They should also concerned when a foreign bank issue a product that is trying to get its citizens’ millions of dollars.

Financial product advertisement in the papers, especially involving foreign banks, should be approved by the related government body (MAS). The body should ensure such advertisement stated clearly and boldly — not in fine print — and in simple layman english or chinese the risks involved.

This will provide an addition protection to the citizens.

A while back, SM Goh boasted that the PAP govt is not afraid of opening up the Hong Lim Park as he believes that there will not be a large demonstration due to the “good” governance of the PAP. Look’s like he will have to eat his words now.

Its a clear case of misrepresentation by these RMs. People can be wary of these individuals if they encounter them in their visits to the bank and keep clear.if they know who they are.”

The point isn’t to learn to avoid those known to misrepresent their products. The point is to read the fine print, and don’t sign anything you don’t understand, or that you don’t agree with. Even if you have the names doesn’t mean that someone not on the least will not do the same to you. Try reading some terms of services / agreements from most big companies some time. The terms are so one-sided favouring the company that only an idiot or someone without a choice (like in case of essential monopoly) will sign it.

If the sales person doesn’t fully understand them how can they be expected to give a clear understandable explation to the customers who are mainly retirees?

Its a clear case of misrepresentation by these RMs. People can be wary of these individuals if they encounter them in their visits to the bank and keep clear.if they know who they are.

Don worry. Is a normal bank account earning 0.5% interest and pays u monthly interest. Is not a Fixed Deposit. A FD account in maybank is even higher than 0.5%. As maybank is a Malaysia NAtional Bank i dun think it will collapsed and their exposure to sub-prime is so much lesser than DBS. They are well capitalized. The only bad thing is there ain’t many atms but that doesn’t stop me from putting my hard earned money in a safer place than DBS.

FG

Singaporedaddy,

I agreed with you that investors are held responsible for their investments. I too was tempted to buy mini-bonds when i was in queuing up to deposit money when the counter staffs recommended me to invest in mini-bonds with very high returns and low risk. That was in 2005. I told myself there is nothing in this world that gives high returns and low risk there must be a catch. I refused that offer.

Fast forward, i saw many singaporeans had their investments swallowed up in this credit crisis especially those who invested in mini-bonds. Many of them are retirees who had no knowledge of finance and are trusting. They trusted the DBS all these years. If not for the trust in local banks, nobody will dump life savings into the toxic bond if let say the bank is bank of nigeria, bank of indonesia.

These old folks are cheated of their trust and the DBS bank has failed as a financial institution to safeguard their money. The bank must compensate these retirees first and the rest of them on a reasonable terms. Singaporeans are reasonable people, they know that most investments are gone and recovery of 50-70% is deem much better than nothing.

What have the DBS proposed? Case by case basis and definitely with a confidentiality clause to divide and conquer these victims. If the Singapore gahmen has the will to help, do you think DBS can be so sloppy in their service, and MAS sitting on the fence doing minimal. MAS is a biggest joke in Singapore. They are responsible for such products to be sold, without check and balance being carry out, no public institution is safe from lax processes. Just take a look at the Prison escape, the customs flopped, the home team blunders, SAF and many more.

I hope the gahmen can come out and calm these investors and tell them that investigations and compensation will be carried out. These old folks can be suicidal when they know they will get nothing. In HK, the gov setup help lines especially for the investors who had invested in mini-bonds. How caring is the HK gov versus a heartless Singapore gahmen. Why are we a sovereign nation treating her citizens like dirt? HK is not even a sovereign country, but a Special Administrative Region of China. There is much this present gahmen must do to project her citizens that corporatism is not the current policy.

My verdict is to vote anybody other than a PAP. Some check and balance is better than none.

FG

How can a 5% per annum return warrant a 100% loss risk?
Even buying blue chip stocks has potentially much higher return at less risk than this.

When you give them money, it is their business, but when thing screw up and loss incur, they distance themselves immediately and push it to lowest person (if they ever be found again since most resigned), and say that it is not their fault.

For goodness’s sake, this is not a way business is conducted but only in Singapore where companies are linked with government, thing seem so different. A agent that sell product under the name of the bank is a representative of the bank, and so how can that not be bank’s problem when agent misleading the investors ?

In the case of Leman Minibond Notes, HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Limited will be best placed to answer your query. We have asked the trustee to expedite its considerations and keep the investors fully informed of their options….
____________________________________________

In case you need a translation for all those words:

2. It is not my problem it is the trustee’s problem.

3. We will ask the trustee to answer you.

They should send their staff to training to write plain English.