• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

MAS responsibility in Minibonds - Moral Hazard

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
The reason I feel that MAS has failed miserably in its role of a regulator is basically because it has failed to identify the MORAL HAZARDS involved in the structure of Lehman Brothers Minibonds.

First of all, the mention of the Six reference entities that consists of big names in the banking industry is TOTALLY MISLEADING, especially so when the risk that involves in the basket of Collateral Assets were not mentioned. In fact, as far as I know, at the time of sales, the list of 150 companies and their derivatives, were not even identified to the investors! How could anyone, be it MAS, banks or investors, really evaluate the TOTAL RISKS involved in this Minibonds if the bulk of risk that lies in this list of 150 companies was not even identified?

This is why I am very puzzled why this Minibonds has been approved by MAS to be sold to consumers VIA BANKS if the risk nature of it was not determined fully.

Secondly, there is an obvious MORAL HAZARDS that lies within this structure of Minibonds. The two SWAP PARTIES are actually the SAME! Minibonds Ltd is just an empty shell company created and owned by Lehman Brothers!

And due to the way that this Minibonds is structured, it would then mean that in the interests of Lehman Brothers, money invested by investors would be used to buy derivatives that would give the highest return while all these returns would be all given to Lehman Brothers. But in return Lehman Brothers would only give 5.1% to investors while investors would have to bear the risks of that Minibonds has taken, for the benefits of Lehman Brothers, in investing in all these high risk derivatives!

This is a CLEAR indication of MORAL HAZARDS. There is basically NO PROTECTION of investors' interests in preventing of taking too much risks for that amount of 5.1% return.

No investors would have known Minibonds Ltd is RELATED or even CONTROLLED by Lehman Brothers itself. And no investors would know EXACTLY HOW MUCH RISKS they are taking because the list of 150 companies and their derivatives was not even determined at the point of sales. This may explain why sales representatives would mislead investors into thinking that their money would be invested in the six reference banks or even Lehman Brothers itself! They may not even know the existence of the 150 companies' derivatives as in the Collateral Assets! How would a sales representative sell something that they don't even know what they are selling in the very first place?

The more I look at the whole structure, the more I feel that MAS has failed miserably as a regulator and YET, there are people who would claim this got nothing to do with the Government! How could PAP government that pride itself as World Class, filled with high paid elites, could ever allow such TOTALLY FLAWED and TOXIC financial products to be sold in Singapore is really something I could not understand.

Goh Meng Seng
 

masgnoeL

Alfrescian
Loyal
Hey, too many threads on the same topic. The thread I started already has some of the forum responses with regards to whether MAS is responsible or not and it seems from those responses so far, it seems to be that MAS can sleep soundly because it is not MAS fault that investors lose their retirement funds even when such Structured Products are approved for sale by the regulator. It is "no one point a gun to force one to buy" and "caveat emptor" which the responses thus far lean towards.

You may like to post your above post in this thread for response. I will not be participating in responses in the thread anymore as I am not familiar with the Banking Act and the Securities and Futures Act, of which banks are regulated by when they sell the Mini-bonds Structured Product.

This is the thread:

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=7734
 

DIVISION1

Alfrescian
Loyal
MAS is not responsible in any way. To officially admit such a statement is not only erroneous, it ignores the fact that Singaporeans chose to invest.
 

TeeKee

Alfrescian
Loyal
MAS is not responsible in any way. To officially admit such a statement is not only erroneous, it ignores the fact that Singaporeans chose to invest.

what not responsible? have you read the contract of the minibonds? got MAS name in it!!
 
Top