Ticker glitch, rising competition deepen woes for Australian bourse
In just two days, a bungled market announcement, a threat to its long-standing dominance and surprise expenses tied to an ongoing regulatory probe dented confidence in the exchange and heaped more pressure on chief executive officer Helen Lofthouse. Its stock tumbled 8.6 per cent on Thursday (Aug 7), the most in two years.
It is a culmination of years of hitches at the ASX, including a botched technology upgrade to its clearing and settlement platform, that has led to a wide-ranging regulatory probe over failures in governance and risk management practices. Lofthouse and Chair David Clarke are facing demands for accountability over the shortcomings just as concern grows that the ASX is losing its prime position amid rising competition from rivals like Cboe Global Markets.
ASX's litany of issues 'suddenly challenges its reputation,' said Jun Bei Liu, founder of Ten Cap Investment. 'For a defensive, quality, blue chip company as it used to be perceived, it's in a whole lot of trouble.'
An expert panel has started work to analyse the firm's governance and risk management practices after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Reserve Bank of Australia highlighted 'repeated and serious' failures.
Doubts over ASX's operations have weighed on its shares. The stock is among the worst-performing global exchanges this quarter, with a 7.3 per cent drop that's outpaced only by Brazil's main bourse and India's largest commodities exchange. It's also the world's most unpopular bourse among sell-side analysts, with the lowest consensus rating on a 24-member Bloomberg Intelligence gauge of security and commodity exchanges.
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
Several developments this week have added further caution towards the stock. On Wednesday, ASX incorrectly cross-referenced TPG Telecom's ticker to a statement from Infomedia about a deal with private equity firm TPG Capital Asia, sparking investor confusion that sent shares of the Australian telecommunications company sliding. ASX cancelled early trades in TPG Telecom's stock and said the problem was caused by 'inadvertent human error.'
'ASIC has engaged with the ASX about the TPG Telecom error,' a spokesperson for the regulator said in a statement. 'ASIC has requested the ASX to identify action to prevent issues such as this occurring again.'
Later that day, ASIC said it was in the final stages of considering a listing market application from Cboe's Australian unit. The move would allow domestic companies to list on an exchange run by the US rival, threatening to end ASX's local market domination.
Competition coming
Unlike some countries, Australia is not home to multiple listing platforms. ASX, formed in 1987 after legislation enabled the union of six independent stock exchanges that had operated in the states' capital cities, is currently the only venue for public listings. In 1998, it became the first exchange in the world to demutualise and directly list itself. It now has a market capitalisation of about A$12.5 billion (S$10.5 billion) after shrinking by around a third from its all-time high in 2021.
Singapore Exchange's attempted takeover of ASX was blocked in 2011, with the government at the time citing national interest reasons. Since then, while equities trading began on Chi-X before it was bought by Cboe, ASX has maintained a stronghold of public listings and on the lucrative derivatives market.
If approved, Cboe's bid would 'enhance competition and attract foreign investment, providing more choice for investors and greater international alignment,' ASIC said in a statement on Wednesday. Cboe Australia currently provides trading in ASX-listed securities and admits exchange-traded products through its own market.
India offers an example of how a dominant exchange can be disrupted by a new entrant. BSE, once the nation's leading stock exchange, saw its market share rapidly decline after the launch of the National Stock Exchange of India in 1994, which introduced electronic trading. Institutional investors quickly migrated to the NSE, drawn by its modern technology. As a result, BSE, once the pre-eminent player, now holds only a single-digit share of the cash equities market.
Lingering concerns
Meantime, ASX CEO Lofthouse has pledged a revamp that would lift standards and support the long-term interests of the nation's financial markets. Still, costs are mounting and the bourse on Thursday said it would incur as much as A$35 million in additional operating expenses related to the panel-led inquiry that's due to report to ASIC by the end of March. The firm is due to deliver full-year earnings results on Aug 14.
While these are one-off fees, 'we think this could lead to additional operational and risk management spend beyond' the current fiscal year, Morgan Stanley analysts led by Andrei Stadnik wrote in a note. BLOOMBERG
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
14 hours ago
- Business Times
Issue 158: Who says what's material for Singapore firms; catastrophe payouts pile up for insurers
This week in ESG: Study finds lack of external input in materiality identification; US$80 billion of insured losses from natural catastrophes in H1 2025, says Swiss Re Institute Sustainability reporting Reporting in a material world Singapore-listed companies should seek more external perspectives to determine the non-financial issues that could most affect their businesses, a new analysis suggests. Large companies listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) tend to rely on internal feedback, peer benchmarks and international standards significantly more than external stakeholder feedback in identifying material sustainability-related factors, shows a report co-authored by Professor Mak Yuen Teen of the National University of Singapore and Tina Thomas, Baker Tilly's head of environmental, social and governance (ESG) and sustainability. The report is published by Governance for Stakeholders – an advocacy platform run by Prof Mak – and Sustainable Finance Institute Asia. The study assesses disclosures about materiality identification by 300 listed companies – 100 each from the Australia, Malaysia and Singapore stock exchanges. The companies come from 10 industry sectors that are either high emitters of greenhouse gases or major sectors with many large companies. Materiality identification is a critical aspect of ESG and managing sustainability-related risks and opportunities (SROs). In essence, companies need to prioritise SROs. The more important ones should be addressed and disclosed, while the less important ones do not need to be reported. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 12.30 pm ESG Insights An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues. Sign Up Sign Up One of the questions the study asks is how companies identify material SROs. The analysis grouped the identification methods into five key channels: Internal stakeholder feedback External stakeholder feedback External sustainability consultancy Peer benchmarking International standards alignment There are two additional methods for unspecified channels: Unspecified stakeholder feedback Unspecified standards alignment The study finds that of the 100 Singapore-listed companies, only 20 report using external stakeholder feedback, which is fewer than half of the 42 that report using internal stakeholder feedback. It's also fewer than half of the 46 that use international standards alignment and the 49 that use peer benchmarking. There is also a drop-off – albeit not as steep – for external stakeholder feedback in Malaysia. On Bursa, 16 companies report using external stakeholder feedback, which is about 65 per cent of the 25 companies that report using internal stakeholder feedback. Australia-listed companies are more balanced, with 68 using internal stakeholder feedback and 63 using external stakeholder feedback. However, Australian firms are less likely to seek the independent industry-wide perspective. Only 47 companies report using international standards alignment, which is 70 per cent of those that use internal stakeholder feedback. A significant number of companies from the Singapore and Malaysia samples disclose unspecified stakeholder feedback, but that's unlikely to change the fact that external stakeholders' views are sought less often than internal ones in these markets. That's because it's much easier to obtain feedback from internal stakeholders than external stakeholders, and it's highly probable that most of the unspecified cases will include internal feedback. Unknown unknowns It's important that companies in Singapore and Malaysia take greater effort to obtain external stakeholders' views, to guard against blind spots. The five key channels used in the study reflect three different kinds of perspectives on SROs. From internal stakeholder feedback, companies obtain the internal company-specific perspective on key risks and opportunities. From external stakeholders and external consultancies, companies acquire an external perspective that's specific to them. From peer benchmarking and international standards alignment, companies get an independent, industry-wide perspective of SROs. However, while benchmarks and standards are independent, they do not reflect idiosyncratic circumstances that a company faces. Meanwhile, interpreting and applying those benchmarks and standards to account for circumstances is an internal process. Therefore, the external stakeholders' perspective is valuable because it helps a company to obtain independent views that account for the company's circumstances. Without that perspective, companies risk blind spots – the unknown unknowns. For example, a producer of plant-based health foods might not be aware of customer and civil society concerns about human rights and labour issues at the farms that supply the producer's chickpeas. Companies must also seek out a diversity of external views. The study finds that Singapore and Malaysia companies in the sample engage with non-government organisations less than their Australia-listed counterparts. Defining impact The study notes that there is currently uncertainty about how materiality assessment will evolve as implementation begins for the accounting profession's IFRS sustainability and climate reporting standards. SGX has mandated phased alignment with the IFRS standards starting this year. The phased implementation calls for a climate-first approach, which could lead to climate issues rising in importance in companies' materiality assessments, the study says. But closer alignment to the IFRS standards could eventually narrow the scope of material factors. Most Singapore-listed companies are using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, which approach materiality from a broad understanding of impact. By contrast, the IFRS focuses on financial materiality. When SGX eventually moves towards the full adoption of the IFRS standards, 'the scope of disclosure would narrow', the study states. 'Only topics that present a financial material impact to the company would be required to be reported, potentially reducing the visibility of broader environmental and social issues currently captured under the GRI framework if companies do not voluntarily report'. The IFRS approach doesn't mean that non-financial factors won't be deemed material, but the onus is placed on companies to determine the potential financial impact of ESG factors, which can be challenging when gazing at medium-to-long-term horizons. This raises the importance of engaging with external stakeholders, who can help companies to better understand impact over longer periods. Investors will also have to raise their game when it comes to imposing market discipline. Professional and institutional investors, especially, can play a bigger role in calling companies to task if they're not properly capturing material issues. For Singapore-listed companies, the materiality landscape could change in the coming years. It's good to have some outside insights. Climate risk When protection hurts If there's one sector where climate change directly impacts profit, it might be in insurance. Swiss Re Institute estimates that global insured losses from natural catastrophes stood at US$80 billion in the first half of 2025. That's almost double the 10-year average. The main source of losses came from the Palisades wildfires that hit Los Angeles in the first quarter of the year. Without that fire, total insured losses would have been below trend. The Palisades fires hit especially hard because of the value of assets affected by the blaze. 'With changing climates, unexpected and unseasonal weather conditions may occur more frequently, making loss outcomes more volatile and difficult to predict,' the institute says. The institute worked out that global insured losses from natural catastrophes have been growing at a long-term trend of 5 per cent to 7 per cent. If that trend holds in 2025, full-year losses could approach US$150 billion. Insurers have begun to walk away from parts of the world where catastrophe risk has risen too much. For example, home insurance is too costly to be practical in parts of hurricane-prone Florida. But even in places where catastrophe risk is still manageable, the physical risk of climate change is an unavoidable problem. Asset owners in coastal or low-lying areas must plan for potentially damaging flooding. Assets close to vegetation must confront the higher possibility of wildfires. Either invest in climate adaptation and resilience, or pay higher insurance premiums. These problems exist for a significant portion of the global population. That's why climate change is a global problem, and why businesses should consider climate change to be a material sustainability-related risk or opportunity. That's true even for businesses that don't belong to emissions-intensive sectors. Other ESG reads
Business Times
14 hours ago
- Business Times
QAF H1 net profit drops by 69% to S$3.9 million
[SINGAPORE] QAF posted a drop of 69 per cent in its net profit to S$3.9 million for the half-year of FY2025 ended June, impacted by a marginal dip in revenue and higher costs. In a regulatory filing published on Friday (Aug 8), the baker and provider of distribution and warehousing services reported a 1 per cent year-on-year reduction in revenue to S$306.1 million and a 3 per cent rise in total expenses and costs to S$297.9 million. Hence, earnings per share slid, to 0.7 Singapore cent from 2.2 cents for the year-ago period. Net asset value per share also decreased, to 82.7 Singapore cents as at end-June from 86.9 cents as at end-2024. QAF said it experienced higher operating expenses, particularly in labour, amid sluggish consumer demand. These cost pressures will continue to weigh on its profitability. Meanwhile, foreign exchange rate movements remain volatile, and will continue to affect both reported results and business operations in overseas markets, it noted. It posted foreign currency conversion loss of S$3 million, compared with S$100,000 for the corresponding period of FY2024, mainly due to the conversion effects from Australian dollar to Singapore dollar of its substantial holdings in Australian-dollar-denominated cash. In spite of the drop in net profit, QAF board has declared an interim dividend of one Singapore cent per share – unchanged from the year-ago period – with the payment date to be announced. QAF shares dropped 0.6 per cent or S$0.005 to S$0.885 on Friday, before publishing its financial results.
Business Times
17 hours ago
- Business Times
Ticker glitch, rising competition deepen woes for Australian bourse
[SYDNEY] ASX is grappling with rising regulatory pressure and intensifying competition, as shares of Australia's main exchange operator trail most of its global peers. In just two days, a bungled market announcement, a threat to its long-standing dominance and surprise expenses tied to an ongoing regulatory probe dented confidence in the exchange and heaped more pressure on chief executive officer Helen Lofthouse. Its stock tumbled 8.6 per cent on Thursday (Aug 7), the most in two years. It is a culmination of years of hitches at the ASX, including a botched technology upgrade to its clearing and settlement platform, that has led to a wide-ranging regulatory probe over failures in governance and risk management practices. Lofthouse and Chair David Clarke are facing demands for accountability over the shortcomings just as concern grows that the ASX is losing its prime position amid rising competition from rivals like Cboe Global Markets. ASX's litany of issues 'suddenly challenges its reputation,' said Jun Bei Liu, founder of Ten Cap Investment. 'For a defensive, quality, blue chip company as it used to be perceived, it's in a whole lot of trouble.' An expert panel has started work to analyse the firm's governance and risk management practices after the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Reserve Bank of Australia highlighted 'repeated and serious' failures. Doubts over ASX's operations have weighed on its shares. The stock is among the worst-performing global exchanges this quarter, with a 7.3 per cent drop that's outpaced only by Brazil's main bourse and India's largest commodities exchange. It's also the world's most unpopular bourse among sell-side analysts, with the lowest consensus rating on a 24-member Bloomberg Intelligence gauge of security and commodity exchanges. 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 Several developments this week have added further caution towards the stock. On Wednesday, ASX incorrectly cross-referenced TPG Telecom's ticker to a statement from Infomedia about a deal with private equity firm TPG Capital Asia, sparking investor confusion that sent shares of the Australian telecommunications company sliding. ASX cancelled early trades in TPG Telecom's stock and said the problem was caused by 'inadvertent human error.' 'ASIC has engaged with the ASX about the TPG Telecom error,' a spokesperson for the regulator said in a statement. 'ASIC has requested the ASX to identify action to prevent issues such as this occurring again.' Later that day, ASIC said it was in the final stages of considering a listing market application from Cboe's Australian unit. The move would allow domestic companies to list on an exchange run by the US rival, threatening to end ASX's local market domination. Competition coming Unlike some countries, Australia is not home to multiple listing platforms. ASX, formed in 1987 after legislation enabled the union of six independent stock exchanges that had operated in the states' capital cities, is currently the only venue for public listings. In 1998, it became the first exchange in the world to demutualise and directly list itself. It now has a market capitalisation of about A$12.5 billion (S$10.5 billion) after shrinking by around a third from its all-time high in 2021. Singapore Exchange's attempted takeover of ASX was blocked in 2011, with the government at the time citing national interest reasons. Since then, while equities trading began on Chi-X before it was bought by Cboe, ASX has maintained a stronghold of public listings and on the lucrative derivatives market. If approved, Cboe's bid would 'enhance competition and attract foreign investment, providing more choice for investors and greater international alignment,' ASIC said in a statement on Wednesday. Cboe Australia currently provides trading in ASX-listed securities and admits exchange-traded products through its own market. India offers an example of how a dominant exchange can be disrupted by a new entrant. BSE, once the nation's leading stock exchange, saw its market share rapidly decline after the launch of the National Stock Exchange of India in 1994, which introduced electronic trading. Institutional investors quickly migrated to the NSE, drawn by its modern technology. As a result, BSE, once the pre-eminent player, now holds only a single-digit share of the cash equities market. Lingering concerns Meantime, ASX CEO Lofthouse has pledged a revamp that would lift standards and support the long-term interests of the nation's financial markets. Still, costs are mounting and the bourse on Thursday said it would incur as much as A$35 million in additional operating expenses related to the panel-led inquiry that's due to report to ASIC by the end of March. The firm is due to deliver full-year earnings results on Aug 14. While these are one-off fees, 'we think this could lead to additional operational and risk management spend beyond' the current fiscal year, Morgan Stanley analysts led by Andrei Stadnik wrote in a note. BLOOMBERG
