
crisis case
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper examines and evaluates MAS’ three main policies
during the Pan-Electric Industries Limited (Pan-El) crisis – closure of the
Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES), setting up of the lifeboat fund, and MAS’
communication strategy. This exercise is carried out in the context of the
regulatory regime at the time of the crisis, using a crisis management
framework that focuses on two criteria – effectiveness and cost. At the end of
the paper, the reader should have a better idea of the facts surrounding the
Pan-El crisis and the lessons that could be learnt from such an experience as
they apply to future crisis prevention and crisis management.
2 Before the Pan-El crisis, the stockbroking community, along with
the companies listed on the SES, was essentially unregulated. While some
might point to the membership and listing requirements set out by the SES as
examples of regulation, the fact is that the SES had no enforcement powers
to make sure either stockbroking firms or listed companies conformed to its
rules. There was no continuous off-site supervision and no prudential limits
were set for stockbroking firms. Under such circumstances, great reliance
was naturally placed on voluntary disclosure by the parties involved.
3 In stark contrast to this lenient atmosphere, the regulatory regime
immediately after the Pan-El crisis swung in the opposite direction. Forward
trading was completely banned (trading could only take place on an
immediate delivery basis), a not unexpected action given that it was such
contracts which had caused the Pan-El failure to spread throughout the entire
stockbroking industry in the first place. Various other prudential requirements
were also set up, including capital requirements, gearing limits, exposure
limits, margin requirements and maintenance of a reserve fund.
4 Slightly less than a year after the Pan-El crisis first erupted,
legislation finally went into effect that provided a long-term framework for
regulation of the stockbroking industry. In fact, the Securities Industry Act
(SIA) had been in the pipeline for some time, but had been blocked by the
industry prior to 1986; it was the Pan-El crisis which served as catalyst for the
passage of this bill.
PAN-ELECTRIC CRISIS CASE STUDY JUNE 2004
MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE ii
Comments