Today’s market is a lot different from Yeo’s student days. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) has been grappling with a host of problems, ranging from a growing number of delistings, as well as low liquidity and valuations. The chronic lethargy eventually prompted a reaction from the government, who set up a review group to recommend measures to revive the local bourse in August 2024. The group, chaired by National Development Minister Chee Hong Tat, published its final report on Nov 19.
The group’s recommendations include establishing a $5 billion Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP) fund to channel capital into the market, and a “Value Unlock” programme to help listed companies build up their capabilities in investor relations, corporate strategy and capital optimisation.
“To build a stronger equities market, we know it cannot be achieved by any single organisation, and there is no single silver bullet to tackle this set of challenges,” says Chee, who is also the deputy chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
While there is still some way to go before the measures are fully implemented, the local stock market breached its previous record high in April 2025 — after 17 years — and went on to hit a series of new highs. Market watchers cheer some of the moves but they also warn there is no certainty that the reforms are enough to revitalise the market in a sustainable way.
A good start, but not a one-off fix
Yeo, the NUS don, welcomes Singapore’s move to appoint private fund managers to invest in the local market via the EQDP, as opposed to relying on its sovereign wealth funds like Temasek and GIC.
“I was dead against that because you don’t want the government to pick the winners and losers because that’s definitely a bad thing for the market,” he says.
See also: Amova to launch two funds under EQDP in 1Q
Phua Zhenghao, group head of investments, asset management at CGS International, is more optimistic about what the EQDP can do, especially if it is treated as a multi-year effort that draws in new capital and forces the ecosystem to invest in coverage and engagement.
In Phua’s view, MAS is using the EQDP as a “linchpin” to bring in more capital through managers that can raise funds beyond Singapore, and to encourage attention on smaller and mid-sized stocks rather than just the index heavyweights.
At the same time, he cautions against treating the EQDP as a single, one-off boost. Instead, he sees MAS “pass[ing] the baton to the asset managers to raise money”, with expectations that managers build teams, expand research coverage, and step up investor engagement across more counters. In his words, this pushes market participants to think in three- to five-year cycles rather than in one-year bursts.
That longer timeframe matters because the report’s measures are not only demand-side initiatives. The programme aims to raise trading interest and liquidity, but it also hinges on whether listed companies can deliver stronger earnings and improve investor communication, which is where the Value Unlock programme is intended to play a role.
The Value Unlock programme, however, could come with its own risks. While institutional investors have the resources to analyse companies, retail investors may have a harder time trying to unpack what companies are communicating to them.
“If this is to encourage more communication between analysts and the company, it may be good. But they definitely should not be encouraging companies to market themselves to the public, because it is very sensitive. Who’s going to police what they say? If customers get their fingers burned, who’s going to be held responsible?” Yeo says.
Phua does not directly dispute the risk, but argues that improving corporate engagement is necessary if Singapore wants to broaden the market. He adds that a healthier market requires more balance across sectors, and not just a reliance on the biggest financial stocks. He says global allocators often see Singapore as value- and dividend-generating, contrasted with US growth, and that the ecosystem needs to develop other sectors, such as tech and services, to encourage broader participation.
To stay ahead of Singapore and the region’s corporate and economic trends, click here for Latest Section
Beyond EQDP
That push for diversification feeds into other recommendations, such as the proposed dual-listing bridge between SGX and Nasdaq, which would allow companies to list in Singapore and the US by filing a single set of documents.
Yeo is cautious about the dual-listing bridge’s effectiveness when it comes to spurring market activity. This is partly due to the poor track record in terms of collaborations, such as its short-lived trading link service with the Australian Stock Exchange. The service ran from 2001 to 2006 but was eventually discontinued due to persistent low demand and liquidity.
“It won’t hurt, but how much will it help? It really depends on how the market and companies come on board. We will have to see [what happens],” Yeo says.
Phua also downplays the impact of dual listings if they are not paired with stronger participation from local investors. In his view, institutions will simply trade where liquidity is deepest, which means secondary listings with minimal retail involvement may not move the needle.
On liquidity, the review group has sought to raise participation by reducing the board lot size for stocks priced above $10 to 10 units from 100 units. Loh Boon Chye, CEO of SGX, says stocks that are worth $10 make up “almost 30% or a third of the turnover” and lowering the lot size will “allow for wider participation”.
The last time SGX lowered its board lot size was in January 2015, when it reduced the lot size of all securities to 100 units from 1,000 units. Yeo says the latest cut would not make a significant difference, especially for retail investors.
“If you are already down to 10 per lot, you might as well just lower it to one share right? ... Institutional investors are not affected by this, but for retail investors, 100 shares per lot is good enough,” he adds.
Notably, the review group did not recommend raising the minimum free float requirement for listed companies. When asked if SGX considered raising the free float, Loh says: “The reality is most of the free float is above the 10% mark.”
While raising the float can encourage trading, it can also discourage companies from listing. Yeo, however, says the move is still worth further consideration.
“Right now, I don’t think SGX has a clue on how much damage is going to be done if they change that percentage. They may have to do more studies but this cannot be unchangeable. They need to have a conversation about this one day,” Yeo says.
Phua’s focus is less on changing a single rule, and more on whether the policy push will shift the behaviour among companies, investors and intermediaries. He describes the EQDP and related measures as a signalling effect that could encourage firms to invest in investor relations, improve disclosures and consider Singapore more seriously as a listing venue, even if the immediate impact of individual measures is limited.
He also expects the EQDP to place more attention on mid- and small-cap stocks, where liquidity constraints have been most visible. Phua cites market observations that turnover in smaller counters has improved, and says the EQDP’s emphasis on broader market coverage could reinforce those trends.
At the same time, both supporters and sceptics point out that Singapore’s delisting trend has been a core structural issue. Phua notes that companies may choose to delist when valuations are persistently low relative to book value and compliance costs remain high, particularly as private capital has grown more willing to take companies private. He does not expect delistings to stop, but believes better valuations and stronger liquidity could reduce the incentives for stronger companies to exit.
In October 2025, SGX scrapped its financial watch list for struggling companies in favour of a disclosure-based system. Having a watch list never really made sense for Yeo, who says the list should be paired with a clear system of penalties.
“As I always tell my students, the reason I punish you is because you can do better. But if the company is not a good company, then punishment is not going to help. For companies that cannot make it in the SGX, you have to kick them off the board,” Yeo says.
To be sure, Yeo recognises that there are trade-offs either way. Removing non-performing stocks may improve the vibrancy of the market, but that can come at the expense of its size.
“Whatever you choose to do, you have to ask yourself: what is the end goal, and are you willing to accept the end goal? If not, don’t start,” Yeo says.
