I hope to be able to find the time to start on my book, after the financial crisis is over:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/09/book-on-financial-planning.html
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Unhappy with bank's complaint handling process (2)
Dear Mr Tan,
I also attended a fact-finding session at the bank, and there were 2 bank officers present.
I was quite surprised by the way it was conducted. It felt as if the same questions were repeated over again but in different words, many times.
And each time I raised a query, the officer reacted by pointing to my signature on the back of the form, in support of the bank's position and the RM.
I also asked for a copy of the thick risk profile form with my signature on it but they refused to give me a copy for me to take home and run through. It looked totally unfamiliar to me and I wanted to see what the RM could have written about me then as I was with the RM for less than 30mins one year ago.
All the forms they had in their file were filled in by the RM, comments, ticks...etc (not my hand writing) On the main application form, there was however a slight difference on their copy compared to the one I had.
I understand from the bank officers that the independent person appointed by MAS to oversee the investigation has the authority to select case files to take a look but it does not mean that all cases will be looked into by this independent person.
MAS should assign independent assistants (not employed by the bank) to help review all cases to ensure each case is given due attention and justice, afterall our Government should try its best to help us citizens as much as possible.
REPLY
You have the right to ask for a copy of the document that you were supposed to have signed. You can challenge statements that are written by the representative, if they do not reflect the true situation, e.g. the representative write on your behalf without checking with you. Or if the representative ask you to sign first, and fill in the details later.
I also attended a fact-finding session at the bank, and there were 2 bank officers present.
I was quite surprised by the way it was conducted. It felt as if the same questions were repeated over again but in different words, many times.
And each time I raised a query, the officer reacted by pointing to my signature on the back of the form, in support of the bank's position and the RM.
I also asked for a copy of the thick risk profile form with my signature on it but they refused to give me a copy for me to take home and run through. It looked totally unfamiliar to me and I wanted to see what the RM could have written about me then as I was with the RM for less than 30mins one year ago.
All the forms they had in their file were filled in by the RM, comments, ticks...etc (not my hand writing) On the main application form, there was however a slight difference on their copy compared to the one I had.
I understand from the bank officers that the independent person appointed by MAS to oversee the investigation has the authority to select case files to take a look but it does not mean that all cases will be looked into by this independent person.
MAS should assign independent assistants (not employed by the bank) to help review all cases to ensure each case is given due attention and justice, afterall our Government should try its best to help us citizens as much as possible.
REPLY
You have the right to ask for a copy of the document that you were supposed to have signed. You can challenge statements that are written by the representative, if they do not reflect the true situation, e.g. the representative write on your behalf without checking with you. Or if the representative ask you to sign first, and fill in the details later.
Bank agree to buy back risky investments
Mr. Tan,
I came across this article and I think it will be helpful. I hope that this will convince MAS to do something to help the affected retail investor.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081008/bank_of_america_settlement.html?.v=11
Bank of America Corp. has agreed to buy back up to $4.7 billion in auction-rate securities to settle charges it misled thousands of customers about the risky investments, federal and state regulators said Wednesday.
I came across this article and I think it will be helpful. I hope that this will convince MAS to do something to help the affected retail investor.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081008/bank_of_america_settlement.html?.v=11
Bank of America Corp. has agreed to buy back up to $4.7 billion in auction-rate securities to settle charges it misled thousands of customers about the risky investments, federal and state regulators said Wednesday.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
No personal investment in credit linked securities
I do not have any personal investments in the credit linked securities, such as the mini-bonds, high notes, pinnacle notes and jubilee notes.
I have warned investors for the past year that these products have risks that are not easily measurable, and that the higher yield does not justify the uncertain risk.
My wife was sold the pinnacle notes. Like many other investors, she was told that it offer a higher interest rate and the risk was small. I told her to go back to the finance company and get her money back. She was able to get the full refund.
Previously, my wife and daughter invested in capital guaranteed or capital protected products. They waited patiently for the product to mature after 5 years and received a miserable total return of only 2%. These products were structured to make profit for the financial institutions and were unfair to retail investors.
I am very sad that the financial institutions were allowed to offer these "unfair" structured products to retail investors during the past ten years. They make big profits for the financial institutions but leave the retail investors with a miserable return, or as in the current case, with the loss of most of their hard earned savings.
Nobody looked after the interest of the retail investors - not the regulator nor the consumer association.
I have warned investors for the past year that these products have risks that are not easily measurable, and that the higher yield does not justify the uncertain risk.
My wife was sold the pinnacle notes. Like many other investors, she was told that it offer a higher interest rate and the risk was small. I told her to go back to the finance company and get her money back. She was able to get the full refund.
Previously, my wife and daughter invested in capital guaranteed or capital protected products. They waited patiently for the product to mature after 5 years and received a miserable total return of only 2%. These products were structured to make profit for the financial institutions and were unfair to retail investors.
I am very sad that the financial institutions were allowed to offer these "unfair" structured products to retail investors during the past ten years. They make big profits for the financial institutions but leave the retail investors with a miserable return, or as in the current case, with the loss of most of their hard earned savings.
Nobody looked after the interest of the retail investors - not the regulator nor the consumer association.
Media interviews on Petition
The following media interviewed me regarding the Petition that was handled to MAS:
> Channel News Asia (Channel 8)
> Mediacorp Radio
> The Online Citizen (www.theonlinecitizen.com)
I have been quite frank in replying to the detailed questions from the media. Please watch TV and listen to the radio about the inteviews.
> Channel News Asia (Channel 8)
> Mediacorp Radio
> The Online Citizen (www.theonlinecitizen.com)
I have been quite frank in replying to the detailed questions from the media. Please watch TV and listen to the radio about the inteviews.
Call for investors to take the next step
Dear Mr Tan KL,
Here are the comments posted by Ming Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:25 am on Channel News Asia -forum- Market Talk
'Finally, the CAD is involved. The MAS only has powers over civil matters. Crimes such as financial fraud would have to be referred to the CAD as they are the ones who are empowered to act on the criminal provisions of the relevant statutes.
Tan Kin Lian has been quite selfless and I would urge any stragglers left to contact him about joining up and forming a group, but petitions are probably insufficient if you wish to motivate an investigation into the matter.
Evidence is needed to demonstrate, even if only on a prima facie level, that the financial institutions have misrepresented their products. To do so, the oral testimony of the various affected parties must be collected. If a large number of people say that DBS for instance represented their offerings as essentially risk free or had the equivalence to capital protected products, then that becomes evidence which cannot simply be brushed aside.
To make the case even stronger, the testimony of former relationship managers could be added. DBS is known to have a high staff turnover and it may be possible to find former employees who are willing to step out and speak the truth. If the protocol had been to say whatever was necessary to close the sale, then the so called ‘ironclad’ contracts can be called into question.
Do not just sit back and hope that someone will help you. More than ever, you need to be active citizens who are willing to stand up for your rights, and in protecting your interests, fulfill your duty as citizens of our republic. Everyone needs to take the initiative, find the courage and be a leader.'
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=180122&start=80
Here are the comments posted by Ming Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:25 am on Channel News Asia -forum- Market Talk
'Finally, the CAD is involved. The MAS only has powers over civil matters. Crimes such as financial fraud would have to be referred to the CAD as they are the ones who are empowered to act on the criminal provisions of the relevant statutes.
Tan Kin Lian has been quite selfless and I would urge any stragglers left to contact him about joining up and forming a group, but petitions are probably insufficient if you wish to motivate an investigation into the matter.
Evidence is needed to demonstrate, even if only on a prima facie level, that the financial institutions have misrepresented their products. To do so, the oral testimony of the various affected parties must be collected. If a large number of people say that DBS for instance represented their offerings as essentially risk free or had the equivalence to capital protected products, then that becomes evidence which cannot simply be brushed aside.
To make the case even stronger, the testimony of former relationship managers could be added. DBS is known to have a high staff turnover and it may be possible to find former employees who are willing to step out and speak the truth. If the protocol had been to say whatever was necessary to close the sale, then the so called ‘ironclad’ contracts can be called into question.
Do not just sit back and hope that someone will help you. More than ever, you need to be active citizens who are willing to stand up for your rights, and in protecting your interests, fulfill your duty as citizens of our republic. Everyone needs to take the initiative, find the courage and be a leader.'
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=180122&start=80
Unhappy with bank's complaint handling process
Dear Mr Tan
In my experience so far the "investigation" by the bank into mis-selling is unsatisfactory. In fact what happened was that as soon as I raised a point, there was a rebuttal from the bank's view by the Investor Care person.
From MAS's assurances the FI's "independent" arm is meant to be fair and impartial.
What I encountered was defensive and biased. In my case I had a written statement to give them. Should we not also get in writing how they will proceed and what the timeline is?
Are they wearing us down? Is this a tactic to ensure attrition? In fact it makes me even more determined to fight on! We have all lost enormous amounts of money and don't need this badgering. If they wanted to ask us questions they should do so in a less confrontational manner. Their approach is also biased because the person who interviewed me defended the RM!
REPLY
I suggest that you complain to the person who was appointed by MAS to oversea the bank's complaint handling process.
In my experience so far the "investigation" by the bank into mis-selling is unsatisfactory. In fact what happened was that as soon as I raised a point, there was a rebuttal from the bank's view by the Investor Care person.
From MAS's assurances the FI's "independent" arm is meant to be fair and impartial.
What I encountered was defensive and biased. In my case I had a written statement to give them. Should we not also get in writing how they will proceed and what the timeline is?
Are they wearing us down? Is this a tactic to ensure attrition? In fact it makes me even more determined to fight on! We have all lost enormous amounts of money and don't need this badgering. If they wanted to ask us questions they should do so in a less confrontational manner. Their approach is also biased because the person who interviewed me defended the RM!
REPLY
I suggest that you complain to the person who was appointed by MAS to oversea the bank's complaint handling process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)