THE past three days, I had a few calls from unhappy remisiers over a suggestion by the Singapore Exchange to scrap the 90-minute lunch break in order to allow trading to continue uninterrupted from 9.00 am in the morning to 5.05 pm in the evening.
I am not surprised by the unhappiness among remisiers. Most of them are one-man shows, and they are afraid to miss even one minute of trading, for fear that their clients call them during their absence.
And the local bourse’s trading hours are already among the longest in the world. No wonder remisiers are unhappy that they may soon be deprived of their lunches, if they don't put up a fight.
Some claim that scrapping the lunch-break may actually qualify the SGX for the Guinness Book of Records for trading hours. But I would have to check on the veracity of such a claim though.
Still, what am I supposed to make of it ? A storm in a tea-cup for the parties concerned ?
According to those who turned up for the lunch with the SGX on Monday where the idea of scrapping the lunch break was floated, the presenters failed to come up with a convincing reason why the lunch-break should be scrapped.
There were some data in other stock exchanges to suggest that a fraction of trading does get carried out during the hour when lunch is usually consumed.
As a leading financial centre, surely, Singapore should not lose out in terms of trading on any information that move other major regional bourses, simply because of the inconvenience of a lunch break.
The argument put forward by the remisiers for not scrapping the lunch-break was equally unconvincing. "I need to go to the gym," one grumbled. Some also need to run errands like depositing their clients’ cheques.
Some remisiers were also not happy to be given suggestions like eating sandwiches for lunch ( isn’t this a healthier life-style apart from going to the gym) or hiring an assistant to tie them over during critical periods.
On a related matter, it doesn’t surprise me that the SGX wants to extend trading hours by scrapping the lunch break.
I wrote a Cai Jin column on Monday outlining the threats facing the SGX from CFDs and dark pools by using the London Stock Exchange as the example – going from a prized takeover target to a bourse besieged by many challengers threatening to steal its lunch all in the space of three years.
It is a big testimony of the highly inter-connected world we now find ourselves in, going from the swift reply I got from the LSE the following day.
The comparison is "shrewdly observed", LSE’s head of media relations Mr Patrick Humphris wrote back.
He then went on to explain that CFDs had grown in a big way in Britain because stamp duty was charged at 0.5 per cent on the purchase of equity and outlined the steps taken by the LSE to ensure that it became more competitive.
The ancient Chinese war strategist Sun Tzu once noted that if a warrior knows both his own weaknesses and that of his enemies, he will go on to win every battle he fights.
Well, going by Mr Humphris’ reply, at least the LSE is aware of the formidable challenges it faces and is taking steps to rectify them. Can the same be said of other stock exchanges ?