Meeting at Speaker's Corner 18 Oct, 6-7 pm

[Ah Hai]

Re: Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm

Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Financial Advice for a Fee
The following financial adviser firm is willing to give advice for a fee, based on an hourly rate of $100 or $150 per hour. They will also give an estimate in advance for a particular type of advice.
An outline of their approach is stated here:
http://www.tankinlian.com/forms/providend.pdf

I have listed Providend as they agreed to offer their service at a modest rate, and also to provide an estimate in advance. I do not have any financial interest in Providend.

There are a few financial advisory firms willing to offer their service for a fee, but their charges are rather high. If they are willing to operate on my preferred fee structure, I shall list them as well.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:40 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm

Wednesday, December 03, 2008
SCMP:Lehman investors turn to US government
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdi...9ca8bc4b31e3&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ==

3 December 2008
Paggie Leung

About 50 investors who bought Lehman Brothers-related products through Citibank marched to the American consulate yesterday to request an investigation into alleged mis-selling by the American bank.

The investors, who lost money after Lehman collapsed, petitioned the consulate, asking the American government to investigate Citibank's sales procedures.

"The US government recently injected so much money into Citi and has become the bank's key shareholder. Therefore, it should look into the matter," said Hui Shun-ngai, a representative of the group. The American government last week guaranteed US$306 billion of Citigroup's troubled assets and extended it US$20 billion in cash.

"The US government must also inquire into Citibank's authorised representatives responsible for the incident, including the tolerance of Citibank's mis-selling practices and lack of governance resulting in financial losses to Citibank's victims," the petition said.

Mr Hui said each protester had bought at least HK$500,000 in Lehman Brothers credit-linked derivatives from Citibank and they had not been informed of the high risk.

Meanwhile, 10 more investors filed lawsuits with the Small Claims Tribunal against six banks yesterday: Bank of China, Bank of Communications, Bank of East Asia, DBS, Wing Hang and Nanyang Commercial Bank. Their cases will be heard on January 29.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:45 PM
3 comments:

Wayangnologist said...

now by some odd angle, they drag in US Gov

i am wondering how far this will stretch


the bigger issue is will how far this will stretch affect how much would be done


?
11:35 PM
Anonymous said...

With Obama as president, they are more likely to listn to ordinary people's voice, and understand their needs better.
6:35 AM
Anonymous said...

nail down the culprits whom had designed, packaged and export all these TOXIC products.

Jail them. and for such large scale criminal offences, Obama should do somethings.

ELSE we all , the whole world will BOYCOTT US products, EVRYTHING make is USA, we won't buy! won't eat, won't drink, as long as it carries USA make products.

But I can leave home without Microsoft OS>
6:45 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm

Thursday, December 04, 2008
Hong Kong: Can the SFC avoid a knee-jerk response?
http://www.asianinvestor.net/article.aspx?CIaNID=90380

By Jame DiBiasio 4 December 2008

CEO Martin Wheatley explains the Hong Kong securities regulator’s strategy for dealing with the Lehman Minibond fallout.

Martin Wheatley, CEO of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, says the SFC and other securities regulators around the world are trying to understand how so many retail investors became exposed to complex financial products, to the extent that blow-ups of Icelandic banks could cause serious losses to moms and pops in Hong Kong.

He spoke yesterday at a conference organised by AsianInvestor on the future of fund management, on a panel session regarding regulation that also included a fund management regulatory lobbyist and a tax specialist. James Walker, a partner at Clifford Chance, moderated the discussion.

Wheatley says investors around the world have lost money on complex structured products backed by Lehman Brothers (of which the Minibonds are a branded product line) or through other credit-derivative exposures. Since the investment bank went under in September, the entire spectrum of financial products has been tarnished.

This has led the SFC to realise the extent to which investors have been sold such complex instruments; and the extent to which selling agents didn’t understand the risks in these products. Things like counterparty and credit risks must be explained, he concludes.

Right now the SFC is investigating the process that has taken the industry to this point, to understand whether issuers and distributors are guilty of mis-selling, and whether they are competent at understanding and explaining the risks of such products.

Second, the SFC is trying to determine what the financial-products regime must look like. This includes macro structural issues, such as which government agencies are responsible for approving and overseeing such products or sales; as well as micro ideas such as a cooling-off period for prospective buyers, or the process used by sales channels to appraise product suitability.

The SFC is consulting with other securities regulators to develop a response to issues such as short selling, regulating credit-default swaps and oversight of unregulated entities. But market players recognise the difficulty in getting a standard response.

Catherine Simmons, vice-president for regulatory and government relations at State Street Bank and Trust, says local political agendas will shape each market’s response.

Asian governments lack a centralised policy coordination platform, let alone a single monetary policy structure, unlike Europe. Its financial systems vary. So while they all face the issue of fallout from investor exposure to complex credit products, their responses are not uniform.

For example, many regional governments have guaranteed bank deposits, but these measures vary by time horizon, and what assets are covered – those of foreign depositors or just locals; individuals or corporations; local currency or foreign exchange; and whether such protection incurs a fee.

“Businesses must continue to monitor regulatory change – and to engage with regulators,” Simmons says.

Accounting issues are also in flux, particularly as more investors and fund managers question the wisdom of marking assets to market. But Florence Yip, partner for tax services at PricewaterhouseCooper, says the Lehman bankruptcy will accelerate global moves to accept International Financial Reporting Standards. This will impact tax laws, which in turn will affect revenues on investments and fund products.

“Fund management companies need to understand the impact of uncertainty in tax rules on their businesses,” she says.

The SFC will submit its ideas to the Hong Kong government by the end of the year, and the financial secretary’s office is expected to recommend specific actions by mid-2009. “I hope by that time the finance industry has returned to something close to normal,” Wheatley says.

Wheatley’s overriding philosophy is to avoid knee-jerk reactions, mainly by focusing on the necessary information to be disclosed to investors, rather than micromanaging questions of product suitability. “Markets hate sudden change,” he says, citing moves by other governments to ban short selling. “We’ve tried to stay on an even keel.”

He says the focus of the SFC’s investigation will be on disclosure of structured products, particularly when they offer capital protection. Product structure determines under which regulator it is manufactured and sold, and the SFC is aware of the problems of this uneven playing field. It is also aware that current standards of disclosure have created documentation so dense that clients don’t bother to read it, and are overly reliant on tips from distributors.

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm

Thursday, December 04, 2008
Persist in our efforts
The officials in MAS spent the past month to find a new swap counterparty to replace Lehman Brothers. They are not able to find a new arrangement, in spite of the highly qualified, well paid people and regulatory power available in their hands.

I work with a handful of volunteers to help the noteholders (i.e. the "investors" who bought the credit linked notes) to get a fair compensation. These volunteers have to work on their full time job, and find some free time to devote to this task. Our request for information and meetings from the financial insitutions and with the regulator are usually ignored.

In spite of the great obstacles, we will persist in our fight for justice and fairness. I hope that, one day, our efforts will be rewarded.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=3in1kopitiam&msg=2907.1
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:08 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

7 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous said...

boycotts US products,then Hilary CLinton will smell it.

7:41 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't JB Jeyeratnam, Lee Siew Choh, Tan Liang Hong, Francis Seow and more recently Chee Soon Juan warned us of the consequences of having a one party rule? Singaporeans ignored them, now is payback time.

9:47 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Morning Mr Tan and all my same fate friends.

Just to share the reply of my query to Lehmantrustee.com in USA this morning.

Dear Ms Leng...

Thank you for your inquiry. Information regarding: (1) Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., chapter 11 cases is available at http://www.lehman-docket.com; and (2) Lehman Brothers Inc. SIPA proceeding is available at http://www.lehmantrustee.com. Additional information will be disseminated with respect to these matters through the applicable website. Please consult the appropriate website with respect to your question or request. Also, you may contact the Call Center that has been set up to respond to inquiries in each of these matters by using the following telephone numbers: (a) for the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., chapter 11 cases call: (i) 1.866.879.0688 (US); or (ii) 1.646.282.2579 (Non-US); and (b) for the Lehman Brothers Inc. SIPA proceeding call: (i) 1.866.841.7868 (US), or (ii) 1.503.597.7690 (Non-US). Thank you again.

Best regards,
Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC

Can someone expert in Finance & Law help to explore and hopefully we can get something from here.

Below wedsite are the link to the above correspondence:-

http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/clientdefault.aspx?pk=978bd245-11be-4d4b-83db-d6a3283b2962&l=1

http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/clientdefault.aspx

Take care & have a good day.

Regards
Leng63

10:24 AM
Blogger Chan J C said...

A big THANK YOU to Mr. Tan and all the volunteers to help out noteholders including myself.

10:35 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We will continue and persistently fight for justice and fairness to get back our money.

10:43 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.Lehman B has been the main culprit of introducing the lopsided betting game.they cheat and told the whole world that the betting is for the benefit of the investors. In fact, the evil of the games is : you-gain-I-gain more , you-lost-I- suffer-no loss. The unfairness and evilness of the game are obviously shown in its purpose of cheating the investors right from the start.
2.DBS and other financial products borrows the ideas from Lehman. They were playing the same dirty games with many illiterate customers and unavoidably having a consequence of you-lost-all-I-suffer-no loss .
3.The more civilised and advanced countries, ie UK,USA,JAPAN,KOREA ,GERMANY etc are suing these irresponsible FIs so to put things on the right treck. Unfortunely, Singapore government seems to protect the interest of the FIs as their priority. The contrast between the advanced countries and our own in handling these kind of cheating case is sad to be too big a different.

11:53 AM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

UNBELIEVABLE


"Just to share the reply of my query to Lehmantrustee.com in USA this morning.


Dear...

Thank you for your inquiry. Information regarding:...

(1) Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., chapter 11 cases is available at http://www.lehman-docket.com; and...

(2) Lehman Brothers Inc. SIPA proceeding is available at http://www.lehmantrustee.com...

Additional information will be disseminated with respect to these matters through the applicable website...

Please consult the appropriate website with respect to your question or request...

Also, you may contact the Call Center that has been set up to respond to inquiries in each of these matters by using the following telephone numbers:...

(a) for the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., et al., chapter 11 cases call: (i) 1.866.879.0688 (US); or...

(ii) 1.646.282.2579 (Non-US); and...

(b) for the Lehman Brothers Inc. SIPA proceeding call:...

(i) 1.866.841.7868 (US), or...

(ii) 1.503.597.7690 (Non-US)...

Thank you again... "



IF a simple simple query result in only a one single paragraph email of ENDLESS REFERRALS to other websites and phonelines, then...

12:22 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

SCMP:Illiterate minibond investor files writ

Thursday, December 04, 2008
SCMP:Illiterate minibond investor files writ
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdi...9bc37feea64e&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ==

4 Dec 2008
Yvonne Tsui, Eva Wu and Dennis Eng

A fisherman is suing the Bank of China for the return of HK$800,000 he invested with Lehman Brothers, alleging he was deceived because he is illiterate.

Lai Kam-fook, who filed a writ in the District Court on Tuesday, is taking legal action after he was told in September that his money was affected by the collapse of the American bank.

The writ alleges he and his wife were advised by a staff member at the bank’s Aberdeen branch in August 2004 to make a risk-free, five-year deposit with a higher interest rate. It says he had deposited HK$800,000.

It alleges Mr Lai had never received or read any documentation from the bank.

“Because the staff member, surnamed Leung, told me it was a fiveyear deposit, I believed her. I did not read anything. It is useless to have read anything because I am illiterate anyway,” Mr Lai stated in the writ.

“To conclude, the total sum I had invested is HK$800,000. My allegation is: the bank cheated me because I am illiterate.”

However, HSBC Hong Kong received a cease-and-desist order last week from Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Lehman’s bankruptcy counsel. This notice means the minibonds cannot be liquidated, which would be necessary to go ahead with a buy-back. Democrat Kam Nai-wai, however, said the best option remained the banks buying back the bonds.

As an alternative, six lawmakers suggested that a redemption fund of HK$20 billion, including HK$10 billion from the government, be established.

However, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, Chan Ka-keung, said public funds should not be used to compensate investors’ losses.

Minibonds are not corporate bonds, but consist of high-risk, credit-linked derivatives that were marketed as proxy investments in well-known companies.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 12:36 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: SCMP:Illiterate minibond investor files writ

Thursday, December 04, 2008
Class action - update as at 4 Dec 2008
I wish to give an update to the notebolders (i.e. the investors of the credit linked notes).

1. About 200 notebolders have appointed a specific lawyer to act in the class action. I am meeting this lawyer to discuss his approach and the possibility of involving an experienced senior lawyer to fight the case in the high court.

2. A separate group of noteholders have approached several lawyers. They advised that a "test case" be used to take a case in high court. This group is likely to recommend a lawyer and to present the proposal to the noteholders in January 2009.

3. I have approached two senior lawyers to study the possible defects in the prospectus and pricing statement and to obtain an opinion from a Queens Counsel from the UK. A recommendation is likely to be made in January.

http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/12/legal-action-against-issuers-and.html

I hope that the investors will wait until February to decide on the strategy for the class action. It may be possible for two or three class actions to be pursued separately for the differtent types of notes.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 1:02 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

8 Comments

Anonymous said...

once court case applied, Bank license should be SUSPENDED.

What you all say?

When borrowers default loans, his/her ife are so miserable. Reversely now, depositors suing the banks, what fair games?

1:26 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"It may be possible for two or three class actions to be pursued separately for the differtent types of notes."


Thats 5 million PER class action

the lawyers are having a field day

1:51 PM
Blogger Chan J C said...

Finally... Justice is commencing!

Just do it!

3:31 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"Blogger Chan J C said...

Finally... Justice is commencing!

Just do it!

3:31 PM"


Chan

i know you might WANT to take this the wrong way but

Justice and Seeking Justice are different proceedings with different outcomes

4:12 PM
Anonymous Wilson said...

Kudos to TKL and those who organized the respective noteholder groups to fight for justice. I think the development of the toxic structured investment saga is now moving towards the right direction. Using the test case method seems the best way that will not use up too much of our resources and make the case more strait forward. Once the proceedings is commenced, I believe millions of people here and overseas will focus their attention on this issue. Let's do it!
Thanks again Mr Tan!

4:28 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know Mr Tan KL post that about 200 note holders have commmited to one lawyer to fight the court case is based on one person's postings on the blog. I am not sure who that person is and if his posting is accurate. I attended the minibond meeting with a large group of affected people. From what I know, very few people have actually committed to the lawyer in question. In fact I got an email from a minibond group member stating that the lawyer in question has been ruled out. Just want to make sure that the facts are right so that people don't make the wrong decision and commit too fast since this is going to be a very important decision - which lawyer to go with. Thank you.

6:41 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Wilson. Test case is a better method whereas a class action is difficult as different investors bought the structured notes in different ways, the judge can throw it out of court citing technical breach. People in the legal industry I have spoken to says class action suit is weak in our case.

6:44 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know Mr Tan KL post that about 200 note holders have commmited to one lawyer to fight the court case is based on one person's postings on the blog. I am not sure who that person is and if his posting is accurate. I attended the minibond meeting with a large group of affected people. From what I know, very few people have actually committed to the lawyer in question. In fact I got an email from a minibond group member stating that the lawyer in question has been ruled out. Just want to make sure that the facts are right so that people don't make the wrong decision and commit too fast since this is going to be a very important decision - which lawyer to go with. Thank you.

6:41 PM"


i think a really important factor is precedence. Has anyone got any news of that compensated case someone mentioned


"Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Wilson. Test case is a better method whereas a class action is difficult as different investors bought the structured notes in different ways, the judge can throw it out of court citing technical breach. People in the legal industry I have spoken to says class action suit is weak in our case.

6:44 PM"


Without strong evidence, without impartial witnesses and without precedence, any case however way its fought will suffer the risk of more or less the same outcome...5 million legal fees or 50 dollar registration fees

7:14 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: 8 Comments

Thursday, December 04, 2008
Now is time for Singapore to learn from China
China's inland provinces need infrastructure, and Beijing has announced a stimulus package of four trillion yuan (S$889 billion) by 2010. China is extending its railway network, rebuilding earthquake-damaged areas in Sichuan, increasing export tax rebates, lending more to small and medium-sized enterprises and spending more on social welfare systems.

To revive the housing market, it is reducing taxes on housing transactions and unwinding property- tightening measures introduced earlier to counter speculation. For first-time home buyers, the minimum down payment has been reduced from 30 per cent to 20 per cent, and banks are allowed to offer interest rates as low as 70 per cent of the standard lending rates for such mortgages. The demand for residential housing remains strong, and China's construction companies are capable of meeting it.

Personal consumption in China should be encouraged; it is only 35 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), compared with America's 70 per cent. Beijing is introducing rural land reforms, increasing government funding for low-price housing and basic medical services, and reducing interest rates in order to boost domestic consumption. China is determined to grow by at least 8 per cent, to create enough jobs to sidestep large-scale unemployment and social unrest.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:44 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

5 Comments

Wayangnologist said...

Again theres a difference between News and PR

Ask any Chinese Citizen they will give you a 3rd perspective

Its called Truth

8:19 PM
Blogger Weng Mao Fa 翁茂发 said...

Yes, there is oppertunity. What are the threat?
- 100,000 worker are retrenched, what are they doing now if their farm already sold out?
- where to find job for 6 million fresh graduates each year?
- More than one case of social unrest every day in PRC
- Is the Tibet indpendant issue solved?
- Is the terrorist issue in Xing Zhang Province been resolved?
- Both Tibet & Xing Zhang Province want independant. They don't share the materialism with China Communist Party.
- Underground churches are very active in poor provinces. Their common mission is to topple China Communist Party.
- Very bad corruption country-wide even many have been executed.
- Soviet Union political structure in PRC is a regime.
- Human Development Index is very bad (see UN 2007/2008 Report)


Next year is 20th anniversally for 1989 Tien An Square incident.
Pro-democracy is very active all the while. I am very worry to see such bloody history to repeat!

If not, will there a general election like Rassia? If yes, how to handle 1.3 billion people? How to handle Tibet and Xing Zhang Province who want independant?
Will there be peace if democracy?

Either regime or democracy is not an answer for PRC. Where is PRC with 1.3 billion heading to?

There was no history guardian for billion population. There was no phlosophy thought for billion population. The communist leader has the answer for her people. The answer is "Scientific"科学观.

Do u agree?



Will history

8:27 PM
Blogger Weng Mao Fa 翁茂发 said...

Can u move your money out of PRC freely? If not, why Singapore learn from China?

8:34 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Tan,
Oil is now around $45. How is it that electricity prices only fell back to Sept level. I am sure that oil was not $45 at that time but much higher. So how is it being computed?

10:13 PM
Blogger Weng Mao Fa 翁茂发 said...

Chairman Mao 毛 hate capitalism. His Deputy Lin林 (pro-capitalism) try to kill Chairman Mao without success. After Chairman Mao's death, pro-capitalism PM Deng邓小平 open the door of PRC. PM Zhu朱 use the Harvard Econ textbook. PM Wen温 copy the Harvard textbook. A Singapore senior said: "PRC is capitalism." Why must Singapore learn capitalism from PRC?

10:28 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

MAS seeks advice

THE Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has enlisted senior counsel Davinder Singh to advise it on the latest legal issues faced by the ill-fated Minibonds structured notes.

The central bank said last night that it had called on Mr Singh, the chief executive of Drew & Napier, 'to advise MAS on the implications of the legal issues raised by the lawyers acting in the Chapter 11 proceedings for Lehman Brothers'.

This follows Tuesday's warning by the Minibonds trustee - HSBC Institutional Trust Services Singapore - that the unwinding of the notes may be challenged by lawyers involved in bankruptcy proceedings over Lehman in the United States.

Minibonds series 1 and 5 to 10 of the notes have defaulted and will be unwound by three appointed receivers of the defaulted notes from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Singapore.

On Tuesday, the receivers said investors might have to wait at least two years or more for any resolution, given the legal complexities introduced by the notice from Lehman's lawyers.

MAS last month also called on Deloitte & Touche Corporate Finance to advise the central bank on the

Minibonds fiasco. Deloitte & Touche's services have also now been extended.

While the MAS has Mr Singh and the resources of Deloitte & Touche, the receivers from PwC are separately being advised by their own legal counsel.

Last night, the MAS also reiterated the trustee and receivers' warning that it may not be possible for any resolution to be reached within a short span of time.

'Nevertheless, MAS expects the trustee and receivers to pursue all appropriate avenues to protect noteholders' interests,' it added.

About 8,000 retail investors sank $375 million in Minibonds - only to see Lehman collapse on Sept 15.

Three other independent parties have been roped in by the MAS to ensure that the plight of these investors is not ignored amid potential cross-border legal battles.

On Oct 2, Mr Gerard Ee, Mr Hwang Soo Jin and Mr Law Song Keng were appointed by distributors of structured products such as Minibonds, Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes and DBS High Notes 5 to oversee their complaints handling processes.

All three said they were working closely with the financial institutions to ensure fair and prompt resolution of complaints by investors.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_310709.html

 

[Ah Hai]

HK mini-bond holders invited to bring suit in US

HONG KONG : Hong Kong investors who were allegedly mis-sold mini-bonds in the collapsed bank Lehman Brothers have been invited to mount an international lawsuit against the institutions involved, a lawmaker here said Friday.

James To, a lawmaker from the Democratic Party here, which is acting for most of a group of some 40,000 mini-bond holders in the city, said US lawyers presented them a proposal for a legal action in a US court.

"The lawyers have presented us a very detailed proposal. Their proposed action will be to sue some of the US institutions involved in the handling of the mini-bonds for a breach of duty according to American law," To told AFP.

More than 40,000 Hong Kong investors, including many retirees, put a total of 15.7 billion Hong Kong dollars (2.01 billion US) into mini-bonds and other complex financial products backed by Lehman Brothers.

To refused to divulge the background of the lawyers or details of the institutions listed on the proposal. But he said that the lawyers had made sure that those were the institutions whose assets remained intact following the bankruptcy of the investment giant Lehman Brothers in September.

The lawmaker said the lawyers had also approached affected investors in other places, including Singapore.

"These lawyers are very aggressive. They have identified the Lehman saga as an excellent business opportunity for them," he said.

His party is now consulting US legal experts for their views on the proposed action. He said the party would only discuss the matter with the investors if they could be sure that the lawsuit would not place the investors under further financial burden.

The Wall Street icon filed for bankruptcy in September as it buckled under the weight of the collapse in US sub-prime, or high risk, mortgages.

The investors mounted protests against the banks, the Hong Kong government and the city's financial regulators, urging a full refund.

- AFP /ls
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/394473/1/.html

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: HK mini-bond holders invited to bring suit in US

Saturday, December 06, 2008
Auction Rate Securities
Extract from New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30gret.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Auction-rate securities are preferred shares or debt instruments with rates that reset regularly, usually every week, in auctions overseen by the brokerage firms that originally sold them. They have long-term maturities or, in the case of the preferred shares, no maturity dates at all. The securities are issued by municipalities, student-loan companies, closed-end funds and tax-exempt institutions like hospitals and museums.

Brokers that peddled these securities told buyers that they were cash equivalents, easy to get out of and relatively safe. But the promises of liquidity turned false last February when buyers for the securities disappeared and the auctions began failing. The $300 billion market for auction-rates ground to a halt, entrapping thousands of investors both large and small, sophisticated and novice.

Officials in Massachusetts, New York and other states came to the rescue earlier this year, striking settlements with some of the bigger brokerage firms in the arena.

But while some of the larger firms agreed to redeem the securities, not everyone is covered by those agreements. A group of people, size unknown, has fallen through the cracks in the settlements, and for several quirky reasons. They remain frozen in the securities and understandably upset.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:33 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm

Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm


Social Justice and Fairness
First World Country in the 21st Century
How are our poor faring?

Speeches:
Tan Kin Lian
1. Our society should be more egalitarian
2, Elected leaders should represent the people
Leong Sze Hian:
1. HDB – how the poor are faring and affected by HDB policies
Ravi Philemon
1. Distributive justice; especially about how our education system does not equip people to be self-reliant, but to be workers.
Others:
1. Tan Kin Lian – Update on investors' situation (if any)
2. Andrew Loh – Update on town councils' replies to residents' query
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 1:07 PM :oIo:

5 Comments


Blogger Chan J C said...

Thanks again, Mr. Tan.

See you there.

5:00 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi,
I am not a minibond or related products' investor but I am willing to listen to other voices. We need to be objective and educated (by listening to more meaningful talks) in order to know where we are heading!

5:54 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just some questions in my mind in regards to the Town Council minibond issues :

Q:
Are the mentioned Town Councils in a "Catch 22" situation ?
No matter what kind of reply they give they will be "wrong" in one way or the other.

Scenario A)
They have awareness of the risk before they "jumped" in,
then does the risk /reward ratio justify the purchase ?
* if they think that the risk/reward ratio is what they are looking for right from the beginning,
then that might let the residents start to think that the money is in the wrongs hands of people who do not know how to manage it well.

Scenario B)
They are not aware of the hidden risk in the products purchased,
then most probably they are being mis-led.
If that is the case, have their complaint to the FI's, or approach FiDrec. Or at least, we welcome them to join us at Hong Lim Park.

Usually in a "Catch 22" position,

a) you have to choose the best choice among the worst. Or to paraphrase, "take the pill that has the least side effect". Take full responsibility for the decision and choice made. Minimise the negative effect as best as one can.
Or
b) Try to create a scenario "C" different from "A" or "B" mentioned above, using hypothetical examples that are so difficult to understand.
Standing on the "correct zone" in "C" will be like balancing on a pin head.
A little off balance, you will be self-contradicting yourself (another "Catch 22" ?).
Or
c) "NAO3 XIU1 CHENG2 NU4"
（in Mandarin)
[Will someone be kind enough to translate it for me ? Thanks.]

Tribute to the late US President, who chopped his father tree when he was just a kid.

God Bless.

7:43 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

i dont know whether it will be this round or other future rounds, I personally feel the significant landmark meeting will be the round where everyone would finally get to hear something affirmative about legal possibilities, be it either individual or class actions cases, be it negative or positive sounding

i am anxiously awaiting that day because steam from that momentum will be very crucial to carrying this whole motion of things through a critical threshold

without it the sky remains a greyish overcast when lawyers give the worst reply they possibly can - a DEFINITE MAYBE

8:24 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A good start to publicly voice concerns on wider issues.

But if you want the PAP to sit up and take things more seriously on these concerns, there is still a long road ahead.

Need to be strong to keep the momentum going and growing otherwise what has been done so far will be wasted. Hence never falter or give up in such endeavours or else it is as good as not doing at all.

8:30 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm

Saturday, December 06, 2008
SCMP:Class- action lawsuit over minibonds to start soon
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdi...8612bf7d989c&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ==

6 Dec 2008
Dennis Eng and Albert Wong

A US class-action lawsuit by local investors in soured minibonds is expected to start by the end of next month, paving the way for a protracted legal battle that could drag on for two years, a spokesman for the investors said.

“We really don’t want to do this but we have no other option. We’re not going to give up,” Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of investor action group Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims, said. Investors bought minibonds, issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers, from one or more of 16 local banks.

The move is seen as a last-ditch effort by angry investors to recover almost HK$13 billion from the bankrupt Wall Street giant after a proposed buy-back of the minibonds suffered a setback. Secretary for Financial

Services and the Treasury Chan Ka-keung said a legal challenge by lawyers representing Lehman’s liquidators would inevitably delay the buy-back timetable.

Details of the buy-back were supposed to be announced last week. “I think what the liquidators were doing was to ask the trustee to stop any actions regarding the collaterals,” he said, referring to the minibonds’ underlying assets.

Minibonds consist of high-risk, credit-linked derivatives that are marketed as a proxy investment in well-known companies.

“This, of course, will throw some challenges into the process of the buy-back, and the banks have to address these before they can proceed.”

Hong Kong Association of Banks chairman He Guangbei said the priority now was to try to clarify the legality of the buy-back and resolve the legal challenge. The buy-back was conceived under British law but the trustee, HSBC Bank USA, was incorporated under United States law, complicating the matter.

“There is a conflict in legal opinion from the US and UK,” Mr He said. “ According to UK law, there’s certainly a priority in terms of payments but there is this challenge from the US bankruptcy law. Which one is going to stand is very hard to say.”

The government said it had considered the legal risks when it proposed the buy-back to banks in October. It said the taskforce formed by the banks on the issue had clearly stated it was seeking legal advice and “we hope [it] will continue to follow up with the trustees of the Lehman minibonds in taking necessary actions to get back the market value of the minibonds”.

The class-action lawsuit will automatically cover the roughly 33,000 Lehman minibond investors in Hong Kong although they can opt out. US lawyers contacted Peter Chan as well as the Democratic Party about the possibility of a US class-action lawsuit. An agreement is still pending.

Peter Chan declined to identify the US lawyers but said they were involved in helping investors affected by the collapse of energy trader Enron in late 2001. Law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins helped Enron investors settle for US$ 7.2 billion and negotiated a record US$688 million in fees.

The prospect of a drawn-out lawsuit is increasingly likely after banking sector legislator David Li Kwokpo, the chairman of Bank of East Asia, said lawyers advised against the buyback.

But Democratic Party legislator James To Kun-sun said he hoped the government would not give up on the buy-back proposal.

Since October 17, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has referred 207 Lehman-related cases to the Securities and Futures Commission.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:48 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Speaker's Corner 6 December, 5 - 7 pm

3 Comments

Blogger Wayangnologist said...

however, due to "a legal challenge by lawyers representing Lehman’s liquidators would inevitably delay the buy-back timetable" and the "conflict in legal opinion from the US and UK", "The prospect of a drawn-out lawsuit is increasingly likely after banking sector legislator David Li Kwokpo, the chairman of Bank of East Asia, said lawyers advised against the buyback."

this is really a crazy fix for anyone trapped between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

3:21 PM
Blogger Chan J C said...

Can someone advise if Singapore's investor of Minibond can join the HK group for the class action?

regards.

3:25 PM
Anonymous Ang said...

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/45609.html

A defendant is in breach of his duty of care if his conduct falls below the standard of a reasonable and prudent man. In Watson v Buckley, distributors were held liable to a customer who was injured after applying their hair dye. The distributors did not ascertain the type of supervision under which the manufacture of the dye was carried out and never tested the solution supplied.

Nevertheless, they advertised that the hair dye was “absolutely safe and harmless”. The court ruled that their conduct was careless and adjudged them liable to the customer for his injury.

2:28 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

HK: Minibond investors to sue HSBC

Saturday, December 06, 2008
HK: Minibond investors to sue HSBC
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking_news_detail.asp?id=10620

Lehman Brothers minibond investors plan to sue the minibond trustee, US-incorporated HSBC (0005), after Hong Kong banks postponed buying back the structured products.

Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of investors action group Allied Victims of Lehman Products, said the action group has been approached by US legal firm offering to represent minibond investors in Hong Kong filing the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has received 19,196 complaints concerning minibonds as at Thurday. HKMA today referred 21 complaints of alleged misconduct tied to Lehman Brothers financial products to the Securities and Futures Commission for possible action.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:53 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: HK: Minibond investors to sue HSBC

Sunday, December 07, 2008
Two sources of loss on your investment
Hi Mr. Tan,

I was surfing the internet and came across your website. Recently, I feel very depressed becuase I realised I was conned by my own advisor who is also a friend of mine. I trusted her too much. I bought a few policies with her. Due to the bad market situation, I lost $X (my hard-earned money) for investing in unit trusts.

I would like to check with you on what I should do. The following is what i bought from her in 2006/2007:

(details deleted)

For the whole life policy, I have to pay 18 months of premiums to pay for her service. I really didn't know that till I clicked on the Askdrmoney link on your website.

For the pure unit trust with no insurance. I put in $1800 to try to average out the prices of my unit prices due to recession. I'm paying 3% for the comission. Now my unit trusts dropped from $Y to $Z. I feel stupid for paying 3% commission. So I terminated the monthly contribution of $1,800. Have i done the right thing?

After reading your website, i realised my agent really earning a lot. She can go for holiday every year. e.g. she just came back from California. As for me, I saved every single cent of my money...

I feel so frustrated that I really feel like terminating every single policy that i bought fr her. Should I do that?

D

REPLY

The loss that you have incurred come from the following sources:

a) Paper loss on your investments, due to the fall in the market
b) Loss due to the expenses charges deducted from your life insurance policies.

For (a), you will recover the paper loss when the market recovers in a few years' time. As a long term investor, you can wait for a better time to realise your investment.

For (b), you have already incurred the expense charges in the past. You should consider if the future expense charges compared to the alternative types of investments. If most of the charges have already been deducted, it is better to keep the investments and look towards the future. If there are still heavy charges to be deducted from the future, you can terminate the policies.

You should make your decision after getting the relevant facts.

If you need independent financial advice and is willing to pay a modest fee, you can consult the following:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/12/financial-advice-for-fee.html
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:06 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Never buy from friends or relatives. It is the worst deal because feelings are involved which is not good for making deals.
For me, I did not even buy from my own nephew. Of course relations are somewhat strained due to that but you have to get over it sometimes.
And when things turn bad, you think they care? Relations will still be strained all the same but now the loss is on you.
9:58 AM
Concerned said...

Friends, acquaintances and relatives are the worst insurance agents. Most of them become insurance agents when they are out of job or hoping to have a better income without going through the hard work of understanding the products they pushed or the suitability of the products their clients required. Products pushed are alway those that earned the highest commissions. Worse, when all they friends, acquaintances, relatives and other connections have dried up, they have problems selling any products to others and they just quit, leaving you without an agent to contact just when you need it most.
1:57 PM
zhummmeng said...

How much loss your regular UTs will depend on the portfolio but even with very risky portfolio if you are willing to invest for the long haul it will recover. Right now you may be buying at bargain price and this will lower the past prices. I recommend that you keep it. See it as short term volatility.THE 3% SALE CHARGE IS NOT EXPENSIVE.
For the whole life you may have paid the charges I would still recommend you to cancel it and reveiw your insurance needs. It is a cut loss decision you must make because in the long run it is better for you.Have your insurance reviewed by an independent financial adviser and have ALL your risks addressed.
These are the reasons against WL.
1.this might be the only insurance you have that the agent wants you to believe that it can take care of ALL YOUR NEEDS.The insurance agents sell them as the 'one size fits all' product.
The fact is you need more than one product to address all your needs. You can't because all your money is taken up by the WL already.
2.You don't need to transfer all your risks for wholelife.Till 65 is more than enough.Address whatever risks, eg,emergency needs, with self insurance, the most flexible insurance and medical needs with an H&S.
3.WL is the worst or most inefficent way of addressing risk and saving.
4.Don't let the agent bull shit you about discipline or 'forced saving'. It is not the product..It is YOU.
5.The return from whole life is about or less than 3% after 35 years ONLY. It is a very long time.
6.Invest regularly like what you are doing is better in the long term.The 3% upfront charge is NOT a lot.
More importantly is to get a honest
and competent adviser with the right qualifications.
3:12 PM
Anonymous said...

Your friend is likely a product pusher who have no intention of meeting your needs. She certainly put her needs first before yours. Product pushers' products are usually whole life or endowment or anticipated endowment or regular ILPs. These products earn them high commission. They are specialised in selling these products.MDRT , COT or TOT qualifiers only sell them. That is why they are known as cheats.These malpractitioners must be referred to MAS.
Miss-selling and misrepresenation inevitably arise from product pushing , like the minibond saga.
You can bring this up with the insurance company or the firm to complain against this agent for inappropriate recommendation and ask for refund or lodge with FIDREC.
Not only your agent has committed miss-selling but also breached section 27 of the FAA for failing to conduct a need analysis. You can complain against her to MAS.
Misconduct is punishable by fine of $25K or disciplinary actions.
4:20 PM
Anonymous said...

In any economic down turn, one had to judge and plan cash flow carefully. and if you cannot afford it, wise to exit.

Many people needs many ways to survive, and $ is the key. Learn smarter, better you lose money when you are young rather than after you retire then.
6:15 PM
Anonymous said...

For a moment I though your adviser is an agent from ntuc.Maybe I biased because all ntuc agents only sell this type of products. They sell only revosave and vivolife. With these 2 product you think they are able to address their customers needs? Just think about it.If they are not product pushers, what are they ? products smugglers?
7:33 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Election into public office

Sunday, December 07, 2008
Election into public office
I have received 716 signatures asking me to stand for election for public office.

The distribution of the replies are:
> Prefer TKL for elected president 26%
> Prefer TKL for member of parliament 14%
> Prefer TKL for both or either 60%

Several people have asked for a new petition form that allows them to leave out some of the particulars. Here is the new form:
http://www.petitiononline.com/TKLFP02/petition.html
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:57 AM