Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Moderation of my blog
I adopt the following approach towards moderating my blog:
a) I allow people to express honest views, even if they disagree with my views
b) I allow more than 95% of comments to be published
c) I block comments that are malicious, defamatory or personal attacks
Those who wish to make personal attacks can do it in other blogs. You will not be granted the "freedom" to do it here. If they disagree with my moderation policy, they do not have to visit my blog.
a) I allow people to express honest views, even if they disagree with my views
b) I allow more than 95% of comments to be published
c) I block comments that are malicious, defamatory or personal attacks
Those who wish to make personal attacks can do it in other blogs. You will not be granted the "freedom" to do it here. If they disagree with my moderation policy, they do not have to visit my blog.
New ez-Link card
A new ez-Link card is being introduced. What is the purpose of changing to this new card? Read about my experience here.
Higher motor premiums
Are you paying higher motor premiums? Here are some tips on how to reduce your cost of transport. Read here.
Pricetag to raise a child - US$ 221,190
The heavy price tag to raise a child is a major factor in the declining birth rate in developed countries, including Singapore. It is also the result of the "free market" policies adopted by these governments, that has allowed the cost to be exorbitant. Read this article:
If governments wish to see a higher birth rate, it has to recognise that the cost of raising a child (up to three in a family) should be borne by society, and not by the individual parents. Policies have to be adopted to reduce the cost burden, such as subsidised medical care for pregnancy and childbirth and access to free or subsidised education up to tertiary level.
If parents are relieved of this heavy cost, they are more inclined to take the other burden of parenting. This requires higher taxation, but it is fair. Those who choose to remain single can help to pay the parents to raise the children for the future of the nation. We have to think beyond self interest to the interest of the nation.
Tan Kin Lian
Early redemption of mortgage loan
Dear Mr. Tan,
I recently sold my property after holding it for 5 years. The mortgage loan was 85% of the property value. It took 10 weeks from the exercise of the option (by the buyer) and the completion of the sale.
According to my lawyer, the bank wanted to charge the following:
a) Early redemption penalty of 1.5% (which I am aware of and will accept)
b) Interest in lieu of short notice, as I have to give 3 months notice (which I am disputing)
I dispute the payment of the additional two weeks of interest on the following grounds:
a) This clause was not highlighted to me during contract signing
b) The 10 weeks to compete the sale of property is a typical time frame in the industry. Why should I extend my closing date in favour of the banks?
c) Why does a bank need 3 months to basically tabulate outstanding loan amount and receive money?
d) Why should I be charged interests on a Loan that doesn’t exist.
The bank has obviously insisted that the 3 months notice was scripted in the TC of the loan agreement. The principle behind this charge is seriously flawed. If this is a common bank practice across Singapore. I would like to question the validity and need for such a clause in a mortgage agreement.
REPLY
Here are the steps that you can take:
1. Write a letter of complaint to the media, e.g. Straits Times.
2. Write a complaint to FIDREC, www.fidrec.com.sg
3. Write a complaint to MAS, so that they are aware about how the banks are behaving.
I encourage consumers to fight against unfair terms, even though they have been placed into the complicated legal documents that they were asked to sign. I wish you all the best.
I recently sold my property after holding it for 5 years. The mortgage loan was 85% of the property value. It took 10 weeks from the exercise of the option (by the buyer) and the completion of the sale.
According to my lawyer, the bank wanted to charge the following:
a) Early redemption penalty of 1.5% (which I am aware of and will accept)
b) Interest in lieu of short notice, as I have to give 3 months notice (which I am disputing)
I dispute the payment of the additional two weeks of interest on the following grounds:
a) This clause was not highlighted to me during contract signing
b) The 10 weeks to compete the sale of property is a typical time frame in the industry. Why should I extend my closing date in favour of the banks?
c) Why does a bank need 3 months to basically tabulate outstanding loan amount and receive money?
d) Why should I be charged interests on a Loan that doesn’t exist.
The bank has obviously insisted that the 3 months notice was scripted in the TC of the loan agreement. The principle behind this charge is seriously flawed. If this is a common bank practice across Singapore. I would like to question the validity and need for such a clause in a mortgage agreement.
REPLY
Here are the steps that you can take:
1. Write a letter of complaint to the media, e.g. Straits Times.
2. Write a complaint to FIDREC, www.fidrec.com.sg
3. Write a complaint to MAS, so that they are aware about how the banks are behaving.
I encourage consumers to fight against unfair terms, even though they have been placed into the complicated legal documents that they were asked to sign. I wish you all the best.
SCMP:Watchdog accused over Lehman probe decision
4 August 2009
Lawmakers criticised the financial regulator for suspending an investigation over the selling of non-minibond products after banks agreed a HK$6.3 billion deal to repay Lehman Brothers minibonds buyers.
Securities and Futures Commission chief executive Martin Wheatley said the commission had not only ended its top-down inquiry into minibonds, but also suspended investigation of other products from the 16 banks under the agreement.
He was speaking at a hearing of the subcommittee on the debacle surrounding the sale of Lehman Brothers financial products.
Democrat James To Kun-sun told the five-hour meeting: "It's about the minibonds agreement with the banks, but you {hellip} voluntarily suspended your statutory duty to investigate the systematic failure [over the selling] of non-minibonds products."
Another democrat, Kam Nai-wai, asked Mr Wheatley if he thought the interests of other buyers who bought Constellation Notes, a derivative similar to minibonds also issued by Lehman Brothers, or equity-linked notes had been sacrificed.
Lehman Brothers minibonds holders will receive letters before Monday from the banks who will repay them at least 60 per cent of the value of their initial investment.
Mr Wheatley said the investigation into non-minibonds products, involving about 500 cases, had been suspended because the latest deal required the banks to immediately implement improved complaints-handling procedures to resolve all complaints they received.
He said the investigation of three other banks, which were not included in the payout deal because they sold Lehman-related products apart from minibonds, continued. Investors should first turn to banks if they had complaints, and then the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
Subcommittee chairman Raymond Ho Chung-tai said it would ask the commission to submit an original copy of the agreement, investigation findings of the 16 minibond-selling banks, as well as e-mail exchanges the commission had with the Monetary Authority and financial officials before it reached the deal.
Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of high-risk credit-linked derivatives, and are marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies. Hong Kong investors lost billions of dollars on minibonds guaranteed by Lehman Brothers when the US investment bank went bankrupt last September.
Lawmakers criticised the financial regulator for suspending an investigation over the selling of non-minibond products after banks agreed a HK$6.3 billion deal to repay Lehman Brothers minibonds buyers.
Securities and Futures Commission chief executive Martin Wheatley said the commission had not only ended its top-down inquiry into minibonds, but also suspended investigation of other products from the 16 banks under the agreement.
He was speaking at a hearing of the subcommittee on the debacle surrounding the sale of Lehman Brothers financial products.
Democrat James To Kun-sun told the five-hour meeting: "It's about the minibonds agreement with the banks, but you {hellip} voluntarily suspended your statutory duty to investigate the systematic failure [over the selling] of non-minibonds products."
Another democrat, Kam Nai-wai, asked Mr Wheatley if he thought the interests of other buyers who bought Constellation Notes, a derivative similar to minibonds also issued by Lehman Brothers, or equity-linked notes had been sacrificed.
Lehman Brothers minibonds holders will receive letters before Monday from the banks who will repay them at least 60 per cent of the value of their initial investment.
Mr Wheatley said the investigation into non-minibonds products, involving about 500 cases, had been suspended because the latest deal required the banks to immediately implement improved complaints-handling procedures to resolve all complaints they received.
He said the investigation of three other banks, which were not included in the payout deal because they sold Lehman-related products apart from minibonds, continued. Investors should first turn to banks if they had complaints, and then the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
Subcommittee chairman Raymond Ho Chung-tai said it would ask the commission to submit an original copy of the agreement, investigation findings of the 16 minibond-selling banks, as well as e-mail exchanges the commission had with the Monetary Authority and financial officials before it reached the deal.
Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of high-risk credit-linked derivatives, and are marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies. Hong Kong investors lost billions of dollars on minibonds guaranteed by Lehman Brothers when the US investment bank went bankrupt last September.
he Standard:SFC to tackle equity-linked notes fiasco after settling minibonds saga\
4 August 2009
The Securities and Futures Commission has vowed to speed up its investigation into sales of Lehman Brothers equity-linked notes after settling the minibond controversy.
But the watchdog's chief executive could not provide a timetable because it is negotiating with banks that sold the notes.
Martin Wheatley told lawmakers yesterday he could not say if the ELN issue would follow the minibond model, but ``a settlement is always the best outcome.''
The SFC and 16 distributing banks agreed on July 23 on a settlement proposal to pay back 60 to 70 percent of the original investments of thousands of minibond holders. But ELN investors _ and those labeled as ``professional investors'' and ``experienced investors'' _ were excluded. Banks have agreed to repay minibond investors up to HK$6.3 billion with the SFC ending its ``top-to-bottom'' investigation.
Wheatley said the SFC would let minibond holders decide if they will accept the offer, and would not resume its efforts even if half of the investors reject the deal.
``Investors could complain to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority or even go to court,'' he said.
``If there have been multiple purchases of complex financial products, then it's more difficult for them to argue that they could not have understood the complex nature of a structured product.''
The Securities and Futures Commission has vowed to speed up its investigation into sales of Lehman Brothers equity-linked notes after settling the minibond controversy.
But the watchdog's chief executive could not provide a timetable because it is negotiating with banks that sold the notes.
Martin Wheatley told lawmakers yesterday he could not say if the ELN issue would follow the minibond model, but ``a settlement is always the best outcome.''
The SFC and 16 distributing banks agreed on July 23 on a settlement proposal to pay back 60 to 70 percent of the original investments of thousands of minibond holders. But ELN investors _ and those labeled as ``professional investors'' and ``experienced investors'' _ were excluded. Banks have agreed to repay minibond investors up to HK$6.3 billion with the SFC ending its ``top-to-bottom'' investigation.
Wheatley said the SFC would let minibond holders decide if they will accept the offer, and would not resume its efforts even if half of the investors reject the deal.
``Investors could complain to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority or even go to court,'' he said.
``If there have been multiple purchases of complex financial products, then it's more difficult for them to argue that they could not have understood the complex nature of a structured product.''
SCMP:Flawed system
A few days ago I was in a hospital in Tsuen Wan waiting to have some X-rays taken when I read a notice, the gist of which was, that if someone claiming CSSA benefits was found to be doing so without being entitled to them that they could be liable to serve 10 years in prison. I was astounded, as only a day or so earlier I had read that all the bankers involved in the selling of the worthless minibonds had been let off scot free.
Banks and their agents can knowingly promote and sell worthless bonds to thousands of unwitting investors and receive nothing by way of punishment other than a warning not to do it again. But a family desperate just to survive - not to make money, just survive - could result in a family member going to prison for 10 years.
There must be something terribly wrong with the justice system for this to be so.
Banks and their agents can knowingly promote and sell worthless bonds to thousands of unwitting investors and receive nothing by way of punishment other than a warning not to do it again. But a family desperate just to survive - not to make money, just survive - could result in a family member going to prison for 10 years.
There must be something terribly wrong with the justice system for this to be so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)