<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE class="georgia11 whiteBg" border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=620><TBODY><TR><TD class=padlrt10>July 27, 2009
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=padlrt10>If HK can pressure banks to pay Lehman victims, why can't MAS?
</TD></TR><TR><TD class="marginbottom8 padlrt10">I REFER to last Thursday's report, '16 Hong Kong banks to pay Lehman victims $1.2 billion'. I am surprised that our industry watchdog, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), is not as efficient and influential as Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Monetary Authority in getting banks there to compensate all investors who lost money on structured products, notes or minibonds linked to Lehman Brothers.
Banks in Hong Kong will pay at least 60 cents on every dollar to investors. Under the settlement, banks will repurchase or compensate 60 per cent of investments by investors aged below 65, while investors aged 65 and above will recoup at least 70 per cent.
MAS can fine financial institutions in Singapore and ban them from selling structured financial products, but investors want compensation. Tellingly, all financial institutions in Singapore posted healthy profits last year, despite the financial crisis and having to settle a small portion of claims linked to Lehman's failed structured products, notes and minibonds.
Many investors have filed class-action lawsuits, individual lawsuits and complaints against the financial institutions involved, but MAS seems to take a wait-and-see approach. Investors can complain to MAS and financial institutions alike but most investors will end up receiving a letter stating that their complaint is either receiving attention or under investigation or they cannot compensate their investors.
MAS must make financial institutions responsible for distributing or selling their own (or others') financial products, especially when some will mention that they are CPF-approved, or that companies linked to them have triple or double AA ratings. At present, financial institutions have disclaimers in their terms and conditions to cover themselves.
If Singapore wants to be the financial hub of South-east Asia or even Asia, we must be more proactive in protecting investors' interests, and not pro-business (or pro-bank) at the expense of investors.
David Goh
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=padlrt10>If HK can pressure banks to pay Lehman victims, why can't MAS?
</TD></TR><TR><TD class="marginbottom8 padlrt10">I REFER to last Thursday's report, '16 Hong Kong banks to pay Lehman victims $1.2 billion'. I am surprised that our industry watchdog, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), is not as efficient and influential as Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Monetary Authority in getting banks there to compensate all investors who lost money on structured products, notes or minibonds linked to Lehman Brothers.
Banks in Hong Kong will pay at least 60 cents on every dollar to investors. Under the settlement, banks will repurchase or compensate 60 per cent of investments by investors aged below 65, while investors aged 65 and above will recoup at least 70 per cent.
MAS can fine financial institutions in Singapore and ban them from selling structured financial products, but investors want compensation. Tellingly, all financial institutions in Singapore posted healthy profits last year, despite the financial crisis and having to settle a small portion of claims linked to Lehman's failed structured products, notes and minibonds.
Many investors have filed class-action lawsuits, individual lawsuits and complaints against the financial institutions involved, but MAS seems to take a wait-and-see approach. Investors can complain to MAS and financial institutions alike but most investors will end up receiving a letter stating that their complaint is either receiving attention or under investigation or they cannot compensate their investors.
MAS must make financial institutions responsible for distributing or selling their own (or others') financial products, especially when some will mention that they are CPF-approved, or that companies linked to them have triple or double AA ratings. At present, financial institutions have disclaimers in their terms and conditions to cover themselves.
If Singapore wants to be the financial hub of South-east Asia or even Asia, we must be more proactive in protecting investors' interests, and not pro-business (or pro-bank) at the expense of investors.
David Goh
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
