Mr Goh Chok Tong are you free?

you have taken so much salary and benefits as a civil servant.

when are you going to repay to the singapore citizen?

May i know who is the MP? And will he really dare to bring up the case?

Although CASE has announced that they will help victims to sue banks, please be careful with your dealing with banks.

All government-affiliated organisations have been responding very slowly towards the entire MAS-DBS-Lehman incident. If any, CASE would seem to be diluted Tan Kin Lian´s effort and diluting the litigation effort by Tan Kin Lian and Glenn Knight to take up banks to court.

There can only be one champion, and so far, only ONE champion has led the way for you. You know who. Choose wisely.

Only in unity, we find strength. Without unity, we are nothing!

parliamon people representatives should be thankful to TKL for doing some of the initial work for them, maybe in an indirect way ?

more family time for one and all. huray!

Daniel Tan on November 1st, 2008 8.44 pm
Only in unity, we find strength. Without unity, we are nothing!

Yes, only through unity that we can stand firm to do the right things as one big family, as one big organization and as one BIG nation of singapore.

Of 10 000 pocket hurt people, 10% signed petition only even after 1 month of HLPark meetings.

Sadly and regretably, I believe the rest of the 90% are those whom I pitty the most .

Many of these 90%, I would think, are the ’smartest’ type in that they know better than everyone else, any attempt will be futile based on their life experience.

Unbeknownst to these lot, there is a significant difference between having tried and being too ’smart’ based on their life experience and not even done anything about it.

For example : 10 000 signed the petition , fought and fought and fought on. down the road, people gave up one by one, cannot sustain the ‘battle’. People become aware of the on-goings and their attempts and ‘battles’ and sufferings.

Versus : no one signed, case closed on day 1. All peace and quite, waiting for xmas and enjoy like IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Tell me , comparing the 2 pictures above, what is the difference? Even kids watching sessame street can spot the diff.

As said, having visited the sites and witnessed the victims and listened to them, I have learnt the sad truth and reality – People are really over Trusting not sure why? Culture? Nurture? Environment? you tell me. And People are really scared, about more than just money, if you know what I mean.

Compare HK and Singapore – the uniqueness of Singapore is proven beyond any doubt. The world understands now.

Farewell in advance, has ta las vista babe and more good decades one and all, retire as you planned and dont get cheated ever again and live happily ever after.
All hope is gone until 50 years later , but then, these are just my views. You think however you desire.

I have 1 more observation : many investors are really not english educated and worse, not Internet savvy. They never use the internet to know of TKL blog or TOC. Many not even aware of TC investment .

how net savvy and IT literate are people ?

Thank goodness they are not right? Else….look at Malaysia ;)

The peoiple who read my blog are English educated and computer savvy. They help to pass the word around by word of mouth to their relatives and friedns who are Chinese educated or not computer savvy.

We can use the power of the internet to reach out to a wider group of people.

Hi Daniel Tan (#3)

We should welcome the effort by CASE and by SIAS to be involved in this matter. I have encouraged the investors to reach out to these organisations in past postings in my blog.

I also encouage the investors to see their Members of Parliament.

I am personally not able to handle the complaints of more than 1,000 people. We should try all channels.

Petition #4 ask MAS to encourage the financial institutionsto reach a collective settlement with their investors. If these institutions are keen, we can organise a meeting with representatives of the institutions and the investors to reach out some guidelines that are fair to all parties. I beleive that most investors will be willing to agree on these guidelines, rather than the “case by case” approach.

Some investors expect 100% compensation. That is unrealistic. I hope that they will agree to some compromise.

Tan Kin Lian is giving these 10,000 investors majority uncles and aunties false hope to get their money back. The Banks who sold them the Lehman bonds only earn a fees maximum 5% and it is unfair to ask these Banks to pay back the full amount. Singapore is an open economy and is not a welfare state, and these uncles and aunties must bite the bullet and forget it and walk away. Hongkong and Singapore are two different cities. Hongkong is part of China ie Special Administrative Region whereas Singapore is an independent and sovereign nation. Regards, Andrew Chuah

I must applaud TKL for his effort to help unfortunate investors, and I agree that investors must try all channels.

This is not just for this instance to recover all or part of the toxic investments, but a really important effort to ensure that our children and grandchildren etc will be spared the agony we now face with our savings.

If not for anything else, many of us are now much better informed about the financial world we live in. It would perhaps take MAS’ Moneysense decades to educate us to the same level.

Even after this incident has blown over, I hope all the groups would continue to function as a kind of customer-watchdog committee to keep an eye on all the FIs. We cannot just rely on MAS and CASE alone.

Tan Kin Lian is giving these 10,000 investors majority uncles and aunties false hope to get their money back – Andrew Chuah (#9)

If you are uncomfortable with what´s going on, why don´t you take TKL face to face at Speaker´s corner? But to attack someone´s character is beyond contempt.

The Banks who sold them the Lehman bonds only earn a fees maximum 5% and it is unfair to ask these Banks to pay back the full amount.

This is not an issue of whether Singapore is a welfare state, but whether the banks have mis-sold the financial products. Even if the banks were not responsible for issuing the financial products, they were directly responsible for selling the financial product to the retail investors. Justice is always relevant, whether Singapore is a welfare state or not.

Seriously? If you go to a shop and buy a nice shirt, say because you think it’s going to get that someone to notice you, but 2 months down the road, mice infest your house and start chewing on your clothes, do you sue the shop that sold you the shirt?

How are these investors unfortunate? Financial products have inherent risks, everyone knows that. You can blame the banks all you want, but if you do not go in reading the fine print, I don’t see why tax payers should be made to pay for your stupidity.

This idea of mis-selling is complete bollocks. Banks who sell financial products like this advertise them as low-risk because that’s what they are in a decently stable economy. No one could forsee any of the problems that the global economy faces now. If the SingDollar goes bust the next day, would anyone sue banks or MAS? Seriously people, the logic here is as flawed as the logic that these ill informed investors used when buying the securities in the first place.

All that has been going down over the past couple of weeks shows us that apathy is a bane in our lives and instead of whining about it and hoping that the government fixes everything for us like little babies, maybe we could all grow up and realise that we have a need to open our eyes and be more involved in our lives and the world instead of blindly following what other people tell us.

The fact that all this hoopla is acceptable is just testament to how dumb we Singaporeans truly are.

Both Andrew Chuah and Dudboi have missed the crux of this issue altogether. This is a case of mis-selling and misrepresentation and not about risk of investment or the products themselves. There is nothing wrong with them. It is about the wrong people being sold these products and mis-selling and misrepresentation being used to hoodwink them into buying these products. This is cheating. The banks have to pay fully for ’stealing ‘ the money of these investors through dubious means.

The banks should not be protected and cannot do anything they like and get away with it . They must be punished heavily. If they think the best way out is legal suit then they have to take reputational risk.The markets are NOt created for them to bully and fleece the consumers. The markets are created for consumers. Without consumers there is no market.

The fact that all this hoopla is acceptable is just testament to how dumb we Singaporeans truly are. – Dudboi (#12)

Do I sense social darwinism here?

This idea of mis-selling is complete bollocks. Banks who sell financial products like this advertise them as low-risk because that’s what they are in a decently stable economy. – Dudboi (#12)

Downplaying risk is mis-representation, so you agree that banks downplay risk in their advertisement.

No one could forsee any of the problems that the global economy faces now. If the SingDollar goes bust the next day, would anyone sue banks or MAS? Seriously people, the logic here is as flawed as the logic that these ill informed investors used when buying the securities in the first place. – Dudboi (#12)

Let me give you an example from the South American Financial Crisis. When the Argentinian currency collapse, an Enron subsidiary raised the water fees by 5X so that the revenue from the water sales can still be used to sustain repayment to the World Bankś project finance facility.

The Argentinian government responded by suspending the license of the Enron subsidiary to supply water to the masses, while the Enron subsidiary to the Argentinian government to the World Bank Investment Court where the Argentinian government was ordered to compensate the Enron subsidiary.

All that has been going down over the past couple of weeks shows us that apathy is a bane in our lives and instead of whining about it and hoping that the government fixes everything for us like little babies, maybe we could all grow up and realise that we have a need to open our eyes and be more involved in our lives and the world instead of blindly following what other people tell us. – Dudboi (#12)

What has happened so far is people coming together, coming out with collaborative solution to pressure banks to do the right thing and also demanding the government to fix the regulatory environment to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. From what you are saying, you think think the current regulatory framework is sufficient.

12) Dudboi on November 2nd, 2008 11.31 am

On surface, you sound correct. On closer scrutiny, its clear you have made a sweeping statement.

1. “Seriously? if you go to a shop and buy a nice shirt, say because you think it’s going to get that someone to notice you, but 2 months down the road, mice infest your house and start chewing on your clothes, do you sue the shop that sold you the shirt? ”

>>> You analogy is not a fair way to describe the current fiasco. Please be enlightened that there is such a thing as ‘mis-selling’. I can even quote you real international cases where mis selling FIs were charged and penalised. Your weak analogy is applicable only to situations where there is no mis-selling and everything is proper. Please note that in this world, there are things done correctly and some things not done correctly. You must learn this for your personal salvation.

2. “The fact that all this hoopla is acceptable is just testament to how dumb we Singaporeans truly are.”

>>>> Do you dare to turn up at HLP and say what you just said or choose to hide type it away at your desk whatever you feel like saying? I wonder what industry you work in.

Sweeping statements are the easiest that anyone can make.

Sandra Bollock

Try this link for the report Minibond holders offered alternative to lawsuit

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=1LO7SBAT4M4&linkid=5289d5a5-602c-4f2c-95d1-68bea51ced70&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ%3d%3d

The below article is reposted from TKL blog here for the purpose of showing what TRUE regulator must do to protect the interest of unwary consumers from MIS-SELLING AND MISREPRESENTATION. It is incumbent upon MAS to demonstrate stringent regulation to deter any would be flouting FIs and intermediaries like RMs and insurance agents that a heavy penalty awaits them if they should breach the laws that are meant to ensure fair dealing and fair play and to protect the unwary , old folks and uneducated and educated but clueless consumers. I am sure we have not heard of any thing like the below before. Is it that our FIs and the intermediaries are well behaved?
Absolutely not true!!!! Ask the people in the same business you will hear of lurid tales of mis-selling, cheating, unscrupulous dealings especailly of insurance agents who are aiming the mdrt or tot awards. If this is true how come no enforcement of the laws? Even in this current fiasco MAS is not specific about which law is broken. We have not heard MAS saying that the RMs have broken the section 27 of the FAA . Is MAS sleeping? Is MAS protecting the FIs? Is MAS unwilling to be seen over regulating? or too much works? or 7 years of cumulative problem to be dealt with now.( the CEDLI guidelines were implemented in 2001 along with many notices and edicts to the insurance companies and FIs) Today we are no different from 2001.
.
Note the compensation amount and not S$80 millions as one local bank was crowing that it set aside.
Our FAA copied some of regulations from FSA.

Financial Services Authority fines Lloyds Bank in 2002
From Business Times

Lloyds TSB was fined GBP 1 million (S$2.35 million) in 2002 by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) of the UK and had to set aside GBP 165 million to compensate claims relating to mis-sold endowment policies, involving 45,000 policyholders.

In 2003, Lloyds TSB was further fined GBP 1.9 million and had to compensate GBP 98 million to 22,500 investors, many of them pensioners. This was related to the mis-selling of high-income ‘precipice’ bonds touted as an ‘Extra Income and Growth Plan’. These bonds promised a return of 9.75-10.25 per cent over three years (twice the bank deposit rates then) and were linked to 30 stocks. They were called ‘precipice’ bonds because the investors’ capital returns could ‘fall off a cliff’ if the markets fell below a pre-set trigger point.

The markets linked to the 30 stocks did indeed fall. These high-risk bonds, which were highly leveraged, were sold to inexperienced investors. Some 16,500 investors had never purchased equity-related investment products before.

22,500 sales out of 51,000 (that is, 44 per cent) of the total sold were deemed to have been mis-sold. Howard Davies, outgoing chairman of FSA, said that the products sold by Lloyds were ‘inherently wicked’ (because they were highly leveraged) and they were sold to unsuitable people.

Andrew Proctor, FSA director of enforcement, said: ‘There was nothing wrong with the products themselves but too much was sold to the wrong people.

Good one Zhummmeng!

A Perfectly Designed System can still be easily broken by the people tasked to uphold its integrity. like this say correct or not?

Mr B.i.a.n (banana is also nice)

Donaldson Tan, I standby what I have written and I am not making a personal attack on Tan Kin Lian who may have a hidden agenda and objective perhaps making his first step into Singapore politics inview of General Election which is not far away.

These Banks and their officesrs who had sold the Lehman bonds to the 100,000 investors, had done their job professionally and explained thoroughly and it is these 100,000 investors who themselves had made bad decisions and allowed GREED to take control of their decision and judgement. Please don’t tell me that 100,000 investors majority who are Uncles and Aunties are uneducated and had been misled and misrepresented by these Banks and their officers.RISKS are everywhere and in our daily lives we have to take and face RISKS and we must be solely responsible for taking these RISKS ourselves and not come running back to the state for help after lost all our monies. Singapore is not a welfare state where these 100,000 investors are now hoping for some form of compensation,(full refund is impossible)

I wish these 100,000 investors majority who are Uncles and Aunties well in seeking Tan Kin Lian’s help.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Reply to Andrew Chuah (#9)

You indulge in personal attack without any justification. If you bother to read my blog or view my speeches at Speaker’s Corner (www.youtube.com), you will find that there is no grounds for your accusation and attack.

Many investors came to tell me, “Mr. Tan, even if we do not get back any cent, I want to thank you for what you are doing for us”. Is this false hope? They are realistic.

There are a few people that continues to attack me in this manner. They go by the name of Singasoft, Singalong and now Andrew Chuah. Are you the same person or different people?

I do not expect any cent to be paid by MAS or the taxpayers. I call for the financial institution to share the loss equally with the investors. It is not fair for the investors to bear the loss alone.

Many investors do not agree with me. They want more than 50% compensation. I respect their views, as it is their money. I continue to encourage them to accept an amicable settlement on on a equally sharing of loss.

Andrew Chuah (#19)

If you stand by your remarks, can you identify your real identity and tell me how I can contact you? I consider your remarks to be defamatory.

The issue of my political motive has been covered in an interview with Zaobao and Today paper. They have been posted in my blog.

Thank you Mr Tan.
Although i’m not an investor, i respect you for your courage.
You show us that it’s possible to uphold the integrity of banks.
Imagine if someone like you have not came out to help, then the loaded banks will continue their malpractice of cheating the people.
Their deeds won’t be exposed as investors suffer in silence.
Many have gain insights on this crisis and i’ll not trust banks anymore.

Anyway Andrew Chuah, who would want to gain publicity in this incident?
Don’t you know this is Singapore?
The cons of being involved in politics far outweigh the pros if you are not a yes-man. Do not defame others when you are not clear of the situation.

“November 2nd, 2008 2.22 pm

“……Tan Kin Lian who may have a hidden agenda and objective perhaps making his first step into Singapore politics inview of General Election which is not far away.”

This is a very uncalled for statement! How did you draw the conclusion concerning the hidden agenda part AC? Can you please supply us the evidence to support your statement?

I really cannot understand for the life of me how you managed that incredible leap of logic.

The way I see it, it’s a very simple matter of demand and supply. Mr Tan has something worthwhile to offer and these aggrieved investors gravitate towards what he hold out.

If you dont want people to come in and step in to do the job of MAS or some other govt appointed body, then you really should not behave like a man whose wife has run off with another man bc you have not been servicing her? You need to ask yourself; why did the authorities even the create ideal conditions to fester which generate the demand for the supply to be filled by the likes of Mr Tan?

Had they move decisively and fast to take a leadership role in all this, then Mr Tan’s role would be obselete, then neither I , him or any by stander will have anything to say and what you say may well be very true, but in this case when Mr Tan came into the picture (pls correct) there was NO OFFICIAL RESPONSE. You can sue me, if you want. I have the dates to prove it and even the comparatives and I will bring the whole brotherhood press to come down on you like a ton of bricks! FACT: NOTHING WAS DONE / NO RESPONSE / NO DIRECTION / NO LEADERSHIP.

I pay my taxes so I believe, I have a right to say the lack of response beggars the imagination.

Even then, as I said earlier. I cannot for the life of me see where the hidden agenda part comes in or what it even has to do with the coming general election?

Please come back to me on this point.

I think this statement is uncalled for and you owe mr tan an apology

SD

(Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Tan Kin Lian,
I think it is better ignore the people who doubt your effort and try to destroy your reputation. There are always some clowns who can’t think, and can only talk childish like our PM who think they know better without finding out what really happen in the ground. There are always clowns in blogosphere who try to provoke for sake of provoking just to seek attention and thrill. No point wasting time on these people. The more you engage them, the more remarks they will throw.

To 9) Andrew Chuah on November 2nd, 2008 2.22 pm

“These Banks and their officesrs who had sold the Lehman bonds to the 100,000 investors, had done their job professionally and explained thoroughly………”

How do you come to this view? What facts do you have to support this view? The fact is many old individuals in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan were mis-sold these type of structured products, yes they were mis-sold in Taiwan as well:

http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/2007Cti-News-Content/0,4521,110514+112008110200044,00.html

.There are people talking about the responsibility of these people to check the details before buying the products.

This is an argument of trust vs responsibility

Yes, people need to exercise their responsibility to check everything to protect themselves when they can’t trust the government, the banks etc to do the right things. When people want to shift the blame to these people in the name of responsibility, they are flushing the public trust down the drain.

If MAS is not taking the banks to the task, allowing them to continue to erode the public trust, then the whole society will pay a very big price.

Remember the case of Slim10?

Wow what a fiery and yet interesting blog. I can see much fireball going in here and it does not benefit anyone in the process.

I thnik TKL came in at the right time when the investors needed someone to lead and gather them together. Of course, the five hundred people that grouped together for the fourth time at HLP is only less than 5% of the total investors that is 10,000 strong. What happened to the rest I wondered. I guess some will seek legal advice especially for those who are educated whereas others only sit and pray at home.

Singaporeans have being all along individualistic and even fragmented. We are followers and has a herd mentality. When someone stood up and says “Come follow me”. they will if the person is creditable and has a good heart. As people lost alot of money here, it is natural that they will follow any lead that has any slim chance of a compensation. It is good that TKL did not promise the investors anything as it will jeopardise any good work that he has done so far. He is merely grouping them together and ask them to sign a petition in the hope that pressure is exerted on the banks to act fairly and logically. Speaking as one person or one thousand definitely has an impact on how banks will act. My guess is that they will not compensate everyone totally but only the vulnerable. Those who are educated (even up to secondary level) may get very little back.

Consumer rights in Singapore have all along being very bias against the consumers. CASE/SIAS so far has not done its job well and in this instance has not taken leadership as it should.

In this global financial crisis, minibond investors are not the only ones who have lost money, People who invested in property, shares, unit trusts, cars, forex all lost money. The have no recourse to go to for any form of compensation.

RMs and banks have being selling their products their way all along without any problem. Of course, this will have to change as we know that certain products are not meant for certain vulnerable sector of the population. There will definitely be a revamping on how RMs sell their products and their approach on vulnearable customers. I foresee that unit trusts sales will take a dive and consumer trust will be at an all time low after. It will take a long time for people to part wit their money again.

Donaldson Tan, I standby what I have written and I am not making a personal attack on Tan Kin Lian who may have a hidden agenda and objective perhaps making his first step into Singapore politics inview of General Election which is not far away – Andrew Chuah (#19)

Are you suggesting that politicians should not be sympathetic to social causes? Moreover, General Election takes place every 5 years. It is always around the corner. Mr Tan Kin Lian so far only shown that he is sympathetic to social causes and he has been crowned as the Champions of the Underdog. It does not necessary imply he has intentions now or prior to this saga to enter politics. Just like what singaporedaddy has said, to claim Mr Tan Kin Lian has hidden agenda is a leap of faith from your own logic.

These Banks and their officesrs who had sold the Lehman bonds to the 100,000 investors, had done their job professionally and explained thoroughly and it is these 100,000 investors who themselves had made bad decisions and allowed GREED to take control of their decision and judgement – Andrew Chuah (#19)

Nobody claimed all bank officers were responsible for mis-selling. Nobody claimed all retail investors were mis-led too. However, if there is a systematic fault in the setup of how investment products were mis-sold, there is an organisational failure in the banks that resulted in this fiasco. Moreover, why would bank officers be less susceptible than retail investors to greed?

Andrew Chuah- you purposely avoid the main issue. Even your statistic is wrong.
MAS said that there are about 10,000 affected investors Not 100,000 !!!

For the benefit of those not affected, the main issue is how come so many investors from different walks of life were trapped.
The answer is ambiguous financial terms translated wrongly (intentionally or unintentionally) to trusting customers The Financial Terms all arguing about:

Credit Entitties- Citygroup Inc, DBS, Goldman Sachs, HSBC,Merill Lynch,
Standard Chartered
Redemption Upon a Credit Event – …. amount could be less or significantly
less than the principal amount invested

Since most customers don’t understand what the above statement meant, they have to ask the bank representatives.
This is what most of them were told. Their deposits are placed into the 6 reference banks. The potential loss from the bankruptcy of each bank is 1 over 6 of their deposits.
The chance of any of these AA rated banks going bust is very remote, let alone all at the same time. Ignorance or intentional misinterpretation by the banks or their representatives?

THIS IS THE REAL MEANING OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT !
“You place your money with us for 5 years. We give you 5% interest annually.
But if there is a credit event, you lost all or almost all your money.”

How many people will buy the Minibond if they were honestly told the real meaning in a simple way?
In short, many investors were sold a very high risk product masqueraded as a safe product and with a low return.

Andrew Chuah still wants to insist?
“These Banks and their officers who had sold the Lehman bonds to the 100,000 investors, had done their job professionally and explained thoroughly and it is these 100,000 investors who themselves had made bad decisions and allowed GREED to take control of their decision…..”

Then, be honourable enough to beg your boss not to give you any bonuses or annual pay increment. If you are having your own business, make sure your net profit does not exceed 2%.

The FI have the indemnities forms signed by their loyal customers.
Whether the FI want to trade them for their integrity and reputation remains to be seen.

Dear Andrew Chuah,

Please refrain from making allegations – unless you identify yourself.

Else, you will be put on moderation.

Thank you.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

@ 9) andrew chua plus @ 12) Dudboi

The focus is not whether Tan K L is giving false hope to the uncles and aunties,
but this govt has given A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY to its citizens.
Has MAS been effective in doing its job ?
Has DBS a brand name been operating in the interest of its customers ?

82 PAP plus 2 OPP MPs have not spoken up and we have 2 characters here giving moronic comments that is not helpful to the public.
HLP is a good venue for those with conviction. The 2 of you should address the public at HLP and redeem yourselves.

Ok, so assuming I’m dumb myself and have no idea what mis-selling is, can someone explain it to me?

I think it’s unfair to think that banks are working FOR the consumers. Banks, are (to a certain degree at least) profit-motivated.

Yes, my examples are generalisations and sweeping, but consider this continuation of my analogy. If you go to a shop, do you think the salesperson will tell you if a shirt is not flattering on you? If they don’t, does that classify as mis-selling too?

Fundamentally speaking, banks are just out to earn money as well (why else would they be doing any lending), everyone’s fair game. It’s the onus of the consumer to do sufficient research as to whether a particular product is suitable for him/her or not. If the seller does any of such consultancy for you, it’s really an added bonus. I’ve done my fair share of mis-buying if you will. I regret, I learn, I move on, I do better next time.

Do I think the current framework is sufficient? I’m not fully aware of this framework to make an informed decision. Do I think banks should refund the money? No. It’s a bad investment. People make those every single day. That’s what life is, you suck it up and move on.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing that people are coming together. But if money wasn’t the issue here, most people wouldn’t care. It’s because all we care about our money so much, that we’re willing to do this. If I were to ask if people wanted to gather at hong lim park to fight for say freedom of speech, would you do it?

My question to you all is this: Say the banks do refund the money. What will come of this? Would people be more aware in future of buying securities? Maybe. For a while. Would there be a concerted effort to educate people on things like this? Probably not. What will happen is the banks will be forced to abide by stricter rules, which is really just more government intervention in this supposedly consumer-based market.

On that note, to sandra bollocks, yes, I would go to hong lim park and say it to them. But apart from the fact that it won’t work, I believe I’m legally not allowed to (yet anyway). And the best part is, even if I did, what are the chances people will just shrug me off as another CSJ?

Dear all,

With regards to the current “mis-selling” of financial products, I can’t believe the amount of public responses and views that this incident has generated. Being new to this website and all, your balanced views have given me a lot of insights about the issue of mis-selling, the current circumstances as well as important points on the seeking redress” process.

In that regard, could I then seek your assistance in giving your views, or opinion, on another similar issue. This issue involves a retirement scheme which was introduced in 1997 by a financial institution to help “asset rich but cash poor” retirees . It was claimed to provide a monthly cash payout to the retiree.

This financial Institution had stated that a retiree would get a monthly payout based on his expected life expectancy. This monthly payout would be determined by the retiree’s life expectancy and the value of his property. Based on their illustration, the retiree could expect to draw a monthly payout of $2,000 on a property worth $500,000 over 24 years.

The financial insitution had also indicated that because property cycles were cyclical, they would carry out reviews every 3 years.

However for this case which I know of, this particular retiree had only been in the scheme for 7 years when the retiree was informed by the Institution that the loaned amount had reached the 80% margin in 2004. By 2006, the institution had demanded monies from this retiree. As the retiree had no monies to pursue this in court nor could prove the Company’s initial claim, the retiree had to sell the property at the offered market price but because the auction price was below the loaned amount, this retiree now owed this institution monies. As a supposed goodwill, the institution restructered the shortfall into a loan that now has to be paid by the retiree over over an installment on the retiree’s expected life expectancy.

From the above, could anyone in the community have any knowledge on the scheme which I mentioned and if you are familiar with it, could you shed some light on its mechanics and intent of the scheme please?

Thanks! : )

Please think of many many others who live day to day. Those who have extra to indugle in these type of activities, consider yourself lucky. I often heard of someone who is able to make a pile in a flick of time what I have to slog for weeks.

19) Andrew Chuah on November 2nd, 2008 2.22 pm

You said:
………..Please don’t tell me that 100,000 investors majority who are Uncles and Aunties are uneducated and had been misled and misrepresented by these Banks and their officers.RISKS are everywhere and in our daily lives we have to take and face RISKS and we must be solely responsible for taking these RISKS ourselves and not come running back to the state for help after lost all our monies. Singapore is not a welfare state where these 100,000 investors are now hoping for some form of compensation,(full refund is impossible)
……….

>>> Like Dudboi, its sad to see you also making a sweeping statement .
The fact that Risks exist in everything does not mean its ok to mis-sell.
As long as it can be proven that there is mis-selling, its my view that the FI should take some form of RESPONSIBILITY. Someone has to also be ACCOUNTABLE. These are 2 words have different meanings.

I also can give a sweeping statement:
1. Taking a plane has risks. If the plane crashed, does it mean the airlines has no responsibility and accountability, if there was some wrong doing on the part of the airlines?

Readers, beware of sweeping statement bombasticos.
Read their comments at your own RISK.

DUDBOI,
Likely you never invested hundred of thousands and lost it all to feel the pain and anguish. Worse you have not experienced loss of all that you have and don’t have any more life to earn it back . If you were in similar situation as these folks you won’t be talking through your butt as you have been doing and ‘char seow’ with your inappropriate analogies. What you say only reveals your lack of or dud investment knowledge and stupidity..If the banks are found to have broken the laws they have to pay back every one in full. The aftermath is the consumers have more confidence of the protection of the laws and know the the salespeople and the FIs cannot cheat them anyhow but there will be fools who think they are smart and can invest on caveat emptor basis, like you who is able to read the prospectus and make informed decision. The rest, including the CPAs, MBAs and professors of NUS, still need the help of the RMs, the advisers who themselves must be investment experts and who will spare the consumers of the need to know about investment knowledge, and in this case more than CFA knowledge.The laws will ensure the products are not scam and the advisers or RMs follow prescribed steps to ensure best advice.

It is sad indeed that there are so many aggrieved investors. I have a lucky friend who asked that most important question to the bank officer: “Is the bond paying so high returns considered a high risk investment?” The answer was: “YES”. This is true and that retired police officer decided not to go ahead with the investment.

In a way, I am also fortunate. I don’t have the money to invest.

Then it is sad that there are those who hold opposing views hiding behind some secret identity and making wild allegations against someone who is trying to help some aggrieved people finding resolution. Only cowards do that.

In a balanced manner, we ought not to discount that there could be some mis-selling. Not by ALL officers, but surely there could be some. So let the FIs do the due investigations and compensate the people accordingly. If this issue is taken to the courts, there is surely only one winner, the lawyer.

See, Weaksforit’s friend did the research/asked the right questions and is safe because of it.

So, zhummmeng, your point is what again?

I have never claimed to have much investment knowledge, but I think the irony lies in the idea that you think all these people have. Because you know, at the end of the day, I’m not the one who’s lost my money.

Plus, am I not wrong to say that the idea of eggs in one basket is the first rule of investment?

I don’t deny that mis-selling, based on the commonly understood definition, probably existed in some form or other, and it probably does everywhere to a certain degree. Finding out exactly who did, now that’s going to be very very difficult. And you know what, as long as the people don’t expect the government to do something about it, I’m fine. Last I checked, the government didn’t bail my family out when WE needed the money, so yeah.

Dudboi,
nobody is bailing anyone out. The investors want their money back from the banks who cheated them. Mis-selling is cheating…..Now , let us get it right. If prospectus is enough to help you make INFORMED DECISION there is no need for an adviser or RM, right? Because it is not a a simple product an adviser is needed. Adviser advises and NOT providing you more information. Adviser will tell you ,”Uncle or auntie, this product is suitable for you after checking your financial circumstances , needs and risk appetite.”. The auncle or auntie will reply , “i trust your expertise and your words for it. How much to put? ” This is most critical moment as asset allocation is to be considered on the overall portfolio risk of the cleint.. The RM or the adviser will have to analyse again before answering the uncle or auntie’ s question, ‘How much to put?” All this cannot be done in 30 minutes but RMs can do in 10 miniutes. No mis-seling ’see k aei’ .. This is what MAS said, “follow the steps as prescribed in the law.” but RMs didn’t. RMs said to the uncles and aunties, “put all your eggs in this basket, called minibomb ,sure make money.”
MAS is the regulator. MAS is the referee of this game. It has to make a ruling.
It is not bailing out anybody. It has to say, “banks you have broken the law and you have to pay everyone in full and no less” or the other way round “sorry ,investors the banks also lost money., so no money”

“MAS is the regulator. MAS is the referee of this game. It has to make a ruling.”

This reference allows the players to play in the soccer game but he will not oversee the game but going kopitiam for a nice long soothing cup of coffee until game over. The reference assumes the players will play by the rule, and if the any player fault, it is up to player to resolve, and it is none of the reference’s fault because the reference is in kopitiam and does not know what happen. Now the player punches the audience, but the reference is not there and therefore no red card is issued to the player. Players play violently, damaging the arms and legs of opposing side but no yellow card and warning issued because reference is not there. Coaches complain, audiences complain that reference doesn’t perform his job but reference says it is not his job to “APPROVE/DISAPPROVE” WHAT THE PLAYER DOES DURING THE GAME BUT TO “REGISTER” THE PLAYER FOR THE SOCCER GAME. Besides, reference claim he is not guilty because reference does not know what happen since he is not in the ground to witness the event. Moreover, reference says if he is too strict with the players, the player cannot produce a good soccer match therefore a “HAND-OFF” approach is the best way to encourage exciting game play and boost ticket sales.

What is the exact role of reference ? Only god knows.

MAS just like MAS SELAMAT escape scott free.

Maybe Andrew is a bank officer whose business is affected by this saga.

Ok, so assuming I’m dumb myself and have no idea what mis-selling is, can someone explain it to me? – Dudboi (#31)

Misrepresentation occurs when statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. Misrepresentation is still applicable even if the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract or that the contract has been performed.

Yes, my examples are generalisations and sweeping, but consider this continuation of my analogy. If you go to a shop, do you think the salesperson will tell you if a shirt is not flattering on you? If they don’t, does that classify as mis-selling too? – Dudboi (#31)

That is the salesperson’s opinion. However, the opinion becomes a fact when the salesperson is regarded as an expert. In the case of financial products, the RM is regarded as a Financial Advisor / expert who derrives his license to act as a Financial Advisor either through individual licensing or representation as a company which is legally recognised as a financial advisor.

I think it’s unfair to think that banks are working FOR the consumers. Banks, are (to a certain degree at least) profit-motivated. – Dudboi (#31)

The RM is expected to perform fiduciary duty with the retail investors, yet the prospectus denies the RM’s responsibility and goes on to claim that it is the onus of the retail investor to carry out his own independent research. Obviously something is wrong here when fiduciary duty is expected and guaranteed by the law, yet there is denial of responsibility in the prospectus.

Say the banks do refund the money. What will come of this? Would people be more aware in future of buying securities? Maybe. For a while. Would there be a concerted effort to educate people on things like this? Probably not. What will happen is the banks will be forced to abide by stricter rules, which is really just more government intervention in this supposedly consumer-based market. – Dudboi (#31)

It is widely regarded that one of the main factors causing the global financial crisis is untested financial innovation that was encouraged by financial de-regulation. Regulators have to keep up with financial innovation because sales of financial products is inherently a slippery slope. It should never be a case of how de-regulation leads to a flourishing market, but how much regulation is needed to ensure the market is healthy for both businesses and retail consumers. Regulators should play an even more pro-active role if the market suffers from information asymmetry at the consumers’ disadvantage. In a healthy market, the consumer should be just sophisticated as the businesses involved.

It’s because all we care about our money so much, that we’re willing to do this. If I were to ask if people wanted to gather at hong lim park to fight for say freedom of speech, would you do it? – Dudboi (#31)

The MAS-Lehman-DBS Saga has shown the importance of the freedom of association and freedom of speech. The intrinsic value of these freedoms is hard to judge, until one falls into a situation that requires the use of them. In this case, it is the loss of life savings that highlighted the importance of freedom of association and freedom of speech. We already have the freedom of speech and freedom of association in Singapore, but we are stifled by the climate of fear. Widespread political apathy further compounds the problem and adds up to the perception that we have no freedoms. These freedoms are already guaranteed by our constitution.

On that note, to sandra bollocks, yes, I would go to hong lim park and say it to them. But apart from the fact that it won’t work, I believe I’m legally not allowed to (yet anyway). And the best part is, even if I did, what are the chance people will just shrug me off as another CSJ? – Dudboi (#31)

Don’t insult CSJ. Whatever he is doing, it is definitely not for economic gain, unlike the case of PAP ministers who need million dollar salary to stay clear from corruption. If you claim you are better than CSJ, can you put yourself above the need for personal economic gains?

Banks and RMs all along have being doing ok until this minibond saga. WHen people are making money, nobody complained but when things go awry all hell breaks loose.

There is some truth to how RMs sell their products unethically. Having work as a RM and insurance advisor before, I have always been sceptical of the whole selling process but most RMs won’t flippantly go all the way to cheat or con investors out of their hard earned money. When you have the dollar sign of commission tied to every product that you sell, there is always this grey area of misrepresentation and mis selling. For example, I managed to persuade an uncle of mine to part away 30K of his CPF money in a unit trust eight years ago. I put on my selling charm and it took me three sessions of two hours each to successfully convince him to invest. The fund dived and I could not see him in the eye during CNY festivals for gathering. However, few years later, he told me that when the fund rose, he sold them off and managed to make a tidy profit of 8K – not bad for a 30k initial investment.
However, after this incident, I have stopped pushing people to buy unit trusts as I dont like to see my friends and relatives losing people from such investment. If they make money, they will go quietly but if they lost, they will scowled and even screamed at you.
Of course, minibond investors faced a sadder discourse – they will get lttle or nothing back from their investment. If i am one of the investors, i will also jumped and tried to get back something. Such a situation only happened once in a lifetime and those who invested in minibond must have cursed themselves on their bad luck.
If MAS found banks have mis selling irregularity with systemic failure, I am sure that they will put things right. Let MAS and the banks sort it out and investors make have to take some responsibility for their decision regardless of any issue. People have lost their money in weirder circumstances all because of the greed factor. If banks decided to compensate the vulnerable so be it – they are very fortunate. Those who did not receive any compensation, my take is that we all learn an expensive lesson here. Having look at the reports from the papers, I find that most investors have little legal chance for recourse as the banks covered all the loop holes unless they can prove that RMs have failed to discharge their duties professionally.

If there is a systematic fault in the setup of how investment products were mis-sold, there is an organisational failure in the banks that resulted in this fiasco. Such organisational failure would justify a blanket compensation policy. If MAS does not intend to investigate for systematic failure, it should not impede or discourage retail investors who want to take the financial institutions to court.

Hi Gilbert Goh (#46)

It is nice to hear about your real life experience on the sale of unit trust and the happy outcome for your uncle.

I recommend investors to buy unit trusts as follows:

> select low cost unit trust with less than 2% in upfront charges and 1% in annual fees
> select a diversified fund of blue chips
> invest for the long term, to ride out the good and bad years.

An indexed fund, such as the STI ETF, meet the above criteria. More similar good value products will appear in the future.

They should avoid the structured and similar products that are designed to have high charges (for commission and profit) that need high risks to pay off the charges.

My advice is contained in http://www.tankinlian.com/faq

Please send an e-mail to kinlian@gmail.com. I like to discuss with you separately.

To Andrew Chuah and others

Please read my blog http://www.tankinlian.blogspot.com to read the views of many investors on how they were misled into investing in these structured products.

Some investors think that these products were created in a fraudulent manner, i.e. the creators knew the products were toxic and pushed them to the investors with a propectus that hide the real truth about the products.

Most sales representatives (aka. relationship managers) were not aware about the true nature and risk of these products when they sell them to the public. They received two hours of training featuring the “positive aspects” of these products and were given an attractive commission (relative to the time needed to sell the product).

To truly understand the product, it probably needs at least two whole days of training.

Many people hold the view that if the products were properly presented, no investor would have bought the product. No sales representative would have sold the product. This is not the due to the benefit of hindsight. It is high risk from day one, even in good times.

The financial institution that sold the product should have studied and understood the product, before allowing their sales representative to sell the product using the trusted name of their institution.

The investors do not expect the Government to bail them out. They wanted the financial institutions to compensate them for their loss, due to their negligence and the misrepresentation of their sales representatives.

Read more in:
http://www.tankinlian.blogspot.com

does it mean such things will not happen again?
loopholes covered? then how?
system improved? so no more repeat? sure?
anyone can guarantee?
i no idea.

Hi TOC,

its already possible to use a digital camera to stream ‘live’ video to websites.

I hope someone would do this for mass gatherings like that in HL park to reach out to more people like those overseas and those SHY to attent these meetings.

I am sure it is legal and but not sure what it takes to do this?

LHL demo it on nday rally leh.

Hope the volunteers could consider this media. Its good to know what impact this can have. After 1 or 2 tries, it should be clear if this works.

Thanks.

Chiu Yi Ren

does it mean such things will not happen again?
loopholes covered? then how?
system improved? so no more repeat? sure?
anyone can guarantee?
i no idea.
- hmmmm Gerry

Financial institutions will have to discover new loopholes. The more loopholes they exploit. the less they can find in future as long as the ones discovered are closed.

I like to ask everyone including Mr Tan KL.

There is a Regulatory Body right?
If so , why financial problems cannot be contained and prevented the meltdown and the lehman boo boo? If people given early warning signs earlier, would they not have sold their lehman minibonds earlier before it become worthless as in $0?

I have no idea. Do you?

47) ‘live’ broadcasting? Why not? on November 3rd, 2008 9.03 am

What about someone said something defamatory and it is broadcasting live?

If my understanding is correct, even live broadcast is buffered with say 1min delay to avoid such thing.

The main function of the video is let people who can’t attend the event to get the messages made by the speakers.

Really, people need to overcome the fear factor, come out to show their support to these people. If 2-3,000 people show up to support them, MAS definitely will feel more heat.

As an ex-Independent Financial Adviser, my view is that most of my ex-colleagues does not understand what is investment about. More than 75% of them are insurance agents and the rest are part-timers and middle managers that has lost their jobs in the last downturn. I would say not more than 25% are investment savvy and understand economics. To become a Independent Financial Adviser, all you need to pass a simple exam [3 to 4 modules] consisting of multiple choice questions. Anyone with a A level qualification and average intelligence would take at most 2/3 weeks to clear all the exam and yet have absolutely no investment knowledge except on paper.

So if you are using a Financial Adviser, make sure you have done your home work on checking out their credibilities. Do not invest [in UT in lump sum or Dollar cost averaging] if you do not have at least 2 to 3 years saving for your living expenses in case you lose your job. If you cashing out during a market downturn you will definitely lose your saving and may not have the courage to invest when market start to pickup.

RMs are financial advisers and they are under lots of pressure to meet their monthly quota or they will lose their job. That is why you find turnover of RMs so frequent in most bank. They are just sales persons who can talk but only few have investment experience. My good friend has been with UBS for 30 years as a private banker who look after clients with minimum investable fund of USD 2 Millions and she confess that the same thing happen in the world of private banking.

IFA is working on a MLM [mulit-layer marketing] system of compensation system. The manager of IFA has over-riding commission on his financial advisor reps sales. So his motivation is to build large team of FARs and motivating them to sell UT and Insurance policies with highest commission to clients.

Mr. Tan is not well like by its FA in NTUC becasue NTUC agents has the lowest commission for its insurance products [just my observation] and he also started using salaried FAs to accept insurance proposal to cut commission payable to FA.

In this Minibond saga, I think MAS should bear some responsibilities because:
1. it allows such complex financially risky product to be sold directly to retailed investors [most developed countries do not have such products sold to retailed investors in $5k lot]
2. The brochure of these structure product is down right misleading and they are approved by MAS.
3. It did not set up a easy-to-understand Financial Product Risk Evaluating system for investors. If we have a A-B-C-D-E ranking system on the risks of financial products sold in singapore, chances of mis-selling financial product to investors would be less wide-spread.

50) sarek_home on November 3rd, 2008 10.09 am

As you said, there is 1 minute lag. With ‘live’ content moderation, any defamatory remarks can be censored before its released to the net. Ok, maybe its a-few-minutes-delayed ‘live’ telecast. Better late than never ;)

We all heard about the real fear that exists deep down inside everyone.
We all heard about the Singaporeans who do not know english and IT and the internet.

Well, I was at Hong Lim Park for several weekends. I saw 1st hand what the Fear really was. I saw rich (used to be) singaporeans who are complete illiterates in English and Internet browsing. Many never used the mouse.
Fear was more than just about loosing money.

Remember guys, 10 000 pocket burnt directly. Only 10% of these petitioned. The Facts speaks for itself.

I used to scratch my head why even with the shocking turn-out in LTK rallies, they never win a GRC.

I used to wonder….i used to ….

HK vs SG : Same mini bon bons. Different tales. Spot the root cause.

Hi #49
If you like me to answer your question, you have to give your real name. OK?

52) mini bon bon on November 3rd, 2008 10.21 am

As you said, there is 1 minute lag. With ‘live’ content moderation, any defamatory remarks can be censored before its released to the net. Ok, maybe its a-few-minutes-delayed ‘live’ telecast. Better late than never ;)

Hi mini bon bon,

Let me clarify something here. MSM has the equipment to buffer the ‘live’ broadcast for content moderation.

The qik technology LHL demonstrated at National Day Rally does not have this “buffering” feature if I am not mistaken. It is straight from the phone to the web live.

Really, people should go to Speakers’ Corner to overcome their fear and show live support to the investors and tell PAP they care enough to be there.

We have some “confessions” from former IFA and RMs about their experience.
People like them who have conscience will eventually quit. I hope that MAS will wipe the slate clean so that ethical and people with conscience will rejoin the industry to provide real responsible advisory service to consumers.
Now that we know how RMs work for a living and they are no different from the insurance agents and IFAs out there.
Do the public ever wonder what are those titles , like MDRT, COT , or TOT, insurance agents have on their name cards? Are they marks of some achievement or competence ?
Yes they are. They are marks or evidence of how many people or how much they have cheated from their customers. They are marks of competence in the art of lying, mis-selling , misrepresentation, manipulation and ruining their customers’ lives.
You see, the various marks are determined by how much money or commission they earned. What kind of products can give high commission? They are wholelife , endowment and regular ILPs. The commission for these products usually 50%, 25%, 25% for 1st, 2nd and 3rd year and 10-12% for next 6 years generally.
Is there any wonder why they invariably propose these products and not other more efficient low cost products to you? The reason is obvious.They are specialists in these products. They are so well trained in untruths and lies, non disclosure and emotional manipulative skills that they can lure a bird down from a tree. They only know and sell these products to plan their future and not your future.
What is wrong with these products?
They CANNOT give you adequate protection and saving. Both these 2 elements are diluted so much they are neither both. Why? cost is the problem; too much paid to agents and the companies’ profit and operating cost. As a result consumers pay too much for so little in return. Always consumers can’t afford to have adequate coverage and left with a big risk still unaddressed. Not only that, there are other risks need to be taken care of. Where got money after buying whole life? Agents don’t care. Agents advise to do review(to make customers buy another WL) next time when customers’ salaries increase.. Meantime consumers make sure nothing happens because they are under insured.
Why do people buy insurance?
Consumers must understand the real reason and
insurance is protection, of course. But do agents care whether you are protected with enough insurance to leave to your loved ones. No, they only care for their own and to qualify for those marks.When agents say their proudest moment is when they deliver a cheque to the deceased’ spouse but the cheque is only enough to pay for the funeral expenses and it is deceased’s spouse saddest moment especailly one with a few young children
These people are despicable. I wonder why MAS is not checking on them for breaching the laws. They are breaking the law daily and it is so rampant. At the mrt , malls and roadside they solicit like prostitutes from passers by. How could they close a case with such a short spiel. The financial analysis required by the law takes at a few hours before they can identify a solution, the product.Isn’t this mis-selling? Isn’t this cheating?
Churning and twisting are also rampant among the insurance agents before but now the IFAs are catching up. They have cash back schemes, to ingenious switching scams to drain the customers’. For UTs some customers pay charges as high as 10%, from sales charge of 7%(non CPF) to 3% swiching fee, trailer fee and management fee to portfolio management fee. The IFAs have all kind of fees to incentivise the FAs. No wonder many insurance agents join FA firms because of this reason.
So you see where the consumers stand if there is no control from MAS.
Having said, as Daniel said that if MAS always goes to toilet or for coffee break and leave the FIs and their representatives to do as they like it is as good as having no MAS. or referee for the financial industry. Right?
money or CPF.

In that regard, could I then seek your assistance in giving your views, or opinion, on another similar issue. This issue involves a retirement scheme which was introduced in 1997 by a financial institution to help “asset rich but cash poor” retirees . It was claimed to provide a monthly cash payout to the retiree – Mr. would like to know more (#32)

This is known as an Equity Release Scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_release

54) sarek_home on November 3rd, 2008 11.20 am

……Really, people should go to Speakers’ Corner to overcome their fear and show live support to the investors and tell PAP they care enough to be there.
……

————————————————————-

Based on my personal assessment, many many do not care to attend. Even the 9500+ affected never turn up at HLP. Did I just lied? I think most of you know better. Even when their own personal pocket is directly hurt.

PERIOD.

Hi #32

The finance scheme that you referred to is probably a reverse mortgage. It was probably marketing by NTUC Income during the time that I was in charge. Can you send an e-mail to kinlian@gmail.com. I shall be happy to explain how the reverse mortgage work. It was designed to be transparent and fair to the customer.

I cannot recall the specific details of this case, but I am sure that the senior manager of NTUC Income who handled this matter could shed some light on this matter. I assume that you are related to the person who took the reverse mortgage.

3/11/08

In 1997 Asia Financial Crisis, I lost millions and I fought bankers who lied up in their sworned affidavits, up to Singapore Supreme Court.This round, the situation is totally difference and is a Global Financial Crisis and beyond our total contral. These 10,000 investors mainly Uncles and Aunties made their decision before parting their monies, many life savings and knew what they went in for and allowed GREED overcome them. The bank officers who sold them these Lehman bonds are just doing their job which I believed professional and thoroughly unlike those I dealt before (top management who really lied in their sworned affidavits and I fought them up to Singapore Supremee Court and I lost ok).

Regards
Andrew Chuah

The answer is that no one knows who who these 9500+ people are.

If they are the people who expect other investors to do the jobs while they sit back and wait, they will be the most stupid people because only in great number can it produce enough strength to pull through this debacle. Strength is unity and it is time these 9500+ to rose up and united, and only by this number that international press will help create frightening negative publicity on DBS, thus pressurize DBS to the right thing. I’m not confident that these investors will win in this lawsuit especially in this country where kangaroo run amok but still kangaroo is afraid of big number.

Therefore, I urge those 9500+ whether they are disabled, they are sick, dying, bochap, rich, wealthy, stupid, smart, clever to gather for next meeting in Hong Lim Park because if they don’t, their chance of getting their money back will be very slim.

59) Daniel on November 3rd, 2008 3.19 pm

There is more implication than just loosing their hard earned money due to possible misselling.

This solid fact of poor turn out is an absolute prove that there is a DEEP DEEP Seated problem that lies within the hearts and minds of the 90%.

TOC has done its best to educate. The young and IT literate and english iterate may have accessed TOC education. Sadly, many will not know or want to sign as they never have seen what an internet browser is and what it can do.

IT education need to reach out to every singaporean especially the non-english educated and the disabled and lower IQ and techno-fobic as well as people who give up as they think too ’smartly’ – that they can never win against the big boys. A self-realised prophecy.

Now, psychologists and socialogists as well and politicians should have a solid case study example on the mentality of the many singaporeans.

regards
Pathetically Apathetic of the Extreme type R

#59 “The bank officers who sold them these Lehman bonds are just doing their job which I believed professional and thoroughly ……”

You still insisted these officers who conned the oldies, the cancer patients, the handicapped etc for sales commission are professional & thorough?

I dare to said you invested & lost millions not for the sake of a pittance 2-3% more than fixed deposts. So who is more greedy?

These products were sold internationally. And taking a simple international comparison, the current FD rate in Singapore is ridiculously low. In the 1980’s, the savings interest rate was as “high” 3.5%!

I will say is again: getting a 5% return p.a. can hardly be a justification exposure to a 100% loss risk. How on earth could someone categorize a 5% p.a. return as greedy is beyond my comprehension.

If it is the case of mis-selling then the bank must pay up. For those who jump the gun to criticize the “cheated” victims of the bank mis-selling the investment accounts as being greedy, please put yourself in their shoe by understand the following analogies:

1. You ordered Ba Cho Mee mai dee gua, then stall uncle gave you no dee gua and extra meat ball. That is a correct expectation and you get a bonus. If you expect uncle to give you extra mee on top of that then it is greed.

2. Same Ba Cho Mee mai dee gua ordered with the stall menu board reading “Ba Cho Mee stall”, but you get mee siam mai hum in return………

THIS IS DEFINITELY MIS-SELLING!!!

MMSMPMMC, I agree that a full investigation should be made to confirm there is misselling based on the statements from all investors.

Some other people would try to fool or distract the viewers by ignoring this possibility and use sweeping statements like oh, you signed the contract that is it lor!

This is the tricks many are using in many publications (cannot be too blunt). They will use words and statements to say something that is not entirely wrong and will not fairly say that negative things like bad news. The sweeping statement gives half truth, ignoring the other truths. Students nowadays should be smart enough to read between the lines and understand this trap when reading publications.

Another example , half truth : demonstrations occured in xyz country. blood all over. violence and destructions. BUT!! what about this missing truth : blood was caused by an accident not related to the demonstration which was peaceful and violence was for short while due to unrelated incident of 2 drunk men fighting with each other? they also caused some destructions as they throw stones at the shops.

>>> in the above hypothetical scenario, the initial report was not a lie. It was a half truth. The other half truth is missing. I urge all students to demand the full picture in whatever you read , for examper, in your text books. cannot say too bluntly. ;) but you students smarter than me right? should get my point. ;)
When all demand the same, CHANGE will come.

on 9) Andrew Chuah on November 2nd, 2008 2.22 pm

“These Banks and their officesrs who had sold the Lehman bonds to the 100,000 investors, had done their job professionally and explained thoroughly………”

Daear Mr Andrew Chuah

Have you ever talked to those sales representative or RM with desperate for quota before? They will not tell you the risk you have to take and jsut keep on mentioning abt the ~5% of the intereste…
If these banks were really very “Professionally” and explained thoroughly than porbably the retiree should not have involed in this incident as they are very conservative type of investors like my parent do. They wouldn’t have to take this ~5% interest and gamble for their entire saving with FI.

To All who oppose the good work done at Hong Lim Park,

I would like to offer a favourite phrase used by our Ministers:
DO NOT POLITICIZE THE ISSUE!

(…when they don’t want to answer certain things or give a direct reply.)

And I wish for our government and banks to have a good heart and start re-connecting to the ordinary man on the street.

Jim.

Where is the Chairman of MAS ? Eco-city Tianjin ? Still in Davos’ Tianjin ? Please say and do something more to help affected citizens.

“Some other people would try to fool or distract the viewers by ignoring this possibility and use sweeping statements like oh, you signed the contract that is it lor!”

What is worse is that such narrow thought and words are perpetuated by the leaders who hog the limelight as headline in ShittyTimes. Surely we remember what Pinkish Clown and Woody Pecker thoughtlessly implying CAVEAT EMPTOR as the issue when the case first blown up. The real issue is about mis-selling and mis-representation, not Caveat Emptor. Our leaders are happily leading the way towards “mis-selling and mis-represent” the main issue themselves. Anyway, I am not surprised as these leaders give a conspicuous impression of wiggling the out of way of responsibility and accountability since both are “indirectly” responsible for the saga (PM (prior to Woody) and Woody manages MAS)
Contrast those message from Hong Kong government.

Look at how things are conveniently pushed.

Read the message
“http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/statements/2002/Address_by_DPM_at_MAS_Staff_Seminar_2002__29_Oct_2002.html”
Address by Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
Chairman, MAS
At MAS Staff Seminar
29 October 2002
“Market Discipline and Caveat Emptor

22. Our efforts to promote market discipline and a caveat emptor regime have focussed on enhancing the amount, quality and timeliness of information disclosed by institutions. We have shifted from a merit-based supervisory approach to a disclosure-based approach that emphasises market discipline to incentivise financial institutions to conduct their business in a sound, efficient, and professional manner. The local banks in particular have significantly improved their disclosure practices.

23. We must continue to update our disclosure standards in line with industry developments and international best practice. Furthermore, the mindset change is not yet complete. The public still expects to be protected from downside risks, for example when playing the stock market, but more so when depositing their money in banks. Hence one major motivation for introducing deposit insurance is to change this mindset, and get people to understand that only a limited first tranche of their deposits with a bank is protected should the bank run into trouble.

24. But disclosure by itself is not enough. It must be accompanied by investor education. Investors have to understand and use the information provided to them. They must learn to make sense of this information and use it to look after their own interests. We also need a pool of knowledgeable analysts and journalists who will shine the spotlight on any obscure fine print that the lay investor fails to notice. A more informed and sophisticated investor base will reinforce market discipline and form the basis for a more vibrant and mature financial sector. In all these respects, we have a long way to go.

25. Market discipline also requires an effective enforcement regime. To preserve investor confidence, penalties for transgressions must be swift and appropriate. MAS now has the power to investigate and bring a court action for market misconduct under the new civil penalty regime. This will complement the existing criminal penalty regime administered by CAD.”

Andrew Chuah,
Are you the same person as T ? Your predicament sounds similarly to T so I suspect that you are T. Anyway, from you hve written, you sound very bitter having lost millions over case perhaps due to kangaroo court. Our kangaroos are well-known for pro-business and will protect the business interest, be it MNC, etc at expense of citizen (That is what happen when you have pathetic demcracy and human right). Still, you cannot veil your bitterness and anger over your loss on these innocent investors. Most of these investors are like you when investing thinking that the so-called world-class bank system, especially a national bank, is partial, trustable and just, little did they realize in this debacle that they are living in a make-believe world created by the expensive clowns. I surmise that some investors will probably end up like you, with bitterness and regret over the trust of Singapore system.

As an ex RM and insurance agent, I am all for a basic salary and small commission. To pay hefty commission on products sold gives more room for an agent to be unethical. In fact, many small third party financial firms have begin to stay giving basic pay for their agents and a small commission for any sales done. PRU and Income all have such schemes on going but sad to say, many agents opt for full commisison schemes as it meant they can earn the sky-the-limit income.
It is not surprising to see agents earned six figures salaries on average and for some top-notch TOT (Top of the Table) agents to earn seven figure salaries annually. A MDRT (Milliond dollar round table) agent earned around $50,000 a year depending on commission revenue and some MDRT agents even earned more than $50,000 due to their renewal income i.e. income incurred from previous years of commission earned. If you are an MDRT agent continuously for a few years, income of between $75,000 to $100,000 is common.
I am not saying all agents and RMs are unethical in their selling. I have seen many perform their jobs above board and within the law. Of course, in any trade, there will be bad sheep in the family. Companies and MAS have come down hard on unethical selling and some were disciplined or banned totally from mis selling malpractices.
I believe for banks’ RMs, their targetting of the vulnerable group who simply prefer to pack their money in safer instrument in FD should be discouraged. They do not have the risk appetite for any unit trust let alone such high risk product as minibonds. Some may even say that this money is for their final funeral expenses.
AS Singapore progresses, let us learn a lesson here and I am sure that MAS will clear the cob webs like they have do all along. They have all along allow banks and FIs to operate freely as that is the hall mark of any open economy concept. This time round, I am sure they will interfere, as it concerns alot of the public money.

i am a treasury advisor in a bank, supporting a team of ‘experienced’ RMs. Experienced, because they had worked for a no. of years as one. Honestly, do I think the RMs are as smart as you thought…?

I would think 80% of them would not understand the mechanism behind a minibond. Even more won’t not be able to explain the technicalities in mandarin to an old heartlander retiree.

As what they say, do not buy any products from RMs at month-end. Those are periods whereby anything that can be sold will be sold to meet their quota, or to achieve certain landmark for which the commission payout is much higher.

You see young RMs driving fancy sports car, I do not think they deserve all these. The compensation plan is skewed, very skewed. Every month there is an award ceremony celebrating the top salesmen. And really, clients under them are probably the worst off given the high ‘churn-rate’ to achieve these top sales.

Alas that said, I feel like a partner-in-crime. But I only advise, not into the sales. That is my consolation and of course, I do not have a big paycheck hence. At least i am at peace.

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your posting #68

I wish to quote the following:

25. Market discipline also requires an effective enforcement regime. To preserve investor confidence, penalties for transgressions must be swift and appropriate. MAS now has the power to investigate and bring a court action for market misconduct under the new civil penalty regime. This will complement the existing criminal penalty regime administered by CAD.”

In the first Petition signed by 983 investors, there was a call for MAS or CAD to investigate into any wrong doing by the financial institutions that created or marketed the product. So far, there is no news on this matter.

I hope that they will “investigate and bring a court action for market misconduct”. This is so obvious already.

Hi Daniel-I am not T.I lost S$30million plus in 1997 Asia Financial Crisis (bulk in Foreign Deposits pledged for my banking facilities with 5 Banks in Singapore).The bank officers who sold these 10,000 investors mainly Uncles & Aunties are taught to do their jobs and I believe that they had done it professionally, unlike those top bankers I dealt with and I fought them up to Singapore Supreme Court which I lost besides huge legal fees.These 10,000 investors mainly Uncles & Aunties must also shoulder the blame and blame themselves for being GREEDY.I am fully aware that our Singapore Legal System is much better than our neighbours which I had my fair share fighting in their courts where judges and my lawyers were bribed (we don’t have such things in Singapore which we can be proud of,foreigners are using our Singapore Legal System to get judgement and then implement in these countries-I should had done this in 1997 but I did not expect these situations ie judges and my lawyers were bribed)

Regards
Andrew Chuah

I am a retiree and had my fair share of financial losses from 1997( massive losses in value of MRs,unit trusts, etc); there was no recourse whatever attempts were made and I decided then never to walk into the banks again.

I am happy to see the present help being made by citizens to citizens – whatever the outcome. Now at least, the feeling is that you are not alone. When you are minoritility affected, you are expected to suffer in silence. Look at other issues like the UNSWAsia campus sudden closure- nobody would want to take responsibilty for the affected students. Look at the faulty cash cards. Look at the seat belt issue for student transport. Look at the occurence of dog attack human incident even when tipped off, and many more and as an old man, I am tired of bringing them up.
As an older generation citizen, I am used to be “stoic”. But the feeling is that the policy makers are quick to claim credit through the local papers but very slow to try to solve real problems when they surface. Perhaps it is the case of safeguarding their rice bowls – in present days, golden rice bowls indeed, and golden parachutes with jobs waiting even in retirement if one is well guarded through.
I wish the younger generation well and hope that you will build a better Singapore for to-morrow with TOC’s initiatives.

I am happy to see the present help being made by citizens to citizens – whatever the outcome. Now at least, the feeling is that you are not alone. When you are minoritility affected, you are expected to suffer in silence. Look at other issues like the UNSWAsia campus sudden closure- nobody would want to take responsibilty for the affected students. – Stoic Retiree

Welcome, Community Spirit :D

Many other nations’ authorities has successfully help their residents to demand for compensation, ours choose to quiet n choose not to admit their negligence on allowing this US investment bank scam to dug deep into our citizen’s pocket.. this is one part that I do not understand.

If you had done some research, US banks already knew that some of their asset are sitting at aloss by early 2006 which marks the end of the US housing boom. However, these unethical suckers choose to artificially prolong these boom by transfering these asset from their balance sheets to an empty shell company, These is what Lehman had done by setting up “MInibond Ltd’. ( The fact that they name it with the word “bond” already aims to misrepresent). These subprime toxic assets are then split up according to “priorities” in uncovering their loss in an event if the asset really drops in value , which US banks already would eventually happen when they design this. These split out asset( CDO) are then packaged with other similar products given a rating and sell to other banks and their consumers, thereby diversifying their risk and loss.

With prolonged low interest rates and minimium regulation on the financial system in the US, the Sgp government, FIs, RMs and investors alike are all being fooled by the US investment banks. The investors here are not unreasonable ppl, they just wants the pain to be shared and the admirable Mr Tan is doing his utmost to help them. It is unfair for the investors to bear all the consequences as they are naturally the most vulnerable ones here.

I strongly feel the government has to do something right. We do not want olympic medals , F1 race or some “windmills” in the city if we cant even protect our fellow citizens. These are like terrorist acts but shipped directly from the US. If nothing has been done by the authorities , I think sgpreans should remembered this for a long time.

Hi Donaldson Tan

Good short posting, as Singaporeans we can use the Balot box to exercise our rights for changes in the coming General Election like our Malaysian brothers up north who voted in the Pakatan Rakyat with 83 seats in the Malaysian Parliament and 5 state goverments ie Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Ipoh and Selangor. We Singaporeans are not stupid, blind or uneducated and bulk of us are Middle Class with education-70% and we only need a good,matured and constructive Oppositions who are equal and better than the PAP.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Is there a law or regulation on who not to sell the mini bonds to?
When selling, don’t the RMs know that there are many who do not know the risks of such mini bonds?
Are RMs happy when uneducated investors buy from them?
For Complex Financial products , I believe there should be regulations to prevent RMs from selling to the uneducated, if it does not yet exist.

For now, if there is misselling, the contract should be partially void and 50% returned to investors. And if there is some kind of wrong doing, why limit to the uneducated? Why should there be discrimination to educated ones?

Wrong is wrong, if it is found to be so.

To be fair, I believe investors also should take half the responsibility and be glad to accept 50% refund.

I just have on thing to say to Andrew Chuah and dudboi (I’m not sure if its already said cause i didn’t read all replies)

To all who believe that DBS had mis-sold in HK but is too ethical to missell its products here, do you really think that its procedures are that different in these two countries?

My mum was offerred the High Notes when she wanted to create a FD for me on my 21st birthday. Her RM (who obviously knows how risk-adverse she is after handling her for over 10years) tried to push HN5 as a higher interest alternative to normal FDs.

And the whole time before I opened my mouth he was saying that there was a risk that the interest rate might be lower than 5% (or whatever that number is). Yes obviously I know that the number they gave is the highest. And so, he did not even say that we could lose our principal (even part of it).

Unfortunately (for him not my mother) I study Finance, and hence I know its not that simple. So he said its a product of 6 companies and hence at most we will lose 1/6 of our investment, and that the collapse of any of these 6 companies is highly unlikely (I would agree totally back then), but then its a structured product. So its not that simple, and it includes all the credit swap default things which i don’t want to describe here, but let me just say that instead of dividing the risk by 6, the RISK of default is MULTIPLIED by 6.

Obviously I told my mum to stay away. Unfortunately not everyone knows about investments or knows someone who knows.

forex