Perhaps our financial institutions should consider this Spanish Bank's gesture to their valued clients?
"Wednesday, 28 January 2009 12:03
Spain's largest bank, Santander, is to offer full compensation worth more than US$1.8 billion (€1.4 billion) to clients who lost money in an investment fraud allegedly run by the US financier Bernard Madoff. The compensation scheme covers only private individual clients.
'The group has taken this decision given the exceptional circumstances surrounding this case and based exclusively on commercial reasons, given the interest it has in maintaining its business relationship with these clients,' the bank said in a statement.' "
A BBC financial commentator said he was not surprised since the bank's reputation and relationship with client should be worth more than the US$1.8 billion. He expected other banks to follow suit or they will lose their valued clients to Santander.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Intelligence Quiz
Download
The famous scientist, Albert Einstein, was reported to have created a puzzle involving 5 houses in different colours, occupied by five different nationalities, drinking different beverages, keeping different pets and smoking different brands of tobacco.
Easy (4 houses, 9 clues)
Moderate (5 houses, 15 clues)
Difficult (6 houses, 20 clues)
The answers are shown in the last page. You can learn the technique to solve the quiz in my book. It is also available here: http://www.tankinlian.com/quiz/index.html
If you wish to order 5 copies of more of the book at a special price of $5 per book, you can send your order to kinlian@gmail.com. Postage is free for delivery within
I am able to print a customised version of the puzzles for corporations wishing to provide this book of puzzles to their clients. It can feature the products of the corporation.
Tan Kin Lian
Unjustified Jump in Food Prices during Chinese New Year Season
Dear Mr Tan,
I hope you can post the below link on your blog.
I tried surfing CASE website but then it seems quite troublesome for an individual to lodge a complaint.
I perhaps need some guidance or education on the process.
Loh Hon Chun
I hope you can post the below link on your blog.
I tried surfing CASE website but then it seems quite troublesome for an individual to lodge a complaint.
I perhaps need some guidance or education on the process.
Loh Hon Chun
Saturday, January 24, 2009
2009 - the year of the Bull
In 1985, when Singapore was in a recession, I presented a bull sculpture to Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, who was then the Minister of State for Trade & Industry. I said "I hope that the bull will revive the stockmarket and the economy. " It did!
2009 is the year of the Bull. I hope that someone will send another bull sculpture to the Prime Minister.
SCMP:Sun Hung Kai Financial may lose 'caring' award over minibond saga
24 Jan 2009
Ambrose Leung
Sun Hung Kai Financial may be the first of several financial institutions to lose an award that honours their corporate social responsibility as a result of their involvement in the minibonds saga.
The Council of Social Service, which confers the annual Caring Company awards, is reviewing its decision to give the award to Sun Hung Kai, after its subsidiary Sun Hung Kai Investment Services was reprimanded by the Securities and Futures Commission for the way it sold the high-risk derivatives to customers.
Sun Hung Kai and more than a dozen banks accused of misleading vulnerable investors are understood to be among the winners who will be unveiled and honoured next month.
Cliff Choi Kim-wah, business director of the council, said the vetting committee would meet soon.
“Those being awarded know well that we reserve the right to strip them of their titles,” he said. A spokesman for Sun Hung Kai Financial declined to comment.
Christine Fang Meng-sang, chief executive of the council, said it was prepared to withdraw the honours if the banks were officially censured by relevant authorities, or if they were found to have committed criminal offences.
“We have received e-mails from some minibonds victims who were unhappy with the banks getting the award,” she said.
Any wrongdoing by the banks, however, could not wipe out the charitable work that they had done, she noted.
“ We can’t strike them off the award list just because people are protesting outside their branches. But we are prepared to review their awards if any of them is found by the authorities to have done wrong,” Ms Fang said.
The council will give out more than 1,700 awards this year to businesses and public organisations for demonstrating good corporate citizenship and their contributions in community work.
Among the 60-plus banks that were honoured last year, more than a dozen – including the Bank of China, DBS Bank and the Bank of East Asia – now face thousands of angry investors who are seeking compensation for their losses after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which had issued or guaranteed the minibonds they bought.
Investors, some of them elderly, claimed the banks had lied about the investment risks when persuading them to buy the highly complex products. Many of them have filed complaints with the Monetary Authority, made police reports or resorted to the courts to seek redress.
Since the scheme was launched seven years ago, only one company has had its award withdrawn. No company with a criminal record or which has been officially censured by astatutory body in the previous three years can receive an award.
Lawmakers who are helping the minibond investors seek redress were outraged. Democrat Kam Naiwai said the council should rethink its awards plan.
“ How can these banks be so shameless and still have the guts to brandish the ‘caring company’ tag after conning old people into buying their poisoned minibonds?”
Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, leader of the Civic Party, said: “It is so ironic that the basics of a caring company, which is to care for the customers, are not reflected in the awards, while it recognises contributions to the environment and donations to charities.”
The Bank of China, Bank of East Asia and DBS all said their awards this year had nothing to do with the minibonds saga.
Ambrose Leung
Sun Hung Kai Financial may be the first of several financial institutions to lose an award that honours their corporate social responsibility as a result of their involvement in the minibonds saga.
The Council of Social Service, which confers the annual Caring Company awards, is reviewing its decision to give the award to Sun Hung Kai, after its subsidiary Sun Hung Kai Investment Services was reprimanded by the Securities and Futures Commission for the way it sold the high-risk derivatives to customers.
Sun Hung Kai and more than a dozen banks accused of misleading vulnerable investors are understood to be among the winners who will be unveiled and honoured next month.
Cliff Choi Kim-wah, business director of the council, said the vetting committee would meet soon.
“Those being awarded know well that we reserve the right to strip them of their titles,” he said. A spokesman for Sun Hung Kai Financial declined to comment.
Christine Fang Meng-sang, chief executive of the council, said it was prepared to withdraw the honours if the banks were officially censured by relevant authorities, or if they were found to have committed criminal offences.
“We have received e-mails from some minibonds victims who were unhappy with the banks getting the award,” she said.
Any wrongdoing by the banks, however, could not wipe out the charitable work that they had done, she noted.
“ We can’t strike them off the award list just because people are protesting outside their branches. But we are prepared to review their awards if any of them is found by the authorities to have done wrong,” Ms Fang said.
The council will give out more than 1,700 awards this year to businesses and public organisations for demonstrating good corporate citizenship and their contributions in community work.
Among the 60-plus banks that were honoured last year, more than a dozen – including the Bank of China, DBS Bank and the Bank of East Asia – now face thousands of angry investors who are seeking compensation for their losses after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which had issued or guaranteed the minibonds they bought.
Investors, some of them elderly, claimed the banks had lied about the investment risks when persuading them to buy the highly complex products. Many of them have filed complaints with the Monetary Authority, made police reports or resorted to the courts to seek redress.
Since the scheme was launched seven years ago, only one company has had its award withdrawn. No company with a criminal record or which has been officially censured by astatutory body in the previous three years can receive an award.
Lawmakers who are helping the minibond investors seek redress were outraged. Democrat Kam Naiwai said the council should rethink its awards plan.
“ How can these banks be so shameless and still have the guts to brandish the ‘caring company’ tag after conning old people into buying their poisoned minibonds?”
Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, leader of the Civic Party, said: “It is so ironic that the basics of a caring company, which is to care for the customers, are not reflected in the awards, while it recognises contributions to the environment and donations to charities.”
The Bank of China, Bank of East Asia and DBS all said their awards this year had nothing to do with the minibonds saga.
Friday, January 23, 2009
SCMP:Boost investor security without stifling market
24 Jan 2009
It may be premature for most people who face losses on investments in Lehman Brothers minibonds to celebrate a victory for the small handful who have got all their money back. But any breakthrough in the saga over alleged mis-selling of the products as low-risk is welcome news for them. Aggrieved investors could not ask for more than full compensation. The HK$85 million voluntary settlement agreed by Sun Hung Kai
Investment Services for some 300 investors puts pressure on the 21 banks and two other brokerages involved in the sale of the minibonds in Hong Kong. The outcome in this case appears to vindicate the Securities and Futures Commission’s top-down approach of investigating the way institutions sold the minibonds, rather than a protracted case-by-case examination of complaints. Any adverse conclusions about an institution’s conduct can then cover all its affected clients.
Sources said the investment company apparently came forward with the settlement offer, although it has denied any liability or wrongdoing. The company obviously believes it is better to put the matter behind it quickly by settling with its clients than face the prospect of drawn out legal proceedings and the possible loss of its trading licence. In any case, its decision is commendable, as it saves its clients from further anguish and, above all, financial losses. But the real significance of the settlement is to be found in the reasons for a reprimand issued by the SFC over concerns about the way the broker sold the minibonds.
Despite their name, they were not corporate bonds but complex credit-linked instruments. The SFC was concerned about the adequacy of the company’s due diligence, training of sales staff, risk assessment, and record-keeping in relation to the minibonds. The company agreed the concerns were serious.
One question now is whether such shortcomings were prevalent at other institutions that sold the minibonds, mostly banks. It seems unlikely that the SFC’s investigations will find that this is an isolated case.
Another question is whether institutions whose clients make up a higher proportion of the 47,000 investors in HK$15.7 billion of minibonds will be as willing to settle their losses in full.
The SFC does not have the power to impose a settlement. But by publishing the results of its investigations, it does have the power to exercise some moral persuasion. If other institutions find that the concerns in this case have some application to them, they may conclude that the example of Sun Hung Kai is a better way to conclude the affair than dragging it out. It is significant that in announcing the settlement, the SFC dodged the issue of whether claims of mis-selling of the minibonds as low-risk investment products have been substantiated, and Sun Hung Kai admitted no liability or wrongdoing. The terms of the settlement sets a rather appealing precedent for other institutions that are eager to put the matter behind them quickly. Every situation is different, however, so the terms of any settlement could depend on the extent and seriousness of any misconduct. Whatever the terms for each case may be, it is important, and only fair, that even where banks reach settlements with their clients, the SFC will still insist on disclosure of any concerns arising from its investigations.
The financial secretary has called for a review of regulations after receiving reports on the minibond affair from the SFC and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which regulates banks. For the sake of confidence in our financial system, the government must move swiftly to enhance investor protection without stifling a free market.
It may be premature for most people who face losses on investments in Lehman Brothers minibonds to celebrate a victory for the small handful who have got all their money back. But any breakthrough in the saga over alleged mis-selling of the products as low-risk is welcome news for them. Aggrieved investors could not ask for more than full compensation. The HK$85 million voluntary settlement agreed by Sun Hung Kai
Investment Services for some 300 investors puts pressure on the 21 banks and two other brokerages involved in the sale of the minibonds in Hong Kong. The outcome in this case appears to vindicate the Securities and Futures Commission’s top-down approach of investigating the way institutions sold the minibonds, rather than a protracted case-by-case examination of complaints. Any adverse conclusions about an institution’s conduct can then cover all its affected clients.
Sources said the investment company apparently came forward with the settlement offer, although it has denied any liability or wrongdoing. The company obviously believes it is better to put the matter behind it quickly by settling with its clients than face the prospect of drawn out legal proceedings and the possible loss of its trading licence. In any case, its decision is commendable, as it saves its clients from further anguish and, above all, financial losses. But the real significance of the settlement is to be found in the reasons for a reprimand issued by the SFC over concerns about the way the broker sold the minibonds.
Despite their name, they were not corporate bonds but complex credit-linked instruments. The SFC was concerned about the adequacy of the company’s due diligence, training of sales staff, risk assessment, and record-keeping in relation to the minibonds. The company agreed the concerns were serious.
One question now is whether such shortcomings were prevalent at other institutions that sold the minibonds, mostly banks. It seems unlikely that the SFC’s investigations will find that this is an isolated case.
Another question is whether institutions whose clients make up a higher proportion of the 47,000 investors in HK$15.7 billion of minibonds will be as willing to settle their losses in full.
The SFC does not have the power to impose a settlement. But by publishing the results of its investigations, it does have the power to exercise some moral persuasion. If other institutions find that the concerns in this case have some application to them, they may conclude that the example of Sun Hung Kai is a better way to conclude the affair than dragging it out. It is significant that in announcing the settlement, the SFC dodged the issue of whether claims of mis-selling of the minibonds as low-risk investment products have been substantiated, and Sun Hung Kai admitted no liability or wrongdoing. The terms of the settlement sets a rather appealing precedent for other institutions that are eager to put the matter behind them quickly. Every situation is different, however, so the terms of any settlement could depend on the extent and seriousness of any misconduct. Whatever the terms for each case may be, it is important, and only fair, that even where banks reach settlements with their clients, the SFC will still insist on disclosure of any concerns arising from its investigations.
The financial secretary has called for a review of regulations after receiving reports on the minibond affair from the SFC and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which regulates banks. For the sake of confidence in our financial system, the government must move swiftly to enhance investor protection without stifling a free market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)