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

[Ah Hai]

4 Comments

14 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous said...

if your private shield is an integrated plan, once you terminated your private shield plan, you will automatically transfer back to basic medishield.

3:22 PM
Blogger Tan Kin Lian said...

Hi, 3:22 PM
I want to judge the standard of customer service and communication of the insurance company and of CPF.

The communication is not clear to me, even though I am a knowledgeable person. I have so much trouble over a simple request.

4:07 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"I have so much trouble over a simple request."



...Extract of Confidential Memo from Budget Dept to Management Office:


"1st STAGE MISSION ACHIEVED!
Bonus issued.

Wait til they see 2nd STAGE!"

*wink*

4:30 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,
Can you please share your reasons for downgrading from a private shield to the basic medishield?
Thanks.

Jasmin

4:46 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,
I forgot to mention that many agents said that "upgrading is difficult and subject to various conditions but downgrading is easy".

Jasmin

4:59 PM
Blogger siewkhim said...

I think Kin Lian is talking about the insurer's current customer service standard and use a real life experience.

My own experiences show that NTUC INcome service standard is moving gradually from bad to worst since the new management took over.

6:32 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They make it so difficult because there is no money to be made with this procedure. That is how our exemplary institutions, CPF and NTUC Income under the able leadership of our million dollars ministers are evolving. Sad and they still think they have done such a great job!

6:36 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jasmin,
Can you spend some of your time reading up on what MR Tan has repeated so many times before.

6:43 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is yours an Incomeshield Plan?

6:55 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Tan,

Any cost or loss involved in terminating your private shield? Or is it because it had outlived its usefuless? Had it been better if you had not bought it in the first place? After all medishield is automatic, isn't it?

7:10 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Tan,

You just need to cancel the private insurance part of the shield plan. The medishield portion will not be touched. Have done this a few times for my clients. Ask your trusted adviser if in doubt.

10:17 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Tan,

Perhaps the customer service at the CPF or insurance company is afraid of you and hence did not dare to give you a clear answer for fear of being your next "target"? Your enquiry is a very simple one. Any insurance advisers also know the answer.

10:50 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not true, I tried to downgrade and went to Income centre. The staff there took over an hour and several phone calls to find out how it can be done.

12:44 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing your experience. Many retirees myself included have private shield plans plus Rider to pay for the deductable & co-insurance - most were psycho by their agents to buy such plans saying they don't have to cough out cash if they are hospitalised. If Medishiedl is sufficient, clearly we don'd need to pay for such plans. I shall be grateful if you will keep us posted of your experience so that we can cut down our medical expenses! Thanks again!

7:00 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Means testing for subsidised ward

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Means testing for subsidised wards
If you have wish to be treated in a subsidised ward and you have an income that exceeds the means testing level, you will receive a lower level of subsidy. The difference is 15% of the bill.

More details are found here in this article:
http://www.tankinlian.com/articles/health.html

Statement from Ministry of Health website:
http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/default.aspx
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:48 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Financial advice

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Financial advice
Dear Mr. Tan

Please see newspaper Today B1: MAS clearly said, if a broker recommended aproduct to an investor and convinced the investor to buy the product, then the IFA or broker is not longer acting merely as an introducer or executor but is providing financial advice. In this instance, the relevant provisions of the Financial Advisors Act would apply.

DG
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:45 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

6 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can see how dirty is MAS.What about the bank RMs? Which investor wasn't advised to buy? Which investor walked in and announced that he was yearning to buy? Were people queuing up to buy?

9:36 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow does it means that MAS is clearly washing their hands off this issue by this announcement. Poor investors :(

10:10 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, we bought minibonds because
ABN AMRO sent emails to us and asked us to buy.

Now they wouldn't even settle with us more than one month after we asked for a full refund.

1:18 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what? Investors still get the rejection letters for compensation from the broking houses.

You have to fight it in court. No other way.

1:27 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

i see an immediate counter


the 'sales person' could simply walk up and offer to introduce a variety of investment options...


WHICH the investor voluntarily took up



that case it isnt so much a matter of recommending, rather its just we-ask-if-you-might-be-interested-you-said-yes-we-showed-you-you-took-up-yourself situation, thats all


ZERO RESPONSIBILITY. you are THE interested investing party, not us!

1:31 PM
Blogger Chan J C said...

Dear DG

Could you kindly help to extract the article and post it here to share with the rest?

Regards
JC

1:35 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Regular visitors to Tan Kin Lian's Blog

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Regular visitors to Tan Kin Lian's Blog
I wish to collect particulars of regular visitors to my blog. Please provide the information requested here (all fields are optional). You can also tell me what you like best and what new information you like to see.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=hh2uUZuh5AL0ZOA2c77dhg_3d_3d
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 4:20 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Offer of compensation

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Offer of compensation
Some investors are getting offers from the distributor (financial institution) to compensate at 30% of the invested sum. They are given a deadline to accept the offer. If they do not accept, the offer expires and they get a rejection letter from the distributor.

They ask my views on whether to accept this offer. It is difficult for me to give this advice. My view is that a fair offer is 50% of the amount of loss (i.e. difference between the invested sum and the current market value).

Some investors feel that 50% is inadequate and wish to fight for a higher compensation. Other investors feel that they should accept the offer of 30%, as this is the best under the circumstances.

What is your view? Please reply to this survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2b2e2PBMeL_2bR3lqPs9dmcBQ_3d_3d

 

[Ah Hai]

Lehman Minibond investors will know outcome of their complaints by mid-Jan

SINGAPORE : Investors who have put money into the failed Lehman Minibonds will know the outcome of the review of their complaints to financial institutions by mid-January.

This was revealed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) on Wednesday.

MAS said 10 financial institutions in Singapore received nearly 5,000 complaints from investors.

Of these, 90 per cent of complainants have been interviewed and provisional decisions have been made on 80 per cent of the cases.

The ongoing reviews of cases are expected to be completed by the end of next month.

But MAS said some investors should be prepared to take responsibility for their investment decisions.

Over 8,000 retail investors in Singapore have sunk some S$375 million into the Minibond programme. - CNA/ms

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Offer of compensation

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Offer of compensation
Some investors are getting offers from the distributor (financial institution) to compensate at 30% of the invested sum. They are given a deadline to accept the offer. If they do not accept, the offer expires and they get a rejection letter from the distributor.

They ask my views on whether to accept this offer. It is difficult for me to give this advice. My view is that a fair offer is 50% of the amount of loss (i.e. difference between the invested sum and the current market value).

Some investors feel that 50% is inadequate and wish to fight for a higher compensation. Other investors feel that they should accept the offer of 30%, as this is the best under the circumstances.

What is your view? Please reply to this survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2b2e2PBMeL_2bR3lqPs9dmcBQ_3d_3d

19 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the FIs may estimated that the current value is at the range of 30% of the invested sum to form the basis for the proposed compensation.

To me , I will agree to 50% of the amount of loss (i.e. difference between the invested sum and the current market value).

The probelm is when can we know the actual amount of loss at the rate MAS work on it.

In this case, I would settle with 30% + 35%(50% of 70% loss) = 65% of the invested sum to close the case NOW and move on and will not trust any FI, RM , US ever after.

10:09 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have to tread this carefully in case you will be accused of poor advice in the future. Money is an evil and when it is not enough it can make people say and do all sort of things.

10:12 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

lets summise

30% of 10k is 3k

30% of 50k is 15k

30% of 100k is 30k

3k is enough for starters to join a strong class action, IF THERE WILL BE A CLASS ACTION, recommended by lawyers to be about 500 congregated, earliest news if its even possible in end Jan

30k is STILL not enough for an individual suit estimated at around 50 to 80k LEAST, actual duration, counter-sues, counter-claims AND psychological trauma notwithstanding.


I'd say its well worth a consideration.


I have one further suggestion, get EVERYONE in your group to co-write a jointly signed letter (or petition as now its frequently called), preferably drafted or even witnessed by some laywers ASKING (by asking, i mean INSISTING) for an extension of this duration. and lets see their reply to that (IF ANY), shouldnt costs much more than 50bucks each if numbers gather, well worth isnt it, even a month mobile bill cost more than that these days

AGAIN PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ASK TO TAKE BACK FOR TIME TO GO THRU AND READ WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SIGN.

Dont make the same mistake twice..whats the point of 30% compensation by what, Dec 2019?? in Investment Vouchers!?

11:03 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The issue of how much of compensation considered enough is tough but think of those who were rejected or still waiting for the FI to reply (I am one of them).
How many of us have enough time and "bullets" to compete with the FIs?
I prefer to put a closure and move on.

Jasmin

7:12 AM
Blogger Chan J C said...

If the sales information out there such as fact sheet, prospectus and what have you are cleverly done up such as to deceive ones' "open eye" and hence caused an investor to make a wrong decision, under the contract law, shouldn't the contract be void?

If this is true, then why should these victimised investor accept anything that is less than 100% of compensation?

The contract is void and this should serve as the basis of compensation.

JC

10:17 AM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"I prefer to put a closure and move on."

versus

"..why should these victimised investor accept anything that is less than 100% of compensation?"

1:26 PM
Blogger Bea said...

Would you know who are these investors that are being offered compensation and which are the financial institutions?

It'll be good to get an understanding if investors who aren't offered compensation are being discriminated against.

5:53 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Offer of compensation

Blogger anthonykohhy said...

What institutions are these that are offering at 30%? Are these offers to normal or the 'vulnerable' investors?

8:27 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing less than 100% compensation as miselling and mispresentation equals fraud !

10:59 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Wayang and no logic person (nologist)

There won't be any funeral for your related ones as you will prefer to move on... since you won't cry for anyone...

Likewise.. when your time comes, we will move on since you prefer to put yourself a closure.

11:41 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JC,the purchase contract can be voided if misrepresentation can be proofed against the distributor. To proof misrep you have to proof the product is fraudulent. Most investors do not understand how CLNs operate, much less they are scams. It is very difficult to proof fraud, only investment fraud specialist litigators from U.S are good at it.
PLoh

8:46 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Several weeks ago the consensus among investors was that distributors were guilty of mis-selling or making misrepresentations when they were flogging these various toxic products. And there is truth that mis-selling or misrepresenting had indeed occurred, so parties guilty of mis-selling or misrepresenting were "advised" to do the "right thing" that is, compensate victims who were mis-sold.

If you have mis-sold, then you will have to make proper compensation; it is only fair to people who have become victims of your improper actions,

A 30% compensation is not, IMHO, a proper compensation. An offer of 70% would be "reasonable" and would bring this fiasco to a close, with both sides patting each other's back. It would be a mutually amicable settlement.

10:35 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After months of waiting and interviewing, I had finally received the "FINAL REPLY" from DBS that they are unable to accede to my request for compensation.

In the course of interview, I was questioned on the joint account with my mum, which was totally irrelevant to my investment or claim. They even asked where the money come from? Though, I emphasized that my mum is the principal holder of the account and it has nothing to do with my personal account and investment, I still received a call the couple of days later asking what is my mum's occupation.

Can anyone out there tell me what does my family's background got to do with my lost?

I am now given 6 months to contact FIDReC, which I couldn't put any hope in..... or maybe a waste of effort.

Doubtful

11:00 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We should be compensated in full. BTW, i understand that the Legman doesn't own a banking license in Singapore. Please assist to confirm it. If in this issue, can HSBC sells Legman's product in Singapore ?? If not, then we shld be compensate in full and agony we have gone through these couple of months.. We had been totally mis-lead into it. MAS shld answer to.

1:28 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"Anonymous said...

There are so many things in this world that are beyond our control.
By accepting and moving on, it gives us a sense of spirit to live on.

Jasmin

7:18 AM"

2:19 PM
Blogger Aileen said...

I'm just not going to trust any of these RM, FI on these so-called safe "savings or investment" again. It's been a real let-down and long-process for me. Fortunately I did not really slip into depression as I always "talk to myself" about to let one get into that situation, regardless. I called the (Maybank) FI yesterday after their 2nd letter to me about "they said still investigating and come back to me soon they can", and yet to hear from anyone as of today; 12/17/08 , one month after receipt of their 2nd letter. Depressed...

3:14 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"Anonymous said...

After months of waiting and interviewing, I had finally received the "FINAL REPLY" from DBS that they are unable to accede to my request for compensation...

11:00 AM"



"Anonymous said...

...You have to fight it in court. No other way.

1:27 PM"

4:33 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"...Legman doesn't own a banking license in Singapore...If in this issue, can HSBC sells Legman's product in Singapore ??...We had been totally mis-lead into it.. "



Not one single player in the English Premier League has a football license in this Little Red Dot.

But heck many here rush to queue up to wager who gets to kick a stupid ball into the back of the net first almost every other weekend!?

That MUST be misleading.

4:45 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

!PLEASE PUT THIS ON THE TOP OF THE FRONT PAGE!


COMPENSATION? READ THIS:


Goldmine Sachs: As jobless toll soars, investment bank's bonuses for staff are cut to a MERE £4.3bn

By Karl West and Nick Mcdermott
Last updated at 8:10 AM on 17th December 2008

Investment bank Goldman Sachs is to pay £4.3billion in bonuses to its City workers.

Despite the financial crisis and the spectre of soaring unemployment, staff at the bank will get an average of £142,600 each.

The international group, which is estimated to have 5,400 employees in London, is already nicknamed ' Goldmine Sacks' for the large extra payouts it awards to its star performers.

Yesterday the firm posted its first loss for almost a decade. And earlier this year it was forced to accept a £6.5billion lifeline from the U.S. government after falling prey to the economic crisis. Goldman Sachs is estimated to have 5,400 employees in London (Fleet Street branch pictured)

Goldman Sachs is estimated to have 5,400 employees in London (Fleet Street branch pictured)

Now, an amount equivalent to two thirds of that aid will be paid to its workers as bonuses.

The news emerged as experts in Britain warned of a 'middle-class recession' with hundreds of thousands of white collar managers expected to lose their jobs over the next year.

Goldman's bonus plans come as anger grows among taxpayers at the way banks - in particular those that have received billions in bailout funds - have failed to pass on cash or interest relief to customers.

Criticising Goldman's, LibDem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: 'It's absolutely outrageous. It's clear that these people have learned nothing from the financial crisis. It shows the greed and lack of sensitivity - and ultimately stupidity - in gambling behaviour which caused this crisis can continue indefinitely.

'It is rewarding the taking of excessive risk and we know this caused the downfall of much of the financial markets.'

Labour MP John McFall, chairman of the Treasury select committee, questioned the wisdom of such a large payout during an economic crisis in which the banks played a central role.
Vince Cable says the bonuses for staff are 'outrageous'

Vince Cable says the bonuses for staff are 'outrageous'

He said: 'Is Goldman Sachs going to the taxpayer to get help in order to keep its staff bonuses at the same levels and prevent them from experiencing the problems that the rest of the economy - and normal people - are suffering during the current crisis?'

Goldman said its 'pay and perks' pool fell to £7.1billion for the full year, down from last year's record £13.2billion.

The bonus portion of this, estimated at 60 per cent of total pay, dropped to £4.3billion but is still worth an average of £142,598 per employee.

Overall, each worker is likely to suffer a 45 per cent cut in average pay to £237,470.

Goldman began telling staff who would be getting what in their January pay packet as it revealed its first quarterly loss since floating on the Stock Exchange nine years ago.

Among those not included in the bonus distribution is chief executive Lloyd Blankfein and six deputies who gave up their additional rewards this year.

The bank has about 400 partners who typically share a bonus pool worth about 20 per cent of the total payout, which in good years can mean bonuses in £5million - £10million bracket for top performers.

However, big fee earners can make much more. In 2006, one star employee, Driss Ben-Brahim, is believed to have banked a £50million bonus - a record for a single City trader.

Those days are a distant memory now, however, as the big merger and acquisition deals have dried up.

Wall Street's financial titans have been brought to their knees by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Goldman has had to take massive write downs on the value of its toxic investments in property and real estate.

The financial group made a loss of £1.4billion in the fourth quarter. Goldman said it had cut 2,500 staff in the quarter, bringing total numbers employed by the bank down to just over 30,000.

It is thought the bank laid off about 600 of its 6,000 workers in the City of London as part of the cull.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...anks-bonuses-staff-cut-mere-142-000-EACH.html

5:07 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Bank RM has courage and integrity

Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Bank RM has courage and integrity
FOR TOP PRIORITY ATTENTION

A RM of a bank called me. He is willing to come forward to sign a statement that he has been giving the wrong information about the credit-linked notes to the bank customers, due to his ignorance. He will be contacting other RMs to come forward and make a similar statement.

He told me that his bank had put pressure on him by stating that he would be held personally responsible to compensate the customers, if he admitted to giving the wrong information. He said that, when he sold the notes to the customers, he was not aware about the actual risks of the notes, due to the complexity of the structure and the poor training given to the RMs.

I told this RM that the bank does not have the right to hold him financially responsible for the honest mistake, especially as most of the other RMs were also poorly trained about these notes. It would be wrong for the bank to expect the RMs to tell a lie now to cover up for the mistakes.

I will arrange for these RMs to get legal advice and to make a statutory declaration about the actual statements and assurances that they gave to the customers about the notes.

I wish to call other RMs to step foward and be ready to make this statement. Please act honestly and with courage, and do what is right and fair. If you are willing to make this statement, send an e-mail to [email protected]. I will get a large group of RMs to make this statement, so that you will not be standing alone.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 9:49 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

10 Comments

Anonymous Anonymous said...

this looks like a big break through! if more RMs from different FIs will also come forward, we will have them by the bxxxs. And MAS cannot any longer be the proverbial ostrich with its head in the ground not bothering what is happening around them!

10:18 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

"A RM of a bank called me. He is willing to come forward to sign a statement that he has been giving the wrong information about the credit-linked notes to the bank customers, due to his ignorance. He will be contacting other RMs to come forward and make a similar statement."



This is THE WHISTLE BLOWER that i beene banging on.


NOW THE GLOVES COME OFF!!!! GO GO GO


***lets hope theres more, please note

1. please keep this person identity absolutely top secret!
2. please dont pay this person a single cent!
3. please tell him/her NOT to resign if he/she hadnt done so

10:26 PM
Blogger VS Lingam said...

Besides the SD from the RMs, we should ask these RMs whether they are prepared to testify in court as witnesses for the prosecution? In return, can we suggest some form of immunity for them?

10:46 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I applaud the RM for coming forward to give evidence against this malpractice. It's the blind (RMs)leading the blind (customers) and the banks is the only one with 'wide open eyes' being aware of such toxic products which will benefit no one but themselves! Mr Tan, perhaps you can update us how many RMs have already contacted you... this will definitely send jitters down...to the FIs.

11:15 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an important development. The statements from the RMs will finally clear the air about what really goes on in the FIs. The way the FIs try to shift the blame to the RMs and to cover up the fraud is simply despicable. The FIs and MAS must be taken to task for failing in their basic duties.

It is a sharp constrast between how MAS conducts itself in the credit-link note debacle and the SEC, in the aftermath of the Madoff fraud.

11:29 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Waa. At last there is a groundbreaking turn of events in favour of the victims and Mr Tan taking the lead.

Light at the end of the tunnel!!!

11:45 PM
Blogger Chan J C said...

This is indeed a brave move of this RM from the FI regardless of the outcome of his/her move.

I have sent this link to other RMs for their awareness.

I know that with this posting, lots of people will have this catch-22 situation in mind:-

the cost of RM's career in FI in Singapore VS personal integrity

12:00 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WE must ensure and protect his interest and other RMs' who are willing to come forward to testify against the FIs.

12:11 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whistle blower has probably been laid off (i.e. DBS Bank) and now has an axe to grind. I can 100% guarantee you that the RM came from that bank. Want to bet with me?

12:12 AM
Blogger Parka said...

It's really brave of the RM. At least he's doing what he thinks is right.

Just look at the banks, even until now, they are still protecting themselves by telling their employees that they are personally responsible for compensating the customers. This is ridiculous because they are mis-using their knowledge on the law against their own employees. Where the hell is the morality of the top management?

For this RM who is reading. Don't worry. The contract signed with customers are between the bank and the customer, not the RM personally. That's why when people sue, they don't sue individuals, they sue entities.

Do take note that there might be company laws governing the release of internal information though.

Again, I express thanks for speaking up.

Thank you.

12:42 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

MAS Ensures Progress in Complaints Resolution

Thursday, December 18, 2008
MAS Ensures Progress in Complaints Resolution
Singapore, 17 December 2008...

http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/pre...nsures_progress_in_complaints_resolution.html
MAS today provided an update on steps taken to ensure that the 10 financial institutions (FIs) that sold DBS High Notes 5, Lehman Minibond programme notes and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner notes deal with investors’ complaints in a rigorous and fair manner.

2 Over the last 10 weeks, MAS has been working closely with the independent persons (IPs) who were appointed to oversee the complaints handling and resolution process to ensure that the FIs make good progress in handling and resolving their customers’ complaints. MAS’ investigations are also progressing.

MAS review of process and assessment framework
3 In consultation with the IPs, MAS conducted on-site visits to assess the handling and review of complaints, including observing the internal review panels in action. Following these visits, a few FIs were asked to increase their resources, including engaging external firms to supplement internal staff where necessary.

4 We are working with the IPs to ensure that each FI has a robust assessment framework to identify indicators of potential mis-selling and offer fair financial settlement where appropriate. The IPs have provided feedback to MAS on how the FIs have applied the framework across a sample of actual cases. We are also ensuring that the assessment framework is consistent across FIs.

MAS’ investigations and regulatory actions
5 MAS is also looking at FI-wide issues, such as the selling practices and policies within each FI, as part of its formal investigations. The investigations cover, among other matters, the FI’s due diligence into the structured notes, the procedures used at the point of sale, including how the FI ensured that the notes were sold to clients whose investment objectives and risk tolerance matched the risk profile of the notes, and the training and supervision of relationship managers. As part of these investigations, MAS is requiring each FI to produce documents relevant to these matters and is interviewing senior management.

6 MAS has worked with the IPs to ensure that any potential FI-wide issues identified in the course of investigations have been incorporated into the assessment of individual complaints. Where issues have been identified, we will take into account the extent to which the FI accepts responsibility and deals with complaints rigorously and fairly before deciding on the appropriate regulatory measures or sanctions to be taken.

Progress of complaints’ handling and compensation
7 As of 14 December 2008, the 10 FIs have received 4,978 formal complaints: 815 for the DBS High Notes 5, 4001 for the Lehman Brothers Minibond programme notes, and 162 for the Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner notes. All the FIs now have teams working long hours to meet the MAS’ review targets. In some cases, these teams comprise 100 to 120 case officers. Consistent with MAS’ expressed views, the FIs have agreed to review complaints based on principles of fairness rather than taking the strict legal position that they would if the matter went to court.

8 Over 90% of the complainants have been interviewed and FIs’ internal review panels have come to provisional decisions on approximately 80% of these cases. Most FIs are resolving complaints according to MAS’ timeline. Others need to put in more effort to catch up. MAS and the relevant IPs are monitoring their progress closely.

9 Based on the current case load, the FIs have informed MAS that they aim to complete the reviews for all except the more complex cases by no later than end January 2009. Some clear-cut decisions have already been communicated to investors.

10 Shane Tregillis, Deputy Managing Director, Market Conduct Group, MAS, said, “We have asked the FIs to conduct some final due diligence on the remaining complaints to ensure that they have taken into account the IPs’ recommendations, likely issues arising from any MAS’ investigation findings and to check for general consistency in the application of the complaints resolution framework. This is expected to take a few more weeks. Although these steps will extend the current timetable for communication to investors by a few weeks, we believe that the final outcome will better serve investors’ interests. Accordingly, most investors can expect to hear from their FI on the outcome of the review of their complaint starting mid January 2009.”

11 However, from a review of a sample of cases, it seems clear that some complainants should be prepared to take responsibility for their investment decisions. MAS will provide a further update on the complaints resolution process at the end of January. Mr Tregillis added, ”We are working closely with the independent parties to ensure that all of them meet our requirements in reviewing and resolving complaints. MAS will continue to oversee the process to ensure all customers’ complaints are resolved rigorously and fairly.”
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:33 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Encourage bank relationship managers to do the right thing by confessing to mis-selli

Thursday, December 18, 2008
Encourage bank relationship managers to do the right thing by confessing to mis-selling
Written by Ng E-Jay (sent by e-mail to Tan Kin Lian)
18 Dec 2008

Mr Tan Kin Lian has revealed on his blog that he was approached by a bank relationship manager who wishes to confess to giving wrong information to investors of failed credit linked notes due to his ignorance about the risks of the product.

According to Mr Tan, this relationship manager has agreed to sign a statement, and will be approaching other relationship managers who are in a similar position to do likewise.

This relationship manager should be applauded for doing the right thing.

However, Mr Tan Kin Lian also revealed that the bank had, in Mr Tan’s words, “put pressure on him (the RM) by stating that he would be held personally responsible to compensate the customers, if he admitted to giving the wrong information.”
Such a threat by the bank is in clear contravention of the Financial Adviser’s Act (Chapter 110).

Under the Financial Adviser’s Act, the Financial Adviser (in this case, the bank) is responsible for the conduct of the Representative (the relationship manager) in respect of providing financial advisory services. If the Representative has mis-sold a product, whether out of ignorance or willfully, the Financial Adviser must take responsibility for it, and also decide whether or not to take action against the Representative. In the case of criminal activity, the Financial Adviser is obliged to lodge a police report, or give an explanation to MAS why a police report is not lodged. These rules are found in the Financial Adviser’s Regulations, which is subsidiary legislation enacted by MAS in support of the Financial Adviser’s Act.
A wrongful act cannot be covered up by telling the Representative to keep quiet about it. That would be outright fraud, the most serious offence under the Financial Adviser’s Act.

Furthermore, Section 68(1) of the Financial Adviser’s Act states that “A person is not excused from disclosing information to the (Monetary Authority of Singapore), pursuant to a requirement made of him under this Part, on the ground that the disclosure of the information might tend to incriminate him.”
Hence, it is not only morally right for the relationship manager to disclose that he has mis-sold a product, he is in fact required to do so under the Act.
We should encourage all Represenatives in similar situations to do the right thing by confessing to mis-selling the structured products and credit linked notes.
In my opinion, MAS should issue a blanket amnesty for all Representatives who mis-sold the credit linked notes due to ignorance. This would encourage more of them to come forward.

It is also very clear to anyone who is an industry practitioner that banks have high sales quotas for their relationship managers and exert tremendous pressure on them to meet those sales quotas.

Furthermore, the Financial Adviser’s Regulations make it clear that Representatives should only sell products in which they have competence. Since the Lehman-linked structured products deal heavily in arcane instruments like Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and Collaterialized Debt Obligations (CDO), it is not likely that the majority of Representatives would have the competence of explaining these underlying instruments to clients and appropriately advising them on the risks involved.
It is the banks and other financial institutions which should take full responsibility for the structured products fiasco.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:38 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Investors of failed structured products to know outcome of complaints by mid—Jan

Thursday, December 18, 2008
Investors of failed structured products to know outcome of complaints by mid—Jan
Channel NewsAsia - Thursday, December 18
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20081217/tap-963-lehman-minibond-investors-know-o-231650b.html

SINGAPORE : The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) on Wednesday said investors who have bought failed structured products will know the outcome of their complaints by the middle of January.
Investors had alleged that distributors had mis—sold the products and misrepresented the risks.

Minibond investor Ismail Deen was told last week that his complaint is still being looked into. He is one of nearly 5,000 investors who have complained to 10 financial institutions (FIs).

Like Mr Ismail, most investors of DBS High Notes 5, Lehman Minibonds and the Jubilee Series notes will get some answers by mid—January. Final checks are being done on some complaints.

Shane Tregillis, deputy managing director, Market Conduct Group, MAS, said: "That is to take into account the recommendations of the independent persons and to make sure they have taken into account any investigation findings, and also to check for consistency."

MAS said 9—in—10 complainants have been interviewed.

FIs have also decided on 80 per cent of the cases, but have yet to inform investors. For clear—cut cases though, investors have already been told of the outcome.
The central bank has been working with financial institutions in the past 10 weeks.
Mr Tregillis said: "We have been visiting, checking ourselves just to ensure the process, looking at the teams... the FIs have put in place in recent weeks, some of them are up to 100 people."

MAS said the FIs will review the complaints in a non—legalistic manner and it will be based on principles of fairness. However, they are expected to take legal defence if the investors decide to take them to court.

The central bank also said investors should be prepared to bear responsibility for their investment decisions. — CNA/ms
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:48 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

HK banks set up fund for Lehman minibond legal fight

HONG KONG: Hong Kong banks that sold financial products backed by collapsed firm Lehman Brothers will provide 100 million Hong Kong dollars (US$13 million) for a potential US legal battle on behalf of investors.

The 18 banks will put up the cash to challenge claims by Lehman's US lawyers that any proceeds from a proposed buy-back scheme would have to be first turned over to liquidators and not investors, the Hong Kong Association of Banks said.

"The distributors (banks) are prepared to provide finance to the trustee of up to 100 million dollars to assist it in the performance of its duty to protect the interests of investors," the association said in a statement released late Wednesday.

The move is the latest twist in the saga over compensation for thousands of Hong Kong investors who bought the so-called minibonds on the understanding their money was safe.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September meant the value of their investments dropped dramatically, which sparked protests across the city from investors who say they were mis-sold the products.

The financial hub's government and the banks who sold the products then proposed for the banks to buy back the minibonds at market value, a process that was meant to begin this month.

But a unit of HSBC in the United States, which is acting as the trustee for the Hong Kong banks in the liquidation, has been told the move to compensate the investors here could be illegal under US law, the statement said.

The local banks have therefore "decided to continue the buyback only after these legal issues have been clarified and addressed and the market value can be determined unless, in the meantime, the minibonds are redeemed early as a result of action taken by the trustee," the statement said.

More than 40,000 Hong Kong investors -- including many retirees -- had put a total of 15.7 billion Hong Kong dollars of their savings into minibonds and other complex products backed by Lehman Brothers.

- AFP/yt :oIo:

 

[Ah Hai]

US Lawyers Visiting Hong Kong

Thursday, December 18, 2008
US Lawyers Visiting Hong Kong
Patrick Daniels, the leading counsel of the proposed class action towards HSBC, has come to HK in the last two days. He explained several important points for the case:

1) HSBC is not considered to be the defendant simply because it is the trustee. Actually, according to the minibond programme prospectus, it's shown that issuer of the minibonds (i.e. Pacific International Finance Limited), is WHOLLY owned by HSBC Cayman, and its directors are also supplied by HSBC.

2) Mr. Daniels is therefore looking into the role and responsibility of HSBC in designing, creating and operating the product, which should not be called as "bonds" as they are highly complicated deriviatives and not suitable for retail investors.

3) Class action can be commenced whenever potential clients agree on it. HK investors are still meeting and discussing whether to launch it or not, and seeking for leading plaintiffs at the same time.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 3:38 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Call for public enquiry on sales practices

Friday, December 19, 2008
Call for public enquiry on sales practices
Comment from ming in CNA forum:
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?p=2450750#2450750

Finally! They found one person willing to step forward. The threats made against the relationship managers were no secret. There were prominent articles in the newspaper detailing the sessions where relationship managers were slammed into silence. Of all the things that happened this public effort to coerce bank employees into obedience was one of the most troubling.

Instead of hushing up the whole affair to make it go away, a public inquiry should have been instituted and the sales practices of the banks examined. To get to the truth, the testimony of these relationship managers is vital as they are the ones on the frontline cajoling customers. If they are terrorized into saying nothing, then we will never know what actually went wrong and are fated to suffer again from the same mistakes. A few years from now there will be another public furor over some bad investment product that drains large amount of savings from our people and yet again certain individuals will throw their hands up and declaim the naiveté and stupidity of the Singaporean investor. Again, you did not read the fine print.

The only defense against future fraud is a well informed citizenry. Sadly, the Singapore system actually seeks to misinform and mislead the people so as to obtain an easy animal like obedience. Our lives are more Pavlovian than most of you would care to admit to. The innocence that Singaporeans tend to have is really the result of an extremely cynical effort spanning many decades to lie to the public so that they may be fearful of unseen enemies on the one hand and comforted by their abuser-bully-protector on the other along with the never ending suggestion that the news is good, all is well and paradise is just around the corner. We are all rats in a giant work maze except that some of us actually believe that because the master pets them on the head that they are special and anointed; they too can pretend to be god and tell the rest of us how to live and think.

Let us hope that more relationship managers will step forward. It is not an easy thing to live out your life knowing that you destroyed the lives of those who trusted you most. By admitting your mistakes, you have the chance to make some amends.


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:48 AM

 

[Zeitgeist]

Re: Call for public enquiry on sales practices

The only defense against future fraud is a well informed citizenry. Sadly, the Singapore system actually seeks to misinform and mislead the people so as to obtain an easy animal like obedience.

In geography terms, it is stated that the Singapore climate is stable ie the same all year round. They should have widen the scope of definition!

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: HK banks set up fund for Lehman minibond legal fight

HONG KONG: Hong Kong banks that sold financial products backed by collapsed firm Lehman Brothers will provide 100 million Hong Kong dollars (US$13 million) for a potential US legal battle on behalf of investors.

The 18 banks will put up the cash to challenge claims by Lehman's US lawyers that any proceeds from a proposed buy-back scheme would have to be first turned over to liquidators and not investors, the Hong Kong Association of Banks said.

"The distributors (banks) are prepared to provide finance to the trustee of up to 100 million dollars to assist it in the performance of its duty to protect the interests of investors," the association said in a statement released late Wednesday.

The move is the latest twist in the saga over compensation for thousands of Hong Kong investors who bought the so-called minibonds on the understanding their money was safe.

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September meant the value of their investments dropped dramatically, which sparked protests across the city from investors who say they were mis-sold the products.

The financial hub's government and the banks who sold the products then proposed for the banks to buy back the minibonds at market value, a process that was meant to begin this month.

But a unit of HSBC in the United States, which is acting as the trustee for the Hong Kong banks in the liquidation, has been told the move to compensate the investors here could be illegal under US law, the statement said.

The local banks have therefore "decided to continue the buyback only after these legal issues have been clarified and addressed and the market value can be determined unless, in the meantime, the minibonds are redeemed early as a result of action taken by the trustee," the statement said.

More than 40,000 Hong Kong investors -- including many retirees -- had put a total of 15.7 billion Hong Kong dollars of their savings into minibonds and other complex products backed by Lehman Brothers.

- AFP/yt :oIo:

4 Comments

Blogger Chan J C said...

Hi Mr. Tan

Any chance that this can also represent Singapore's Minibond investors?

Regards
JC

4:00 PM
Blogger Wayangnologist said...

Does anyone else would wish to say..



Why isnt this ALSO happening here?!

4:25 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think why this is possible in HK may be bcos the laws there protect investors more. So the banks are more worried that there will be a case against them???

5:34 PM
Blogger bui said...

If Hong Kong authorities can better safeguard the interests of investors, how can Singapore compete for well heeled investors money? Its obvious where they will choose to park their money. Can Singapore stand up to HK as a financial centre?

10:09 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Volunteers to help get 100,000 signatures

Friday, December 19, 2008
Volunteers to help get 100,000 signatures
A group of volunteers have set up this blog to help collect 100,000 signatures for me.

Hi everyone!

We have set up a blog to generate interest in getting the 100k signatures for Mr Tan Kin Lian. We would like to invite everyone to come visit our blog here:
http://tkl100kpetition.blogspot.com/

Please feel free to drop your comments on the articles posted at our blog. We welcome all contributions.
Also, if you would like to signup as one of our volunteers , please do drop us an email at [email protected]
Do tell all your friends about it too! Thanks!

Volunteers