Reputation as financial services hub

Hi Mr. Tan,

I have been quietly watching you championing for those who have lost their money at minibonds and High Notes. And, I must congratulate you as it is a good first success step that ST reported that the 3 banks may compensate the "vulnerable".

I have to tell you that I also bought the minibonds, series 2, although a small sum only.

I did not seek out for such an investment. I think I went to May Bank 2 years ago to do an FD, and the RM sold it to me.

Also, with the explanation, I was given to understand that I bought the bonds of these 7 organisations. Bonds should be quite safe right esp if held to maturity?

I remembered very clearly that I asked him what was the risk?

He told me that the risk is - if any of the 7 organisations went under , then I would lose the portion depending what is the percentage of the bonds. So, I calculated the risk. At most 1 company go under, then I should still get back he rest of the money from the balance of the bonds in the basket I remembered asking him this scenario, and he did not disagree with me. Looking at the list of the 7 big companies, the chance of 1 going under is slim leave alone more than one company going under.

No time during our conversation was Lehman Bros a risk analysis factor.

My friend, who has low risk appetite and is an accountancy grad, is also affected when she bought High Notes (given the understanding that in the worse case scenario, she would get the full sum back if held until maturity). Again, she did not seek out the investment, she went to DBS to do an FD.

Hence, my main point here is that - it is not only the vulnerable is affected. Someone with degree is also affected.

The Govt need to deal with banks who gave misleading info to consumers , if it wants its banks and our financial services here to retain a reputation as a reliable financial service hub.

KKW