A group of Singaporeans, who invested in Lehman Minibonds, is organizing a meeting on Wednesday (24 September) at the National Library to “discuss collective action and to sign a petition for submission to the authorities,” according to a notice posted on Mr Tan Kin Lian’s blog.
Jan Chan, who is part of the group from the website lioninvestor.com, who is organizing the meet up, told TOC that they are expecting a small group of 10 to 15 people for this initial meeting. The session will also be for brainstorming for any action which they might want to take, she said.
Lehman Brothers, one of the biggest investment banks in the world, recently filed for bankruptcy as a result of the credit crisis.
The meeting on Wednesday, September 24, is as follows:
Date : Wed, September 24
Time : 7pm
Venue : Outside Hans Cafe (#01-01) at the Central Public Library, 100 Victoria Street.
Mr Tan himself, who was the Chief Executive Officer of NTUC Income, is also organizing a meeting for investors affected by the Lehman collapse, according to his blog entry. In it, he says that he has received the “particulars of 70 investors of the credit linked securities” and will be arranging for a group meeting with them.
He is also advising affected investors to “write a letter addressed to the CEO of the financial institution” from whom they have bought the credit linked securities and to also meet with their Parliamentary representatives to let them know “how painful it is to lose the hard earned money.”
According to a Straits Times report on 23 September, Mr Tan urged the authorities to “investigate financial companies that sold retail investors these structured products, and take them to court if necessary”, if they had given “bad advice” or if they had broken the law by giving “inappropriate advice” to investors.
—————–
Read also:
MAS says Lehman minibonds trustee HSBC has engaged legal counsel.
————–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I applaud concerned citizens for organising actions.
well, losing your savings is tough
but i do not see why this particular group of investors be granted preferential treatment to be shielded from investment losses…
thousands of other investors make losses in the markets on a daily basis. any move by the authorities to indemnify these minibond investor losses would set a dangerous precedent for the state to gaurantee the investments of its citizens.
indeed, anyone who had done a bit of background research on credit derivatives would have known that these instruments were risky.
clearly this group did not do their homework.
in my opinion, this should be left to the courts to decide on the outcome if the investors decide to proceed with legal action against the brokers. but i do not see why the MAS or the state should be involved.
Caveat Emptor; Buyer beware.
inspir3d(#2):
There is no mention of preferential treatment here. If you are referring to the case of the New York State Attorney who took action against several financial institutions for marketing the “auction rate securities” to retail investors on the representation that they are liquid investments and can be redeemed at any time, it is actually not preferential treatment because it is actually illegal to misrepresent investment opportunities.
I agree that Investors can make losses on the market daily but most are aware of the risks involved, eg. buying equities. In this case, the banks marketed the minibonds as bonds when they were in fact complex derivatives. They told the customers that it was a very low risk investment when it was extremely risky in reality. They also misled their customers into thinking the principal was protected if kept to maturity. Even for customers who have low risk profiles, the banks pushed the product to them. Many unsuspecting people specially old folks have lost their life savings to this scam. Now the banks are claiming that everything is clearly spelt out in the prospectus, a copy of which was only given to the customers after the contract was signed. Why do the banks named this investment as ‘minibonds’ and not ‘mini-derivatives’ ? This is in my opinion, a professional con job. And why do our authorities especially MAS, allow this product to be sold to the ordinary folks in the first place ? Was this product ever reviewed by MAS before allowing it on the market ?
This reminds me of AVA – did they not check the imported milk products from China before allowing it to be sold in Singapore ? If they did, they would have found melamine and maybe even raised the alarm to the Chinese authorities and saved the lives of the 4 babies.
At the time of issuance of these minibonds, who would have thought that Lehman and Bear Stearns would go bankrupt, that AIG would be nationalised, that there will only be 2 investment banks surviving? Events which had taken place over the last month were once-in-a-century events which are almost impossible to comprehend during normal times.
Are we risking moral hazard and setting an unwarranted precedence – that investors can claim ignorance when bets go wrong? Investors should go into any investments with clear understanding of the risks involved. In the minibonds saga, counterparty risk was clearly not taken into account of.
The banks should not become a “gaming den” for the ordinary investors. They can loss their life savings for such a small return. It is not just not fair.
A friend in need is a friend indeed. Thank you Mr. tan & HKMA.
Our hope is very simple & modest, just to minimise our losses.
inspir3d
The issue is not “preferential treatment”. It is whether there was misselling or misrepresentation.
Whenever my mum renews her FDs, the bank staff suggests she try something that carries higher interest. She is in her 80s and only had a pri school education.
Yet the bank suggests complicated products that I (used to work in financial services) have problems understanding.
Sumething is surely not right.
I agree with A Tan (#8).
The bank officer has been quite irresponsible in recommending the credit-linked securities to customers who are not financially savvy. The customer trust the bank officer assurance that the securities are “quite safe”.
Even my wife, who is much younger than A Tan’s mother, was sold the Pinnacle Notes. She was told by the finance company officer that it is “safe” and gives a return better than fixed deposit. My wife hasn’t got any idea about the risk and the chance that the principal can disappear completeky.
She told me about her investment on returning home. I asked her to go to the finance company to cancel the contract and get back her money. Luckily fo rher, she managed to get back her money.
I know that tere are many thousands of people who are like A Tan’s mother or my wife. Thse people should not be approached to buy these unsuitable products, especially as they are really quite risky.
I have been warning people in my blog for the past year to avoid these securities and notes.
http://www.tankinlian.blogspot.com
I am travelling to Dubai this afternoon, so I cannot attend the meeting that is being organised by Jan Chan. I spoke to her over the telephone, before I advertised her meeting. I like to encourage the investors to attend the meeting, so that more than15 people can sign the petition.
Alot of investment products carries some form of risk. There should not be preferencial treatment for these particular group. MAS should not approve such products should there be high risk involved in the 1st place. If the banks start compensating these group of people, then other investors in other products would also seek compensation.
It just doesn’t make sense that the banks with a high-profile management team could not forsee the heavy losses that would incur when they recommended and pushed these finanical products to their customers who mainly are depositors of fixed deposit or savings accounts.
The root ol the current uproar does not lie on the bank customers being greedy of higher returns but that the banks and brokers are set for the money they can make for themselves than the poor customers.
How could we now trust all these bankers, having so much learning and training in this field could propose such deals for all their customers? What a BIG JOKE !
“5) Eaststopper on September 24th, 2008 5.22 am
Are we risking moral hazard and setting an unwarranted precedence – that investors can claim ignorance when bets go wrong?”
Try telling this to uncle Sam (USA Fed) which is having to bail out affected banks by pumping billions and billions of dollars (taxpapers money in short). Well, any chance of recovering ? You are the smart one, you tell me.
What say you ? That those big-name investment bankers who create, sell & perhaps buy back (in such a complex merry go round routes) these wonderful packages did not know the risk themselves ?
The nilly-willing dealings on these wonderful packages with articially boosted up value masqueraded in some faciful jargons but beautifully rated in the past were pretty standard and any association with these were highly prized. Howelse, this non-value has slowly begun to unwind and no one knows for sure whether this is already at the worst bottom.
One example “High notes saga: Tell us who gains, who loses out and why” – http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_281852.html
It is interesting to watch how Hong Kong respond to the Lehman Minibond issue vs Singapore. In HK, the authorities have set up direct hotlines to register complaints and lawmakers are preparing to take action against the banks. In Singapore, MAS issue a statement asking individual investors to go sort it out with the banks themselve – its like a “please don’t bother me attitude”.
At a time of crisis, you really find out who your friends are and the true colors of those in authority.
You will note again that ordinary Singaporeans are mobilising to take action and to engage the Government.
The opposition, as usual, are hibernating.
Nicholas (#16):
Ordinary Singaporeans mobilising to take action are activists. But it is quite sad that the elected Opposition are too muted to be pro-active to take lead on this case in parliament, while the unelected Opposition parties are focusing on their own agenda. The problem here is that each opposition party is too small to have a dedicated public policy research branch to actually to cover the entire spectrum of events in Singapore. Truth is one would expect the Opposition to advocate for all issues affecting Singaporeans, regardless if the Opposition MP can even air the matter in the parliament. Any sign of public interest in policies advocate by the Opposition MP would pressure the ruling party to attend to the same issue.
Nicholas, any PAP MPs helping out in this group to take on the issue and engage the Government(?). Did our Government involved in the collapse of Lehman Brothers? If not, me don’t understand why you called for the opposition to get involved.
13) I am doing fine thank you – It’s a fine morning in Paris ;-)
With regard to the massive bailout in the US, the alternative of doing nothing and allowing the markets to right itself is judged as even costlier. The 700 billion bazooka requested by Helicopter Ben and Hanky Panky would send a signal to the markets that if you are trying to bet against them, you jolly well have to amass an even bigger bazooka.
I am not sure how your point about this bailout in US is relevant to moral hazard in Singapore?
The investment banks who did not hedge their risks paid a price for their mistakes – they go bankrupt. The surviving banks in the current landscape are the once ‘boring’ and conservative banks, trading in plain vanilla products or have hedged their books carefully.
I had a good look at the DBS High Notes – thought it is stated very plainly and simply that if any one of the entities in the basket has a credit event (bankrupt or restructure), the payoff is nil. The lesson should be clear to all – buy only what you understand – this applies to both the investors and the investment banks.
Just wanted to highlight that the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act can’t be used here as the banks are excluded. Otherwise misleading info on material facts can be used as a consideration.
The power of the association of banks is evident as the exclusion shows.
One way is to make a complaint to the MAS/CPIB who like the FBI can investigate if there is any wrong-doing.
The other is to seek restitution via the civil law act which is a bit more difficult than the CPFTA mentioned above.
One consideration is also that legal fees to fight a court case which will be dragged through the supreme courts will not be cheap. Good lawyers will cost even more and the loser may end up paying the other side’s legal fees. I am not a lawyer but costs are things that many lawyers may or may not talk about to their clients.
Ultimately it is also difficult to disprove caveat emptor. Good luck and I hope the group is successful in their claims if they choose to go ahead.
I have been talking to Kin Lian, and would like very much to attend, but I have a media interview at 7 pm,
Wishing everybody a fruitful meeting
Cheers
Leong Sze Hian
Hi Nicholas (#16)
This is not a political matter, so it does not involve any political party.
This is a public interest matter, so I expect the authority (whoever it is) to take charge and act in the interest of the public.
If they prefer to do nothing, it is a neglect of duty. I will do my best to help the ordinary public, but I hope that the authority will come forward (like in Hong Kong and New York).
Some people said that the investors made a mistake and should not be helped by the authority. These people are mistaken. The investing public were misled by the distributors. They lose their savings and feel that they are being “cheated”.
NIc:
that’s the reason why I won’t vote Opposition.
Which is the greater evil.. to vote in an incompetent team or to have a competent team but with economic activities presiding over welfare matters.
At a time like these.. it is a chance for oppo. to show their pro-activeness in helping citizens’ in need. A chance to gain points to put it bluntly…. But they are … what have they been doing or are they doing lately?
As it is.. the oppo. have no chance to change anything at the macro level… but this is a micro level issue and they cant even show their leadership… I again shudders to think how their leadership is like at the macro level.
Sorry Mr Tan. Sidetracked from ur topic but just felt I need to put out a highlight on the expectations of oppo. You want pple to vote you in, you have to show results on every chance you can grab. Not tell pple to vote you in and then you can show results.
19) Eaststopper on September 24th, 2008 2.37 pm
“I am not sure how your point about this bailout in US is relevant to moral hazard in Singapore?”
“I had a good look at the DBS High Notes – thought it is stated very plainly and simply that if any one of the entities in the basket has a credit event (bankrupt or restructure), the payoff is nil.”
So bailout in USA is not moral hazard. Maybe it is SO big for it not be helped as the stake is so much higher and cacading effect down the line is something not everyone wants to see. So you lose big, you get help.
So what is role and duty of someone with the title of “financial adviser”, hey not those dealing with simple insurances & “plain vanilla products”.
You are an expert and you mentioned hedging. What was the possibility of hedging against the downside of DBS High Notes in the first place ? Why was it not done ?
It stated plainly for an expert like you and you did have a “good look”. How long did it take your ‘good look’ – easily detectable in 5 minutes or some 1 hour.
“The 700 billion bazooka requested by Helicopter Ben and Hanky Panky would send a signal to the markets that if you are trying to bet against them, you jolly well have to amass an even bigger bazooka.”
This help (bailout) which you feel is not a moral hazard as it is trying “to send a signal to the markets that if you are trying to bet against them, you jolly well have to amass an even bigger bazooka.”
What a way to have your cake and still eat it.
Well, I thought banning this speculative stuff (selling down) would do the job.
You are an expert and I need a piece of your brain.
The affected consumers should try to file actions through FIDREC that will decide disputes between banks and consumers up to S$50,000. It is a cheap and effective way to decide on an dispute. Affected parties are not allowed to engage lawyers which is beneficial to the consumers since they wish to save on legal costs.
I think it’s fair to say that last year, no one would have thought that Lehman or any of the blue-chip investment banks referenced in the High Notes to go bankrupt. So I have some sympathy for the sales person who said such products are considered “quite safe”.
When it comes to investment products that aren’t illegal, it should be caveat emptor. If some investment pays you 5% pa when deposit rate is just 1%, surely you are taking some risk. There are no free lunches in this world.
Could you help list down the possible areas where we may be “misled” or “mis-representated”? e.g.
a) minibond sound like a bond but it is not?
b) newsapers / magazine articles saying minibond is a safe/good investment
c) risk profile low, max loss tolerant in a year is only 5%, but was sold this product?
d) annual earn income is less than $10,000, but was sold on this product which could lose all your principal. (The bank / adviser could estimate from your occupantion). ……………….
Please add on. Thank you.
possible areas which may consititue a “mis-representation”
e) The arranger didn’t state clearly that the fall of the arranger could trigger a “credit event”…………………
We had a group of more than 100+ people turning up at the National Library this evening.
A petition was signed and has been sent over to MAS. Let’s see how things unfold from here.
Lion Investor (#30):
What about the Public Petition Committee of the Singapore Parliament? It is chaired by Mr Abdullah Bin Tarmugi (MP East Coast GRC). He can be contacted at +65-62415840 / 65-63325500 or email him at abdullah_tarmugi@parl.gov.sg
Nicholas Lazarus,
Do you see PAP MPs doing anything? Do you see MAS doing anything?
lim(#20): What about fraud?
Hi Mr Tan
Fraud will require CPIB investigation, as mentioned. That will be under the purview of the Singapore criminal laws but that is subject to the Attorney General’s decision to prosecute (which normally will be done only if there is clear, undisputable evidence).
Having said that, reading today’s newspapers, at least the MAS have done something. Still, I think regulations (which have been tightened in the past few months) have a little more room to go. The decision to include financial products in CPFTA would be a needed step in the right direction as recent events show.
Cheers!
As usual, what Nicholas said about the opposition reflects the sad truth that when PAP is quick to point a finger at the opposition, 3 fingers point back at itself.
Caveat venditor; Seller beware too.
Technically, it would be more caveat agentia, since its the agents in this case that is the focus (the seller which is Lehman being bust).
The MAS Press release reads ¨While MAS cannot order FIs to pay compensation, we are committed to ensuring a fair resolution process for all affected investors.¨
It now appears that MAS is a toothless tiger, unlike the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. MAS even conveniently delegated the responsibility to FIDReC.
Although FIDReC exists for investment dispute resolution, its limitations favour the financial institutions (FI):
1. payout is limited to S$50,000.
2. investors must approach FIDReC on an individual basis.
3, Collective action is prohibited by FIDReC.
4. FIDReC orders are not binding
This means the FIs can seat behind the protection of well-paid in-house lawyers while investors are prohibited to pursue this advantage by pooling their resources. If the FI were to disagree with FIDReCś ruling, it can still choose not to do anything.
Singaporeans should not discount the effect of boycott and protest. If so many investors are affected by the DBS High Notes 5 can respond by transferring their bank accounts to another bank. The collective effect of closing down your DBS bank accounts can send down chills not only down the spine of DBS´ board of directors, but also MAS for being a toothless tiger.
I made a mistake in #39.
FIDReC´s ruling is binding as long as the investor accepts the outcome. But then the dispute resolution lacks transparency, so the second individual investors who want to take up the case would be as uninformed as the first investor. This information asymmetry benefits the financial institutions unfairly.
I refer to the video about Mr Leong’s opinions on the subprime related crisis.
I like what he said.
In the USA, people know who is losing money.
In Asia, there is still a lack of Transparency. Maybe for the nobel reason that it is to prevent competitors from enticipating their next moves. How nobel and great and valid reasons. ;)
1 trillion is lost.
who is losing how much?
that is the question in need for a transparent answer. but as long as the stakeholders keep quiet…. ;)
As this whole financial meltdown started to get closer to home last week, I was extremely perturbed that whilst US and HK counterparts were doing something for the retail investors, our MAS was so deafeningly low key!
I started to see if the P65 blog would get updated with a related topic, since it would be good to see if any of our younger elected representatives were actually trying to do something as well, and perhaps engage the people for feedback to present to the next level.
To my horror, their latest topic is about some reported statistics about Clean Government!
I am not affected by all these structured financial products matter, neither am I an AIA customer. But my heart goes out to all those hard working fellow citizens, who have been conscientiously putting aside savings for a rainy day, to see it all gone just like that! And if the US and HK counterparts see it fit to see how they can help such citizens in their time of need, why not MAS? This is not a case of telling the govt not to interfere too much but then crying for help when things go wrong. There are just some things whereby the role of the govt is needed to ensure rules of the game are clear and fair to all. In general, the US and HK regimes are definitely less “involved in governance” as compared to Spore. Yet, they see it fit that in this instance, they have a role to play. Why not our MAS?
I am not one of those downright, anti-PAP guys, though I have some issues with the way some things are done. Neither am I trying to be mischievous here. But when I see the latest topic on the P65 blog, my heart really ached. It is like whilst the people are anxious about their life, these people instead are patting their backs with discussions on more statistics proofing how good they are! I am sorry but to me, a clean government means nothing if it is not seen to be representing the angst of its citizens! Have they really become so disengaged with the ground that they no longer understand what matters to the citizenry?
To me, the services of past representatives like Mr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Tan Soo Khoon are greatly missed. One Dr Lily Neo is not enough!
With an aging population, the importance of retirement savings has been drummed into us. Yet, when the attention is there and the time is opportunistic for them to bring to the attention of the higher ups on something like this, including the issue of cash value vs asset share for insurance payout, they are talking about how good they are at being a Clean Government instead!
What is happening?
“It now appears that MAS is a toothless tiger, unlike the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. MAS even conveniently delegated the responsibility to FIDReC.”
That is an incorrect statement. The MAS has the ability to remove licenses and direct action from CPIB etc. The correct statement would be to question if the MAS is willing to exercise its powers under its mandate.
From today’s Today Pg B2:
“…… companies that sold the DBS High Notes 5, Lehman Minibonds and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes will name independent parties, as a result of a deal hammered out by MAS and the bank…”.
Lim (#44):
If MAS is not as toothless as you claim, why does MAS need to hammer out a deal with the banks instead of ordering them around? If MAS is not as toothless as you claim, why did MAS ¨instruct¨ the banks to appoint their own 3rd party to handle the complaint process? This set-up favours banks and financial institutions ultimately.
Take action and pressure MAS to do the right thing. We have to address mis-representation of financial products to retail investors in Singapore. Boycott DBS. Close down your DBS/POSB bank account and MAS (and the PAP Government) will feel the heat to do the right thing. This is collective action by citizens for citizens! Imposing an artificial bank run on banks can not only disrupt bank operations but also destroy the bank. It is time for citizens to reclaim their mandate for their personal preservation.
We can be reminded of the infamous CLOB issue when LHL himself assured the public that CLOB is a legal entity and that all is well. Finally when CLOB does close his door, the public investors were told that they had to take their own risk in their investment.
What is the use of “investing in a basket of shares” when anyone of the company affect the investor basket as a whole.
Does anyone in the public know how much is LOST, is any ?
Can anyone Quantify the exact loss , if any?
Is there transparency enough to reveal how much is at Risk , Lost, if any?
Is it that never shall the public known of this kind of info from past till eternity?
Tell me confidently there is No Loss at all and I shall believe you.
Even after such a huge financial crisis where the whole world is potentially affected, there is no loss?
Say it loud and confidently. I believe whatever you say. no more question asked.
If the financial institutions misbehaved by making false sales to their customers, then they have to be punished and the customers reinbursed. No to do so will be condoning an injustice.
There are alot of hot air these days. The reason being somebodies lost their savings through their unwitingly blind pursue of profits. People are generally like that – they boast and feel happy when they make profits. They lament, blame and pour curses on other people when there are problems in their investments. They never, never blame and curse themselves!! Please be cool.
First, who are the interested parties – The FIs and the buyers under private contracts and certainly only privy to these 2 parties. At this moment, when bad things unravel, why so many interested parties and bystanders pour tons of blames on MAS, government bodies, PAP, MPs and the likes? It is very strange. Even the CLOB also involved???
Have MAS not taking any action? How do all of you know they have not? and people starts comparing others like HK Financial Secretary’s action plan….. Are we not an Independent country and can we think better?
This is a rich man problem. The poor in Singapore are still struggling for that rice bowls to be filled and put onto the dinner table.
If the rich man can be easily “conned” by the sweet talking investment officers of these FIs, then they deserve to loose their shirts. They may have done their sums right when they first bought the instruments and feel happy and great about them BUT now realised their “investments” are wrong – they start looking for loop holes to exit and save their skins!!
To remedy and alleviate the damages, some wisemen and financial experts volunteer & rise to help through proper and legal means. We should applaud these group of wisemen. We should stand, support and savage whatever are deserving the remainding dollars – and then go home and sleep. No more infightings alike the “enblock” condo episodes. If there are infightings and the whole thing become gridlock, I think the wisemen will exit from the scene. They are also scared to be caught in the fightings.
I don’t think the distributors deliberately mislead the investors. As mentioned, Lehman Brothers was solid as a rock in 2006.
The underlying securities, while not bonds, were rated just as safe and highly as the best bonds. Of course, now we know the ratings were rubbish. But this is now and that was then.
I was interested in one of the Minibonds and asked for the prospectus. I believe the advertisement / 1 page factsheet asks you to refer to it for details; I can’t remember.
If it is the responsibility of investors to read and understand the brochures and prospectus before making an investment decision then what is the role of intermedairies.We must as well buy on line, from the supermarket and need not pay advisory fee or commission. On top of it we should have discount…Then in this case caveat emtpor applies.We buy at our own peril.
But how many us can? Maybe 5 out of 100. So you see 95% of the consumers will have to depend on an adviser. Does it not follow that if something goes wrong the adviser is held liable unless he or she can show that all duty of care has been taken and duty of diligence is conducted to mitigate the liability.
The consumers must be assumed to be clueless and the advisers the experts..
If an investment sours the expert is guilty until proven innocent. This should be the position for all financial advisory dispute.
Define rich. I strongly disagree with the notion that this is a problem of the rich, and that people are blaming the institution instead of solving it themselves.
The closing paragraph of page A22 in today’s ST, to me, aptly describes the situation. It says:
” What this crisis shows is that when you have a globalised crisis, you need global solutions, you cannot have only domestic solutions.”
Likewise, asking people to go solve this themselves with their FIs is like looking for a “domestic” solution. What the HK and US counterparts are doing, representing their affected citizens, is more like the “global” solution described above. Has MAS not taken action? Well, they certainly have. And their action, unfortunately, speaks louder than their words! I believe someone said “alot of hot air”?
This matter has finally hit closer to home for me. I just found out that my civil servant sister was one of those who bought the minibonds. She is not a grad, in fact, only “O” levels. A few years back, upon reaching 55, she had some CPF to withdraw after putting aside the minimum sum. A niece starting out in the financial industry suggested the minibond. My sister already had the intention of getting Annuity when she reaches 61/62. This niece suggested that for the interim between 55 to 61/62, the “excess” can be made to work harder, so that come 61/62, together with the minimum sum, there will be a bigger pool to buy a bigger Annuity. And yes, the minibond with it’s 5+% interest is certainly going to make the money work harder. And since it is a bond, it fits her risk profile, right? Well, we now know it was wrong. It is not a bond!
Luckily for my sister, the “excess” cash involved was small compared to the minimum sum. But still big when you compare to her salary as a rank and file civil servant.
So, can she be considered greedy for wanting to have her savings work harder in order to buy a slightly bigger Annuity for her retirement planning? Is she considered rich?
This is what aches my heart, seeing decent hard working countrymen losing their hard earned money, not because they were the gambling type, but because in their own uninformed way, they were just trying to scrimp and make their savings work harder so that they still have something to last through their twilight years.
Yes, credit must go to the likes of Mr Tan Kin Lian for stepping forward to try and help. But, wouldn’t a more “global” solution carry more weight and credibilty in trying to resolve this matter?