You can visit this forum to have discusison about your specific topic on credit linked notes or other investments.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/list.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&ctx=32768&cacheTag=x10-28
Monday, November 24, 2008
Swiss petition for national referendum to end "corporate rip off"
We can learn from the Swiss.
Mr Minder has embarked on a truly Swiss course of action to prevent such excesses in the future. Using Switzerland's system of direct democracy, he has collected the required 100,000 signatures to hold a nationwide referendum to end, as he puts it, "the corporate rip off."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7741561.stm
Investors should see their Member of Parliament
I sent another e-mail to the investors to see their Member of Parliament in groups. I know that some investors had already seen their MP and the MP asked them to see the MAS or the financial institution or argued that they should have "their eyes open".
You can see the MP again. This time, ask the MP to do the "right thing" as the leader that represents you: The MP should:
1. Ask MAS what is the outcome of petition #1, asking MAS to investigate if there were any wrong doings by the financial institutions that created and marketed these credit linked notes? did these financial institutions breach the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisers Act? What is the outcome of the investigation?
2. Ask how many investors had their cases resolved at the first leve, i.e. the financial institutions? How many cases were rejected by the financial instituions or made offers that were not accepted by investors? How many cases are still "waiting for decision"? How long does it take for the financial institutions to make their decision?
3. Ask MAS how many complaints have been lodged with FIDREC. How many cases have been decided by FIDREC? How many are still pending? How long does it take for FIDREC to handle these complaints?
It is the duty of your MP to ask these questions, on your behalf, to MAS or to ask them in Parliament.
You can see the MP again. This time, ask the MP to do the "right thing" as the leader that represents you: The MP should:
1. Ask MAS what is the outcome of petition #1, asking MAS to investigate if there were any wrong doings by the financial institutions that created and marketed these credit linked notes? did these financial institutions breach the Securities and Futures Act and the Financial Advisers Act? What is the outcome of the investigation?
2. Ask how many investors had their cases resolved at the first leve, i.e. the financial institutions? How many cases were rejected by the financial instituions or made offers that were not accepted by investors? How many cases are still "waiting for decision"? How long does it take for the financial institutions to make their decision?
3. Ask MAS how many complaints have been lodged with FIDREC. How many cases have been decided by FIDREC? How many are still pending? How long does it take for FIDREC to handle these complaints?
It is the duty of your MP to ask these questions, on your behalf, to MAS or to ask them in Parliament.
Why I wanted 100,000 signatures
Discussion in www.theonlinecitizen.com
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/11/help-get-100000-signatures-for-tan-kin-lian-to-run/
smallvoice585 on November 25th, 2008 2.31 am
Dear Tan Kin Lian,
With due respect, sir, I believe that you are not ready for politics yet. Though you have been a PAP member for 30 years, you have not been engaged in any grassroots work in the last 20 years. You also have no experience in electioneering. You do not have a dedicated or well-organised support structure around you.
People know you to be a long-time CEO of NTUC Income for 30 years; recently as an on-line protester against insurance bonus cuts; and lately, as a champion of burnt financial product investors. I’m afraid that’s not enough to gain credibility as the next big thing in alternative politics. People need to know your stand, views and ideas on a full spectrum of political issues articulated consistently over a significant period of time. They need to see proof of a wider range of leadership qualities required in political office.
Of course, please do not misconstrue that I’m trying to discourage you.
But the 100,000 signatures that this article is calling for is in my view totally irrelevant. True politicians do not ask for a show of hands before entering the fray - they offer themselves as instruments for their beliefs and willingly submit themselves to the caprice of public opinion. That is, you do not ask for support before you commit, but you should commit first and see if you’re getting any support. If you are not ready for this uncertainty, then it speaks volumes about your dedication to your political cause.
Tan Kin Lian on November 25th, 2008 5.19 am
Hi smallvoice585
You are correct. I am not “ready” for politics …. in the conventional way. There are many examples of more capable people who came into politics during the past 20 years. Most of them did not survive. Only two did, and they have a lot of difficulty in building up their base of support.
You are also correct about the lack of a political machinery. It takes more than this political machinery for an alternative party to succeed- as it has to compete with the incumbent that has more resources beyond its own political machinery..
I wanted to take a different approach - to create awareness, to educate the public. The recent event involving the 10,700 investors of the credit linked notes show how bad things can be - that the government can just ignore the call to do the right thing and enforce the law.
If more people come forward to voice their views, it may wake up the current leaders and create the change that is desriable and good for the country. An important change is to recognise that the elected leaders should represent the people, and that a free contest is for the good of the country.
Many people said that an alternative party needs more than one person. How do you expect other people to come forward? They are not willing to sacrifice their career. They will be subject to discrimination. Maybe 100,000 signatures will change their mind.
Will my approach work? Some people think so. Others are sceptical. I am willing to give it a try. If it does not, I can go back and retire.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/11/help-get-100000-signatures-for-tan-kin-lian-to-run/
smallvoice585 on November 25th, 2008 2.31 am
Dear Tan Kin Lian,
With due respect, sir, I believe that you are not ready for politics yet. Though you have been a PAP member for 30 years, you have not been engaged in any grassroots work in the last 20 years. You also have no experience in electioneering. You do not have a dedicated or well-organised support structure around you.
People know you to be a long-time CEO of NTUC Income for 30 years; recently as an on-line protester against insurance bonus cuts; and lately, as a champion of burnt financial product investors. I’m afraid that’s not enough to gain credibility as the next big thing in alternative politics. People need to know your stand, views and ideas on a full spectrum of political issues articulated consistently over a significant period of time. They need to see proof of a wider range of leadership qualities required in political office.
Of course, please do not misconstrue that I’m trying to discourage you.
But the 100,000 signatures that this article is calling for is in my view totally irrelevant. True politicians do not ask for a show of hands before entering the fray - they offer themselves as instruments for their beliefs and willingly submit themselves to the caprice of public opinion. That is, you do not ask for support before you commit, but you should commit first and see if you’re getting any support. If you are not ready for this uncertainty, then it speaks volumes about your dedication to your political cause.
Tan Kin Lian on November 25th, 2008 5.19 am
Hi smallvoice585
You are correct. I am not “ready” for politics …. in the conventional way. There are many examples of more capable people who came into politics during the past 20 years. Most of them did not survive. Only two did, and they have a lot of difficulty in building up their base of support.
You are also correct about the lack of a political machinery. It takes more than this political machinery for an alternative party to succeed- as it has to compete with the incumbent that has more resources beyond its own political machinery..
I wanted to take a different approach - to create awareness, to educate the public. The recent event involving the 10,700 investors of the credit linked notes show how bad things can be - that the government can just ignore the call to do the right thing and enforce the law.
If more people come forward to voice their views, it may wake up the current leaders and create the change that is desriable and good for the country. An important change is to recognise that the elected leaders should represent the people, and that a free contest is for the good of the country.
Many people said that an alternative party needs more than one person. How do you expect other people to come forward? They are not willing to sacrifice their career. They will be subject to discrimination. Maybe 100,000 signatures will change their mind.
Will my approach work? Some people think so. Others are sceptical. I am willing to give it a try. If it does not, I can go back and retire.
Buyer beware
Letter by Adrian Tan
Much has been said and written about “Buyer beware”, investing “with their eyes open” and “I think the prospectus says ‘you could lose all or a substantial part of your investment in the Notes’ in bold print, on page 1 or 2”.
But what if the prospectus did not disclose material facts?
The New Paper’s Doctor Money ( Larry Haverkamp) wrote on 4 November 2008 that
“A feature common to ALL linked notes is that investors never see the charges. They include:
> costs embedded in the initial pricing;
> counter-party returns in the product’s risk/return structure;
> commissions from buying and selling the options, swaps and underlying bonds;
> market-making and surrender fees; and
> annual management fees, including trailer fees kicked back to distributors.
They are deducted directly from the yield. Investors are likely to attribute the low return to market conditions rather than unseen costs.
Most importantly, unit trusts and investment-linked products (ILPs) routinely publish their charges. Linked notes never do.”
Investors in Minibonds and HN5, Jubilee and Pinnacle Notes should be asking lawyers whether the failures to disclose the above amounts to a breach of section 243 (1)(a) of the Securities & Futures Act which reads, “A prospectus for an offer of securities shall contain all the information that investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require to make an informed assessment of the matters specified in subsection (3).
And if they are, what are the remedies and against whom. As Doctor Money wrote, “The question of the day is: ‘Should non-disclosure of embedded charges invalidate linked-note sales contracts and require a refund from issuers and distributors?’”
Breaches of section 243(1)(a) are something MAS is surely investigating because we have been assured, MAS is looking, “thoroughly into every possible breach of regulation, poor internal regulation or sales practices. And it will take action where necessary”.
Adrian Tan
Much has been said and written about “Buyer beware”, investing “with their eyes open” and “I think the prospectus says ‘you could lose all or a substantial part of your investment in the Notes’ in bold print, on page 1 or 2”.
But what if the prospectus did not disclose material facts?
The New Paper’s Doctor Money ( Larry Haverkamp) wrote on 4 November 2008 that
“A feature common to ALL linked notes is that investors never see the charges. They include:
> costs embedded in the initial pricing;
> counter-party returns in the product’s risk/return structure;
> commissions from buying and selling the options, swaps and underlying bonds;
> market-making and surrender fees; and
> annual management fees, including trailer fees kicked back to distributors.
They are deducted directly from the yield. Investors are likely to attribute the low return to market conditions rather than unseen costs.
Most importantly, unit trusts and investment-linked products (ILPs) routinely publish their charges. Linked notes never do.”
Investors in Minibonds and HN5, Jubilee and Pinnacle Notes should be asking lawyers whether the failures to disclose the above amounts to a breach of section 243 (1)(a) of the Securities & Futures Act which reads, “A prospectus for an offer of securities shall contain all the information that investors and their professional advisers would reasonably require to make an informed assessment of the matters specified in subsection (3).
And if they are, what are the remedies and against whom. As Doctor Money wrote, “The question of the day is: ‘Should non-disclosure of embedded charges invalidate linked-note sales contracts and require a refund from issuers and distributors?’”
Breaches of section 243(1)(a) are something MAS is surely investigating because we have been assured, MAS is looking, “thoroughly into every possible breach of regulation, poor internal regulation or sales practices. And it will take action where necessary”.
Adrian Tan
Singapore's investments in global banks
I received a report from an analyst.
Temasek and GIC invested a total of SGD 36.7 billion in the global banks, namely Barclays, UBS, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup. The invstment in Barclays was made 18 months ago. The others was made nearly 12 months ago.
The value of these investments dropped by slightly more than 50%, or about SGD 18.5 billion. During the same period, the global stockmarket dropped by about the same extent. (Earlier, I thought that the global banks performed worse that the market, but it does not seem to be the case).
Temasek and GIC invested a total of SGD 36.7 billion in the global banks, namely Barclays, UBS, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup. The invstment in Barclays was made 18 months ago. The others was made nearly 12 months ago.
The value of these investments dropped by slightly more than 50%, or about SGD 18.5 billion. During the same period, the global stockmarket dropped by about the same extent. (Earlier, I thought that the global banks performed worse that the market, but it does not seem to be the case).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)