////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.

All Tans are related in one way or another.)))

Otherwise why same surname?

////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.

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.

lol…

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…

Would you consider changing your nick to “mice is nicer”…

haha… well whose know. It may work.

Tan Kin Lian has set up FiSCA to educate consumers.

http://www.fisca.sg/

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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?

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.

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.

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.

////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!!

+.+

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*