A reader asked me to post the best fixed deposit rates available in Singapore. As I do not have the time to be doing this research, I have to engage someone to do this research and to pay this person for the time spent.
I hope that FISCA can do this work at a later date. FISCA will also have to pay people to do the work.
I enourage Singaporeans to join FISCA and pay $36 a year as membership fee for FISCA to meet its expenses. Please support FISCA, so that it can take care of your interest. FISCA will be calling for membership in August, when its website is ready.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
SCMP:Minibond victims try to storm bank in protest
2 July 2009
Thousands of investors who lost money on Lehman Brothers minibonds held a noisy and sometimes emotional rally yesterday, calling on the chief executive to step down, and saying the fiasco had yet to be resolved.
Waving black banners with the slogans "Lehman [saga] unresolved" and "[Chief Executive Donald] Tsang Yam-kuen step down", the group marched from Victoria Park to the Bank of China tower in Central.
However, protesters became emotional outside the bank, and several tried to storm it. "Give me back the money, Bank of China!" shouted protester Peter Lee as he tried to break through the police line and pull away metal barriers. The 47-year-old had bought more than HK$1 million of minibonds from the bank, the biggest seller of Lehman Brothers-linked investment products in Hong Kong.
"A 100 per cent buy-back!" shouted another protester.
Trying to calm protesters, Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of the Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims, organiser of the rally, called on them to gather at the building again on National Day, October 1, if the bank had failed to settle the dispute.
Organisers said 25,000 took part in the march, but police said about 4,000 left Victoria Park for Central.
About 48,000 Hongkongers lost most of the HK$20 billion they invested in credit-linked derivatives, such as minibonds, issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers, when the American investment bank collapsed in September. Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of high-risk credit-linked derivatives. They are marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.
The protesters said they took to the streets because Mr Tsang and the regulators failed to force financial institutions to offer a 100 per cent buy-back of the minibonds. "I'm here today because the bank has cheated me of all my money. I want my money back," Yu Shing, 79, said. Mr Yu insisted on joining the march even though he had difficulty walking after a stroke in November.
Sandra Chow, 45, said she wanted to show her support for other victims although she had already settled her case with the bank.
A government spokesman said that the administration recognised the difficult circumstances faced by minibond investors, and expressed the hope "that the institutions involved will expedite the proper handling of the matter".
He said banks and trustees had been urged to safeguard the interests of holders.
Thousands of investors who lost money on Lehman Brothers minibonds held a noisy and sometimes emotional rally yesterday, calling on the chief executive to step down, and saying the fiasco had yet to be resolved.
Waving black banners with the slogans "Lehman [saga] unresolved" and "[Chief Executive Donald] Tsang Yam-kuen step down", the group marched from Victoria Park to the Bank of China tower in Central.
However, protesters became emotional outside the bank, and several tried to storm it. "Give me back the money, Bank of China!" shouted protester Peter Lee as he tried to break through the police line and pull away metal barriers. The 47-year-old had bought more than HK$1 million of minibonds from the bank, the biggest seller of Lehman Brothers-linked investment products in Hong Kong.
"A 100 per cent buy-back!" shouted another protester.
Trying to calm protesters, Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of the Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims, organiser of the rally, called on them to gather at the building again on National Day, October 1, if the bank had failed to settle the dispute.
Organisers said 25,000 took part in the march, but police said about 4,000 left Victoria Park for Central.
About 48,000 Hongkongers lost most of the HK$20 billion they invested in credit-linked derivatives, such as minibonds, issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers, when the American investment bank collapsed in September. Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of high-risk credit-linked derivatives. They are marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.
The protesters said they took to the streets because Mr Tsang and the regulators failed to force financial institutions to offer a 100 per cent buy-back of the minibonds. "I'm here today because the bank has cheated me of all my money. I want my money back," Yu Shing, 79, said. Mr Yu insisted on joining the march even though he had difficulty walking after a stroke in November.
Sandra Chow, 45, said she wanted to show her support for other victims although she had already settled her case with the bank.
A government spokesman said that the administration recognised the difficult circumstances faced by minibond investors, and expressed the hope "that the institutions involved will expedite the proper handling of the matter".
He said banks and trustees had been urged to safeguard the interests of holders.
MRT train lines to come under a single operator
There are advantages for all the MRT train lines to come under a single operator. However, there is a snag. How can this be overcomed? Read my suggestion here.
Cheating and negligence
What is cheating? What is negligence? Why are these points relevant to the investors of the credit linked notes? What can be done to address these weaknesses? I am writing on these matters over the next four days. Tell your friends to visit this blog.
Vista Plan (from Zurich)
Only 3 policyholders replied to my survey on the Vista plan. I have given the contact details to these respondents to contact each other, and decide on their action.
Administration of Justice (2)
On the issue of the credit linked notes, someone made a comment in my blog that, under the law, if you agree to a disclaimer to absolve the distributor from liability, you do not have any case - even if the distributor is negligent or fraudalent. He quoted with a purported knowledge of the law, as applied in Singapore.
I disagree with his comment. I believe that fraudalent acts, including the intent to cheat, cannot be covered by such disclaimers. I also believe that negligent acts, cannot be covered by such disclaimer, if they cover matters that the distributor, as a financial adviser, ought to know.
For example, if I see a doctor, I expect that the doctor ought to know that certain drugs are dangerous and unsuitable to be prescribed to a patient. The doctor cannot get away by asking the patient to agree a general disclaimer to absolve the doctor from liability.
The challenge to the consumer, in the case of the credit linked notes, is in finding the money to take a legal case against the distributor who gave wrong advice. The consumer does not have the means to challenge a financial institution, who has access to the top lawyers in town.
In many countries, the consumers can depend on the following avenues to uphold justice:
a) The regulator - who has the duty to enforce the law
b) The consumer association - who takes up the matter to protect the interest of consumers.
c) The politicians - who speak and act for the ordinary people to win their votes
d) Lawyers - who takes the risk under a contingency fee system
Take a look at what happens to similar cases in America or Hong Kong. Action has been taken by some of these parties.
Unfortunately, these channels are not available to consumers in Singapore. It is a sad state of affairs here.
Tan Kin Lian
I disagree with his comment. I believe that fraudalent acts, including the intent to cheat, cannot be covered by such disclaimers. I also believe that negligent acts, cannot be covered by such disclaimer, if they cover matters that the distributor, as a financial adviser, ought to know.
For example, if I see a doctor, I expect that the doctor ought to know that certain drugs are dangerous and unsuitable to be prescribed to a patient. The doctor cannot get away by asking the patient to agree a general disclaimer to absolve the doctor from liability.
The challenge to the consumer, in the case of the credit linked notes, is in finding the money to take a legal case against the distributor who gave wrong advice. The consumer does not have the means to challenge a financial institution, who has access to the top lawyers in town.
In many countries, the consumers can depend on the following avenues to uphold justice:
a) The regulator - who has the duty to enforce the law
b) The consumer association - who takes up the matter to protect the interest of consumers.
c) The politicians - who speak and act for the ordinary people to win their votes
d) Lawyers - who takes the risk under a contingency fee system
Take a look at what happens to similar cases in America or Hong Kong. Action has been taken by some of these parties.
Unfortunately, these channels are not available to consumers in Singapore. It is a sad state of affairs here.
Tan Kin Lian
Gathering in Speakers Corner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)