Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:19
损失血汗钱
In Main Stories, Out Of The Box, Tan Kin Lian, Teng Jing Wei • 3,211 views • 14 Comments
Tan Kin Lian / Columnist (Chinese translation by Teng Jing Wei)
For the benefit of our Chinese-speaking readers, we have translated Tan Kin Lian’s earlier article titled “Loss of hard-earned money”.
10月20日的国会，提出好些和雷曼兄弟有关的结构性产品的亏损的问题。财政次长林勋强的答复如下：
金融管理局（金管局）的行政方式是均衡的管制，确保消费者得到公平交易的责任在于金融机构，而了解所购投资产品的责任则在于投资者。
金管局规定金融机构和发行者适当的向投资者披露投资产品的特征和风险。
金管局已为支持以上规定设置了必要的法律框架。有两项关键立法 – 证券与期货法令、以及金融顾问法令。
发行者必须在说明书内为投资者列举评估证券时所合理需要的所有资料。
发行者和其顾问有责任确保说明书内容符合法律规定。金管局依据发行者和气顾问所提供的资料，检查说明书有披露风险和产品特征，并且没有虚假或误导性内容。
MAS 注册了雷曼迷你债券计划、DBS 高升短期债券5、美林Jubilee联赢票据3的说明书，因为它们符合证券与期货法令的要求。
说明书
我在金管局的网站查询这4个符合证券与期货法令要求而被批准的结构性产品的说明书。但我无法找到这些说明书。
我可以找到列为“集体投资计划”类中几百种产品的说明书。为什么这些被金管局批准的结构性产品的说明书，没有列在网站上？
结构性产品的性质与风险
许多投资者已经在书信和报章刊登的信件里说明他们被误导，认为这些结构性产品是投资在6个债务标的机构(reference entities)，而所有机构必须被宣布破产他们才会损失全部的投资数额。投资者得到的保证是：结构性产品属于“低风险”投资产品，而且所投资的数额有 “资本保障”，意味着他们将在期限结束后得到所投资的数额。
属于“弱势群体”和“非弱势群体”的投资者，包括受教育专业人士，在发现这些结构性产品属于“极高风险”投资产品并且比证券投资更危险时感到恐慌。
他们现在了解投资在这些结构性产品的一大部份或全部数额会在面临以下情况下消失：
任何一家债务机构的倒闭；
某些大量特定的垫底资产的损失
交易对手倒闭
说明书内并没有提到“倒闭”或“损失”。说明书运用了 “信贷事件” 为代替，以及一些难以分辨真实意思的字眼来解释信贷事件。
我们已确实这些结构性产品摆明含有相当高的风险。现在要问的问题是：说明书内是否充分的描述了风险？有关风险的关键资料是否可以轻易的在说明书内找到？
部长说“发行者必须在说明书内为投资者列举评估证券时所合理需要的所有资料。”也许部长该读一读说明书看自己是否能得到评估证券时所合理需要的所有资料。
虚假或误导的信息
如今从事后角度来看，我建议金管局应该检视广告、销售手册和说明书，检讨所提供的资料是否含有虚假或误导的内容，违反了证券与期货法令。
不诚实的掩盖实质事实
证券与期货法令第200章列出通过“不诚实的掩盖实质事实”诱导某人进行证券交易是犯法的。
一项重要的资料可能是损失全部资金的因素。这风险的程度有多大？在投资项目的期限是1%、5%、10%或50%？
发行者是否知道这风险的程度？他们也许略有所闻， 根据为交易对手在信用违约互换下牵涉到的债务机构和垫底的资产所提供的保金而有所印象。
发行者是否应该在说明书内提供这项实质资料？发行者没有提供这项实质资料，是否违反了法令？
公平交易结果
部长也说道金管局的目的是确保“消费者得到公平的交易”。也许金管局应探讨结构性产品是否通过这项测试。
产品发行者没有在说明书内披露结构性产品从各项投资中的总收入，包括好些高风险的信用违约互换。这些收入去了何方？发行者、分销商和债券持有人如何分享收入？
即目标回报的5%收入的部份是否，如收入来源所表示，是高风险结构性产品的合理结果？
据我本人所知，没有任何结构性产品发出户口汇报单给投资者。是否有违反信托法令？产品的发行者（或产品的安排者）和信托人是否有任何诚信义务来照顾投资者的利益并对事件提供全面和完整的声明？
法律的精神
我最后要向林勋强部长和新加坡金融管理局呼吁，请确保在新加坡的法律系统之下，各方必须遵守法律精神与守法条例。
我希望官方可以采取适当行动为恢复人民对新加坡公平系统的信心，以及恢复新加坡金融枢纽的声誉，使新加坡人和外国人放心的把他们的血汗钱存放在这。
—————–
Related posts:
14 Comments
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Money/Story/STIStory_293690.html
海峡时报今日报道星展银行(DBS)将倍偿DBS 高升短期债券5的投资者新币七十至八十亿。海峡时报有报道新加坡人一共买了106亿的高升短期债券5,但没说倍偿数目包括新加坡和香港的投资者。新加坡和香港的投资者一共投资了新币360亿。倍偿数目只等于25％啊！
What are you trying to tell us?
你传的这个海峡时报网站根本没有你说的下面这段话。你是为什么要这样讲？
What you sent in this ST website does not have what you translated in the Chinese sentence below. What are you trying to tell us?
“海峡时报今日报道星展银行(DBS)将倍偿DBS 高升短期债券5的投资者新币七十至八十亿。海峡时报有报道新加坡人一共买了106亿的高升短期债券5,但没说倍偿数目包括新加坡和香港的投资者。新加坡和香港的投资者一共投资了新币360亿。倍偿数目只等于25％啊！”
Donaldson Tan
What I am trying to say is that the ST Article has omitted that the S$70-80M is for DBS High Notes 5 investors.
The ST Article only mentioned that Singaporean investors had bought about S$106M which seems to imply that the Singaporean investors may get back an average compensation of 70%.
By not mentioning that the compensation sum is for DBS High Notes 5 investors from both Hongkong and Singapore, it would seem as if DBS is willing to put up a rightful compensation amount to Singaporean investors.
The total investment in DBS High Notes 5 from Hongkong and Singapore is S$360M, thus the real figure for average compensation is less than 25%.
The interpretation of the ST Article differs a lot in light of this material fact, from the original interpretation of the ST Article.
Donaldson Tan
What I am trying to say is that the ST Article has omitted that the S$70-80M is for all DBS High Notes 5 investors from Singapore and Hongkong.
The ST Article only mentioned that Singaporean investors had bought about S$106M which seems to imply that the Singaporean investors may get back an average compensation of 70%.
By not mentioning that the compensation sum is for DBS High Notes 5 investors from both Hongkong and Singapore, it would seem as if DBS is willing to put up a rightful compensation amount to Singaporean investors.
The total investment in DBS High Notes 5 from Hongkong and Singapore is S$360M, thus the real figure for average compensation is less than 25%.
The interpretation of the ST Article differs a lot in light of this material fact, from the original interpretation of the ST Article.
grass
Donaldson is right…if you refer to DBS media release: http://www.dbs.com/newsroom/2008/press081022.html
you will know what he is trying to say… ST by simply stating some facts and choose to ignore the rest are basically missing the whole point…. either they see as too dumb to notice it or they are just plain ignorant!
grass
would just like to comment….great work on the chinese translation! Keep it up! It’s good to see more of such stimulating articles abt our current affairs being translated into other languages, particularly since we cannot depend on our local media to provide us with a honest view.
Ah Siao
FYI:
$70M= 七千万
$80M= 八千万
$106M= 一亿零六佰万
$360M= 三亿六千万
Ah Siao
七十至八十亿 =$ 7 bil to 8bil
106亿 = $10.6 bil
360亿 = $36 bil
Donaldson Tan
Is it? LOL.. I thought 亿 refers to million.
Thanks for the correction. Hereś the corrected statement in Mandarin.
改正：
海峡时报今日报道星展银行(DBS)将倍偿DBS 高升短期债券5的投资者新币70至80千万。海峡时报有报道新加坡人一共买了106千万的高升短期债券5,但没说倍偿数目包括新加坡和香港的投资者。新加坡和香港的投资者一共投资了新币360千万。倍偿数目只等于25％啊！
Ah Siao
Haha, still wrong, check again!!!
Donaldson Tan
Ah Siao (#11),
Don´t be so chek-ark lah… #10 is reasonably correct!
have2change
donaldson,
thanks for the info but it is still wrong lah. it should be 7至8千万
1千万=10 million
p/s:To TOC, anyway thanks for the translation as my mom who does not understand english had read the link that was translated and she went away shaking her head and said that all the people should be compensated not just a few.
anyway i hope more articles can be translated so that my parents can read them
theonlinecitizen
have2change,
Thanks for showing the Chinese article to your mom. As for translating more articles into Chinese in future, we will definitely consider it. In the meantime, we had some Chinese articles here on TOC.
You can view them here.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Money/Story/STIStory_293690.html
海峡时报今日报道星展银行(DBS)将倍偿DBS 高升短期债券5的投资者新币七十至八十亿。海峡时有报新加坡人一共买了106亿的高升短期债券5,但没说倍偿数目包括新加坡和香港的投资者。新加坡和香港的投资者一共投资了新币360亿。倍偿数目只等于25％啊！