I refer to the news report in the media recently about Securities Commission commenting on the rising quality of submission for IPO purposes.

I find it interesting that the SC is saying that better understanding and appreciation of the SC requirements has improved the quality of initial public offerings (IPO).

IPO submissions to SC for approval has to be undertaken by merchant bankers /or universal brokers who are suppose to know their stuff, including the rules and regulation of capital market.

The candidate making the IPO can't submit to SC without these advisors who have a team of people vetting through to ensure compliance and quality.

Can the SC clarify if there is a distinct lack of appreciation at the merchant bank/universal broker level that lead to poor quality submission or is it a case of the clients insisting to the their advisors to go ahead and submit irrespective of the quantitative and qualitative requirements not being made.

SC needs to clarify this in the interest of public interest as well as the competency of advisors.

To me all advisors should be fully knowledgeable, meaning there should be rejection based on requirements not being met.