A key proposal of Obama's Administration is to set up a Consumer Protection Agency on financial products. It will encourage financial institutions to offer "plain manilla" products that meet their needs.
Critics said that it will stifle innovation. I disagree with these critics. My view is that consumers are best served by buying simple products. They do not need "innovative" products, which were created to make profit for the financial institutions, at the expense of the unwary consumers.
Another interesting proposal is for the products to be offered on an exchange. For example, the Administration is working on a health insurance product to be offered by the Government, which will be offered on an internet exchange together with private sector products. This will allow the consumers can make an informed choice on the available products. In my view, this is a major step forward.
I read that Paul Vocker, who is an adviser to the Obama Administration, is strongly in favour of all derivative products being transacted on an exchange, rather than over the counter. This will ensure transparency and fair pricing. I agree with this approach. If it had been adopted earlier, the world would have avoided the global financial crisis.
Free market and innovation have been misused by the proponents to act unethically and to take big risks, which has caused the downfall of the global economy.
We need new foundations to rebuild the global economy, namely:
a) plain manilla products
b) transacted through an exchange
c) consumers to be protected
My best wishes for the success of the financial reform that is being promoted by the Obama Administration. They have the courage to do the right thing.
Tan Kin Lian
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Unable to take up rights issue
Dear Mr. Tan,
I have invested in REITS. Due to the recent right issues carried out by several REITS, I have been forced to buy more shares or suffer dilution. Can you advice on:
1. Could you please kindly advise if it is worthwhile to buy & hold REIT for many years (i.e. 10-20 years)?
2. Should I switch into high dividend yield blue chips, as they do not issue rights often?
REPLY
All shares are subject to rights issue, i.e. not just REITs but other shares as well.
If you are not able to take up the rights issue, you have the option to sell the rights. The amount that you get for the rights should be almost the same as the amount of dilution in your shares.
For example,
Price of shares before rights issue $5
Rights issue (1 for 1) at $3
Share price after rights issue, due to dilution: $4
Value of rights, if sold in the market, should be $1.
The value of the rights is usually the same as the loss due to dilution, but it may vary somewhat, due to market condition.
Whether you should invest in REITS or blue chips is a different matter. Usually, it is better to be well diversified, e.g. buy a ETF of shares and REITS (if available).
I have invested in REITS. Due to the recent right issues carried out by several REITS, I have been forced to buy more shares or suffer dilution. Can you advice on:
1. Could you please kindly advise if it is worthwhile to buy & hold REIT for many years (i.e. 10-20 years)?
2. Should I switch into high dividend yield blue chips, as they do not issue rights often?
REPLY
All shares are subject to rights issue, i.e. not just REITs but other shares as well.
If you are not able to take up the rights issue, you have the option to sell the rights. The amount that you get for the rights should be almost the same as the amount of dilution in your shares.
For example,
Price of shares before rights issue $5
Rights issue (1 for 1) at $3
Share price after rights issue, due to dilution: $4
Value of rights, if sold in the market, should be $1.
The value of the rights is usually the same as the loss due to dilution, but it may vary somewhat, due to market condition.
Whether you should invest in REITS or blue chips is a different matter. Usually, it is better to be well diversified, e.g. buy a ETF of shares and REITS (if available).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Learn about medication
I was prescribed with Naproxen Sodium before. I had some remaining tablets but forgot what it was used for. I searched Google and found the following explanation. It was quite useful for me to learn about the medication. It is important for each person to learn about the medication that they are taking. The internet provides an easy reference.
Naproxen sodium is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that is most often used to treat pain, inflammation, menstrual cramps and fever. It is also a favorite medication used to treat the stiffness associated with arthritis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis and other conditions affecting joints. Naproxen sodium, or naproxen, as it is often referred to, is less commonly used to treat Paget’s disease and Barrter’s syndrome.
Note: remaining details are removed.
Shopping through the internet
I need envelopes to send my books to customers. Each envelope (A5 size) cost 26 cents from a stationary shop.
As I needed a large number of envelopes, I searched the internet for a manufacturer to supply in bulk. I found an internet-based stationery who offered the envelopes at 8 cents, i.e. about 1/3rd of the retail price. I bought the envelopes and other stationary items for my office through this source, and paid using Paypal.
Lesson: It is easy to do "shopping" through the internet and find out the best source.
Tan Kin Lian
As I needed a large number of envelopes, I searched the internet for a manufacturer to supply in bulk. I found an internet-based stationery who offered the envelopes at 8 cents, i.e. about 1/3rd of the retail price. I bought the envelopes and other stationary items for my office through this source, and paid using Paypal.
Lesson: It is easy to do "shopping" through the internet and find out the best source.
Tan Kin Lian
Paying in foreign currency
Dear Mr Tan,
I am doing a 3-year distance learning course from a UK university. They offer payments by credit card or bank transfer and installment payment for each semester.What is the best way to make payment for my course? Should I open a foreign currency account and convert my money into GBP before the GBP increases?
REPLY
You should not try to speculate on whether the GBP will increase or drop. It can go either way.
When you make payment, look at the exchange rate and the bank charges. Get a few banks to quote to you, so that you get the best rate and lowest charges.
I am doing a 3-year distance learning course from a UK university. They offer payments by credit card or bank transfer and installment payment for each semester.What is the best way to make payment for my course? Should I open a foreign currency account and convert my money into GBP before the GBP increases?
REPLY
You should not try to speculate on whether the GBP will increase or drop. It can go either way.
When you make payment, look at the exchange rate and the bank charges. Get a few banks to quote to you, so that you get the best rate and lowest charges.
China Daily:Banks may face action from SFC
24 June 2009
HONG KONG: The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) may take disciplinary action against some financial institutions due to misconducts related to the mis-selling of risky derivative products to individual investors, Martin Wheatley, chief executive of the market watchdog, said yesterday.
The SFC has completed its investigation into 11 of the 19 banks that had distributed toxic Lehman Brothers "minibonds" to individual investors, Wheatley told legislators yesterday at a public hearing on the issue by the legislature.
Seven of the banks have been served with a notice of proposed disciplinary action (NPDA) while the other four will soon be served with a similar notice as apparent evidence indicated mis-selling of risky debt derivatives, he said.
Disciplinary proceedings will be taken against these banks unless they agree to compromises, he said.
Sending out an NPDA is the first step the SFC will take after it has decided to start disciplinary proceedings.
A NPDA sets out the findings of the SFC investigation and indicates the sanctions the SFC considers appropriate to impose.
Wheatley did not elaborate on the likely disciplinary sanctions.
But, according to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), which governs the operation of the SFC, the market watchdog is empowered to discipline regulated persons or firms who are found guilty of misconduct.
Sanctions that could be taken by the SFC include revocation of license or registration, suspension of licence or registration, prohibition of application for licence or registration, fines up to $10 million and reprimands.
Individual investors, who have bought minibonds or other toxic derivatives products, welcomed the latest move by the SFC but claimed that the move is far from enough to force banks to buy back the toxic financial products at their original investment value.
"It is too mild a move. The SFC should have applied for the establishment of a Market Misconduct Tribunal to handle these serious market misconducts," said Peter Chan, chairman of Allied Victims of Lehman Products.
"Banks (that distributed the toxic products) have tried their best to avoid redeeming all the toxic financial products at full face value. The SFC should have taken disciplinary sanctions much earlier," he added.
Wheatley said the market watchdog will complete its investigation of the remaining eight banks as soon as possible.
He also confirmed during the hearing that the SFC had received complaints about mis-selling against financial institutions from investors who had bought credit-linked notes (CLN) and equity-linked notes (ELN) from them.
Many of these investors, who have suffered huge losses from their investment in CLNs and ELNs amid the volatile market in the past several months, claim that they bought CLNs and ELNs only because of mis-presentation by financial institutions.
The market watchdog has not started investigation on these complaints yet, Wheatley said.
He said the SFC had received 8,400 complaints against financial institutions, mostly alleging mis-selling of Lehman minibonds.
Wheatley declined to comment on reports that BOC Hong Kong had offered to buy back all minibonds it distributed at 40 percent discount to the original investment value.
Wheatley is scheduled to attend another public hearing on the minibond issue by the legislature this Friday.
HONG KONG: The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) may take disciplinary action against some financial institutions due to misconducts related to the mis-selling of risky derivative products to individual investors, Martin Wheatley, chief executive of the market watchdog, said yesterday.
The SFC has completed its investigation into 11 of the 19 banks that had distributed toxic Lehman Brothers "minibonds" to individual investors, Wheatley told legislators yesterday at a public hearing on the issue by the legislature.
Seven of the banks have been served with a notice of proposed disciplinary action (NPDA) while the other four will soon be served with a similar notice as apparent evidence indicated mis-selling of risky debt derivatives, he said.
Disciplinary proceedings will be taken against these banks unless they agree to compromises, he said.
Sending out an NPDA is the first step the SFC will take after it has decided to start disciplinary proceedings.
A NPDA sets out the findings of the SFC investigation and indicates the sanctions the SFC considers appropriate to impose.
Wheatley did not elaborate on the likely disciplinary sanctions.
But, according to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), which governs the operation of the SFC, the market watchdog is empowered to discipline regulated persons or firms who are found guilty of misconduct.
Sanctions that could be taken by the SFC include revocation of license or registration, suspension of licence or registration, prohibition of application for licence or registration, fines up to $10 million and reprimands.
Individual investors, who have bought minibonds or other toxic derivatives products, welcomed the latest move by the SFC but claimed that the move is far from enough to force banks to buy back the toxic financial products at their original investment value.
"It is too mild a move. The SFC should have applied for the establishment of a Market Misconduct Tribunal to handle these serious market misconducts," said Peter Chan, chairman of Allied Victims of Lehman Products.
"Banks (that distributed the toxic products) have tried their best to avoid redeeming all the toxic financial products at full face value. The SFC should have taken disciplinary sanctions much earlier," he added.
Wheatley said the market watchdog will complete its investigation of the remaining eight banks as soon as possible.
He also confirmed during the hearing that the SFC had received complaints about mis-selling against financial institutions from investors who had bought credit-linked notes (CLN) and equity-linked notes (ELN) from them.
Many of these investors, who have suffered huge losses from their investment in CLNs and ELNs amid the volatile market in the past several months, claim that they bought CLNs and ELNs only because of mis-presentation by financial institutions.
The market watchdog has not started investigation on these complaints yet, Wheatley said.
He said the SFC had received 8,400 complaints against financial institutions, mostly alleging mis-selling of Lehman minibonds.
Wheatley declined to comment on reports that BOC Hong Kong had offered to buy back all minibonds it distributed at 40 percent discount to the original investment value.
Wheatley is scheduled to attend another public hearing on the minibond issue by the legislature this Friday.
SCMP:At least 11 banks mis-sold minibonds, SFC chief says
24 June 2009
Preliminary findings indicate that at least 11 banks violated regulations when selling Lehman Brothers minibonds, legislators heard yesterday.
Securities and Futures Commission chief executive Martin Wheatley told a Legislative Council subcommittee meeting that was the result of investigations of all 19 banks that sold the complex investment products.
"In seven of those, we have reached our preliminary conclusions where we have either filed preliminary notice of disciplinary action or we have opened settlement investigations," Mr Wheatley said, adding that there was prima facie evidence of lapses in control.
The securities regulator was also concluding initial investigations with four other banks, which would either receive a preliminary notice or face settlement talks, he said.
Mr Wheatley refused to comment on market rumours that the regulator had rejected Bank of China (Hong Kong)'s offer to buy back minibonds from clients at 60 per cent or more of the investment principal.
Earlier, brokers Sun Hung Kai Investment Services and KGI Asia reached an agreement with the commission to buy back minibonds from their clients at their original value.
"In terms of the statement about whether the initial agreements the SFC reached with the brokers is the only model, the answer is no, we are not dogmatic," Mr Wheatley said. "We have said that we will take account of the extent to which any bank mitigates the losses in the enforcement action that we take."
The regulator has received 8,400 complaints since September, most of them alleging that Lehman Brothers minibonds were misleadingly sold.
At the three-hour hearing, Mr Wheatley was repeatedly asked if there was any problem with the demarcation between the commission and the Monetary Authority.
"I think the demarcation is clear," he said.
Saying that the commission had no legal role overseeing the authority in the regulation of banks, Mr Wheatley said the commission was in "a co-ordination role, not a supervisory or an oversight role" with the banking regulator.
Asked whether the commission would regulate the names of financial products, Mr Wheatley said it would ask the issuer to justify the name.
It had also proposed to the financial secretary that more guidelines and codes be developed to cover the marketing of related documents.
Minibonds were not corporate bonds, but high-risk, credit-linked derivatives marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.
Mr Wheatley will give evidence again on Friday.
Preliminary findings indicate that at least 11 banks violated regulations when selling Lehman Brothers minibonds, legislators heard yesterday.
Securities and Futures Commission chief executive Martin Wheatley told a Legislative Council subcommittee meeting that was the result of investigations of all 19 banks that sold the complex investment products.
"In seven of those, we have reached our preliminary conclusions where we have either filed preliminary notice of disciplinary action or we have opened settlement investigations," Mr Wheatley said, adding that there was prima facie evidence of lapses in control.
The securities regulator was also concluding initial investigations with four other banks, which would either receive a preliminary notice or face settlement talks, he said.
Mr Wheatley refused to comment on market rumours that the regulator had rejected Bank of China (Hong Kong)'s offer to buy back minibonds from clients at 60 per cent or more of the investment principal.
Earlier, brokers Sun Hung Kai Investment Services and KGI Asia reached an agreement with the commission to buy back minibonds from their clients at their original value.
"In terms of the statement about whether the initial agreements the SFC reached with the brokers is the only model, the answer is no, we are not dogmatic," Mr Wheatley said. "We have said that we will take account of the extent to which any bank mitigates the losses in the enforcement action that we take."
The regulator has received 8,400 complaints since September, most of them alleging that Lehman Brothers minibonds were misleadingly sold.
At the three-hour hearing, Mr Wheatley was repeatedly asked if there was any problem with the demarcation between the commission and the Monetary Authority.
"I think the demarcation is clear," he said.
Saying that the commission had no legal role overseeing the authority in the regulation of banks, Mr Wheatley said the commission was in "a co-ordination role, not a supervisory or an oversight role" with the banking regulator.
Asked whether the commission would regulate the names of financial products, Mr Wheatley said it would ask the issuer to justify the name.
It had also proposed to the financial secretary that more guidelines and codes be developed to cover the marketing of related documents.
Minibonds were not corporate bonds, but high-risk, credit-linked derivatives marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.
Mr Wheatley will give evidence again on Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)