The Legislative Council has passed a motion and three amendments to criticize the government for failing to monitor the sale of Lehman Brothers minibonds and other products by financial institutions and banks.
Diana Lee
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Legislative Council has passed a motion and three amendments to criticize the government for failing to monitor the sale of Lehman Brothers minibonds and other products by financial institutions and banks.
Lawmakers also called for strengthening the protection of investors' interests and preventing any recurrence.
But banking sector legislator David Li Kwok-po said he hoped the issue would not be "politicized."
A bank is just the agent of the minibonds and selling them has been approved by the authorities, Li said.
"The banks have no obligation to conduct buyback deals with customers. They responded to market demand and were also taking risks."
Li's remarks raised the hackles of unionist Lee Cheuk-yan. "The banks abused the trust of the public," Lee said.
Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Association of Banks said the first Lehman minibond buyback exercise can be conducted in early December.
The Consumer Council said at least one complainant had sought assistance from its legal action fund to file a lawsuit.
A source said the Securities and Futures Commission expects banks to do their own review of the cases.
The source said the SFC has no plans to launch a blanket solution on compensation as it prefers banks to decide for themselves.
Meanwhile, the Monetary Authority of Singapore said it received two proposals to restructure Lehman products, a move that could help investors recoup some losses.
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore), the trustee for the minibonds, said two international financial institutions have offered to restructure the notes to allow them to run to maturity.
DBS said total customer compensation in Singapore and Hong Kong will be around HK$362 million.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_print.asp?art_id=73338&sid=21122158
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Global financial crisis is getting out of control
I wish to ask investors to be aware that the global financial crisis is getting out of control. Since the lodging of the Petition 3 weeks ago, the stockmarkets have dropped by 30%.
The timing may be bad for the investors to press the claims at this time. The financial institutions will be quite busy managing their other issues, including the solvency of their main business.
The timing may be bad for the investors to press the claims at this time. The financial institutions will be quite busy managing their other issues, including the solvency of their main business.
Treat all investors fairly
Dear Mr. Tan,
I appreciate the good work you have done todate.
It is wrong to give priority to the so-called vulnerable group because this implies that the vulnerable group has a Right for full compensation whilst those outside it do not have such a Right. You can somehow discern that the FIs are driving in that directions.
If the aim of giving priority to the vulnerable group is to prevent immediate financial hardship because he or she needs immediate cash as otherwise he or she has to seek government help, then that is understandable. I believe those elderly investors' fund were not "daily expense savings".
In such a case, then education and knowing the English language is NOT a criteria to be used to define the vulnerable group. We therefore need MAS to state that education is not a criteria. Mis-selling (as defined in the ST today) is mis-selling. It has nothing to do with the educational level of the investor.
Albert Tan
tan4tell@yahoo.com
I appreciate the good work you have done todate.
It is wrong to give priority to the so-called vulnerable group because this implies that the vulnerable group has a Right for full compensation whilst those outside it do not have such a Right. You can somehow discern that the FIs are driving in that directions.
If the aim of giving priority to the vulnerable group is to prevent immediate financial hardship because he or she needs immediate cash as otherwise he or she has to seek government help, then that is understandable. I believe those elderly investors' fund were not "daily expense savings".
In such a case, then education and knowing the English language is NOT a criteria to be used to define the vulnerable group. We therefore need MAS to state that education is not a criteria. Mis-selling (as defined in the ST today) is mis-selling. It has nothing to do with the educational level of the investor.
Albert Tan
tan4tell@yahoo.com
Response to: DBS begins process to compensate customers
Letter sent to Straits Times
I read your report in The Straits Times dated 24 October 2008, entitled "DBS begins process to compensate customers". It had a statement which mentioned "Brokerages like OCBC Securities, which distribute, but do not advise investors on Minibonds, ..........".
I beg to differ with the words 'do not advise'. OCBC Securities has an alternative product department which gives advice on alternative products such as minibonds, pinnacle notes, equity linked notes, etc. By stating so boldly that they only distribute but do not adivse is clearly a misnormer. How else can you market your products if you do not advise? Do you think clients of OCBC Securties will just purchase these products off the shelf with no questiones asked and advice given by their alternative product sales personnel. Insofar, I find statements made by OCBC Securities as a way of trying to evade responsibility and I find it very disturbing.
For your information, my husband and I are both victims of the minibond and pinnacle notes debacle and you probably can guess who had sold us the products. I also find that brokerages (in general) that had marketed these products to their clients, have been keeping a low profile and not willing to admit to any misrepresentation in mis-selling. Perhaps it is time to put pressure on them to "do the right thing' as of the like of DBS, Maybank etc. "
Regards
C P Tay
I read your report in The Straits Times dated 24 October 2008, entitled "DBS begins process to compensate customers". It had a statement which mentioned "Brokerages like OCBC Securities, which distribute, but do not advise investors on Minibonds, ..........".
I beg to differ with the words 'do not advise'. OCBC Securities has an alternative product department which gives advice on alternative products such as minibonds, pinnacle notes, equity linked notes, etc. By stating so boldly that they only distribute but do not adivse is clearly a misnormer. How else can you market your products if you do not advise? Do you think clients of OCBC Securties will just purchase these products off the shelf with no questiones asked and advice given by their alternative product sales personnel. Insofar, I find statements made by OCBC Securities as a way of trying to evade responsibility and I find it very disturbing.
For your information, my husband and I are both victims of the minibond and pinnacle notes debacle and you probably can guess who had sold us the products. I also find that brokerages (in general) that had marketed these products to their clients, have been keeping a low profile and not willing to admit to any misrepresentation in mis-selling. Perhaps it is time to put pressure on them to "do the right thing' as of the like of DBS, Maybank etc. "
Regards
C P Tay
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
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
High risk, absymal return
Dear Kin Lian
You are certainly doing a great job for the community by bravely taking side against the establishments. If not for your effort at galvanizing support and media coverage I am sure the response by the banks will have been different.
My heart goes out to all the investors who have bought these derivatives without understanding the associated risks. I do not expect the vast majority of them to even have an inkling that these products can be so risky. After all when one steps into a bank and is told by their staffs that they have a very "safe" product to sell which yields higher than deposit rates then of course many will be simply sold by the fact that they are dealing with a reputable bank that will not dupe them.
I myself have been approached many time by staffs of banks wishing to sell me "products that are high yielding and safe." When I queried them further on their products abysmal return versus the risk they were unable to answer me. I guess they are only repeating what they have been taught not what they should know. I do not blame the staffs as most of the products they are selling have so many clauses, technicalities and conditions that they themselves are overwhelmed. I think the banks who sold these products should bear responsibility for any and all losses incurred by investors.
Well done and keep up the excellent work.
Paul (a fund manager)
You are certainly doing a great job for the community by bravely taking side against the establishments. If not for your effort at galvanizing support and media coverage I am sure the response by the banks will have been different.
My heart goes out to all the investors who have bought these derivatives without understanding the associated risks. I do not expect the vast majority of them to even have an inkling that these products can be so risky. After all when one steps into a bank and is told by their staffs that they have a very "safe" product to sell which yields higher than deposit rates then of course many will be simply sold by the fact that they are dealing with a reputable bank that will not dupe them.
I myself have been approached many time by staffs of banks wishing to sell me "products that are high yielding and safe." When I queried them further on their products abysmal return versus the risk they were unable to answer me. I guess they are only repeating what they have been taught not what they should know. I do not blame the staffs as most of the products they are selling have so many clauses, technicalities and conditions that they themselves are overwhelmed. I think the banks who sold these products should bear responsibility for any and all losses incurred by investors.
Well done and keep up the excellent work.
Paul (a fund manager)
Impact of Lehman Brothers on different types of securities
Dear Mr. Tan,
I am not clear why the collapse of Lehman Brothers affect some securities (such as High Notes, Jubilee Notes) more than other securities (such as Minibond)?
REPLY
Lehman Brothers is listed as a "reference entity" in the High Notes series 5 and the Jubilee Notes series 3. When Lehman Brothers entered into a "credit event", the entire capital of the securities is used to pay the swap counter-party. There is nothing left for the noteholders (i.e. investors of these securities).
For the Minibonds, Lehman Brothers is the swap counter-party. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, another counter party has to be found to take over its place. If this is not done, the underlying securities have to be liquidated now at the current depressed price. This will leave the investors with very little, maybe 20% or less (just a guess). If a new swap counter party is found, the underlying assets can be kept until the maturity date. Hopefully, the price will be higher, but the investors is not likely to get back 100%.
For the securities that have not defaulted yet, the investors will still face the following risks prior to the maturity date:
a) Risk that any of the reference entity may default (similar to the Lehman Brother situation)
b) Risk that the underlying assets may defaults
c) Risk that the swap counterparty may default
All these risks remain quite high, under the current global financial crisis.
I am not clear why the collapse of Lehman Brothers affect some securities (such as High Notes, Jubilee Notes) more than other securities (such as Minibond)?
REPLY
Lehman Brothers is listed as a "reference entity" in the High Notes series 5 and the Jubilee Notes series 3. When Lehman Brothers entered into a "credit event", the entire capital of the securities is used to pay the swap counter-party. There is nothing left for the noteholders (i.e. investors of these securities).
For the Minibonds, Lehman Brothers is the swap counter-party. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, another counter party has to be found to take over its place. If this is not done, the underlying securities have to be liquidated now at the current depressed price. This will leave the investors with very little, maybe 20% or less (just a guess). If a new swap counter party is found, the underlying assets can be kept until the maturity date. Hopefully, the price will be higher, but the investors is not likely to get back 100%.
For the securities that have not defaulted yet, the investors will still face the following risks prior to the maturity date:
a) Risk that any of the reference entity may default (similar to the Lehman Brother situation)
b) Risk that the underlying assets may defaults
c) Risk that the swap counterparty may default
All these risks remain quite high, under the current global financial crisis.
Demand for Compensation
I have set up two sub-blogs for investors to post their views:
Demand for 100% compensation:
http://creditlinkedsecurities.blogspot.com/2008/10/demand-for-100-compensation.html
Willing to accept at least 50% compensation:
http://creditlinkedsecurities.blogspot.com/2008/10/demand-for-loss-to-be-shared-equally.html
These blogs are un-moderated. Please put your name and email address, so that other investors who share your views can contact you directly.
Demand for 100% compensation:
http://creditlinkedsecurities.blogspot.com/2008/10/demand-for-100-compensation.html
Willing to accept at least 50% compensation:
http://creditlinkedsecurities.blogspot.com/2008/10/demand-for-loss-to-be-shared-equally.html
These blogs are un-moderated. Please put your name and email address, so that other investors who share your views can contact you directly.
A fair compensation
The majority of the investors who visit my block agree with my views, including my suggestion to seek compensation at between 50% to 80% of the amount that they have lost. My view is that both parties (i.e the financial institution and the investor) should share the loss. The distributor earns 3% to 5% commission for selling the product. If they have to compensate 50%, it will be 10 times (or more) of what they earned.
A few people, such as Zorro, disagree with this view. They like to seek 100%. They have posted their views in a rude way. I have asked them to give their name and e-mail addresss, and be the focal point for other investors who hold similar views. They can also set up another blog.
They can also send an e-mail to me, arguing their point of view. They should disclose their name and contact. I will post it up in the blog.
I am aware that some visitors to my blog represents the financial institutions. They are posting certain views to distract the investors. It will be more honorable for them to disclose their real identity and argue these points.
I continue to get postings from SiewKhim with the sole purpose of insulting me. If SiewKhim has a real grievance against me, he (or she) can send an e-mail to me, rather than continue to behave in this manner. I hope that he realise that he is causing a lot of harm to the thousand of investors who need genuine help.
The investors can take collective legal action. Many people have warned that this will be expensive and a long drawn out affair. I agree with this point of view. It should only be considered at the last resort. The investors should be properly briefed and be aware about the cost and consequence, before they take this action.
A few people, such as Zorro, disagree with this view. They like to seek 100%. They have posted their views in a rude way. I have asked them to give their name and e-mail addresss, and be the focal point for other investors who hold similar views. They can also set up another blog.
They can also send an e-mail to me, arguing their point of view. They should disclose their name and contact. I will post it up in the blog.
I am aware that some visitors to my blog represents the financial institutions. They are posting certain views to distract the investors. It will be more honorable for them to disclose their real identity and argue these points.
I continue to get postings from SiewKhim with the sole purpose of insulting me. If SiewKhim has a real grievance against me, he (or she) can send an e-mail to me, rather than continue to behave in this manner. I hope that he realise that he is causing a lot of harm to the thousand of investors who need genuine help.
The investors can take collective legal action. Many people have warned that this will be expensive and a long drawn out affair. I agree with this point of view. It should only be considered at the last resort. The investors should be properly briefed and be aware about the cost and consequence, before they take this action.
Distributor should be responsible
Mr. Tan,
I would just like to add my perspective on the view of some people who's opinion is that anyone who buy (put their money) should know and be responsible for their own action, including in this case old retirees.
I disagree to this general and superficial view. My reason for illustration: If the investor has bought the product say after persuasion (and convincingly maybe with brochures) from (a) at sungei road or (b) at a casino, then I will agree with their view that the investor has himself/ herself to take the blame.
In other words, there is a right time and right place for doing different things. So in what had happened with minibonds, investor walked into a BIG Registered approved bank, bought an approved financial product ( not an unrelated product like say computer for example) from a professional bank staff with assurance. It is done in a right time, right place with right (?) person.
In some way, it is like what you mentioned something like when u buy medical product, u naturally trust it is what is claimed as safe.
thank you.
REPLY
I agree with you. But we need to get the financial institution and MAS to agree with us. That is the challenge.
I would just like to add my perspective on the view of some people who's opinion is that anyone who buy (put their money) should know and be responsible for their own action, including in this case old retirees.
I disagree to this general and superficial view. My reason for illustration: If the investor has bought the product say after persuasion (and convincingly maybe with brochures) from (a) at sungei road or (b) at a casino, then I will agree with their view that the investor has himself/ herself to take the blame.
In other words, there is a right time and right place for doing different things. So in what had happened with minibonds, investor walked into a BIG Registered approved bank, bought an approved financial product ( not an unrelated product like say computer for example) from a professional bank staff with assurance. It is done in a right time, right place with right (?) person.
In some way, it is like what you mentioned something like when u buy medical product, u naturally trust it is what is claimed as safe.
thank you.
REPLY
I agree with you. But we need to get the financial institution and MAS to agree with us. That is the challenge.
Hong Kong: Minibond investors demand full refund
Hong Kong: Minibond investors demand full refund
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Lehman Brothers minibond holders are demanding a full refund of their money following the government's proposal that banks buy back the failed US investment bank's minibonds from investors.
The Hong Kong government on Monday proposed that 19 distributor banks and brokerage firms buy back minibonds from clients at market value to shorten the painful process of individuals recovering their money and limit reputational damage to banks.
About 50 investors attended a Democratic Party meeting yesterday to discuss the proposal.
Some minibond holders said they would not be happy if they can only get back 60 to 70 percent of their investment and insisted on a 100 percent refund. They also blamed the government for lacking supervision of investment products.
The investors said they will continue to pursue legal action on the marketing practices of the banks promoting Lehman minibonds.
Undersecretary of Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau Julia Leung Fung-yee reiterated yesterday that banks "are not exempted from the investigation on marketing practices even if they are willing to buy back."
The government expects distributors to look at the proposal and assess its potential risks before deciding within a week on whether to accept.
Investors will separately meet Bank of China (Hong Kong) (2388) representatives and lawmakers at the Legislative Council today.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Lehman Brothers minibond holders are demanding a full refund of their money following the government's proposal that banks buy back the failed US investment bank's minibonds from investors.
The Hong Kong government on Monday proposed that 19 distributor banks and brokerage firms buy back minibonds from clients at market value to shorten the painful process of individuals recovering their money and limit reputational damage to banks.
About 50 investors attended a Democratic Party meeting yesterday to discuss the proposal.
Some minibond holders said they would not be happy if they can only get back 60 to 70 percent of their investment and insisted on a 100 percent refund. They also blamed the government for lacking supervision of investment products.
The investors said they will continue to pursue legal action on the marketing practices of the banks promoting Lehman minibonds.
Undersecretary of Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau Julia Leung Fung-yee reiterated yesterday that banks "are not exempted from the investigation on marketing practices even if they are willing to buy back."
The government expects distributors to look at the proposal and assess its potential risks before deciding within a week on whether to accept.
Investors will separately meet Bank of China (Hong Kong) (2388) representatives and lawmakers at the Legislative Council today.
New swap counterparty
Dear Mr. Tan,
The Minibond series is regarded as toxic product, so if we have somebody willing to take over as swap guarantor, will be toxic be removed ? I do not think so!
I bought the Minibond because I do not know so many things, eg. if one entites fail, all the capital gone !! If I had known it I will not buy. So even there is white knight is willing to take over Lehman Brother's role as swap partner, I would vote against it because the product is still toxic.
Please be reminded that the fact of the toxic had been known, and if we still vote for the white knight to take over, if there is any of the listed entities fail, there is no more recourse/protest for ignorance as is the situation now because all the risk had been made known.
HS
REPLY
If you vote for the new swap counterparty, there is a chance that the structured product can continue until the maturity date, and a higher value can be obtained from the underlying assets. During this time, there is still the risk that a reference entity may fail, or the underlying assets may fail. But, this is a risk worth taking.
If the underlying assets are redeemed now, the value will be extremely low.
The Minibond series is regarded as toxic product, so if we have somebody willing to take over as swap guarantor, will be toxic be removed ? I do not think so!
I bought the Minibond because I do not know so many things, eg. if one entites fail, all the capital gone !! If I had known it I will not buy. So even there is white knight is willing to take over Lehman Brother's role as swap partner, I would vote against it because the product is still toxic.
Please be reminded that the fact of the toxic had been known, and if we still vote for the white knight to take over, if there is any of the listed entities fail, there is no more recourse/protest for ignorance as is the situation now because all the risk had been made known.
HS
REPLY
If you vote for the new swap counterparty, there is a chance that the structured product can continue until the maturity date, and a higher value can be obtained from the underlying assets. During this time, there is still the risk that a reference entity may fail, or the underlying assets may fail. But, this is a risk worth taking.
If the underlying assets are redeemed now, the value will be extremely low.
Avoid land banking
Dear Mr. Tan,
I was in Hong Lim speaker corner last 2 weeks, to listen to your talk and advice which was informative and helpful. You had done an excellent contribution to the society.
Can I seek your advice on the Land Banking which I was being approach to invest.It is a good investment to do.Please give your advice and comments. Thank you.
SL
REPLY
You should avoid investing in Land Banking. Learn from the lesson of Minibond and avoid these types of products.
AFTER NOTE.
If you wish to know the reason to avoid land banking, you can do your research using Google. There are many articles and experiences of people who invested in this product and have not got their money back after waiting for many years. I hope that someone can do the research and make a summary for me to post in my blog.
Some of the people who challenged my views on land banking are the financial advisers who now sell this product. Previously, they sell the minibonds and structured products, which has caused great loss to the ordinary investors.
I was in Hong Lim speaker corner last 2 weeks, to listen to your talk and advice which was informative and helpful. You had done an excellent contribution to the society.
Can I seek your advice on the Land Banking which I was being approach to invest.It is a good investment to do.Please give your advice and comments. Thank you.
SL
REPLY
You should avoid investing in Land Banking. Learn from the lesson of Minibond and avoid these types of products.
AFTER NOTE.
If you wish to know the reason to avoid land banking, you can do your research using Google. There are many articles and experiences of people who invested in this product and have not got their money back after waiting for many years. I hope that someone can do the research and make a summary for me to post in my blog.
Some of the people who challenged my views on land banking are the financial advisers who now sell this product. Previously, they sell the minibonds and structured products, which has caused great loss to the ordinary investors.
Requests for media interviews
The New Paper
..... looking to interview an investor who is about 61 years old and has secondary school education.
Contact Lediati Tan <ledtan@sph.com.sg>, 63195835
Channel NewsAsia
.... looking for an elderly investor from the "vulnerable group" who has received an offer from the financial institution
Contact Ryan Huang, RyanHuang@mediacorp.com.sg 6350 3690
NHK Broadcasting
.... looking for a particular Lehman-linked product investor who has lost $100,000 or more. s, Contact Cindy Wong, nhkwstleo3@gmail.com +603 2163 3078
..... looking to interview an investor who is about 61 years old and has secondary school education.
Contact Lediati Tan <ledtan@sph.com.sg>, 63195835
Channel NewsAsia
.... looking for an elderly investor from the "vulnerable group" who has received an offer from the financial institution
Contact Ryan Huang, RyanHuang@mediacorp.com.sg 6350 3690
NHK Broadcasting
.... looking for a particular Lehman-linked product investor who has lost $100,000 or more. s, Contact Cindy Wong, nhkwstleo3@gmail.com +603 2163 3078
Draft: Letter to request for Open Forum
Date
Name of CEO
Financial institution
Collective Letter to request for an Open forum
Dear Sir,
We are the valued customers who have placed our explicit trust in your organisation. On the recommendation of your Relationship Managers, we have put in our hard earned money in the credit linked securities and have made substantial losses.
We wish to request you Senior Management as follows:
1) Obtain from the trustees a detailed statement of account for each series of the credit linked securities sold to us, from the inception until the latest available date, together with a valuation of each series of the securities at the latest available date.
2) To hold a meeting of the investors to give an explanation on the performance of each series of the securities and to allow us ask questions and seek clarification. We wish to have the well-regarded person (Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX) to be present at the meeting.
We would like you to accede to this request within 2 weeks of this letter. Kindly provide a reply to this letter.
Yours Sincerely,
(signatories)
Name of CEO
Financial institution
Collective Letter to request for an Open forum
Dear Sir,
We are the valued customers who have placed our explicit trust in your organisation. On the recommendation of your Relationship Managers, we have put in our hard earned money in the credit linked securities and have made substantial losses.
We wish to request you Senior Management as follows:
1) Obtain from the trustees a detailed statement of account for each series of the credit linked securities sold to us, from the inception until the latest available date, together with a valuation of each series of the securities at the latest available date.
2) To hold a meeting of the investors to give an explanation on the performance of each series of the securities and to allow us ask questions and seek clarification. We wish to have the well-regarded person (Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX) to be present at the meeting.
We would like you to accede to this request within 2 weeks of this letter. Kindly provide a reply to this letter.
Yours Sincerely,
(signatories)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)