Petition to MAS Chairman by investors of DBS High Notes 5

Zombie · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
If you think he agrees with your naive view about the role of MAS as a regulator, then he is re-writing MAS mission statement with you.

Fine, then show me the webpage of MAS to prove your point that the duty of MAS is to ensure that the investors are kept safe from losing their money.

If you are right, I am sure MAS will write that down in the mission statement.

Zombie · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
TKL did not mislead the people. Such thoughts are ridiculous.

Why has TKL not misled the people?
For example, he says that MAS approved the product (eg minibond) in his blog.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

Zombie said:
Fine, then show me the webpage of MAS to prove your point that the duty of MAS is to ensure that the investors are kept safe from losing their money.

If you are right, I am sure MAS will write that down in the mission statement.

Why refer to MAS website for mission statement, as if if it is not written on the website, then it is not true. You should know better than to depend totally on website for info, isn't it?

Anyway, the mission of the MAS briefly is to promote sustained and non-inflationary economic growth and a sound and progressive financial services sector.

It is principally responsible for administering the following Acts:
a) Financial Advisers Act
b) Insurance Act
c) Banking Act
d) Exchange Act
e) The Currency Act
f) Government Securities Act
g) Local Treasury Bills Act

In short, it is a regulator that answers to the elected government when it is given the authority to administer these Acts.

Contained in the Financial Advisers Act, you will find all the implied legal nuances of law and explicit references of its laws that would serve to ensure that the investors are kept safe from losing their money. If you really have the time, go to the MAS Website and search for the Financial Advisers Act. But let me warn you, it is many pages long and not easy reading if you are un-trained.

If MAS felt its role was like you said, then it need not bother and what TKL is doing would be totally harmless and these investors would be incorrect to send any petition to MAS.

So, who is right on MAS role, let the people decide on polling day.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

Zombie said:
Why has TKL not misled the people?
For example, he says that MAS approved the product (eg minibond) in his blog.

Again, you think it is such an important revelation that the word "approved" is not found but the word "registered" is. Frankly, it is not important.

All products must be finally approved by MAS, if not, the products are illegal and cannot be sold. Registering the product categorically means it is approved by MAS. If it is not approved at the point of launch, it is approved subsequently. If it is not approved, then it is because the product's underlying components or it falls under the range of existing products the FI is already marketing.

If we may investigate deeper, we may even find that MAS could possibly be mis-led by the FI concerned or if not, then MAS may be extraordinarily lenient in reading the Financial Advisers Act, when confirming if a product needs approval or not.

Don't believe? We could have been mis-lead by mis-informed reporting by the media on the subject of "approved" and "registered". No difference.
MAS is responsible to ensure approval of all financial products sold by FI.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

I like to add that approval is read at a higher order and that is at the terms and conditions of approving the license to an FI to offer financial services in Sinkiepore.

singveld · Oct 28, 2008

i wonder who should foot the bill for US bank collapse
it is not fair for sinkie gov to foot the bill
US gov not going to foot the bill for sure
so basically, it is a bad situation, i feel sorry for the saver.
but more hard time for the rest of us.
if sinkie gov print money, inflation will go up and the money will worth less.
basically screw the rest of the population, who did not get the interests in good time
why should the rest of sinkies paid for these victims?
they can sue the bank in sink city, but the court will side the bank.
so, prolong suffer to these poor soul.
why struggle. the result will be the same.

sinkies are not the only savers in the world who got screw, germany, japan,middle east, hk and everywhere.

they sign on the dot line, they can read and no one point a gun on their head.
ignorance is no excuse.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

No matter how one chooses to read it, MAS knows it has to uphold its role as a regulator of financial service providers.

Those not licensed by MAS have the dubious honor of having their names on MAS website.

Zombie · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
Why refer to MAS website for mission statement, as if if it is not written on the website, then it is not true.

Contained in the Financial Advisers Act

First, you are the one who started with "mission statement", so please don't anyhow blame.

Second, Financial Advisers Act is about law governing financial advisers. This is not a law about MAS to ensure that the investors are kept safe from losing their money. It is like I've said, to set out a safe and secured business environment, so that investors can make informed decisions. TKL has blurred this line for many people.

Lastly, don't always mixed the topic with politics, please. :smile:

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

singveld said:
i wonder who should foot the bill for US bank collapse
it is not fair for sinkie gov to foot the bill
US gov not going to foot the bill for sure
so basically, it is a bad situation, i feel sorry for the saver.
but more hard time for the rest of us.
if sinkie gov print money, inflation will go up and the money will worth less.
basically screw the rest of the population, who did not get the interests in good time
why should the rest of sinkies paid for these victims?
they can sue the bank in sink city, but the court will side the bank.
so, prolong suffer to these poor soul.
why struggle. the result will be the same.

sinkies are not the only savers in the world who got screw, germany, japan,middle east, hk and everywhere.

they sign on the dot line, they can read and no one point a gun on their head.
ignorance is no excuse.

No worries. The US$700 billion bailout in USA of AIG is taxpayers' money.
The situation of the Lehman Bros Minibonds fallout is different. USA is billing out the corporate, in this case, AIG and also, Henry Paulson had the right to use 1/3 of the bailout money to buy into other banks in dire straits.

I do not expect MAS or the government to bailout DBS, Maybank, HL Finance, etc.

So, I do not expect MAS to bailout any investors either. What I feel is that as a regulator, MAS should be held responsible because the buck must stop at the top and the top cannot simply pass the responsibity back to the investors. If so, why the need to have MAS?

Zombie · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
Again, you think it is such an important revelation that the word "approved" is not found but the word "registered" is. Frankly, it is not important.

Whether it is a habit of yours to assume "registered" as "approved", I do not know.

But, definitely MAS has made it very clear that they do not consider the merits of the products.

Zombie · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
No matter how one chooses to read it, MAS knows it has to uphold its role as a regulator of financial service providers.

Denial mode.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

Zombie said:
First, you are the one who started with "mission statement", so please don't anyhow blame.

Second, Financial Advisers Act is about law governing financial advisers. This is not a law about MAS to ensure that the investors are kept safe from losing their money. It is like I've said, to set out a safe and secured business environment, so that investors can make informed decisions. TKL has blurred this line for many people.

Lastly, don't always mixed the topic with politics, please.

I did not say you will find the mission statement on MAS website. I surely didn't.

Yeah, yeah, sure sure....the FAA is "about law governing financial advisers and not about MAS ensuring investors are kept safe from losing their money." Please, go read the FAA first, then come here to say otherwise, ok?

Again, let me repeat. I choose to mix politics with financial stability, whether you like it or not, because both are intrinsically linked to each other.

Finally, I really don't know why you choose to use such an oxymoron statement as this: "to set out a safe and secured business environment, so that investors can make informed decisions"

What do you mean by "safe and secure" if investors are not ensured they will not lose money???

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

Zombie said:
Denial mode.

You are the one in denial mode. Ask Mr. Heng Swee Kiat if he feels MAS does not need to answer to what is happening now in the financial marketplace that his statutory board is administering and overseeing?

scroobal · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
Finally, if you think MAS role as regulator is just this: "The role of regulatory financial system like MAS is to ensure a safe and secured business environment. MAS must ensure that there are enough information for investors to make an informed investment decisions. That is the purpose of prospectus and pricing statement.", then you are dead mis-informed.

Could not help but notice that over many postings by you that your arguments and points of view have little basis and certainly defies logic.

MAS only reacted because HK reacted and it was a political response. There is indeed a case to support the "vulnerable" category and in this respect MAS has indeed failed. I think by now the communication coming out is clearly indicating that the rest will not be compensated.

You are clutching at straws at best. This is a lifetime event, a particular money market model that has been operating since 1952 has failed. The market has collapsed. The cash injections and pumping of liquidity in the markets place by various central banks and the feds are to shore up the entire banking system that has a crisis of confidence. It is certainly not to compensate investors.

I find it comical the way that you have interpreted MAS's role. To sum it up best , you yourself have absolved MAS by the very statement that you made below

Who would make an issue with Lehman Bros, when the ratings agencies were rating it AAAAAAAA.

What could MAS have done - disallow the product and on what basis. Maybe write a rule that says people with low IQ should not be sold any investment product not matter what the grading is because they actually think that everything in life is risk free.

Lets be frank - what did you expect MAS to do with this product. Here are the options
1) write the word "risk" in bigger font, underlined, bold and in red
2) require a lawyer to accompany the customer at time of purchase
3) Heng Swee Kiat to read the propectus to you and guide you
4) disallow the product despite its grading
5) get you to produce a post graduate qualification in finance before allowing purchase
6) provide a cooling of period of 6 years for a 5 year product
7) a guarantee from the state

What exactly were you are hoping for?

You can't have your cake and eat it.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

Zombie said:
Whether it is a habit of yours to assume "registered" as "approved", I do not know.

But, definitely MAS has made it very clear that they do not consider the merits of the products.

You are so ignorant and so easily misled. Please kindly go read the FAA, under "Product Development and Pricing of Products". There are mandatory requirements and there are guidelines in it. How an FI price its products only come as guidelines from MAS and no approval is needed. This includes Prospectus, which MAS, under the FAA, has some guidelines for FIs to follow but no approval is needed. However, all products must be approved by MAS if the product to be marketed is not already allowed in the issuance of the licencse to the FI, in the first place.

Read the FAA please and understand it properly, then come here to talk more, ok? :biggrin:

Zombie · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
Please, go read the FAA first, then come here to say otherwise, ok?

What do you mean by "safe and secure" if investors are not ensured they will not lose money???

OK, then show me which clause in the FAA to say that the MAS duty is to ensure that the investors are kept safe from losing money.

No matter how safe and secured the business environment, someone somewhere will lose money. Is that too difficult to understand?

singveld · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
No worries. The US$700 billion bailout in USA of AIG is taxpayers' money.
The situation of the Lehman Bros Minibonds fallout is different. USA is billing out the corporate, in this case, AIG and also, Henry Paulson had the right to use 1/3 of the bailout money to buy into other banks in dire straits.

I do not expect MAS or the government to bailout DBS, Maybank, HL Finance, etc.

So, I do not expect MAS to bailout any investors either. What I feel is that as a regulator, MAS should be held responsible because the buck must stop at the top and the top cannot simply pass the responsibity back to the investors. If so, why the need to have MAS?

if AIG was not bail out by USA gov, a lot of bank in the world will collapse.

USA already decided not to bail out lehman, so they cannot go back on their decision, they cannot undo the damage.

if DBS going to fall, pap will bail them out for sure.

why DBS sell these product. these are profitable for the bankers, they get fat commissions.

regulator only enforce the law. did dbs break any law to sell these product. i dun think so. so, basically no way you can win the bank.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

scroobal said:
Could not help but notice that over many postings by you that your arguments and points of view have little basis and certainly defies logic.

MAS only reacted because HK reacted and it was a political response. There is indeed a case to support the "vulnerable" category and in this respect MAS has indeed failed. I think by now the communication coming out is clearly indicating that the rest will not be compensated.

You are clutching at straws at best. This is a lifetime event, a particular money market model that has been operating since 1952 has failed. The market has collapsed. The cash injections and pumping of liquidity in the markets place by various central banks and the feds are to shore up the entire banking system that has a crisis of confidence. It is certainly not to compensate investors.

I find it comical the way that you have interpreted MAS's role. To sum it up best , you yourself have absolved MAS by the very statement that you made below

What could MAS have done - disallow the product and on what basis. Maybe write a rule that says people with low IQ should not be sold any investment product not matter what the grading is because they actually think that everything in life is risk free.

Lets be frank - what did you expect MAS to do with this product. Here are the options
1) write the word "risk" in bigger font, underlined, bold and in red
2) require a lawyer to accompany the customer at time of purchase
3) Heng Swee Kiat to read the propectus to you and guide you
4) disallow the product despite its grading
5) get you to produce a post graduate qualification in finance before allowing purchase
6) provide a cooling of period of 6 years for a 5 year product
7) a guarantee from the state

What exactly were you are hoping for?

You can't have your cake and eat it.

This is your opinion about MAS reaction hinging on HKG's action.
I would prefer to agree with TKL's stand on petitioning to MAS, as I see MAS as the regulator and henceforth, it should have done its due diligence to prevent investors from engaging in investing in such opaque products like Structured Products, which presently, beyond the 10,000 affected by the Mini-bonds, many are still stuck with other manner of structured products and shitting in their pants right now.

MAS can regulate at the FAA level and your 1) to 7) is ridiculous. It is already provisioned in the FAA. Right now is asking the question to MAS how such a Mini-bond fiasco can happen and why did MAS not see it coming.

Today, the US Congress is putting blame on the ratings agencies like S&P, Bloomberg, etc for giving AA+ ratings to such Lehman Bros' derivatives. Such questioning and grilling means that the US government is taking responsibility and through such interrogation, it hope to shore up its failings and ensure that investors are safe in their investments and not lose money.

This is to return faith to the financial services industry, same motive for USA, same for SInkiepore.

masgnoeL · Oct 28, 2008

singveld said:
if AIG was not bail out by USA gov, a lot of bank in the world will collapse.

USA already decided not to bail out lehman, so they cannot go back on their decision, they cannot undo the damage.

if DBS going to fall, pap will bail them out for sure.

why DBS sell these product. these are profitable for the bankers, they get fat commissions.

regulator only enforce the law. did dbs break any law to sell these product. i dun think so. so, basically no way you can win the bank.

Bro, not so serious lah. The Lehman's Minibonds, High Notes 5, etc will not floor DBS. This is chicken feeds to DBS.

What will floor DBS is what it did with the money investors invested with it. Like for example, loaning to projects which will fail royally and bad loans and risky investments like futures, options and derivatives.

So, you are right maybe. The G may bail DBS out, as it is a state-owned bank. But don't you want the G to bailout DBS? Come on, many Sinkieporeans have their paychecks automatically credited by GIRO into their DBS/POSB accounts and it would be horrors if DBS should cease operations and file for Chapter Revelations!!

Zombie · Oct 28, 2008

masgnoeL said:
Please kindly go read the FAA, under "Product Development and Pricing of Products".

Don't anyhow shoot me to holland, ok?

Where can you find "Product Development and Pricing of Products" in Financial Advisors Act? Have you read the FAA or not? :biggrin:

Petition to MAS Chairman by investors of DBS High Notes 5

Zombie

Guest

Zombie

Guest

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Zombie

Guest

Alfrescian

Zombie

Guest

Zombie

Guest

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Zombie

Guest

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Zombie

Guest

Similar threads