Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Interview at Bloomberg TV
I will be interviewed live at Bloomberg TV at 9.30 am on Tuesday 21 October. I shall be careful, polite and frank.
Continue your good work for ordinary citizens
Hi Mr Tan,
Just dropping you a note to tell you that I have been touched by your efforts so far, although I have not been a victim of the minibond mess. I felt it is really important that you see this through.
1) Your words and action carry more weight than mere civic citizens/anon bloggers like us - I think you have lived by your conscience quite unlike most of the establishment.
2) None of our MPs had actually spoken out in support of the people who lost their retirement savings - when most people believe that there are predatory selling and mis-representation on part of the banks RMs.
3) MAS, like most govt agencies, have actually distanced themselves and tried to outsource the work to a "independent 3rd party".
I hope my little note can provide you some encouragement to continue your good work for ordinary citizens like us.
YTP
Just dropping you a note to tell you that I have been touched by your efforts so far, although I have not been a victim of the minibond mess. I felt it is really important that you see this through.
1) Your words and action carry more weight than mere civic citizens/anon bloggers like us - I think you have lived by your conscience quite unlike most of the establishment.
2) None of our MPs had actually spoken out in support of the people who lost their retirement savings - when most people believe that there are predatory selling and mis-representation on part of the banks RMs.
3) MAS, like most govt agencies, have actually distanced themselves and tried to outsource the work to a "independent 3rd party".
I hope my little note can provide you some encouragement to continue your good work for ordinary citizens like us.
YTP
HKMA refers Lehman-Brothers-related cases to the SFC
This is the press release by Hong Kong Monetary Authority, October 20, 2008
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has today (Friday) referred to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) 24 cases involving complaints of alleged misconduct in respect of investment products related to Lehman Brothers for further action. The 24 cases, which are the first batch of Lehman-Brothers-related cases referred in this way, involve alleged mis-selling by two licensed banks in Hong Kong.
A HKMA spokesperson said that the cases had been reviewed by the HKMA, which had determined that there were sufficient grounds for referring them to the SFC in accordance with the mechanism established under the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding between the HKMA and the SFC. "The HKMA is satisfied that there are adequate justifications for referring them immediately to the SFC, which is the authority ultimately responsible for deciding whether a bank has been guilty of misconduct," the spokesperson said. "The SFC will review the evidence and will consult with the HKMA in determining what sanction, if any, is to be imposed," the spokesperson added. Sanctions that the SFC may impose on a bank include suspension or revocation of registration, reprimands, fines or prohibition orders.
The spokesperson said that the HKMA had, up to 16 October 2008, received 12,091 complaints concerning Lehman-Brothers-related products. Apart from the 24 cases referred to the SFC today, the HKMA had formally opened investigations on a further 95 complaints and was currently seeking further information on 783 complaints. A further 21 complaints had been found to lack sufficient prima facie evidence to support further action (A table summarising the complaints received so far is attached).
"The HKMA will continue to work on the large number of complaints that still remain to be assessed as quickly as possible in a systematic and objective way, using the considerable staff resources it has mobilised and in accordance with its powers under relevant legislation," the spokesperson said.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has today (Friday) referred to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) 24 cases involving complaints of alleged misconduct in respect of investment products related to Lehman Brothers for further action. The 24 cases, which are the first batch of Lehman-Brothers-related cases referred in this way, involve alleged mis-selling by two licensed banks in Hong Kong.
A HKMA spokesperson said that the cases had been reviewed by the HKMA, which had determined that there were sufficient grounds for referring them to the SFC in accordance with the mechanism established under the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Memorandum of Understanding between the HKMA and the SFC. "The HKMA is satisfied that there are adequate justifications for referring them immediately to the SFC, which is the authority ultimately responsible for deciding whether a bank has been guilty of misconduct," the spokesperson said. "The SFC will review the evidence and will consult with the HKMA in determining what sanction, if any, is to be imposed," the spokesperson added. Sanctions that the SFC may impose on a bank include suspension or revocation of registration, reprimands, fines or prohibition orders.
The spokesperson said that the HKMA had, up to 16 October 2008, received 12,091 complaints concerning Lehman-Brothers-related products. Apart from the 24 cases referred to the SFC today, the HKMA had formally opened investigations on a further 95 complaints and was currently seeking further information on 783 complaints. A further 21 complaints had been found to lack sufficient prima facie evidence to support further action (A table summarising the complaints received so far is attached).
"The HKMA will continue to work on the large number of complaints that still remain to be assessed as quickly as possible in a systematic and objective way, using the considerable staff resources it has mobilised and in accordance with its powers under relevant legislation," the spokesperson said.
Positive or negative?
Which group do you belong to?
Group 1- Positive
I wish to thank you for your tireless efforts in helping the investors to voice their anguish. Although, I am not optimistic about recovering my savings, given the lack of support from the authority, I nevertheless appreciate what you and your team is doing. Regardles of the outcome, you have my deepest appreciation.
Group 2 - Negative
You advised us to recover the investment from the financial institution. In my opinion, its a not a useful way to do it. It will only sapped our energy and hope and once we make a mistake, we can end up in jail for defamation or for lying. You said be truthful, so be truthful. Please do not give false hope! There is nothing we can do.
Which group do you belong to?
Group 1- Positive
I wish to thank you for your tireless efforts in helping the investors to voice their anguish. Although, I am not optimistic about recovering my savings, given the lack of support from the authority, I nevertheless appreciate what you and your team is doing. Regardles of the outcome, you have my deepest appreciation.
Group 2 - Negative
You advised us to recover the investment from the financial institution. In my opinion, its a not a useful way to do it. It will only sapped our energy and hope and once we make a mistake, we can end up in jail for defamation or for lying. You said be truthful, so be truthful. Please do not give false hope! There is nothing we can do.
Which group do you belong to?
Petition #3 (To Mrs Lim Hwee Hua)
This Petition has been sent to Mr. Albert Tan to forward to Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua. It contains 127 signatures (collected within 12 hours).
20 October 2008
PETITION
Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua
Senior Minister of State
Ministry of Finance
Dear Mrs. Lim,
Give Fair and Equal Treatment to All Buyers
As you are aware, a large number of us investors have been wrongly led to part with our life long savings for structured products eg Minibond, High Note and others which are not suitable for our class of investors. By the standard of professional investment managers, not more than 10% of a person's saving should be invested in high risk products.
In this saga, banks have persuaded most investors to part with a large part, if not all, of their life savings. The true nature of their products covered up by diverting attention to reference entities of large reputable banks when infact such products viability is hinged on swapped CDOs (collatoral debt obligations) details for which are not allowed to be released even after a default has happened.
How can banks be allowed to sell financial products without revealing the specifications of the underlying securities? How can they be allowed to refuse investors from knowing the true underlying securities even after the product has failed? It is more than a "mis-representation". It is a deliberate attempt to fool even the most savy investor including possibly MAS as otherwise MAS would not have registered the products. How can a structured product be called a bond? The word "Minibond" itself is inappropriate.
Now MAS has openly stated that those above 55 years and non-English speaking gets priority in compensation. The FIs will jump onto this and interprete it to mean something akin to modern day Robin Hood: take from A and pay to B. Those outside the "favored category" will suffer a double injustice.
Mrs. Lim, on our behalf, please advise MAS to re-state their position to ensure that the FIs grant fair and equal compensation to all the buyers of these toxic products irrespective of age or education level. Education only becomes a factor if language is the problem. In this case, even a university graduate will not be able to discover the true nature of the products.
Sincerely,
(Particulars of 127 signatories)
UPDATE
The Petition is drafted by Albert Tan. He will organise a group of signatories to meet with Mrs Kim Hwee Hua. If you are willing to join him, please send an email to him at tan4tell@yahoo.com.
20 October 2008
PETITION
Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua
Senior Minister of State
Ministry of Finance
Dear Mrs. Lim,
Give Fair and Equal Treatment to All Buyers
As you are aware, a large number of us investors have been wrongly led to part with our life long savings for structured products eg Minibond, High Note and others which are not suitable for our class of investors. By the standard of professional investment managers, not more than 10% of a person's saving should be invested in high risk products.
In this saga, banks have persuaded most investors to part with a large part, if not all, of their life savings. The true nature of their products covered up by diverting attention to reference entities of large reputable banks when infact such products viability is hinged on swapped CDOs (collatoral debt obligations) details for which are not allowed to be released even after a default has happened.
How can banks be allowed to sell financial products without revealing the specifications of the underlying securities? How can they be allowed to refuse investors from knowing the true underlying securities even after the product has failed? It is more than a "mis-representation". It is a deliberate attempt to fool even the most savy investor including possibly MAS as otherwise MAS would not have registered the products. How can a structured product be called a bond? The word "Minibond" itself is inappropriate.
Now MAS has openly stated that those above 55 years and non-English speaking gets priority in compensation. The FIs will jump onto this and interprete it to mean something akin to modern day Robin Hood: take from A and pay to B. Those outside the "favored category" will suffer a double injustice.
Mrs. Lim, on our behalf, please advise MAS to re-state their position to ensure that the FIs grant fair and equal compensation to all the buyers of these toxic products irrespective of age or education level. Education only becomes a factor if language is the problem. In this case, even a university graduate will not be able to discover the true nature of the products.
Sincerely,
(Particulars of 127 signatories)
UPDATE
The Petition is drafted by Albert Tan. He will organise a group of signatories to meet with Mrs Kim Hwee Hua. If you are willing to join him, please send an email to him at tan4tell@yahoo.com.
Fraudalent misrepresentation and clear mis-selling
Extrcted from:
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=14234&page=3
I am a medical doctor and have been a specialist cardiologist for 18 years. As an educated, mature and risk adverse investor, I purchased $130,000 of Lehman Brother’s Minibond Series 5 from Maybank Singapore last year.
Events over the last few weeks have shown that there has been fraudulent misrepresentation and clear mis-selling of the Minibond for the following reasons:
1) The product is not at all a bond, but calling it a Minibond, marketing it as a low risk product and offering a modest return of 5% yearly was clearly intended to mislead the purchaser into thinking that it ranks as a bond in default risk.
2) By associating the product with 5 well known banks, by highlighting the good credit ratings of these banks and by linking the default of the product with a default of any of these banks, the purchaser is made to believe that the bonds are instruments supported by these banks. In fact, the banks have nothing to do with the Minibond which is created solely for the profit of Lehman Brothers and its agent Maybank Singapore.
3) By constantly referring to the ratings of the reference banks, the impression is given that the Minibond is of similar low risk and high grade, with holders protected as would any holder of bonds issued by these banks. It is only now apparent that the Minibond is an unrated structured product; purchasers are NOT holders of bonds issued by these reference banks, and are not even considered to be holders of bonds issued by Lehman Brothers.
4) The impression is given that funds invested in the Minibond will be used to purchase high quality securities that could easily be sold to safely redeem its value if the need arises. In actual fact, even the officers of Maybank do not know what the underlying securities are and an article in the Sunday Times of 19th October reported that the value of the securities in Minibond 5 have been determined to be zero.
I write in the hope that the Monetary Authority of Singapore will take the necessary action to ensure that those dishonestly misrepresenting financial products face the consequences of their action. It is in the long term interest of Singapore as a trusted financial centre that those who behave like unscrupulous traders, mis-selling and cheating purchasers be made to fully face the music. Thank You.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Ong Hean Teik
20th October 2008
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=14234&page=3
I am a medical doctor and have been a specialist cardiologist for 18 years. As an educated, mature and risk adverse investor, I purchased $130,000 of Lehman Brother’s Minibond Series 5 from Maybank Singapore last year.
Events over the last few weeks have shown that there has been fraudulent misrepresentation and clear mis-selling of the Minibond for the following reasons:
1) The product is not at all a bond, but calling it a Minibond, marketing it as a low risk product and offering a modest return of 5% yearly was clearly intended to mislead the purchaser into thinking that it ranks as a bond in default risk.
2) By associating the product with 5 well known banks, by highlighting the good credit ratings of these banks and by linking the default of the product with a default of any of these banks, the purchaser is made to believe that the bonds are instruments supported by these banks. In fact, the banks have nothing to do with the Minibond which is created solely for the profit of Lehman Brothers and its agent Maybank Singapore.
3) By constantly referring to the ratings of the reference banks, the impression is given that the Minibond is of similar low risk and high grade, with holders protected as would any holder of bonds issued by these banks. It is only now apparent that the Minibond is an unrated structured product; purchasers are NOT holders of bonds issued by these reference banks, and are not even considered to be holders of bonds issued by Lehman Brothers.
4) The impression is given that funds invested in the Minibond will be used to purchase high quality securities that could easily be sold to safely redeem its value if the need arises. In actual fact, even the officers of Maybank do not know what the underlying securities are and an article in the Sunday Times of 19th October reported that the value of the securities in Minibond 5 have been determined to be zero.
I write in the hope that the Monetary Authority of Singapore will take the necessary action to ensure that those dishonestly misrepresenting financial products face the consequences of their action. It is in the long term interest of Singapore as a trusted financial centre that those who behave like unscrupulous traders, mis-selling and cheating purchasers be made to fully face the music. Thank You.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Ong Hean Teik
20th October 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)