Main Stories, Our Columnists, Top Story, Uncle Leong's corner - Written on Saturday, July 11, 2009 16:55 - 63 Comments
Banned from selling what nobody wants to buy?
Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Their shortfalls…” (Today, Jul 8).
Since offers and rejections were made as early as at the end of last year, I would like to ask to what extent the findings of improper conduct for each of the 10 financial institutions (FIs) were linked to individual investors or investor groups, in the decisions made by the FIs in their offers of compensation.
Otherwise, it may not be fair to investors to have had their complaints resolved without the benefit of the findings now available.
For example, a friend called me yesterday to express dismay that only nine per cent compensation was offered for the $250,000 he invested.
In this connection, 84 per cent of those offered compensation by the six stockbroking firms are for below 50 per cent of the amounts invested, and the total sum offered is only $2.74 million or 5.6 per cent of the total sums invested, which is reported to be about S$520 million. (Straits Times)
This is in spite of findings that there were “a number of inaccurate or misleading statements” by the financial institutions when the structured products were sold to customers. The MAS investigation also found that “risk characteristics … were akin to an asset allocation with a “Moderate” risk portfolio” which were “inconsistent with the warnings in the prospectuses” and that they could “involve a high degree of risk”, etc.
Another example is one bank which only offered full compensation to 7.4 per cent of complainants, and the total sum offered to all full and partial compensation is only 7.3 per cent ($7.6 million) of the total sums invested – despite the investigation revealing that “pricing statement and prospectus [were] not suitable for inexperienced investors” and that the FIs “did not explicitly communicate this to its RMs”, and that “28 RMs did not attend training … while another 21 RMs attended training but did not take the test”, etc.
Assuming an estimate of say eight per cent total fee income on the few years duration of a structured note, the estimated total fees income may be about $8.3 million for this bank alone (8% of $104 million).
In this regard, it begs the question as to how much of the total sum of compensation offered, less rejections, bears in relation to the total fees earned.
As structured notes have been sold for many years, is the compensation offered only a fraction of what financial institutions have earned over the last few years?
So, what is the total amount of fees earned by financial institutions which sold these notes?
The penalty for the 10 FIs in essence is a ban from selling structured notes for six months to two years. Given the likelihood that not many may buy such products after this saga, the penalty may seem to be rather light and inconsequential to the FIs.
Going forward, will the cases going through FIDREC now be assessed by linking the findings to each investor or investor group?
In contrast to the above, media reports say that 16 banks in Hong Kong will offer to pay most investors who were sold minibonds 60 to 70 per cent of their investment.
By the way, POSBank has recently started selling structured products. As I understand that POSBank is part of DBS, does the 6-month ban on selling structured notes apply to POSBank too?
Read also:
Banned till they shape up – Today.
—–
Below is a Straits Times report on the ban by MAS
204 DBS High Notes 5 investors suing bank
By Francis Chan 10 July 2009 ST
MORE than 200 investors who lost a total of about $17 million on structured notes sold by DBS Bank are suing the bank in a bid to get their money back.
Legal firm Premier Law, which served notice on DBS yesterday, said the claim is based on the ‘prospectus and pricing statement relating to the [DBS High] Notes 5′.
The investors want the notes declared ‘void’ and their stakes repaid.
‘The investors have taken this course of action after careful consideration, having sought advice from their legal advisors,’ said Premier Law.
A DBS spokesman said last night that the bank remains confident that the case is ‘without merit and we will defend it’.
The Straits Times understands that the 204 investors involved in the suit had lost about $17 million on the complex structured notes.
More than 1,400 investors here bought $103 million worth of DBS High Notes 5. More than half of them invested $50,000 or less.
A report from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) on Tuesday detailed flaws in the sales processes of 10 financial institutions – including DBS – that sold products like DBS High Notes 5 linked to failed US investment bank Lehman Brothers.
DBS High Notes 5 were offered to better-off customers last year with a promised annual return of about 5 per cent, but the investors were told by the bank in October that their entire stake had been wiped out with the collapse of Lehman.
Many investors complained that they had been mis-sold the complex structured notes, with some claiming they were told the notes were a low-risk investment.
The MAS report found that the 10 institutions had applied different internal controls and failed in a number of areas.
It also said that some institutions did not ensure that staff were properly trained and had accurate and complete information needed to sell the notes.
In the case of DBS, the report stated that 49 of its relationship managers, who had not taken the required training course, had sold the notes to 303 clients.
The MAS banned DBS from selling new structured notes for at least six months starting from July 1. The other nine institutions received similar bans, with Hong Leong Finance being barred for two years, the harshest penalty.
However, the MAS made it clear that the institutions’ failings and the penalties they received do not automatically mean they will be legally liable to investors.
Premier Law said the investors’ move was not in response to the release of the findings by MAS.
‘This group of investors have been considering their options for several months away from the media spotlight, and it was only after careful consideration that they have decided to take this route to recover their investment,’ said Premier Law’s Siraj Omar.
The investors also sought the opinion of Professor Michael Furmston, dean of the Singapore Management University’s law faculty, said the Premier Law statement.
An SMU spokesman said that Prof Furmston was travelling and could not confirm if he was involved in the case in his personal capacity.
According to the MAS report, DBS paid out $7.6 million to 197 affected investors out of the 866 complaints it had investigated and ruled on.
The bank’s payout amounted to about a tenth of the $70 million to $80 million DBS had set aside to compensate investors in Singapore and Hong Kong earlier this year.
The Straits Times understands that most of the investors in the Premier Law group have gone through the three-step complaints resolution process recommended by the MAS.
The MAS had earlier urged investors who could not resolve their differences with the institutions to ask the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) to resolve their dispute. It also urged investors to avoid taking legal action unless they had exhausted the three-step process.
It is not clear whether any of the 204 investors involved in the suit had accepted compensation offers before embarking on this legal route.
—
Related posts:
63 Comments
The last part of your article mentioned that POSBank has recently started selling structured products. Just to clarify, I believed what POSBank is currently offering is a structured DEPOSIT, which is different from a stuctured NOTES which is what the ban is all about.
Structured Deposits are required to provide principal protection at maturity while structured Notes are not so there is quite a major difference there.
tattooedbanker,
Principal protection does not mean principal guaranteed. You can lose all your principal all the same, whether it is called notes or deposit.
These are also not part of full Gahmen guarantee for deposits till end 2010, which cover only savings, current and fixed deposit accounts with banks.
yes, can still lose all, IF POSBank goes bankrupt. In all honestly, what are the chances of that?
If its a structured notes, it just needs one of the underlying company collapses, as we all know what happened to the lehman brothers.
so there is a MAJOR difference, i just want to make sure everyone knows that before fingers starts pointing blindly. there are many customers that will willingly buy structured deposits, but not as many into structured notes.
the result of greed
I hope singaporeans still remember the lessons learnt from the saga.
Sadly , I also recall the ginko bilobah deficit syndrome that many have shown they have every 5 years or so.
So, i am not optimistic they will learn nor they have learnt.
Trust to me is a 5 letter word and more.
Uniquely Singapore!
our country protects the business at the expense of the people, what would you expect?
aiyoyo
$250000, can get a 3room flat, or maybe a 4room flat…
alamak, now gone, sad story..
aiyoyo
i wonder is it true that history repeats itself at least for financial system where each crisis is due to greed of some sort? are the growth figures real or you-mere-mortal-believe-is-real? i mean figures like those reported by large usa companies and some international large companies?
DBS has exhibited very cruel and inhuman attitude towards its loyal customers.
DBS cheated customers’ hard earned money and yet accuse them for knowing all the risks.
We should all boycott this inhuman and despicable bank.
Hongkies have shown that they not afraid to get violent. DBS and BoC premises attacked.
And the numbers of people affected are significant. I think abt 200,000.
2.5% of population.
So govmin has to listen.
S’poreans are passive, and investors are only 0.25% of population. Best crowd that Tan Kin Lian got out was abt 1000. Numbers dropped after that crowd. 1000 is only 10% of investors. He had 5 rallies and average seems to be more like 500 or 5% of investors.
In HK I have been told protests regularly attract 20,000 people, 10% of investors.
So what you expect?
Ignore posting #12.
Got the number of Hongkies sold minibonds wrong.
All calculations of HK wrong. Will try to get authorative no. of investors in HK, and repost.
MAS has acted the way it did because it has not been totally free of guilt, for having been gung-ho in allowing the sale of such products without realizing, presumably, how risky these products were to retail inverstors.
If MAS had perused the relevant prospectuses of these products with a critical eye they would have noticed the high risks involved relative to the promised returns, in which case they would have been negligent for not issuing a cautionary note to the investing public.
If they had not themselves read the prospectuses although they had received them, but instead had allowed them to collect dust somewhere in their office premises, they can also be accused of the sin of omission, of being negligent as the governing authority with an overall oversight for the sale of investments in Singapore.
POSB-DBS still has the cheek to include “deposit” in the name of a non-deposit financial product a DEPOSIT?
“DBS has exhibited very cruel and inhuman attitude towards its loyal customers.”
Despicable Bloody System ?
my cheekopek dad cheated by beautiful sexy DBS girls into buying structured products and lost quite a bit. DBS shouldn’t hire girls who literally prostitute their financial products to lascivous old men.
Zachary,
Haha! Now you know why most RMs are young sexy things. Product advice and knowledge from them? Haha!
So I think some victims are partly to blame. Blame them for being old, rich and are men.
now u know why successful insurance agents are girls too. You know I know. These agents know Fxxx about finance but they do know how to prostitute themselves. Many of the recent cheats reported in ST were also girls. Cant; blame them if the cheekopeks want to be Fxxxed by them.
Next time you buy any financial product, just assume the GREED is the principle of how it works. It is just a matter of the degree of greed.
Now you know why after so many years our financial centre is always behind HK.
‘BANNED FROM SELLING NOBODY WANTS TO BUY’
Precisely!
Hey those Elites at the top! Stop wayang la!
If the F.I.s are really at fault, this ‘punishment’ is too light! Banning them from selling what now are almost unsellable is utterly a disgrace to the supervisory system here in Singapore.
Manah Boleh ? In Hong Kong, same trouble but the Banks there paid up ços the HK Givernment must have pressed the Banks’ balls ! Why can we get same help from our pay and pay government ?
ObamaosamaHongKong Boleh
FIs must be punished until they cannot recognise their mother
RMs must be punished until they return the car, the condo, LVs and all that they robbed from their victims.
All investors must be paid every cent they lost because of the above
I am proud that over 200 investors who bought into DBS structured products – minibond – have taken the bank to court in a class action suit.
Kudos to these investors – who say Singaporeans have no balls??
“Why can we get same help from our pay and pay government?”
PAP Rule No 1:
Never admit liability even if deemed wrong because it’ll tarnish credibility.
PAP Rule No 2:
Responsibility rests with the individual because the government has the biggest stake in most businesses, directly or indirectly.
PAP Rule No 3:
PAP motto – never point fingers at ourselves. Use them on others.
PAP Rule No 4:
PAP has never failed its governed people, it’s others’ economies that did.
PAP Rule No 5:
PAPsters are paid to follow, not to lead.
PAP Ultimate Rule:
Singaporeans must slog throughout their lives to upkeep PAPsters’ living standard.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 13 Jul 2009
[...] Notes & Minibonds – TOC: Banned from selling what nobody wants to buy? – Hard Hitting in the Lion City: Don’t Hold Your Breath – Tan Kin Lian’s Blog: Issues [...]
I have seen only inaction and feet-dragging coming out of the MAS. The latest MAS investigation report has capped it off. Enough has been said, it should be action from this point on.
As I recall, the SEC chairman was forced to resign within weeks of the Madoff fraud coming to light. I think it is timely to call for the resignation of MAS Managing Director Heng Swee Keat to take responsibility for firstly, the lack of enforcement by MAS and secondly, the sloppy handling of the aftermath of the Minibond debacle.
What to do…
HK got leeway to squeeze the FIs’ balls, here don’t have…
In fact, they are kowtowing to all the foreign FIs to be here, unlike HK…
So which regulator got more balls busting power? hahah
An Inconvenient Truth
Something that “100,000 names for me Tan”, Leong and investors in these notes do not tell you.
The 12 mth FD rate for banks is 2007 was 0.8% and tht of finance co was 1.5%.
Minibonds were paying 4.88% pa and DBS HN5 5% pa
This means minibond was paying 610% more than bank FD and 325% more than finco FD.
HN5 note was paying 625% more than bank FD and 367% more than finco FD.
These investors were greedy. . Not a crime to rip them off, esp the yuppies with MBAs who bhgt HN5 notes.
Vote PAP — they don’t give the “no shame” greedy a break.
hmmm, why should some be made to pay for their greed while another group benefit (through comission/profit) from it?
Adding to #30
Not fair to use 12 mth FD rate because minibond, HN5 is for 5 yrs.
There is no MAS data on 5 yr FD because there is no such FD.
So using using the yield of 5 yr govmin bonds (2.33% pa in 2007), this shows minibond interest rate of 4.88% is 209% more than the yield on 5 yr govmin paper. That of DBSHN5 is 215%.
This doesn’t make investors look so greedy but it is still a big enough markup to have warned them not to trust the RMs’ sales pitch.
They were willing victims? Do they deserve the compassion?
Remember if LB had not collapsed, they would be telling those of us who didn’t invest, “Why so stupid, leh?”
#30 Whistle Blower
Your figure is tweaked.
In 2007, the FD rate for $50,000 for Maybank was 2.4375% pa for 9 months.
The rate you stated are for amount much lower & even shorter tenure.
Before the LB debacles, banks had good reputation. Few people expected the banks to sell them something so toxic masquerading as 5 years fixed deposit.
The victims were not greedy. They just wanted to earn a few pittance more return for themselves or families.
I don’t understand why must you call them greedy & gloat over their misery.
How do you feel if others do the same to you when mishaps happen in your family?
Not Vested
#33
As I cannot remember the rates in 2007, I used the historical data available from MAS. I must admit I was surprised as I had “remembered” 12 mth bank FD rates to be around 2%.
My point and that of A Tan is to point out that in % terms, the returns were disproportionate to “safe” returns.
This should have warned investors that something ws not right.
Re: #30: Whistle Blower on July 13th, 2009 6.54 pm
(HN5 note was paying 625% more than bank FD and 367% more than finco FD.
These investors were greedy. . Not a crime to rip them off, esp the yuppies with MBAs who bhgt HN5 notes. )
Facile excuse, similar I believe of those elites in GIC & Temasek.
Any wonder that GIC & Temasek each lost tens of billions of dollars?
The TRULY GREEDY ones were and still are the bankers, and other licensed financial services personnel, including bank directors, VPs etc and MAS being caught napping.
Oh, I’m deliberately void of more substance.
Leong
(For example, a friend called me yesterday to express dismay that only nine per cent compensation was offered for the $250,000 he invested.
In this connection, 84 per cent of those offered compensation by the six stockbroking firms are for below 50 per cent of the amounts invested, and the total sum offered is only $2.74 million or 5.6 per cent of the total sums invested, which is reported to be about S$520 million. (Straits Times)
Sinkies deserve to be treated the way there are being treated for placing too much trust with the gahment.
Since when has this gahmen taken care of the people at the expense of the fat cats and privileged class? On the contrary, it is the other way round.
34) A Tan on July 15th, 2009 6.46 am
(My point and that of A Tan is to point out that in % terms, the returns were disproportionate to “safe” returns.
This should have warned investors that something ws not right.)
“Something was not right” was a long long way from TOTAL or near TOTAL LOSS.
DBS has quoted that the bank remains confident that the case is ‘without merit and we will defend it’. I am angry that DBS is defensive and unapologetic on what they have done and has the cheek to assume that they will win the suit! What cockiness…trying to test our patience.
I believe the suit will be one of the most interesting & sensational court case and I can’t wait for it to begin. Justice will prevail in the end. God Bless.
There’s an element of dishonesty within DBS. By selling such a highly risky investment with such a relatively low investment return, DBS had acted dishonorably, by not highlighting the risks involved, through the verbal dialogue with investors, DBS had acted dishonestly.
If the case has to be fight, it has to be fight outside Singapore because DBS is gov-linked and there are high-ranking gahmen holding position there. The chance of winning is slim given the rampant conflict of interest to protect themselves. The fact that the gov do nothing to check on DBS substantiate that the gov likely to be supportive of DBS winning the case. Beside MAS has a vest interest to protect the FI since admitting the scam means that the many FIs will not be protected from compensating, and incurring quite substantial loss, and affect GDP which those clowns pegged their salary against.
The common thing that ever happen is that the lawsuit deliberately drag on for years until everyone move on and give up the fight due to high running legal cost because the kangaroo says it is too complex to deliver outcome in a year or so. Delaying tactic is one of cornerstone of our kangaroo and it is a effective way to put down a fight.
If a High Court judge in Singapore could be so irrational as to use his silly, personal opinion as an excuse to prevent FEER from employing a QC to represent them in the defamation suit initiated by LKY and LHL, by saying that the case is one that is “not sufficiently complex” to warrant the deployment of a QC, “anything” can happen from taking an entity such as DBS to court, but that anything is not everything. That anything is only something, which is that the chances of DBS losing the case can be forcast as being slim, no matter how logically or legally forceful the arguments against them may be. Wanna bet?
Daniel in #40 has made some comments that are worth noting.
The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 29
[...] Notes & Minibonds – TOC: Banned from selling what nobody wants to buy? – Hard Hitting in the Lion City: Don’t Hold Your Breath – Tan Kin Lian’s Blog: Issues [...]
To rwkc #41
Yes there is an element of truth….but I still cannot believe that DBS will win outright. Lets wait and watch with our ‘eyes open’……
hi Daniel,
i agree with your points in
post #40 on July 17th, 2009 1.12 pm
when the opponents are obviously weaker, wear them down. whoever blinks 1st loses!!
*devilish grin*
mice is nice,
you know what could be worst ?
If the weaker party give up the fight, the aggressors can even ask the weaker party to pay for all the legal cost that they fight so far and even ask to bear the opportunity cost. Although politically, the kangaroo wouldn’t go to extreme but still if want to fight, make sure it is surely win, otherwise surely die. Since election is coming soon, a quick fight will be the best, no need to waste time and keep dragging. Hong Kong’s side almost reach resolution only our kangaroos hopping around, hoping someone will not find them.
hi Daniel,
////If the weaker party give up the fight, the aggressors can even ask the weaker party to pay for all the legal cost that they fight so far and even ask to bear the opportunity cost. Although politically, the kangaroo wouldn’t go to extreme but still if want to fight, make sure it is surely win, otherwise surely die.////
not too far fetched reality if things people sue the banks.
just to add maybe the banks will counter sue for spoiling their (the bank’s) reputation. either way you are right about the outcome, it will be on the extremes. that scenerio itself must have been on the minds of people who plan to take action against the banks- psychological deterance!!
+.+
mice is nice,
beside why I think those investors in Singapore have higher chance of LOSING if fight in home ground. If Singapore follow Hong Kong for full compensation and even half compensation, it will make sense that public demand that FI themselves compensate back the Town Council, MAS, Temasek Holding and GIC (did they not invest in these product too ? etc) and other gov bodies that invest in these heinous products because it is already proven cases of mis-selling and mis-representation. In other words, the repercussion of awarding the victory for investors are just too much consequence to bear for the gov. Now given these circumstances , what are the chances of investors winning the case ? The divide and conquer no longer work because now the investors have information about how Hong KOng resolves the cases positively to the advantages of investors.
hi Daniel,
so true, when fighting against the banks these people are also up against “system” that is too powerful to lose. the home ground is at their disadvantage.
this fight is worse than Durai vs SPH, size (comparison) wise. it will be a very sad day to know that the investors who ought to get fair compensation lose the legal battle…
i hope i will not get to see it, here on TOC or MSM.
Parly sits tomorrow and maybe tues, wed.
A little bird has whispered that a minister will say why govmin does not believe in across the board compensation ala HK. The statement will not mince its words on why it will not give in to the “agitation” of those who want compensation. Issue of moral hazard.
It will say that by releasing the report, it has given investors the opportunity to decide on litigation as a course of action.
49) A Tan on July 19th, 2009 10.54 am
MAS report has lots of qualifiers; some of which were mentioned by David Gerald on Talkpoint (CNA) last week (not yesterday)
Moral Hazard?
Must be a figment of imagination by the person/people who uttered that…………….just another of the excuse NOT to compensate the innocent victims/people who bought the Lehman Brothers’ linked notes.
Actually moral hazard is created when FIs and MAS could just walk away from their legal/moral liabilities, thanks to what’s stated by Daniel above.
Re: #30: Whistle Blower on July 13th, 2009 6.54 pm
(HN5 note was paying 625% more than bank FD and 367% more than finco FD.
These investors were greedy. . Not a crime to rip them off, esp the yuppies with MBAs who ……
Mr/Ms Whistle Blower, may I suggest you check your music score or should it be facts, before you start blowing.
In case you don’t know, Sio Tee went to Hong Leong Finance on 19th Nov 2007 wanting to put in a FD for 3 years paying 2.8% pa but ended with Minibond paying 4.25% pa. Premium of 1.45% so only slightly more than 50% extra with a risk that is more than 36 times more than brochure appear to sell. 6 reference entities give the impression that if one out of 6 fails, you should get five-sixth back. But with the ‘first to default’ feature never explained, the risk is magnifies and Lehman Brothers is not even listed as one of the 6 reference entities.
Am I greedy?
#51 Sio Tee
In my view, you were greedy. You were getting 178% more interest than if you had stuck to what you claim is HLF’s 3 yr rate.
For that you expected it to be as safe as fixed deposit? You juz miscalculated the odds of LB failing. Nothing to be ashamed abt. Nearly everyone did.
doing nothing to show that they have done something…..
52) Whistler Blower
Please read what I wrote again.
What is the difference between 2.8%pa and 4.25%pa. Answer is 1.45%pa over a the base of 2.8% gives me only slightly more than 50%. If you use a base period of 3 years, I would have received 8.4% and 12.75% respectively, a difference of 4.35% over base 8.4 still give you the same difference.
Am I missing something? Can you tell me how you derive at 178%????? If the difference is indeed 178%, I will be the first to admit that I am greedy.
52) Whistle Blower
You also didn’t seem to believe that the 3 year rate of FD by HLF is 2.8% by stating that I ‘claim’. Just to let you know, because the Minibond was marketed like a buying bond into the 6 reference entities, it suits my diversification plan at that time, some bond and some FD. From the same cheque I brought to HLF, the amount was split for putting into both FD and Minibond.
The FD certificate that I still hold for the 2.8% has still not matured is sufficient evidence and I still keep the sales brochure for the minibond, so clearing any of your doubts will not be a problem.
Sio Tee #54
Tan Kin Lian has set up FiSCA to educate consumers.
Suggest you join it. Difficult here to explain maths concept involved in order to clear yr misunderstanding.
#55
2.8% is a gd rate. Should have stuck to it.
mice is nice ,
maybe you need to be nicer to TKL b4 he answer you again
Would you consider changing your nick to “mice is nicer”…
haha… well whose know. It may work.
hi Daniel,
hahaa :), i wonder if that will work…
maybe being a YES-Man is better, since alternative opinions do not go well with the said person. lol….
even KopitiamApek has a bigger heart when met with alternative opinions from me, just to name a real example. ;)
dialogue is 2-way, there is more than 1 good example in TOC showing how disagreements do no always go down the (personal attack, potshot or what-not) slippery slope.
KopitiamApek i hope you dun mind i mention your name…
eh, i mean nick….
lol…
#59 Mice is nice
Bet you he will ask TOC to close this thread.
But you and me will always be there to expose the MAN who wants 100,000 people to petition him to lead them. BTW he only got 1200+ names.
So S’poreans not that dumb.
hi Benjamin the Goat,
////Bet you he will ask TOC to close this thread.
But you and me will always be there to expose the MAN who wants 100,000 people to petition him to lead them. BTW he only got 1200+ names.
So S’poreans not that dumb.////
true, i wonder how is A Tan related to Mr Tan KL. i spotted a similiar post by A Tan with the link in another article.
hey, know what, the education is not wasted on me. weehee….
support only upfront & honest people who do not put alternative views down harshly.
Mice is nice
All Tans are related in one way or another.)))
Otherwise why same surname?
hi A Tan,
////All Tans are related in one way or another.)))
Otherwise why same surname?////
guilty by association. hahaa…. :P
… not that i know how you are related but since you blindly (or not) “promoted” the link.
Leave a Reply
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
A leopard will never change their spots. That’s why POSBank has recently started selling structured products.
Anyway, short of legal action, I don’t think victims will get any better compensation.
This is the reality in Singapore, compare to Hong Kong. We should know why.