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

[Ah Hai]

Re: Honest mistake: Bank should not penalise customer

ooptimizer
Today, 07:47 AM
Banks must also make money. If everything waive, how can Banks make money?

Furthermore, to avoid this simple mistake, just close your DBS account and open a POSB savings account to link to your current account. Then there will be no more mistakes (unless you got no money in your POSB savings accout, sorry la!)

If not, you can always make the same mistake again.
ooptimizer
Send a private message to ooptimizer
Find all posts by ooptimizer
Old
clang123
Today, 07:51 AM
You made a mistake. You should be writing to the bank to appeal. The bank did not do anything wrong so you should not use this forum to apply pressure on the bank to refund your $40. Shame on you.
clang123
Send a private message to clang123
Find all posts by clang123
Old
Baikinman
Today, 07:55 AM
It is hard for the bank to determine whether there was a genuine mistake or otherwise. In any case, the bounced cheque incurred unnecessary some administrative work to which there is a cost involved. Who should pay for this cost?
Baikinman
Send a private message to Baikinman
Find all posts by Baikinman
Old
Eegle2004
Today, 08:33 AM
All shop lifters will claim they did it by mistake. All traffic violators will claim they did it innocently. Are you a first time bank account holder? You dont even know where is your money. And you issued a cheque simply. Cheque return charges are usually informed to customers at the time of opening account. And dont waste our precious time and space here. Go to the ban and fall at their feet.
Eegle2004
Send a private message to Eegle2004
Find all posts by Eegle2004
Old
Eagle2004
Today, 08:55 AM
Dear Posters

Kindly note that Eegle2004 is an imposter. I wouldn't post such drivel.
Eagle2004
Send a private message to Eagle2004
Find all posts by Eagle2004
Old
ChristineChua_Ms
Today, 09:08 AM
Eage/Eegle who is the real who is the fake? I doubt. Eegle has been contributing ideas which is interesting and worth reading whether we accept or not. But eagle has been simply crying pathetically 'he is fake.. he is imposter'
ChristineChua_Ms
Send a private message to ChristineChua_Ms
Find all posts by ChristineChua_Ms
Old
Eagle2004
Today, 09:14 AM
ChristineChua_Ms has exposed himself as the imposter Eegle2004! How stupid of you! LOL!
Eagle2004
Send a private message to Eagle2004
Find all posts by Eagle2004
Old
wudang10
Today, 09:19 AM
How about her other question of $40 for administrative charges being too high?

I have been wondering how much costs does it involve to clear a bounced cheque? Is there a profit element in the charge or is it based on cost?

UK banks faced similar scrutiny last year when consumers wrote in and complain about the the high charges and the regulators found there is a profit element involved which should not be the case.
wudang10
Send a private message to wudang10
Find all posts by wudang10
Old
forgetitlah
Today, 09:55 AM
why should there be any difference in a POSB savings and DBS savings account in the first place?

Didn't they merge some donkey years ago? I remembered the banks were saying they would be merging the accounts. Unless until today, they still have not finished merging the accounts.
forgetitlah
Send a private message to forgetitlah
Find all posts by forgetitlah

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Honest mistake: Bank should not penalise customer

takefive
Today, 10:07 AM
Since you were there, it is your duty to check and remind your wife. Perhaps you were busy ogling the pretty bank officer? I pity your wife for your lack of attention on her. Please, retain your dignity and don't beg from the bank. Atone for your own failings by replenishing your wife's account with $40 from your personal account.
takefive
Send a private message to takefive
Find all posts by takefive
Old
creationist555
Today, 10:43 AM
I forget to put a parking coupon, hence kenna fine $30. I forget cannot park at double yellow line, hence kenna fine $70. I forget the speed limit is 80 kmh. bla bla. Sound familiar? In life, we sometimes have to accept the penalty thru’ forgetfulness although with no malice. Pay up and get on with your life. Such a trivial matter deal with it between the bank and yourself.

Sometimes the administrative charges have to be punitive. Otherwise, everybody will “tends” to forget.
creationist555
Send a private message to creationist555
Find all posts by creationist555
Old
NELNELNEL
Today, 11:07 AM
If they refund one, what about the rest?
NELNELNEL
Send a private message to NELNELNEL
Find all posts by NELNELNEL
Old
dingdang8
Today, 12:03 PM

 

[nextinfidel]

Re: Honest mistake: Bank should not penalise customer

so after all that postings, ramblings on the internet, and all the meetings at HL Park....final question is : are the uncle and aunties investors gonna get back their money???

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Honest mistake: Bank should not penalise customer

Tuesday, December 30, 2008
MAS reply on Pinnacle Notes
Hi Kin Lian,

Now a piece of positive news. MAS has finally responded to the PLEA I had sent last month on behalf of some 80 PN holders in November. I will like to share this with you and the other PN holders, hopefully before the year is out.

I will therefore like to impose once again on your kindness to post MAS's letter (attached below) on your website for their awareness.

Dear Mr Quek

We refer to your letter dated 19 November 2008 to Mr Heng Swee Keat, Managing Director, MAS.

2. On 18 December 2008, Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte, the arranger of Pinnacle notes published a number of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) that address the issues you raised, among others. The FAQs are available athttp://www.morganstanley.com/pinnaclenotes/pdf/series9-10/FAQs_18-12-08.pdf

3. You enquired about the root causes for the devaluation of Pinnacle credit linked notes. Please refer to questions 5 and 11 of the FAQs which explain the reasons for the fall in value of the Notes. You also raised the question on whether any steps could be taken to protect the value of the Pinnacle notes. The petition alluded to steps being taken for the Lehman minibond notes and that these steps if viable should similarly be extended to Pinnacle notes. Please refer to Questions 8 and 9 of the above FAQs where the differences in the circumstances giving rise to early redemption of Minibond notes and the Pinnacle notes are explained, and on the restructuring of Pinnacle notes. You may also refer to MAS' press release of 2 Dec 2008 where we informed investors that due to legal complexities that have arisen, the trustees and receivers are of the view that restructuring of the Minibond notes is not currently viable.
Link to MAS press release on 2 Dec 2008:

http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/press_releases/2008/Update_on_Lehman_Minibond_Notes_Programme.html

4. For consumers who consider that the Pinnacle notes were mis-sold to them, we would advise them to first lodge their complaint directly with the financial institution (FI) that sold them the products. MAS requires FIs to have a rigorous process to look into every complaint of mis-selling and resolve them fairly. In the event that consumers are not satisfied with the FI’s reply, they may consider approaching the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC). FIDReC is an independent institution which aims to provide consumers with a one-stop avenue for resolving disputes in the banking, insurance and capital market sectors. Separately, where we have clear evidence that a FI has breached our laws or regulations, we will hold the FI to account.

5. If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me.

Christina Tan
Consumer Issues Division
Monetary Authority of Singapore

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Honest mistake: Bank should not penalise customer

happy new year to all ...

 

[Ah Hai]

Results - Mis-selling of credit linked notes

Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Results - Mis-selling of credit linked notes
Based on 58 replies


2. Which notes did you invest in?
Minibond 29
High note 12
Pinnacle note 11
Jubilee note 3
Other note 3

3. Which distributors did you buy the notes from?
Hong Leong 23
DBS 13
Maybank 9
OCBC 3
Philip Sec 2
ABN Amro 1
Other 7

4. How much did you invest?
Less than $25,000 10
$25,000 to $50,000 18
$50,001 to $100,000 16
$100,001 to $200,000 11
More than $200,000 3

5. Have you lodged a complaint with the distributor?
Yes 55
No 3

6. Have they made you an offer for compensation?
No offer yet 35
Rejected my complaint 20
Offer 0 to 30% 0
Offer 31 to 50% 1
Offer more than 50% 1

7. How long did they take to make their decision, from the time that you lodged the complaint?
Less then 4 weeks 8
4 to 8 weeks 17
More than 8 weeks 21

8. Was the distributor fair in attending to your complaint?
Yes 15
No 30

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:02 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Tip: Avoid performance chasing based on short-term returns

Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tip: Avoid performance chasing based on short-term returns

In a book entitled "Common Sense Investing", the author Jack Bogle said, "In selecting mutual funds, most fund investors seem to rely .... on exciting performance over the short term. Studies showed that over 95% of all investor dollars flow to funds rated four or five stars by Morningstar, the statistical service most broadly used by investors in evaluating fund returns".

These star ratings are based on a composite of a fund's record over the previous 3-, 5- and 10-year periods. It has a heavy bias in favor of recent short-term returns.

A study showed that a mutual fund portfolio continuously adjusted to hold only Morningstar's five-star funds earned an annual return of 6.9 percent between 1994 and 2004, nearly 40% below the 11.0 percent return on the Total Stock Market Index.

Jack Bogle selected the top 10 performers among the 851 equity funds during the "new economy market bubble of 1997 to 1999. These funds performed badly during the bursting of the bubble in 2000 to 2002. For the six year period, these funds earned a cumulate return of 13% for the full six-year period, compared to the cumulative return of 30 percent for the S&P 500.

For the shareholders of these funds, it was a disaster. While the funds achieved a net gain of 13 percent, the shareholders incurred a loss of 57 percent. Most shareholders invested in these funds when they were close to the peak and suffered the full effect of the downfall.

Jack Bogle's message is: avoid performance chasing based on short-term returns, especially during great bull markets.



Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:57 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Invest in the stock market

Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Invest in the stock market
Dear Mr. Tan,
Should I invest in a capital guaranteed product that pays 2% for 2 years?

REPLY
If you have spare cash, you can invest in shares to earn the following:

a) STI ETF can earn a dividend yield of around 5%. Even if the dividend drops, you can still earn 3% or more.
b) REITs (real estate trust) can earn you a dividend yield of 10%. Even if the rental drop, you can still earn 5% or more.

Do not worry about the share price (ETF or REIT). If it drops, you can still wait and collect the dividend of 3% or 5%. Wait for the stockmarket to recover in 2 or 3 years or longer, in a worse case. You can get a gain of 20% to 50%. Be prepared to take risk and get a better return.

Do not invest in capital guaranteed product that earns 2% and locks you for 2 years.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:41 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Then you said we should invest in products like Minibonds related or structed products that give 10% interest but principle gone.

High Risk High Return. Low risk still can take back the principle.

We must learn from the lesson. Wakeup
December 31, 2008 12:10 PM
Anonymous said...

I agreed with Mr Tan.

The Capital Plus plan from NTUC Income is not worth to invest at all. 2% is not even sufficient to cover inflation.

I rather look at REITS. Some REITS are paying as high as 20% dividends. Just buy those GLC Linked REITS and you will never be wrong.
December 31, 2008 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...

Then we should invest those products that give high interest for 1year but NO Return of pricinple, right


"Do not invest in capital guaranteed product that earns 2% and locks you for 2 years."
December 31, 2008 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...

STI ETF total dividend for the year was 12 cents. How is the dividend yield of 5% computed? Thanks for enlightening.
December 31, 2008 12:46 PM
Anonymous said...

Capital gauranteed with 2% and locked for 2 years is like a sitting duck awaiting to be shot, sure die investment in real term.
With the current inflation at 5.5%, last year was 6.5%, this product guarantees you a loss of 3.5% for the next 2 years if inflation remains as it is.
Who would sell this type of product?
The unethical salesmen and FI whose interest is to make money.
Who would buy?
The ignorant and the kiasu and those who have been misrepresented by the greedy salesmen.
December 31, 2008 12:56 PM
ArtBoon said...

I will not invest using money that I cannot afford to lose.
December 31, 2008 2:01 PM
Everlearning said...

I don't find it attractive because the 2 years' duration to lock in a minimum of 30k is too l-o-n-g. Besides, when I read the terms and conditions I turned away from such deal.

Maybank is offering short-term durations: 4 months, 6 months, or 12 months and the highest interest rate is 1.75% for less than 30k fixed deposit.

No more guaranteed products for me. It just simply comfuse and make you unhappy!
December 31, 2008 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...

Sounds good. I have been putting money in FDs all my life. Hence never lose at all except maybe to inflation. Seems this is one good way to diversify by putting some into ETFs and REITs.

Mr Tan, thanks for such advice.
December 31, 2008 3:01 PM
Concerned said...

Capital Guaranteed products were actively promoted by banks during the last few years. The returns are miniscule compared to other type of investments. The return cannot even cover the inflation rate. The interest on time and saving deposits are also miniscule compared to other countries. Why is this so? Because the rich people outside Singapore deposit a very chunk of their savings here, in partiular the Thais and Indonesians. Thus banks are sloshed with funds and this depressed the interest rate for time and savings account here.
While returns on capital guaranteed products are low, the banks make use on the money collected and and invested all over the world with high returns.
Also do not invested in capital guaranteed products with trigger points set. The trigger points are set by those financial experts who calculated and bet than 90 - 95% of the time, the trigger points were not be achievable. All excess gains below the trigger points become the gains of the banks and nothing for the investor.
December 31, 2008 3:12 PM
Ghim Moh resident said...

A very good advice. 10/10.

Just wonder where to buy STI ETF?

I know stocks like M1 and SPH gives good dividend yield.
December 31, 2008 3:18 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...

Reply to 12:46 pm

The current price of STI ETF is $1.84. If the dividend for last year is 12 cents, the dividend yield is 6.5% (which is higher than the 5% estimated by me).

Even if the dividend is reduced by 1/3 due to the economic recession, the yield will still be more than 4%. It is quite attractive.

This is suitable for long term investors, who do not need to cash out the investments at short notice.
December 31, 2008 4:22 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: 11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Capital Plus guarantees a loss of at least 3% for next 2 years.
It is idiotic to invest in such instrument. The greedy agents just blindly sold this product to unwary old folks like Ah Sohs and uncles. They have no idea of inflation. They have no idea that they would lose, their money will shrink or lose the value by as much as 6%.
Why didn't ntuc agents disclose this fact that investing in capital plus was sure loss? Was there any suppression of truth? Were the customers misrepresented or mis-sold? Was there any fact finding?
If the customers were mis-sold or misrepresented it was tantamount to cheating the customers. The law was definitely breached. Is MAS aware of this?
Consumers who bought Capital Plus please re- examine your needs. You have 14 day free look to terminate your policy and demand a refund.

December 31, 2008 5:13 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

STI ETF and REITs, How long do we need to hold before it break even.

Is like FSL Trust bought at $1.50 now worth 0.49cents.

MM Reit bought at $0.98 now worth 0.52cents.

I rather leave the money with 1 or 2 percent interest than losing the Capital.

December 31, 2008 7:48 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is right. Did ntuc agents conduct a need anaylsis for you or counsel you about inflation? Putting money in this bum product is sure to lose. At the end of 2 years do you know how much of your capital will shrink?
Is there a gain in real term? Come on, how to grow your wealth. Ntuc agents and their new ceo don't care whether your money grows or shrinks. The ceo wants to improve the company's performance desperately using this dubious product and using the greedy and useless agents to accomplish his personal goal to look good..Do you know the company CANNOT make profit from this product? WHY sell? Answer is to dress up the bottom line to fool the board and to have a better marker share. Everybody loses except the greedy agents. Next year the ceo can boast that because of his foreign talent ntuc is now in second or third position , higher than before but still lost to his former company he helmed. How can?
I advise that you exercise the the free look and cancel it before your hard earned money is shrunk.

December 31, 2008 8:23 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used to shun equity, thinking that they are risky.
To play safe, I put money in Fixed income. End up what, loss all my principal!!!
I thought they were fixed oincome instrument, and at low interest rate of 5% cannot be risky.
Now what happen? People know / understand your weaknesses, and expliot the weaknesses of the risk adverse people. This is the most wicked people (adviser??? Financial expert???) I have seen!!!
Sad, but what to do. Next time must seek Mr. tan's advice and compare notes online before taking action!!
Don't fall into the trap again!!!

December 31, 2008 8:33 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello
I totally disagree with the comment "Capital gauranteed with 2% and locked for 2 years is like a sitting duck awaiting to be shot, sure die investment in real term.
With the current inflation at 5.5%, last year was 6.5%,...Who would sell this type of product?
The unethical salesmen ...."

If this argument is correct, than fixed deposits which pay 1.5% or so, are also "unethical"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is nothing unethical about any product which promises capital guaranteed. Some investors like simple products which doesnt require stock broker or internet tradingsystem. A single premium insurance which pays about 3% is an example. I have a couple of them and i love it.

The argument about keeping up with "inflation rate" is exactly the argument used by Minibond and Pinnacle sellers. They tell you it is silly to earn 3% interest because inflation is 5%, so please buy minibonds. In actual fact, inflation rate is a compounded figure of many items, some of which might be significant to one person, but not to others. I wouldnt worry too much about it.

Remember the only way to earn money is to work for it. We should not be greedy and think that IDLE money should reap huge profits for us. That is the greatest mistake one can make.

Therefore a product with 3% return with capital guarantee is perfectly good product, though the quantum may be considered low, It is completely unreasonable to say it is not ethical as explained above.
REX

January 01, 2009 12:06 AM
Blogger Jeremy said...

felt the need to reply since many singaporeans regularly follow your website and hence, may take your advice at face value.

You fail to warn readers of the risks involved in both your recommendations.

a) current financial crisis is acknowledged by many in the industry to be one of the worst ever experienced on a global basis, apart from possibly the Great Depression in 1929. 2-3 years for market recovery is a guesstimate, and it is possible that it take much longer. If that happens, and if equity performance weakens, merely collecting dividends and not being able to sell off the positions at a profit is as good as "locking in" your funds. For 3-5% return with unpredictable lock-in period is not advisable for risk-averse investors.

b) REITS may have a high dividend yield, but these are based on estimates of future cashflow at current property prices and rental income. Many REITS have been overly-optimistic in their forecasts made during the boom period. The promise of a high 10% yield suggests that it is a high risk investment, and may eventually end up being an unfulfilled promise also.

January 01, 2009 12:11 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you guys know how much commission is paid for this product? The commission is low. There is no best product, it has to depend on customer risk profile. If base on some of the comments, are you guys trying to say you will invest all your cashflow into ETF, Reits or Equities?

January 01, 2009 3:01 AM
Blogger Tan Kin Lian said...

My advice is for people with spare cash and is able to invest for the long term.

If you are invested in a well diversified fund, you avoid the risk of total loss due to the failure of any specific company.

In a bad market, when the stock values are down, you will still continue to get the dividend that the company is able to pay out.
During bad times, the dividend may be reduced, but is likely to give a better yield than the current level of fixed deposits.

Investing is for people with spare cash and is willing to stay for the long term.

If you earn 2% over 2 years, you still have to face the re-investment decision in 2 years time. Will the market be lower for you to invest then? Will you have teh courage to do so?

If you are investing for the long term, the prices are low now. The valuations are attractive.

January 01, 2009 6:25 AM
Blogger Tan Kin Lian said...

Hi 7:48 PM

I read about the FSL shipping trust in the Business Times. I asked my stockbroker for a detailed report.

They have long term contracts and their credit facilities is secured for a few years. The risk appears to be quite small to me (at least it is an acceptable risk).

I decided to invest at $0.45 cents, giving a yield of 35%. AT this dividend payout, the investor can get the principal back in 3 years. If the dividend is reduced, the payback period may be longer (say 4 to 5 years).

Based on the price ($1.50) that you invested in, you are still getting a dividend yield of 10%. It may take 10 years for you to get back your capital.

I expect that the price will get back closer to your purchase price when the global economy recovers. In the meantime, enjoy the good dividend.

January 01, 2009 6:33 AM
Blogger Tan Kin Lian said...

Hi Jeremy

The risk of a lower dividend payout for the ETF and REITS have already been factored into my general advice. I consider that a reduced dividend yield of 3% to 5% is still attractive.

There will be an attractive increase in the yield in the market price, when the global economy recovers.

Some people think that the recovery can take many years, judging from the last great depression. I think that it should occur sooner. But, this is a decision that each person should take for himself.

It is all right to take this risk, if you are a long term investor and you are well diversified.

January 01, 2009 7:01 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

MAS acting on complaints

Thursday, January 01, 2009
MAS acting on complaints
Dec 31, 2008

I REFER to last Wednesday's letter by Mr Leong Kok Ho, 'Why MAS should handle complaints'. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) understands the anxiety of many investors who have bought DBS High Notes 5, Lehman Minibond Notes and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes.

We assure investors that we are monitoring the financial institutions' complaints handling and resolution process. Our priority is to ensure that all complaints are handled seriously and impartially without the process becoming overly legalistic.

Independent parties have been appointed to review the resolution processes of the financial institutions concerned to ensure that these processes are independent, fair and transparent.

MAS has, in consultation with the independent parties, conducted on-site visits to assess the handling and review of complaints, including observing the internal review panels in action. We are working with the independent parties to ensure that each financial institution has a robust assessment framework to identify indicators of potential mis-selling and offer fair financial settlement where appropriate. The independent parties have provided feedback to MAS on how the financial institutions have applied the framework across a sample of actual cases. We are ensuring that the assessment framework is consistent across financial institutions.

Investors who are not satisfied with the outcome of the financial institution's review of their complaints may refer their complaints to the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for resolution. FIDReC is an independent body set up to provide investors with an affordable and impartial avenue to pursue claims against their financial institution. The decision of the FIDReC adjudicator is final and binding on the financial institution, but not on the investor. If the investor is not happy with the decision made at FIDReC, he is free to reject the decision and pursue his claim through other avenues.

As part of MAS' formal investigations, we are looking at financial institution-wide issues, such as the financial institutions' due diligence on structured notes, the procedures used at the point of sale, and the training and supervision of relationship managers. MAS will take firm and appropriate regulatory actions where there are breaches of law or regulations by the financial institutions or their representatives. MAS is also working with the independent parties to ensure that any potential financial institution-wide issues identified in the course of investigations have been incorporated into the assessment of individual complaints.

Angelina Fernandez
Director (Communications)
Monetary Authority of Singapore
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_320293.html



Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:12 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Credit freeze in Singapore

Thursday, January 01, 2009
Credit freeze in Singapore

A few weeks ago, the Government took the bold step of guaranteeing all bank deposits in Singapore. This was to prevent the outflow of deposits to other countries that provided similar gaurantees. (Personally, I do not agree with this approach, as it continued to depress interest rate in Singapore).

Later, the Government provided some guarantee for banks to provide credits for business operations, subject to some due diligence. I remembered that the guarantee was for 50% of the lending.

I heard from a business friend that the guarantee had since been increased to 80 or 90 percent, but the banks are still reluctant to lend. (I have not verified this information). The unwillingness of banks to lend is causing some business failures - as they depend on credit to continue their operations.

In my view, it is a bad idea for business to depend on short term credit from banks for their operations. They should increase their capital or issue long term bonds that pay a higher rate of interest (say 4 to 7% p.a.). They can earn a higher return on their investment, so they can afford a higher and fairer payout to the bond holders.

To make these bonds attractive to long term investors, the guarantee can provide a guarantee on the principal and dividends and charge a guarantee fee to the issuer. This will allow the issuer to get a source of long term funding and do not have to worry about talking to the bank yearly.

This Government guarantee fee can be at a subsidised rate, to support the economy in its current phase. When the conomy stabilises, it can be done at the market rate, which depends on the risk. The Government can also set up a separate insurance company to provide the credit default insurance on commercial terms.

Summary: Encourage businesses to issue long term bonds to get a secure source of funds for their long term operations. The Government can provide a guarantee on these bonds (subject to due diligence and a guarantee fee), to help businesses to overcome the current economic turmoil.


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:41 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

In memory of Mr. J. B. Jeyaretnam

Thursday, January 01, 2009
In memory of Mr. J. B. Jeyaretnam
Speech at Hong Lim Park, New Year's Eve Party

I wish to thank Chee Siok Chin for inviting me to this event and giving me the opportunity to speak a few words in memory of Mr. J. B. Jeyaretnam.

I do not know Mr. Jeyaretnam personally. I attended only one of his election rally in the late 1970s and only for a few minutes.

What I knew of him came mainly from reports in the newspapers over the next 20 years. They covered the unhappy events in his life, like defending against defamation suits or for infringements of certain regulations on his political activities. Like most Singaporeans, I had a somewhat negative opinion of him from these reports.

In July this year, my friend invited me to the inaugural dinner of the Reform Party that was just set up by Mr. Jeyaretnam. At the dinner, I decided to buy two copies of his books as a show of support. The book was a collection of his speeches in Parliament over the years.

My impression of Mr. Jeyaretnam changed quite completely after reading a few paragraphs from the book. Here was a man who was passionate about the well being of the people of Singapore and, especially in uplifting the life of the lower income levels in our society.

I realised that I shared many of his values and passion. I thought of finding the occasion to get to know him better as a person.

That opportunity is not gone forever. Mr. Jeyaretnam passed away suddenly a few months later.

Someone circulated an e-mail containing a tribute to Mr. Jeyaretnam. He described Mr. Jeyaretnam as a person who had done his best for what he believed to be good for Singapore and Singaporeans, and yet many Singaporeans did not know of him and his sacrifice. I decided to post this tribute in my blog.

A few people asked for signatures to an open letter to the Prime Minister to ask for the public service of Mr. Jeyaretnam to be recognised. I decided to join in and to help to get more signatures.

I was disappointed in getting only 25 signatures after a week, in spite of several efforts to publicise it. This number was so small, compared to an earlier signature campaign on the credit linked notes which collected nearly 1,000 signatures. Perhaps, Singaporeans did not see Mr. Jeyaretnam in a positive light or were afraid to be seen as supporting the call in the open letter.

I hope that, over the years, Singaporeans will get to know better of Mr. J. B. Jeyaretnam and what he has done for Singapore.

2008 has been a difficult year. 2009 will continue to be challenging. In spite of the uncertainties, let me wish all of you the very best for 2009 and the years ahead.

Tan Kin Lian
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:02 AM

 

[PJ Boy]

1. TKL's motives are dubious. hard for me to believe that he would attempt to, or is capable of such an initiative.

2. when these people made $, they kept quiet. when the thing collapse, they start pointing fingers.

3. imo, the investors are quite lucky in the fact that this is is a at least, a regional financial issue - people in HK also got affected, and the HK govt is doing things in favour of the HK investores.
so, MAS here has to follow suit and do something decent as well.

What TKL's motives are is not relevant. Important thing do you get what you want. Besides, there are no other alternatives.

What the investors' motives are is not relevant as well because the argument is whether the law has been breached in selling the structured products.

 

[Ah Hai]

Results - Where to live

Thursday, January 01, 2009
Results - Where to live
Here is a summary of 120 replies to this survey (shown in brackets). The results of previous survey based 52 replies are shown before the bracket. What facilities do you like to see within 0.5% of the place your live:

MRT (86%) 78.2%
Supermarket (71%) 64.7%
Food court/restaurant (67%) 63%
Wet market (54%) 49.6%
Shopping mall (46%) 38.7%
Bus interchange (40%) 37.8%
Good primary school (27%) 30.3%
Medical center/ hospital (29%) 26.1%
Sports center (19%) 21%
Good secondary school (21%) 20.2%
Community center (14%) 11.8%
HDB town center (12%) 11.8%
Any school (10%) 9.2%
Total (including repeats): (496%) 462.4%

I will use the results of this survey to compute the AQI (amenities quality index) for a housing project (i.e. condominium or neighbourhood). The index has the value of 0.0 to 9.9. An high index (9.9) indicates a place with good facilities within walking distance.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:00 AM
2 comments:

Vincent said...

Total including repeats is 496%, meaning that people usually look at around 5 factors to decide where to buy their homes. Pulic transport and food- or necessity-related factors seem to be tops.
December 24, 2008 3:49 PM
Don said...

What about being near a park ?
December 25, 2008 12:53 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

HK: Finance chief given report on minibonds saga

Thursday, January 01, 2009
HK: Finance chief given report on minibonds saga

Joyce Man
Jan 01, 2009

The banking and securities regulators handed a report on the minibonds saga to the financial secretary yesterday, three months after investors started complaining....

http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCM...VCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&s=news
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:33 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: HK: Finance chief given report on minibonds saga

Thursday, January 01, 2009
Book a taxi for $1
This service will be launched on 1 Feb 2009 (tentative). For people in a hurry, or willing to pay $1 for a taxi to come to your doorstep. Read here:
http://projects.easyapps.sg/tabs/about.aspx

 

[Ah Hai]

Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) information

Thursday, January 01, 2009
Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) information
Dear Sir,

I am Kay from moneytalk.sg. I have wrote a series of posts that discusses about the STI ETF in detail. The reason why I'm doing this is that I wish to create more awareness that STI ETF is a good form of investment that can give adequate returns if one is willing to hold in for the long term. Instead of putting their hard-earned money into risky products that offer poor returns, I hope more people can consider the STI ETF.

Some of the information in my posts include an explanation of the STI ETF, likely returns in the long run, dividend yield, when to buy it and a dollar cost averaging plan.

Thanks and all the best for 2009

Kay
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 1:52 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Survey on Distribution Cost of Life Insurance Policy

Thursday, January 01, 2009
Survey on Distribution Cost of Life Insurance Policy

If you have bought a life insurance policy (i.e. whole, life, endowment, investment linked, or variation) during the past two years, you can participate in this survey:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=AaicemJhQmUXu8DitwJm8Q_3d_3d
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:30 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Survey on Distribution Cost of Life Insurance Policy

Friday, January 02, 2009
Buyer beware and seller beware too
Business Times - 01 Jan 2009
By R SIVANITHY

AS A dismal 2008 rolls to a close, it's customary for us to draw up a wish-list for the new year. Last year, our list focused mainly on disclosure, particularly with regard to IPO prospectuses, short-selling positions and structured warrants. Some of these calls have been met - the Singapore Exchange (SGX) recently circulated a discussion paper on short-selling disclosure, and although IPOs were virtually non-existent in 2008, disclosures with particular reference to use of IPO funds have undoubtedly improved.

As for structured warrants, we are optimistic that it can only be a matter of time before SGX turns its attention to improving information dissemination in the segment. Having said that, which other areas could do with disclosure improvements in 2009? Before going into specifics, our preference is for a regulatory framework that not only stresses 'buyer beware' but should now also give equal emphasis to 'seller beware'.

For instance, the fiasco involving various failed structured products such as Lehman Brothers' Minibonds and DBS's High Notes exposed the very real possibility that those who sold these instruments did not adequately disclose the risks involved to hapless retail investors and yet appeared to have avoided accountability. Surely, these parties have to bear some responsibility for their lapses.

In addition, if an instrument is in essence one thing, the disclosure documents should describe that thing accurately and not imply something else - for example, the Lehman Minibond was an insurance policy to protect Lehman from defaults in debt instruments issued by five other banks but the prospectuses were cleverly worded to make it appear as if it was a bond issued by those five banks while Lehman's role was downplayed. This obfuscation started with the very name 'Minibond' which diverted attention from the product's true nature.

Stronger regulatory action would have been welcome but although it wasn't forthcoming, it isn't too late for the authorities to engineer a shift towards sterner penalties for parties that hide behind the fine print or legal disclaimers. In other words, if finance professionals don't call a spade a spade and try to conceal the true nature of a product they are selling, they should be penalised.

Similarly, we'd also like to see better disclosure on 'sell' side research reports, especially of how much risk there is to target prices, the extent of any investment banking relationships between the organisations in question for the past six months or one year and of the credentials and track record of the recommending analyst.

All of the above requires a stronger regulatory stance than what the market has become accustomed to since deregulation 10 years ago, which means that change has to start at the top.

For starters, SGX should scrap its controversial policy of privately censuring listed companies whose disclosures are less than satisfactory; and going public instead with all disciplinary actions. SGX says that it wants to have a range of measures at its disposal to tailor the punishment to fit the crime. Thus, if SGX judges a company's lapse to be minor and not having a material impact on the market and investors' decision-making, then a private censure is warranted, it argues.

But corporate governance advocate Mak Yuen Teen has already described the disadvantages of such a covert, private approach in a letter to this newspaper ('SGX should publicise all its enforcement actions', Nov 11). Suffice to say that the practice of judging what can be privately penalised and what might be publicly disclosed is in effect a step backwards to a merit-based regulatory system, the very system that the exchange sought to scrap when the market deregulated, giving way to a disclosure-based regime.

Perhaps the best suggestion we can make to the SGX and its overseeing body, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, is the same given to all listed firms, namely: a disclosure-based regime relies on full and public disclosure. If there're grey areas, then the correct approach should be 'when in doubt, disclose'.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:00 AM