Comments on: Fidrec – more symbolism than substance?

By: gemami

gemami — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:05:53 +0000

No point knowing what it stands for; it is just another useless government institution set up for show without substance.

Just received news a minute ago that one on my colleague’s friend had jumped from her flat in Toa Payoh yesterday evening. She was only about 40 years of age.
Her husband is one of the 10,000 victims of the minibomb saga.

Now we know how fatal it can be for such a smokescreen body to even exist.

By: loop

loop — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:47:39 +0000

If not for the minibond saga, not many people would know what does FiDREC stands for?

By: Parka

Parka — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:27:51 +0000

Show me how they are paid and I will show you how they are going to behave.

In easy to understand terms, they (FIDREC) will still get paid regardless of what they do, so they are not going to do anything.

By: yoyo

yoyo — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 07:50:11 +0000

FIDREC was set up by banks and insurance companies to settle disputes with the consumers. The judges are paid by them. Do you think FIDREC is independent and impartial when resolving your issues with them? The judge knows who is the boss — the one who pay him for his services. So, how can it be independent? Unless FIDREC is run independently without any connection with the banks or insurance companies, no way it can be impartial.

By: moshedyan

moshedyan — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 05:16:19 +0000

[YT=""]bNmcf4Y3lGM[/YT]
above from ytube
don’t know how to link
sell explaint
original in german
with english subtitle

a true to life story
serious
kosher stuff

By: Richard Woo

Richard Woo — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:53:31 +0000

To A Tan [#12]

The message I posted is one that is not strictly about the threshold figure of $50,000. It is also to point out the bureaucracy which appears to my mind to be irrational, concerning joint investment accounts. Read thru again if necessary the A and B case I cited and you will understand why. Opening a joint account is for some people a convenient safeguard against what may outturn to be a complex matter with legal paper work in the event of death of an account holder.

Richard Woo

By: Richard Woo

Richard Woo — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 12:32:06 +0000

Long San [#8]

Tks for the kind words.

Andrew Loh deserves all the credit, for agreeing to its publication and for some fine editing to my comments.

rgds Richard

By: A Tan

A Tan — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:08:18 +0000

Making a mountain of molehill, Richard?

I’m sure that FiDREC will alert investors claiming more than $50,000 that they need to get FIs consent

This “ltd” will become an issue only if the FIs object to claims above $50,000 being heard or insist that the claims be lowered to $50,000.

By: zhummmeng

zhummmeng — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:01:58 +0000

FIDREC is placed in between to drag the time hopefully you aggrieved investors will be tired out and give up. It is just a wayang in the grander scheme of things.
Don’t waste time and move on to the legal stage where the real battle is; it is public .
FIDREC is not public.

By: Thian Long San

Thian Long San — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:16:00 +0000

Dear Richard Woo,

although I am not an investor,
I wish to thank you on behalf of these 10,000 investors
for your kind and useful information.

you have help many people who do not have the knowledge of what you mentioned.

thanks once again.

May your good deed bring you good karma in 2009.

By: Dollas and sands

Dollas and sands — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:13:10 +0000

MAS ultimate GOAL is to make a preserve this little dot (red bloody dot) as A World-Class Financial Centre, to manage our rich neighbours money, to be the Swiss of the East, to be a world premier private banking centre, to a world wealth mangement centre, to be this to be endless thats.
Do you people who invested in all theses loosing-money structured products count in all these grand scheme of things. If you are ever counted at all by all these hog-washers, then wish you all the very best of good luck that is all available to you.
Dont be so very naive fellow Singaporeans. Even our powers had already chided you, not one, not two, but so many already told you – put in CPF, invest with wide eyes opened, investments dont guarantee, and if you still dont like it, then follow the leader and put your hard-earned money away for 20-30 years and wait for returns.
Please please grow up. The world is ever-changing. It really smacks me to see countless of fellow citizens still clamouring for our governments help. Thats utter rubbish in the first place – go and ask Tan Kin Lian.

By: BeWary

BeWary — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:25:32 +0000

DBS
Dont Bank with Swindlers

By: Yamasam

Yamasam — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:17:06 +0000

Honestly, this whole “doing the right thing” is beginning to look like the ultimate wayang show of the decade.

It is quite clear the FIs are stonewalling and are betting that the investors will not take them to court due to the risk of incurring high legal fees. But the most unconscionable thing is the relevant authorities are condoning it.

By: Singapore Short Stories

Singapore Short Stories — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:47:51 +0000

Thanks for the information!

By: me

me — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:15:06 +0000

i really don’t understand DBS. if there is evidence of mis-selling here, shouldn’t DBS just compensate everyone with $50k here, and get away with their reputation not totally destroyed?

assuming 200 people claimed $50k using FIDREC , maximum payout would only be $10million. If they went to trial, I am sure legal costs and final payout would easily exceed $10million, and that would only be to a part of the total number of investors. but no DBS chooses to drag their feet, and refuse to compensate most.

just doesn’t seem logical.

By: me

me — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:52:23 +0000

sorry you don’t even get to flip a coin. only can accept your fate.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:24:42 +0000

Heads they win; tails you lose!!!