SINGAPORE Stock Exchange's sharp decline in performance over the past six months makes Treasurer Wayne Swan's rejection of its $8.8 billion takeover bid for the ASX last April look clever, but for the wrong reasons.
Swan's rejection of the Singapore merger proposal was made on national interest grounds, much of it due to concerns about how much influence Singapore's government might exercise over Australia's financial markets, rather than any evaluation of likely financial outcomes.
On the other hand, Singapore Exchange chief executive Magnus Bocker (pictured), who had to deliver what can best be described as a flat half-year result to shareholders yesterday, must go to bed nightly cursing Swan for what might have been. Bocker's original offer of $22 in cash and 3.473 of his shares for each piece of ASX stock, equivalent to $48 a share then, would undoubtedly have been too high a price to pay particularly as the last six months of 2011 (and early 2012) unfolded for global financial markets.
He now, though, has a situation where the SGX's market worth has shrunk more than 30 per cent compared with a fall of only 12 per cent by the ASX since the two announced their merger proposal. During his lobbying for the ASX bid, Bocker frequently spoke of how the 23 per cent shareholding in SGX held by the government-related Temasek is passive. If that is so, he will be under no pressure to quickly right the ship.
Even so, the ASX is now valued by the market at $5.4 billion 6 per cent more than it was before speculation of a marriage emerged in September 2010 while SGX is worth less than $5 billion, a 17.5 per cent discount. Previously, the SGX had a $1 billion market premium to the ASX.
Had the ASX deal gone ahead, Bocker could have comfortably hidden the far deeper downturn in equities trading experienced by his group than ASX over the past six months (although many a local stockbroker suffering loss of hair, sleep and a job might contest that view).
Acquiring the ASX would also have reduced (although in some ways deepened because of Australia's weighting to resources) SGX's currently heavy reliance on equities trading for revenue generation because the ASX is, in spite of perceptions, less dependent on the cash volume in the equities market.
Securities trading on the SGX generated 38 per cent of its revenue in the half, down from 46 per cent in 2010, and 36 per cent in the December quarter. That decline narrowed the gap between equities and the SGX's fast-growing derivatives business, which Bocker has been driving, that contributed almost 25 per cent of income compared with only 20 per cent a year ago.
The problem is that the gap is being narrowed more by equities trading attrition than growing contributions from other categories.
The equities market, for the ASX, ranked only third of its divisions in revenue generation last financial year at 22 per cent of the total. Derivatives trading, at 28 per cent of revenue, and charges to those companies using the platform, at 24 per cent, were the bigger contributors.
That "re-balancing" of revenue sources for the ASX has to be seen in light of the effects of competition. The exchange sharply lowered its share trading charges in preparation for the arrival of the Chi-X platform a recognition that its services there now have to be priced like a commodity, rather than a brand, so retaining volume by lowering costs to participants is more important.
Not unexpectedly, SGX tried to put the best face on its results by arguing that the effect of the 12 per cent drop in net profit from $S74.2 million to $S65.4 million in the December quarter was ameliorated by a good September quarter, so that the half-year outcome was a 3 per cent increase to $S152.9 million.
The previous year comparisons neatly avoid the fact that SGX charged $7.5 million against its 2010 accounts for the costs of the aborted merger. Adjust for that one-off charge, and the December quarter result was a decline of almost 20 per cent, and the six-month outcome is a fall of 1.9 per cent.
No wonder Bocker's formal statement was that he remained "cautious and focused on cost discipline" although the single largest cut to costs in the quarter-and-a-half was that the poor performance meant reduced share and cash bonuses, so that even with a growth in employee numbers at SGX, it managed to shave a net $S2 million in employee charges.
While all this is without the benefit of comparative ASX figures for the period, because it will not report until February 16, the raw trading comparisons show how much smaller, and vulnerable, is the SGX equities presence.
The average daily trading value in the December quarter fell from $S1.8 billion to $S1.1 billion a whopping 40 per cent while for the six months it was off 17.5 per cent from $S1.7 billion to $S1.4 billion.
The ASX trade value slipped from $5.19 billion to $4.38 billion, a not nice but significantly smaller 15.5 per cent, for the December quarter. Over the half it was 4 per cent lower at $4.99 billion.
Again, that is hardly surprising given that resources stocks are still keenly sought, for both investment and takeover, which has helped bolster the local market against some pretty weak performances elsewhere notably in the failure-riddled retail sector.
On current trends, new ASX boss Elmer Funke Kupper might want to dust off the files and consider having his own bite at SGX this time around that will test the passivity of Temasek.
insider@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Why did Treasurer Wayne Swan reject the SGX takeover bid for the ASX?
Wayne Swan rejected the proposed $8.8 billion Singapore Exchange (SGX) takeover of the ASX on national interest grounds. The government was concerned about how much influence Singapore’s government-related Temasek might exercise over Australia’s financial markets, rather than rejecting the offer on purely financial grounds.
How has the SGX’s recent performance compared with the ASX and what does that mean for investors?
Since the merger proposal, SGX’s market worth has fallen by more than 30% compared with an about 12% fall for the ASX. That relative underperformance highlights SGX’s greater vulnerability in equities trading and shows investors the importance of watching exchange-specific trading volumes and revenue mix when assessing exchange-listed risks.
What were the key drivers of the SGX profit decline reported in the article?
SGX’s December quarter net profit fell 12% from S$74.2 million to S$65.4 million, driven largely by a sharp drop in equities trading volumes. Adjusting for a one-off S$7.5 million charge related to the aborted merger, the December quarter decline was almost 20% and the six‑month outcome was down about 1.9%.
How important is equities trading to SGX versus the ASX, and how is that changing?
Equities trading generated 38% of SGX’s half‑year revenue (down from 46% in 2010), while SGX’s derivatives business grew to contribute almost 25% of income (from 20% a year earlier). By contrast, equities accounted for only 22% of ASX revenue last financial year, with derivatives at 28% and platform/charges at 24%. The trend shows SGX’s heavy reliance on equities is moderating but mainly because equities volumes have fallen rather than large gains in other areas.
What happened to trading volumes on SGX and ASX during the December quarter?
SGX’s average daily trading value in the December quarter fell from S$1.8 billion to S$1.1 billion — a 40% drop; for the six months it was down 17.5% from S$1.7 billion to S$1.4 billion. The ASX trade value slipped from A$5.19 billion to A$4.38 billion in the December quarter (about a 15.5% fall) and was 4% lower over the half at A$4.99 billion.
How has competition like Chi‑X affected the ASX and what should everyday investors know?
The arrival of Chi‑X forced the ASX to sharply lower share trading charges to retain volume, effectively making share trading a commodity-priced service. For everyday investors, that means exchanges face pricing pressure and competition can lower transaction costs but also compress exchange revenue sources over time.
What cost measures did SGX take in response to weaker performance?
SGX’s CEO Magnus Bocker said he remained 'cautious and focused on cost discipline.' The largest single reduction in costs came from cutting share and cash bonuses, which helped shave a net S$2 million from employee charges even though employee numbers grew.
Could the ASX pursue its own takeover of SGX in the future, and what would investors watch for?
The article suggests that ASX’s new boss Elmer Funke Kupper might consider a counter bid for SGX, which would test Temasek’s stated passivity. Everyday investors should watch market valuations, changes in trading volumes and revenue mix, and any signals from Temasek about its willingness to sell or be active, since those factors would affect the feasibility and strategic rationale of any future approach.