65% of respondents like FISCA to get most of its funding from its members, to remain independent and act in the interest of consumers. 75% prefer to avoid getting advertisement and sponsorship from financial institutions. 20% welcome funding from Government for general expenses, and 35% for special projects.
90% feel that FISCA should encourage members to spend time to learn about financial matters.
56% like the subscription to be $36 per year; the remainder are willing to pay a higher subscription.
Proposed approach
We will set up FISCA with an annual subscription of $36.
Members are encouraged to log in each week and read the newsletter, educational and research materials. and assessment test.
Additional services will be provided to members at a modest fee:
a) Handle complaint on mis-selling
b) Handle complaints on insurance claims
c) Attend educational talk
d) Simple financial planning advice
e) Buying of recommended financial products
FISCA will encourage members to pay a modest fee for advice and service. This will save them several thousand dollars in paying the hidden charges embedded in financial products, such as life insurance and structured products. More importantly, members can avoid losing their capital in risky products that are not properly disclosed to them.
An important task for FISCA members is to spend time and be educated about financial matters and to make the correct decisions. FISCA will help members to achieve this goal by providing the relevant materials for members. FISCA will use as much volunteers as possible, but some full time staff have to be engaged for the research and administration.
It is important that FISCA should have funds to carry out their work. I hope that more members will come forward and be willing to pay a subscription to make it possible for FISCA to be effective in its work. Do not expect it for free.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
FISCA Survey Results (2)
20 people responded to the survey.
> The expressed interest in the following services:
> Educate members on financial products through website 100.0%
> Advice members on mis-selling and unethical products 100.0%
> Recommend suitable financial products 84.2%
> Advice members on insurance claims 73.7%
> Hold educational talks (at a modest charge) 68.4%
> Advice members on service contracts, e.g. telcos 63.2%
> Provide advice through a hotline 57.9%
> The expressed interest in the following services:
> Educate members on financial products through website 100.0%
> Advice members on mis-selling and unethical products 100.0%
> Recommend suitable financial products 84.2%
> Advice members on insurance claims 73.7%
> Hold educational talks (at a modest charge) 68.4%
> Advice members on service contracts, e.g. telcos 63.2%
> Provide advice through a hotline 57.9%
Barclay CEO apologies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7793035.stm
Mr Varley also told the BBC that the banking industry was going through what he called a "public relations crisis" and must apologise for what went wrong. "We have to have a banking industry in which consumers have trust and in some cases that trust has broken down," he said.
"If I ask myself, 'Do I feel the industry should be self-confident about recreating that trust through time?' I do feel that, but it starts by saying sorry. "It starts by admitting things went wrong."
He said he hoped his own bank was one of those in which customers still had trust. But he went on: "If you look at the industry as a whole, if I speak as a member of the industry rather than as chief executive of Barclays, I absolutely have to say we should share our portion of responsibility."
Our correspondent said Mr Varley was not the first senior banker to admit failings. In November, Royal Bank of Scotland chairman Sir Tom McKillop said he was "profoundly sorry" for his company's financial difficulties.
The Disadvantages of an Elite Education
Contributed by Ho Cheow Seng
Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers.
By William Deresiewicz
Our best universities have forgotten that the reason they exist is to make minds, not careers.
By William Deresiewicz
Survey: DBS Schroder LiveSure 2025 fund
If you wish to join Colin Ho in opposing the change to the fund and to reject the three options, take part in this survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=7adJB4Ub4k7OqUE8YLkzkg_3d_3d
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=7adJB4Ub4k7OqUE8YLkzkg_3d_3d
Survey: Vista Plan from Zurich
If you have bought the Vista plan from Zurich and have not been properly advised about this investment plan, please take part in this survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=CAseR9wBBoKnR9o_2bzWa8PQ_3d_3d
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=CAseR9wBBoKnR9o_2bzWa8PQ_3d_3d
An adviser's view about the V plan
Dear Mr. Tan,
Our company allows commission to be paid annualised upfront. For instance, if the client pays a cheque for the first month's premium of $3,200, our company will receive around $40,000 in commission. It's then split between company and advisor. That's why many advisors are selling this plan.
They sell it as investment. But the clients never realise that they for a contract of say 25 years, they are not able to surrender it in 3, 5 or 7 years. They will be penalised heavily.
But I believe the biggest con job of this is that they prey on the greed of people. The reason why advisors can sell big premiums and long tenure is because of the so-called 'bonus' allocation. The longer the term, the higher the 'bonus'. Last time the 'bonus' was 62.5%, now they even up it to 87.5%.
The clients got carried away by their greed. No doubt the 'bonus' is 87.5%, but it's only nominal. The clients thought they could immediately cash out 87.5% of gain from their first year of investment. But they forgot that this is an insurance contract, and they need to 'finish' the whole term to avoid heavy penalty. But sadly, once they got into this plan, they are already in for a huge loss and a bleak future.
Many people who bought this won't be able to 'finish' the plan, The insurer understands this. This is a win-win for the insurer and the advisors, but a BIG lose-lose for the clients and their families.
As this plan is only being distributed in Singapore for 3 years or so, I can expect more news of people surrendering, especially in this tough economic environment.
The insurer even allows premium to be paid using credit card. I heard of quite a number of people surrendering, but chose to keep quite.
Our company allows commission to be paid annualised upfront. For instance, if the client pays a cheque for the first month's premium of $3,200, our company will receive around $40,000 in commission. It's then split between company and advisor. That's why many advisors are selling this plan.
They sell it as investment. But the clients never realise that they for a contract of say 25 years, they are not able to surrender it in 3, 5 or 7 years. They will be penalised heavily.
But I believe the biggest con job of this is that they prey on the greed of people. The reason why advisors can sell big premiums and long tenure is because of the so-called 'bonus' allocation. The longer the term, the higher the 'bonus'. Last time the 'bonus' was 62.5%, now they even up it to 87.5%.
The clients got carried away by their greed. No doubt the 'bonus' is 87.5%, but it's only nominal. The clients thought they could immediately cash out 87.5% of gain from their first year of investment. But they forgot that this is an insurance contract, and they need to 'finish' the whole term to avoid heavy penalty. But sadly, once they got into this plan, they are already in for a huge loss and a bleak future.
Many people who bought this won't be able to 'finish' the plan, The insurer understands this. This is a win-win for the insurer and the advisors, but a BIG lose-lose for the clients and their families.
As this plan is only being distributed in Singapore for 3 years or so, I can expect more news of people surrendering, especially in this tough economic environment.
The insurer even allows premium to be paid using credit card. I heard of quite a number of people surrendering, but chose to keep quite.
Unilateral changes to DBS Schroder LiveSure 2025 fund
Dear Mr. Tan,
I have recently received a notice from DBS on behalf of Schroder Investment Management (Singapore) Ltd that they plan to alter the product characteristics of the DBS Schroder LiveSure 2025 fund to the disadvantage of the consumers. The changes contravene the purpose and the way the fund was marketed to us, as ordinary small investors.
We are given 3 choices moving ahead and I feel none of them are reasonable to any sane human. I want to share this news and urge those who are facing similar situation not concede to any of their 3 proposed options, which might not be in your interest.
If you feel this is of worthy mention, please help post this on your blog.
Colin Ho
Background
This fund is marketed in their brochures as “a unique retirement solution that aims to achieve superior long term risk-adjusted returns through an actively-managed multi-asset portfolio of mutual funds.”.
The brochure clearly states these key benefits:
1. Principal protection upon maturity
2. Exposure to a well-balanced portfolio managed by Schroders Multi-Asset Team
3. Profit lock-in mechanism.
This is designed to raise your level of principal protection at maturity. Any gains achieved by the Fund will be locked in each week, ensuring that the fund’s highest NAV will be locked in as target min NAV level for your investment upon maturity in year 2025.
4. Automatic re-balancing mechanism.
The portfolio will automatically become more conservative with lower expected volatility and risk as the target date draws near.
What we understood
From the way DBS and Schroder has marketed it, was that the fund is for retirement purpose with maturity in 2025. The NAV will swing along the way but over the next 20+ years, it’s likely the NAV will go beyond 1.00 and this higher NAV will be locked in and if we hold the fund till maturity in 2025, we’ll enjoy this “locked-in” NAV.
What has happened
Just 8 months after I subscribed to the fund, Schroder, through DBS, sent us a letter saying the fund was monetised stating that: “The last 6 months have seen dramatic falls in asset values caused primarily by the credit crunch. In addition, we have witnessed a fall in long term SGD interest rates from 4.50% to the 2.6% we see today.”....”we reached the point where the assets of the Fund were sufficient only to purchase instruments (safe portfolio) that would be expected to deliver the target protection level on the Maturity Date. We therefore invested the Funds assets into such instruments on Monday 24th November 2008”.
We are now given 3 choices:
1. Stay invested in the Fund. Unit trust investors can choose to stay invested in the Fund which is primarily invested in SGD government bonds. At maturity, investors are expected to receive the NAV of $1.0004, subject to the risks abovementioned in section 7.
2. Switch into another Schroder fund distributed by DBS. Investors can choose to switch their existing units into any other Schroder fund distributed by DBS, The switching fee will be waived. 3. Redeem their units at the prevailing NAV. Please note that the Manage will continue to publish weekly NAVs for the Fund, which may be different from the current NAV of S$0.6932 (as at 19 November 2008).
Investor is subject to option #1 as the default option if they do not decide.
What’s Wrong?
In my opinion, they’re now trying to unilaterally alter the product behaviour and go against what they have sold to consumers. Being a retirement fund with maturity date in 2025, how can they, within just 8 months of launch, say the profit lock-in mechanism can no longer support a NAV beyond $1.0004. As a long term investor, I understand the volatility of the markets and am willing to ride the downs and look forward to the ups in the next 26 years. But these people are telling me sorry, at best they can pay me a NAV of $1.0004 (with no guarantee) in year 2025! Essentially, they are trying to modify key benefits #3 and #4 listed above to their advantage.
With these changes, the product is substantially different from how it was marketed to me.
The options to consumers are equally ridiculous. The 1st option is asking the investor to remain status quo till maturity in 26 years time. And for that, the investor will be rewarded with NAV $0.0004 return but with all their caveats that tells you it’s not guaranteed. The 2nd option is asking the investor to sell it at current NAV (i.e. make loss of close to 50%) and buy another Schroder fund. The 3rd option is the worst: asking investor to sell it at current NAV, make a loss, and we part ways.
I feel DBS and Schroder could have put in greater efforts to protect consumers’ interest. And unlike the case of the mini bonds, the DBS Schroder LiveSure 2025 fund doesn’t involve default. But yet, they are asking consumers to accept unreasonable draconian actions which would mostly inflict financial losses.
I am seeking refund, from the bank, the full amount I’ve invested. I urge other investors to exercise your rights and not opt in to any of their 3 proposed options.
Colin Ho
Survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=7adJB4Ub4k7OqUE8YLkzkg_3d_3d
I have recently received a notice from DBS on behalf of Schroder Investment Management (Singapore) Ltd that they plan to alter the product characteristics of the DBS Schroder LiveSure 2025 fund to the disadvantage of the consumers. The changes contravene the purpose and the way the fund was marketed to us, as ordinary small investors.
We are given 3 choices moving ahead and I feel none of them are reasonable to any sane human. I want to share this news and urge those who are facing similar situation not concede to any of their 3 proposed options, which might not be in your interest.
If you feel this is of worthy mention, please help post this on your blog.
Colin Ho
Background
This fund is marketed in their brochures as “a unique retirement solution that aims to achieve superior long term risk-adjusted returns through an actively-managed multi-asset portfolio of mutual funds.”.
The brochure clearly states these key benefits:
1. Principal protection upon maturity
2. Exposure to a well-balanced portfolio managed by Schroders Multi-Asset Team
3. Profit lock-in mechanism.
This is designed to raise your level of principal protection at maturity. Any gains achieved by the Fund will be locked in each week, ensuring that the fund’s highest NAV will be locked in as target min NAV level for your investment upon maturity in year 2025.
4. Automatic re-balancing mechanism.
The portfolio will automatically become more conservative with lower expected volatility and risk as the target date draws near.
What we understood
From the way DBS and Schroder has marketed it, was that the fund is for retirement purpose with maturity in 2025. The NAV will swing along the way but over the next 20+ years, it’s likely the NAV will go beyond 1.00 and this higher NAV will be locked in and if we hold the fund till maturity in 2025, we’ll enjoy this “locked-in” NAV.
What has happened
Just 8 months after I subscribed to the fund, Schroder, through DBS, sent us a letter saying the fund was monetised stating that: “The last 6 months have seen dramatic falls in asset values caused primarily by the credit crunch. In addition, we have witnessed a fall in long term SGD interest rates from 4.50% to the 2.6% we see today.”....”we reached the point where the assets of the Fund were sufficient only to purchase instruments (safe portfolio) that would be expected to deliver the target protection level on the Maturity Date. We therefore invested the Funds assets into such instruments on Monday 24th November 2008”.
We are now given 3 choices:
1. Stay invested in the Fund. Unit trust investors can choose to stay invested in the Fund which is primarily invested in SGD government bonds. At maturity, investors are expected to receive the NAV of $1.0004, subject to the risks abovementioned in section 7.
2. Switch into another Schroder fund distributed by DBS. Investors can choose to switch their existing units into any other Schroder fund distributed by DBS, The switching fee will be waived. 3. Redeem their units at the prevailing NAV. Please note that the Manage will continue to publish weekly NAVs for the Fund, which may be different from the current NAV of S$0.6932 (as at 19 November 2008).
Investor is subject to option #1 as the default option if they do not decide.
What’s Wrong?
In my opinion, they’re now trying to unilaterally alter the product behaviour and go against what they have sold to consumers. Being a retirement fund with maturity date in 2025, how can they, within just 8 months of launch, say the profit lock-in mechanism can no longer support a NAV beyond $1.0004. As a long term investor, I understand the volatility of the markets and am willing to ride the downs and look forward to the ups in the next 26 years. But these people are telling me sorry, at best they can pay me a NAV of $1.0004 (with no guarantee) in year 2025! Essentially, they are trying to modify key benefits #3 and #4 listed above to their advantage.
With these changes, the product is substantially different from how it was marketed to me.
The options to consumers are equally ridiculous. The 1st option is asking the investor to remain status quo till maturity in 26 years time. And for that, the investor will be rewarded with NAV $0.0004 return but with all their caveats that tells you it’s not guaranteed. The 2nd option is asking the investor to sell it at current NAV (i.e. make loss of close to 50%) and buy another Schroder fund. The 3rd option is the worst: asking investor to sell it at current NAV, make a loss, and we part ways.
I feel DBS and Schroder could have put in greater efforts to protect consumers’ interest. And unlike the case of the mini bonds, the DBS Schroder LiveSure 2025 fund doesn’t involve default. But yet, they are asking consumers to accept unreasonable draconian actions which would mostly inflict financial losses.
I am seeking refund, from the bank, the full amount I’ve invested. I urge other investors to exercise your rights and not opt in to any of their 3 proposed options.
Colin Ho
Survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=7adJB4Ub4k7OqUE8YLkzkg_3d_3d
Madoff Clients - New York Times
Hi Tan,
Appreciate you publish in your blog.
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/madoff_clients/table
Larry
Appreciate you publish in your blog.
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/madoff_clients/table
Larry
FISCA Survey Results (1)
Here is a preliminary summary of the first 20 responses to the FISCA Survey.
1. FISCA should get most of its fundings from members to remain independent and act in the interest of members: Agree 65%, Disagree 20% Neutral 15%
2. FISCA should avoid advertisements and sponsorships from financial institutions: Agree 75%, Disagree 15%, Neutral 10%
3. Should FISCA get funding from Government? Yes 20%, Special projects only 35%, Avoid 25%, No opinion 20%
4. Should FISCA encourage members to spend time and be educated about financial matters? Yes 90%, No 10%
5. How much should the annual subscription be? $36 56%, $48 22%, $60 or $120 22%
1. FISCA should get most of its fundings from members to remain independent and act in the interest of members: Agree 65%, Disagree 20% Neutral 15%
2. FISCA should avoid advertisements and sponsorships from financial institutions: Agree 75%, Disagree 15%, Neutral 10%
3. Should FISCA get funding from Government? Yes 20%, Special projects only 35%, Avoid 25%, No opinion 20%
4. Should FISCA encourage members to spend time and be educated about financial matters? Yes 90%, No 10%
5. How much should the annual subscription be? $36 56%, $48 22%, $60 or $120 22%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)