It was written somewhere that the majority of Lehman creditors are foreigners.

Thanks if you can drop me some lines.

http://news.theage.com.au/world/hks-govt-meets-banks-accused-of-misselling-lehman-bonds-20081002-4smm.html

Many of the victims were misled in buying the Minibonds, just like your parent in law who had been made to purchase an equity income fund by one of the local banks a year ago.

The crux of the matter is the misleading info given by the banks/FIs – Minibond investors were told by the banks/FI that this product was a kind of bonds when in fact they were high risk CDOs and nothing to do with bonds at all. They told the investors that it is 100% capital protected.

Similarly, many victims were retirees like your parent in law who were called to convert their fixed deposit into this investment. There is no basis for the banks to pursue these old folks to buy these high risk investments when their risk profile clearly state that they are risk averse.

And like your parent in law, they only now realized that the Minibonds is not capital protected.

I know of a 76 year old lady who was conned into putting all $200K of her life savings into this toxic Minibonds when she went to renew her FD at the bank. Even if she is educated, how would one expect her to read the fine print of the 60 page prospectus with her bad eyesight. These financial advisors/bank sales people are so unethical, in their selfish quest to make more commission $$$, they don’t even spare old folks.

Based on what you say is true, then the financial consultants should not be intercepting clients when they are at the bank counter to make FDs.

I am sure all the risk of the mini-bonds were specified in the prospectus. This has always been a strict requirement by MAS on issuance of retail products. And within the prospectus there would be the full annual report of Lehman brothers or the SIV and that should let most investors know that the ‘wellness’ of the bond is tied to the health of the issuing banks.

Investors are ironical

1. they want safe products and they insist on higher returns than Fixed D, but FD is the risk free rate and if you want anything above risk free you need to take risk.

2. on the one hand they complain that sales staff are product pushing, on the other hand they penalize the banks by selling down the shares if their profit level does not reach the expected numbers. but profit levels can only be reached if high leverage of pushy sales were employed.

I agree the sales ppl have alot of responsibility, and I am not going to condone their behavior. In fact I just took one local bank to task recently and made them refund 12k to my parent in law that suffered the losses due to a miss-selling (not of minibonds).

If there are deception involved, yes by all means get a settlement out. But if the seller put there as minibond, then expect some potential losses. Bonds are never risk free, else they can never pay more than fixed depo/treasury bill rates.

Can anybody give me a simplistic advice to my question? Dun give me too heavy stuff hor cas I not very well educated and all those chim terminology will knock me out. All those hidden fine-print clauses also I won’t be able to understand much because I am not legally trained either.

Ditto for my investments with Mini-Bonds. I placed my hard-earned sweat money there because I thought Mini-Bonds – safe and sound, now kenna back to square one – may need to walk the streets to hope to pick up some lose change from there.

Lehman (The Brothers) collapsed so got no PR spokesman, but what about all the 6 banks huh? Like no hear their Corporate Communications people out to defend themselves leh. Maybe, no talk so nobody will remember exactly which are these 6 Banks?

Can some kind soul help to list all these 6 Banks and give them some free publicity airing? Must give them chance to present themselves ma. Wah! Sell the product that time, they placed full page advertisement with their names big-big. Now all gone to take cover huh?

Thanks for helping me, one of those poor auntie who still know some English and use the computer.

I can polish my gold daily and feel shiok. I can weight-lift them every day to exercise my old muscles. My heart is dearly close to my $$$$.

I can buy Home Insurance to cover for theft so that I will deal directly with the Insurance Company (not AIA, not NTCC), hmmmm. still need to find a trustable dude!

Maybe I will install CCTVs all round my house.

I think we can take better care of ourselves than all those so-called Financial Professionals or Licensing Bodies who steer clear of problems and conveniently DELEGATE OUT WORK to some unwillingly personnel so as to divert attention from themselves.

Maybe all of us should pool together and start our own MINI-BANK and start some nicely named financial products and get some nicely-heeled bankers to promote it aggressively. After all, getting a banking licence is easy wat.

With all those pool money, we could wisely invest in some equities and if the companies should collapse, we could still hide under alot of skirts ma.

Maybe I should put up a proposal plan and we can meet under the stars one of these nights……

With reference to Today’s Article “No High Returns without Risk” (29 Sep 2008), I find it shocking that SM Goh is politicising the situation instead of looking out for citizens. This is indeed shocking. The question is not whether there is higher reward for accomodating more risk. but if retail investers were poached to take more risk beyond their understanding. Instead, he politicise the issue to garner more support for PAP policies instead of looking out for citizen’s welfare.

I am actually in the midst of setting up a comparison table of various characteristics of different banks in Singapore, to see which bank offers the best deal for consumers. In advocating the closure of DBS/POSB accounts, a clear alternative must be made available too. Bank accounts can be savings, current or FDs. It is completely up to you to make your decision what sort of accounts you are considering.

Holding signs that said “Return my blood money” and “Crafty salesmanship, sugarcoated poison,” about 400 people marched through Hong Kong’s Central financial district to nearby government headquarters.

The protesters complained that banks that sold them Lehman-backed bonds didn’t properly explain the products to them and urged the Hong Kong government to better regulate methods of selling investment products.

Age might not mean that the financial intelligence is lacking.
However, it could mean that just out of school, their main priority would be to get that first pot of gold.

We have lost our money and our faith in this govt.

MAS requires banks to appoint a 3rd party to oversee the complaint process, and not actually take over the complaint process. It is as stated on this press release.

As usual, the government attempts to hoodwink the public to cover up their inadequacy. In fact, the 3rd partyś role include surfacing any evidence of mis-selling to the banks´ senior management and MAS, when it ought to surface this evidence to MAS alone first.

Here´s another joke: the 3rd party must be independent of the bank´s financial advisory arm, so the compliance department of May Bank qualifies to handle your complaint.

We bought the MINI-BONDS with the thoughts that they ARE BONDS but miniature in size and so well promoted by the 6 well-known banks with big establishments and well-polished offices in Singapore. How would we expect that these banks DO NOT KNOW what they are selling? What about us non-financial people in the streets?

These banks should be held responsible as well. How else can SINGAPORE make it’s mark if it’s high-rental offices are filled up by all these dudes? Singapore being a up-and-coming financial hub, do external investors still have confidence with us if our own Monetary Authority of Singapore is not helping us to recover our money?

look at companies gone bust and the reasons. Full disclosure my ….

this world we live in is so honest and integrity wan.

I support the idea that all companies should not need to disclose anything.

Why audit? Can audit find out problems? Sure or not? How much paid to audit ‘consultants’? Sarbane oxley, basel 2, you name it. What are these?

Why no need disclose? For the sake of the companies. Their competitors may know what is their next move. So, to protect all companies, I support no companys should need to fully disclose their books. Like this more can keep their jobs. If known to the public, cannot cover up leh. die earlier. Die earlier is worse than company kaput later right? so, i support no need to disclose entirely. Since no need to disclose entirely, I am beginning to wonder the need for any disclosure at all.

people can enticipate moves leh….scarely hor?

the world full of honest and highly educated people of high integrity who work not for selfish motives. they sacrifice for the people only. ;)

regards
naive and ho pian

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?