Goh Meng Seng: What is your view on Tharman's 2 Precepts viz Lehman Bonds?

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

"Simple, clear and good disclosure and to ensure fair and reasoned financial advice that takes into account the investor's risk profile and needs. Those are the two most important precepts".Tharman

What is your view after meeting the retail investors at Hong Lim?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

"Simple, clear and good disclosure and to ensure fair and reasoned financial advice that takes into account the investor's risk profile and needs. Those are the two most important precepts".Tharman

What is your view after meeting the retail investors at Hong Lim?

If that is what he thinks, then all banks and financial institutions that sold these products are guilty of breaching these "simple" precepts!

However, I guess he does not understand the whole situation well. These structured products could NEVER be explained in "SIMPLE AND CLEAR" ways: imagine that those people do not even use simple flowcharts to explain the whole structure of the products which is the simplest way but yet still not people would understand (according to my experience with the responses I get for my explanation on my blog) , would the banks and financial institutions have done a better job without any charts in their marketing materials?

My message to Tharman will be this, PUT YOUR EFFORT AND POLITICAL WILL AT WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. Period.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Goh Meng Seng,

Appreciate the reply Bro.

From my reading of today's local english press, Tharman's above remarks(in parliament yesterday) appear to sum up the government's position on this sticky issue.

From what you say, MAS' report on its investigation of this matter is cucial and shall probably give a clue as to where this matter is heading. Perhaps pressure shoudl now be put on MAS to expedite its findings?

Cheers

 

[leetahbar]

times were good then. hence, the temptation of greed could be easily applied.

before lehman's, there was another SWISSCASH conjob which offered even better fantastic return of 25% PER MONTH on your investment.

it turned out to be a "pyramid" investment when those earlier investors benefitted most from the later investors. in other words, it was a CONJOB SCAM!

why did it work in the first place? Answer: GREED.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Goh Meng Seng,

Appreciate the reply Bro.

From my reading of today's local english press, Tharman's above remarks(in parliament yesterday) appear to sum up the government's position on this sticky issue.

From what you say, MAS' report on its investigation of this matter is cucial and shall probably give a clue as to where this matter is heading. Perhaps pressure shoudl now be put on MAS to expedite its findings?

Cheers

Yes Bro,

That is why I gave my own views last Saturday and yet, there are some people who think I am just "opportunist politicizing" the issue. The truth is, as you have correctly pointed out, the pressure must be put on the Govt aka MAS to expedite its findings. But without applying political pressure from the masses of investors, there is no way we could achieve that.


Goh Meng Seng

 

[Ramseth]

My message to Tharman will be this, PUT YOUR EFFORT AND POLITICAL WILL AT WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. Period.

Well said! Clap! Clap! Clap! Goh Meng Seng shall put his name, effort and political will where his mouth is, on the ballot paper!

 

[leetahbar]

Yes Bro,

That is why I gave my own views last Saturday and yet, there are some people who think I am just "opportunist politicizing" the issue. The truth is, as you have correctly pointed out, the pressure must be put on the Govt aka MAS to expedite its findings. But without applying political pressure from the masses of investors, there is no way we could achieve that.


Goh Meng Seng

just do it with ur conscience and sincerity intact. those people most probably your "fans" from this zany kopitiam. u really do have ardent fans who are stalkers! LOL!

 

[borom]

"Simple, clear ......disclosure.....and reasoned financial advice that takes into account the investor's risk profile and needs.

Many of these products are so complicated that its not possible to make it simple and clear to the uninitiated.Many bank officers do not understand those investment products and those who really understand are normally confined to the investment banking department.

Just wonder how the 8 town councils that lost $16 million fit the risk profile of an acceptable Minibonds/Jubilee Series investor as the banks have all the while claimed that they are not low risk investments.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Well said! Clap! Clap! Clap! Goh Meng Seng shall put his name, effort and political will where his mouth is, on the ballot paper!

Err... Ramseth,

I am now just a social-political activist and putting my effort and time on where my heart is, to seek social justice redress for these investors.

Told you so many times, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE... and FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO STAND AS CANDIDATE is DEFINITELY NOT FREE... every expensive in fact.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

If what you say can be reasonably substantiated, then continue to fight the good fight together with Tan Kin Lian. However once again do thread carefully, not that I really need to advise you and TKL of the obvious dangers and peril.

Yes Bro,

That is why I gave my own views last Saturday and yet, there are some people who think I am just "opportunist politicizing" the issue. The truth is, as you have correctly pointed out, the pressure must be put on the Govt aka MAS to expedite its findings. But without applying political pressure from the masses of investors, there is no way we could achieve that.


Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

That is why these PAP TCs have to be transparent and accountable for these multi million dollar losses of residents $$$. If Dr Teo Ho Pin and Dr Ahmad Magad think that their brief press interview yesterday is enough then I think they must be living in cloud cuckoo land or their residents are pathetic morons. Who were their financial advisers and what exactly was the advice given to invest in the Lehman Minibonds?

"Simple, clear ......disclosure.....and reasoned financial advice that takes into account the investor's risk profile and needs.

Many of these products are so complicated that its not possible to make it simple and clear to the uninitiated.Many bank officers do not understand those investment products and those who really understand are normally confined to the investment banking department.

Just wonder how the 8 town councils that lost $16 million fit the risk profile of an acceptable Minibonds/Jubilee Series investor as the banks have all the while claimed that they are not low risk investments.

 

[Ramseth]

I am now just a social-political activist and putting my effort and time on where my heart is, to seek social justice redress for these investors.

Told you so many times, FREEDOM IS NOT FREE... and FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO STAND AS CANDIDATE is DEFINITELY NOT FREE... every expensive in fact.

You're fashioned for a higher calling, my dear friend, and you've proved to all your fellow Singaporeans that you could do it.

Of course there's a price to pay for freedom, but it's affordable and worth the while. 生命诚可贵，爱情价更高。若为自由故，两者皆可抛。

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Porifirio

A saying comes to mind. " The Emperor is far away in Beijing." Most of these products now under dispute have not been allowed to be sold to mom and pop investors in the UK and the US by regulators. The question is why ? The amounts in questions are made worse by the fact that Singaporeans have huge amounts of retirement equity locked up in property and the amounts invested represent sometimes practically all their disposable cash. Ask yourself, the CPF board protects what Singaporeans have been allowed to invest in until their are 55 :_)) You reach 55 65 withdraw your savings put it in the banks and all these unregulated products are pushed to you, where is the justice or the logic ?




Locke

 

[Avantas]

Expressing one's personal views of politics is not equal to politicizing the issue.

We must make the distinction pretty clear:

http://wayangparty.com/2008/11/17/why-the-minibond-fiasco-was-never-politicized-by-any-parties/

Yes Bro,

That is why I gave my own views last Saturday and yet, there are some people who think I am just "opportunist politicizing" the issue. The truth is, as you have correctly pointed out, the pressure must be put on the Govt aka MAS to expedite its findings. But without applying political pressure from the masses of investors, there is no way we could achieve that.


Goh Meng Seng

 

[masgnoeL]

"Simple, clear ......disclosure.....and reasoned financial advice that takes into account the investor's risk profile and needs.

Many of these products are so complicated that its not possible to make it simple and clear to the uninitiated.Many bank officers do not understand those investment products and those who really understand are normally confined to the investment banking department.

Just wonder how the 8 town councils that lost $16 million fit the risk profile of an acceptable Minibonds/Jubilee Series investor as the banks have all the while claimed that they are not low risk investments.

I like your post and I have upped you. Indeed, if the banks told the town councils it was low-risk, then why it bombed? If the bank said it was high risk, then why the town councils still foolishly bought into the high risk investment? It's not their money, but the constituents' money.

Breaking the logic down, if the town councils were told the structured products were low risk and then it bombed totally, then the town councils must sue the banks to get the money back, for it is constituents' money.

However, if the town councils were told it was high risk investments and yet still bought into it and now lost everything, then the town councils owe it to the constituents to make restitution, either monetarily or by way of resignation or some other form of justice, even though resignation is little compensation for the loss.

It should not be simply a quiet wrtie-off for the loss. This is, IMO, unacceptable. Where is the money?

 

[locky2ky]

I like your post and I have upped you. Indeed, if the banks told the town councils it was low-risk, then why it bombed? If the bank said it was high risk, then why the town councils still foolishly bought into the high risk investment? It's not their money, but the constituents' money.

Breaking the logic down, if the town councils were told the structured products were low risk and then it bombed totally, then the town councils must sue the banks to get the money back, for it is constituents' money.

However, if the town councils were told it was high risk investments and yet still bought into it and now lost everything, then the town councils owe it to the constituents to make restitution, either monetarily or by way of resignation or some other form of justice, even though resignation is little compensation for the loss.

It should not be simply a quiet wrtie-off for the loss. This is, IMO, unacceptable. Where is the money?

agree, town councils should be held responsible otherwise they will never learn their lesson.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes. But Tharman would appear to refer you and the moms and pops to his his 2 precepts above. Let's now see if MAS' findings turn out to be a white wash.

Dear Porifirio

A saying comes to mind. " The Emperor is far away in Beijing." Most of these products now under dispute have not been allowed to be sold to mom and pop investors in the UK and the US by regulators. The question is why ?


Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Porifirio

Answering the first does not answer the second with regards to comparable levels of protection by a) the CPF board and b) well regarded regulators in the UK. If his defense and I believe the party line will be that the liberalization of financial products was meant to be balanced out with the " financial adviser acts" and " full disclosure." to offer investors protection.

A closer look at the disclosure of " mini bonds." and how the "human" profit incentive can put paid to the need for good advice will bury his illusions.


Locke

 

[Avantas]

defending PAP again ?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Avantas

If you were referring to my posts, please read it again and this time with a little intelligence that even a monkey could manage.




Locke