http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=F1QJNO2RI9J2&linkid=d00bf96d-c7e9-49c5-935e-470eb087254e&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ%3d%3d
11 Jan 2009
Yvonne Tsui
A 69-year-old woman and her daughter-in-law are seeking a full refund and damages from the Bank of China (Hong Kong) over their losses in Lehman Brothers minibonds.
Chin Yee-ching, a retired woman living in Malaysia, and her daughterin-law Chan Lai-mei, who lives in Po Shan Road, filed a writ in the High Court against Bank of China (Hong Kong) on Friday.
The bank is accused of being negligent in failing to “ correctly and accurately disclose and explain the real nature and structure of the product” and the true risk involved in their minibond investments.
Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of high-risk creditlinked derivatives. They are marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.
In the writ, the pair also allege the bank failed to provide sufficient information and time for them to consider and make investment decisions about the products.
It said that Ms Chin and Ms Chan were approached by Cheng Kit-yee, a bank officer at a branch in Connaught Road Central, and Ms Cheng persuaded them to buy a series 35 minibond.
The claim said Ms Cheng told Ms Chan that the minibond was very low risk and the interest yield was good. Ms Cheng allegedly told her that the product was just like a time deposit and was very safe, while the interest was a little bit higher.
Ms Chan then agreed to early uplift of her US dollar fixed time deposit of US$ 80,000 so she could buy the minibonds, and Ms Cheng helped her apply for a waiver of the early uplift penalty. The writ said Ms Chan further agreed to use HK$ 400,000 savings to purchase the minibonds.
Having allegedly suggested the product was low risk and a conservative investment, Ms Cheng advised Ms Chin to invest her HK$1.48 million savings in minibonds.
However, another bank officer, Kenneth Lam, informed the pair in late September that the collapse of the American bank on September 15 affected their minibond investments.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Yield during the Great Depression of the 1930s
Dr. Money wrote in The New Paper:
For example, if you bought US shares in 1929, it would have taken 28 years – until 1957 – before you got back all your investment. Other markets have taken even longer.
It is true that stocks earn 10 per cent against 3 per cent for bonds – in the long-run. But that can be very long.
Here is my perspective.
For example, if you bought US shares in 1929, it would have taken 28 years – until 1957 – before you got back all your investment. Other markets have taken even longer.
It is true that stocks earn 10 per cent against 3 per cent for bonds – in the long-run. But that can be very long.
Here is my perspective.
If you buy shares now, when it has dropped 50% and it takes 28 years to reach its previous peak (i.e. 100% gain from the current price), the effective yield is 2.5% per annum. If it takes a shorter time to reach the previous peak, the yield will be higher than 2.5% per annum.
SCMP:Deadline issued for investmen
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=I3SLL39DTVA5&linkid=4f97714b-ad98-4e5a-8667-07964f5d0135&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ%3d%3d
10 Jan 2009
Enoch Yiu and Maria Chan
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority told banks yesterday to implement seven consumer protection measures concerning the sale of investment products, and to formulate plans to separate their deposit-taking and retail securities business before the end of March.
The measures are part of a range of proposals suggested in separate reports disclosed on Thursday by the authority and the Securities and Futures Commission on last year’s Lehman Brothers minibond fiasco. On the same day, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah ordered “an immediate review” of Hong Kong’s financial regulatory structure.
The authority sent a circular to all banks yesterday requiring them to immediately add “health-warning” statements to their sales material on retail derivative products to warn of their risks. It told them to immediately introduce adequate controls to ensure sales staff were not solely rewarded for sales performance.
By the end of March, banks must instal audio systems to record client conversations on investment products sales, as well as introduce a “mystery shopper” programme – in which undercover staff monitor the behaviour of those selling investment products.
In addition, the authority told banks to formulate plans to separate their deposit-taking and investment products sales functions. Both reports said it was a conflict for bank tellers to handle deposits and sales. But the regulators have different ideas on how to solve the problem.
The authority report said banks should use separate counters and staff in a branch to sell investment products. But the SFC suggested banks be banned from using their branch networks at all for these financial instruments. Rather, they should set up a separate subsidiary, using different offices and staff.
The proposed reforms come in the wake of the collapse of the US bank Lehman Brothers in September, a crisis that left 43,700 Hong Kong investors holding derivatives it issued or guaranteed, but which had lost much or all of their value.
Many claimed they were misled by bank tellers, who sold the products as alternatives to time deposits or low-risk bonds when, in fact, they were risky credit-linked derivatives.
Raymond So Wai-man, an associate professor of finance at Chinese University, supported the idea that banks should separate deposit-taking and investment products sales.
“When bank tellers make use of depositors’ financial information and cross-sell them investment products, customers may be confused between investment and deposit taking,” he said. Peter Wong Tung-shun, chairman of the Hong Kong Association of Banks
But Peter Wong Tung-shun, chairman of the Hong Kong Association of Banks, said some banks were very small and it might not be easy to have separate counters.
Mr Wong said banks might face higher operating costs after adopting the suggested proposals. “It’s hard to say whether banks have to pass on the cost to consumers,” he said.
The authority and the SFC reports both noted that Britain, Singapore and Australia had “cooling off” periods of 14 to 30 days on some investment products in which customers can change their minds.
In Hong Kong, there is no such cooling off period. However, the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers does have a cancellation period in which customers can cancel their policies up to 21days after applying.
Chan Kin-por, lawmaker for the insurance sector, said this had helped to reduce complaints. He said 10 to 15 per cent of policies sold were cancelled in the cooling off period.
10 Jan 2009
Enoch Yiu and Maria Chan
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority told banks yesterday to implement seven consumer protection measures concerning the sale of investment products, and to formulate plans to separate their deposit-taking and retail securities business before the end of March.
The measures are part of a range of proposals suggested in separate reports disclosed on Thursday by the authority and the Securities and Futures Commission on last year’s Lehman Brothers minibond fiasco. On the same day, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah ordered “an immediate review” of Hong Kong’s financial regulatory structure.
The authority sent a circular to all banks yesterday requiring them to immediately add “health-warning” statements to their sales material on retail derivative products to warn of their risks. It told them to immediately introduce adequate controls to ensure sales staff were not solely rewarded for sales performance.
By the end of March, banks must instal audio systems to record client conversations on investment products sales, as well as introduce a “mystery shopper” programme – in which undercover staff monitor the behaviour of those selling investment products.
In addition, the authority told banks to formulate plans to separate their deposit-taking and investment products sales functions. Both reports said it was a conflict for bank tellers to handle deposits and sales. But the regulators have different ideas on how to solve the problem.
The authority report said banks should use separate counters and staff in a branch to sell investment products. But the SFC suggested banks be banned from using their branch networks at all for these financial instruments. Rather, they should set up a separate subsidiary, using different offices and staff.
The proposed reforms come in the wake of the collapse of the US bank Lehman Brothers in September, a crisis that left 43,700 Hong Kong investors holding derivatives it issued or guaranteed, but which had lost much or all of their value.
Many claimed they were misled by bank tellers, who sold the products as alternatives to time deposits or low-risk bonds when, in fact, they were risky credit-linked derivatives.
Raymond So Wai-man, an associate professor of finance at Chinese University, supported the idea that banks should separate deposit-taking and investment products sales.
“When bank tellers make use of depositors’ financial information and cross-sell them investment products, customers may be confused between investment and deposit taking,” he said. Peter Wong Tung-shun, chairman of the Hong Kong Association of Banks
But Peter Wong Tung-shun, chairman of the Hong Kong Association of Banks, said some banks were very small and it might not be easy to have separate counters.
Mr Wong said banks might face higher operating costs after adopting the suggested proposals. “It’s hard to say whether banks have to pass on the cost to consumers,” he said.
The authority and the SFC reports both noted that Britain, Singapore and Australia had “cooling off” periods of 14 to 30 days on some investment products in which customers can change their minds.
In Hong Kong, there is no such cooling off period. However, the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers does have a cancellation period in which customers can cancel their policies up to 21days after applying.
Chan Kin-por, lawmaker for the insurance sector, said this had helped to reduce complaints. He said 10 to 15 per cent of policies sold were cancelled in the cooling off period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)