Shouting, signalling, scrambling: Inside the heyday of Singapore's trading pits
In these open-outcry pits – so named because traders would literally shout their bids and offers across the floor – a carefully choreographed dance played out each trading day, from 1984 until their closure in 2006.
When an order came in from a client – say, to sell 100 lots of Nikkei 225 futures – a broker would shout or signal the intention to offload the contract to a group known as order fillers, or 'locals'.
The locals – traders who used their own capital to buy and sell derivatives, often at high frequency – would respond with their best bids, yelling or flashing hand signals until a price was agreed.
Details of the trade were then scribbled onto a card, passed to a clerk, and handed to the clearing broker of the locals, who would input the trade into the exchange's matching system. Exchange staff would then update the official price boards.
All transactions were recorded on trading cards. PHOTO: SGX
Where noise overwhelmed, hand signals took over.
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
Traders relied on a system of universally recognised gestures: a palm facing inwards signalled a buy order, while an outward-facing palm meant sell. Numbers were indicated with fingers – raised above the head for larger quantities, or near the chin for smaller ones.
At their peak, individual pits could hold more than 300 people, all shouting, signalling and scrambling to trade contracts at the best possible price, said Rama Pillai, managing director at SGX Group.
Pillai joined the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (Simex) in 1991.
Established in 1984 as Singapore's first derivatives exchange, Simex merged in 1999 with the Stock Exchange of Singapore and Securities Clearing and Computer Services – forming today's Singapore Exchange (SGX).
Semi-circular bowls
The trading pits, Pillai recalled, were not just flat floors. They were built in a semi-circular bowl with rising steps, designed to control the flow of information within the frenetic environment.
The locals – clad in red jackets – stood at the centre of the pit.
Andy Tan, chief executive officer of Synergy Link Capital, who began his trading career in 1991 as a broker for a local bank, said: 'You could think of them as high-frequency traders'
These locals played a vital role in the market ecosystem, providing liquidity through their constant buying and selling – much like market makers today, explained Tan.
Eventually, however, electronic trading took over. What once took seconds, minutes or even hours could now be executed with a single click.
The last open-outcry pit shut in September 2006, nearly two years after SGX launched its electronic migration in November 2004.
But the shift from organised chaos to code came with its own set of challenges.
As SGX began phasing out its trading pits in the early 2000s, one key question emerged: how to help floor traders adapt to electronic systems. Rather than let the community fade – as it had in other markets – Pillai and his team rolled out a structured training programme, funded in part by a government grant.
Traders were introduced to handheld electronic devices, and even attended classes taught by a seasoned Chicago floor trader flown in specifically for the initiative.
The result? While exchanges in London and Australia saw 80 per cent of their floor communities disappear within a year of going digital, Singapore experienced the reverse.
Pillai said: '80 per cent of the community continued to trade, even one year after we went away from the floor.'
IPO frenzy
While Simex's open-outcry pits were bustling with professionals, many retail investors had their first brush with the markets through initial public offering (IPOs) – and a pair of manila envelopes.
'It was a very manual process,' recalled S Nallakaruppan, president of the Society of Remisiers (Singapore), who began his career in 1994.
Back then, applying for IPO shares involved filling up an application form, placing it in one envelope, and enclosing a cashier's order in another.
'If you're successful, then they will process the cashier's order,' said Nallakaruppan. 'Otherwise, they will return it.'
The application forms were completely manual, with prospectuses distributed at booths set up in Raffles Place, said June Sim, managing director at Singapore Exchange Regulation.
The excitement around IPOs was palpable. 'Every two, three weeks, you'd have one IPO on the SGX,' said Nallakaruppan. Many were hugely oversubscribed – '50, 100, 400 times' – and receiving an allocation often meant guaranteed returns.
'The moment you applied (and) you were allocated the share, the chances of you making money were very high,' explained Nallakaruppan.
The IPO of Singtel in 1993 was a standout moment for both Nallakaruppan and Sim.
As part of a government push to promote wider share ownership, all Singapore citizens were eligible to subscribe to the shares at a discounted price.
The 'sheer size' of the offering – with over 1.4 million Singaporeans taking up shares – triggered a 'deluge' of applications, said Sim, with community centres even roped in to help locals open securities accounts.
The Singtel IPO also marked the first large-scale use of the Electronic Share Application facility, which allowed the public to apply for new shares through automated teller machines – removing the need for cashier's orders or manual application forms.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
5 hours ago
- Business Times
US manufacturing expands at fastest pace since 2022 on demand
[WASHINGTON] US manufacturing is expanding at the fastest rate in more than three years on stronger demand that's also fueling sustained inflationary pressures. The S&P Global flash August factory purchasing managers index rose 3.5 points to 53.3, the highest since May 2022, according to data released on Thursday (Aug 21). Figures above 50 indicate growth. The pickup in the manufacturing gauge helped lift the composite PMI, which also includes a measure of services, to the highest level this year. 'Companies across both manufacturing and services are reporting stronger demand conditions, but are struggling to meet sales growth,'' Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a statement. Measures of factory output and backlogs of work both climbed to a mid-2022 high. A measure of orders advanced to the highest reading since February 2024. As a result, manufacturers stepped up hiring. Employment growth was the strongest since March 2022, according to the survey. The figures point to resilient demand and optimism about the US economy at the start of the second half of the year. At the same time, the boost in import duties drove up the composite index of sales prices, which matched a three-year high. 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 The report indicated that consumers are bearing the brunt as the group's measure of price charged by service providers increased to a three-year high. 'While this upturn in demand has fuelled a surge in hiring, it has also bolstered firms' pricing power. Companies have consequently passed tariff-related cost increases through to customers in increasing numbers,'' Williamson said. A gauge of business activity in services eased slightly but remained healthy. The sales indicator grew at the fastest pace this year, while a gauge of outstanding business remained the strongest since May 2022. Meanwhile, concerns about future supply conditions due to trade policy uncertainty drove a measure of factory inventory of finished goods to the highest in data back to 2007. BLOOMBERG
Business Times
9 hours 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
10 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.