Does HL mean that anyone with sec 1 education can understand prospectus?

So if got Sec 1 education, Hong Leong not going to refund?

HL, pls clarify.

Limit liability and payout mah.

Ow! Don’t cut too much flesh hor. Very pain already. Just primary 6 education will do. Thank you very much.

The principle must be Fairness To All – not arbitrary markers on age or education or whatever thought up visible or invisible markers they may be.

I spoke to lady who bought these minibond notes – an educated English language teacher teaching scholars and gifted education program students among the top schools in Singapore – and she has no clue to the legal jargon, fine print and all the details in the thick booklet on minibond notes. It was highly recommended to her by the bank manager and being busy with a thousand and one things to do . . . . trusted her bank to do the reading for her.

If she – a graduate and an English expert can’t understand – woe to us mere mortals.

I think there is a difference between cannot understand the prospectus versus not bothering to read it.

This is not fair at all……..

It is not because of understanding of prospectus, it is misselling, that is sweet talk by the bank to invest. Even you read also no use because investments fluctuate from time to time. The American Banks want to cheat, we can’t do anything.

Wonder Hong Leong going to get people to prove they only got Pr6 education? How to prove you not sec1?

And I assume Pri 6, chinese or english.

- the underlying message from HLF to the investors is this:
“you were all so dumb, now you are dumber”.

Base on this criterior of payout is ridiculous. Don’t mock at Singaporeans!. Majority of us have education up to Secondary School, if not, beyond this level.
If you think that we are financially literate, you are absurdly wrong. Even, your financial advisors failed badly by recommending such investments’ products to the masses. Evidently, it proved that your logic of argument is flawed.

Please reconsider another better option of compensation. LOL.

So how many of the account holders fit these conditions? Maybe less than 10% perhaps?

Good move HL Finance! No one can now accuse them of not trying to be fair.

Uniquely Singapore indeed!

Divide and conquer.

We have to thank MAS amd Govt for protecting the interests of the Big corporations.

If not, all of us will have to go to China, Malaysia and Philippines to work as maids and construction workers.

Dear DBS High Notes 5 Investor,

Beware! This sounds too good to be true. Could banks be attempting to destroy our will to fight and break down our unity? Remember it is unity that brought us together so far. It is unity that gives us strength. Without unity, we are nothing.

Click here for the remainder of this post.

Dear DBS High Notes 5 Investor,

Beware! This sounds too good to be true. Could banks be attempting to destroy our will to fight and break down our unity? Remember it is unity that brought us together so far. It is unity that gives us strength. Without unity, we are nothing.

Click here for the remainder of this post.

DBS HN investors,

Don’t get fooled by DBS, $70-80 millions mostly go to Hong Kong investors. They have no courage to announce the proportion.

Why? MAS said so. MAS said there are 2 groups, one vulnerable group and the other the educated group. MAS said it should start with the vulnerable one first. The educated one can wait. May be this group may have to bear some blame because they understand Engrish therefore compensation, if there is, may not be full.It means saving money. for FIs. How conveneint for the FIs.
This is as good as MAS finding a way out for the banks.This is a diversion.
You see , the banks are trying to avoid being sued for mis-selling and msirepresentation. If there is proof the banks have to pay full plus opportunity cost.
RMs had mis-sold and misrepresented the vulnerable non Enrish speaking old folks and the Engrish educated who were vulnerable too because they were investment clueless. Both these groups were led round by their nose by RMs and mis-sold..
Secondly , from anecdotal evidences , the RMs breached section 27 of the FAA and their recommendation of the structured products was not of reasonable basis vis a vis the investors’ financial circumstances and need profile..
Don’t let this cause disunity. Investors must press on for full payment on grounds that they were mis-sold and misrepresented. The banks are shaky on these grounds.

it’s not easy to set a criteria for compensation. the relevant companies are interviewing the affected consumers now. let’s not downplay the companies at this moment and see what is the final outcome.

so next time when we buy investment products from banks we must ask the banks 4 most important things or ask mas 4 most important question:

(1) how much can you compensate me when the product failed if i am old and uneducated?

(2) how much can you compensate me when the product failed if i am old but educated?

(3) how much can you compensate me when the product failed if i am young and educated?

(4) how much can you compensate me when the product failed if i am young but uneducated?

if they cannot answer, ask them to shut up and do not sell people these products when there are no strict regulation on these products.

“Prospective investors in the Notes should note that there are many different types of notes or bonds in the marketplace, many of which will have unique and distinctive features. Not all notes or bonds are capital protected. Notes
which are sold or redeemed before their maturity date will be subject to unwinding or other transaction costs, and the amount received by prospective investors may be lower than the initial amount invested.”

Is HL expecting secondary school students to understand:

What’s notes?
What’s bonds?
What’s capital protected? Maturity date? Unwinding?
And marketplace?

“The purchase of any Notes to be issued under the Programme involves certain risks. You should ensure that you understand the nature of the Notes, in particular, the section headed “Risk Factors”, and should carefully study the
matters set out in the relevant Pricing Statement, before you invest in the Notes. There will be no guarantee from any entity to you that you will recover any amount payable under the Notes and you could lose all or a substantial part of your
investment in the Notes.”

Pricing statement? what’s entity?

That’s just one paragraph. And that’s even BEFORE we moved to the issue of mis selling, which isn’t about understanding the Fing prospectus.

One Day (#17),

I actually disagree with you that banks should compensate in the situation that the investment product failed, unless mis-representation has been involved to effect the sale.

Laserpointer (#18),

Excellent points. I wouldn´t expect a secondary school kid to understand the prospectus. Clearly, the level of one´s education should be immaterial to determine if one falls under the vulnerable group. In fact, there should not be segregation of investors. Would you expect an organic chemist to fully comprehend a particle physics research journal paper?

I had previously mentioned that the prospectus was written to protect the issuer, the arranger and distributor but not written to protect the investor. Clearly, there is asymmetric distribution of vested interest in the investment product already prior to marketing to retail investors.

The difficulty in understanding the prospectus adds on to the relationship manager´s advantage in any alleged participation of mis-selling, while at the same time, the very same relationship managers are expected to carry out fiduciary duties.

Something is seriously wrong with the retail banking sector.

Wah liew…. Blow until so big on the news like superhero and this is the criteria?! kns…

laserpointer, do you understand this part:
“and you could lose all or a substantial part of your investment in the Notes”?

If you do understand, then you should not touch the “Notes” (whatever that means) – because it says you can lose every single cents of your hard earned money.

If you do not understand “pricing statement”, or “entity” or that single paragraph, then why on earth are you throwing your money away?