor's decision to buy, sell or hold the securities. Prosecutors contend that knowing Hyflux was entering a new and high-risk industry to subsidise its core business would have influenced any investor's decision. Potential penalties The SFA gives statutory force to the SGX's rules on non-disclosure, making a breach a potential criminal offence. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional non-disclosure, each of the accused may face up to seven years' jail, a fine of up to S$250,000, or both. For making an offer of securities to the public with omissions about the electricity sales, Lum and the four independent directors could additionally face up to two years' jail, a maximum fine of S$150,000, or both.
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
Olivia Lum trial: What is non-disclosure
[SINGAPORE] After years of struggling with the Tuaspring project, Hyflux was ordered to be wound up in 2021, marking a critical chapter in one of Singapore's most significant corporate collapses. Along with about 34,000 retail investors who lost S$900 million on the company's preference shares and perpetual securities, its lenders were also previously reported to have suffered close to S$1 billion in losses. While the liquidators, on behalf of the company, filed civil suits against former chief executive Olivia Lum for over S$690.6 million and former auditor KPMG for over S$684.6 million, public prosecutors went after Lum and other key executives for allegedly not disclosing material information regarding the Tuaspring Integrated Water and Power Plant. The charges The trial, which began on Aug 11, sees Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, and four independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – contesting charges under Section 203 of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA). They are accused of intentionally failing to notify the Singapore Exchange (SGX) of crucial information about the Tuaspring project. The prosecution argues that Hyflux won the tender for the project with a bid that priced the desalinated water at a loss. The project's viability was allegedly contingent on a co-located power plant selling surplus electricity to the national grid. Revenue from this was meant to cover losses from the desalination plant. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up This pivot into the volatile energy market – a business in which Hyflux had no experience – was a fundamental risk that prosecutors say was not properly disclosed to retail and institutional investors who funded the project through a S$200 million preference share issue in 2011. The law assigns different degrees of culpability for this alleged failure. Lum is charged with consenting to the non-disclosure, Cho for conniving in it, and the independent directors for neglect. A second charge alleges that Lum and the four independent directors omitted the same material information in the offer prospectus for the preference shares in 2011. The capital-raising exercise was therefore supported by a deliberate omission of material information regarding Tuaspring's reliance on electricity sales and the associated risks from volatile power prices. What is non-disclosure? Under Rule 703(1)(b) of the SGX Listing Manual, listed companies are obliged to disclose information it knows about itself, its subsidiaries or associated companies if the information 'would be likely to materially affect the price or value of its securities'. According to the Singapore Institute of Directors, under Section 203 of the SFA, the intentional, reckless or negligent failure to notify the SGX of any such information is a criminal offence. Not announcing the material information immediately could create a 'false market' in the trading of its shares. A 'false market' is one where investors trade on incomplete or misleading information. The materiality test For the prosecution to succeed in a non-disclosure action, the withheld information must be proven to be 'material'. Singapore courts apply a two-pronged test to determine this. First, the information must prove to be 'materially price-sensitive', meaning it would likely cause a significant change in the price of the company's securities. The impact of the non-disclosed information on the share price is evaluated over a reasonable period of time and not just on the first trading day after the announcement is released, according to case study notes by Venture Law. In the Hyflux case, the prosecution argues that revealing the Tuaspring project's dependence on the volatile electricity market would have fundamentally altered its risk profile and negatively impacted Hyflux's share value. Second, prosecutors in non-disclosure cases must show that the omitted information is 'trade-sensitive', meaning it would likely influence a reasonable investor's decision to buy, sell, or hold the securities. Prosecutors contend that knowing Hyflux was entering a new and high-risk industry to subsidise its core business would have influenced any investor's decision. Potential penalties The SFA gives statutory force to the SGX's rules on non-disclosure, making a breach a potential criminal offence. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional non-disclosure, each of the accused may face up to seven years' jail, a fine of up to S$250,000, or both. For making an offer of securities to the public with omissions about the electricity sales, Lum and the four independent directors could additionally face up to two years' jail, a maximum fine of S$150,000, or both.
Business Times
4 hours ago
- Business Times
India and Russia seek to increase trade to US$100 billion as US ties fray
[NEW DELHI] India and Russia are looking to increase their annual trade by about 50 per cent over the next five years to reach US$100 billion, seeking to reduce tariffs as both countries see mounting tensions with the US, a top envoy said. Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said on Wednesday (Aug 20) during a visit to Moscow that the two countries must remove trade bottlenecks and reduce non-tariff barriers to reach the goal. Russia is India's fourth-largest trading partner, while India is Russia's second-largest. Jaishankar's visit is the latest in a series of diplomatic efforts to fellow founding members of the Brics group of developing countries, which have all faced prohibitive tariffs and trade threats from US President Donald Trump. India's foreign minister is on a three-day visit to Moscow for an annual bilateral dialogue, which is expected to pave the way for President Vladimir Putin's visit to the South Asian country later this year. Without directly mentioning the US and its trade policies, Jaishankar said at the India-Russia Business Forum in Moscow that rising global uncertainty puts the emphasis back on 'dependable and steady partners.' 'We are all acutely aware that we are meeting in the backdrop of a complex geopolitical situation. Our leaders remain closely and regularly engaged,' he said. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up India has edged away from the US in the face of tariff threats. Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed Putin as a 'friend' after a call with the Russian leader this week, and New Delhi has moved to bolster relations with China. Modi is set to visit China in late August – his first trip to the country in seven years – to meet President Xi Jinping. Trump and his administration officials have criticised India for its purchases of Russian oil, seeing the trade as helping Putin finance his war on Ukraine. Trump has imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods and threatened to double it to 50 per cent on Aug 27 – a rate that would make India's US$85 billion in annual US exports uncompetitive. India has defended its right to buy from the cheapest source, calling the tariffs 'unreasonable.' For India, the advantage of Russian oil is that it can be purchased at a discount, making it a key tool for keeping domestic inflation in check. Jaishankar also suggested that India and Russia firmly work to diversify trade, encourage more joint ventures between their companies, and meet more often to smoothen out bumps, including payment systems. BLOOMBERG