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

[Ah Hai]

Re: Helping Singaporeans to cope with recession (2)

Thursday, January 15, 2009
Investor wants to sue the relationship manager
Dear Mr. Tan

Seek your views on the following:
Q1 Can sue the RM personally for mis-selling and mis-representation, if I am not happy with FI investigation.

Q2 If I sue the RM, do you think the FI will defend her or the RM has to defend herself.

Q3 Do you think Leonard Loo is a possible choice, or get another lawyer?

Actually, money loss can be earned back. It saddened me that many uncles and aunties may not even know they are intoxicated OR those who are intoxicated may not know how to fight on ground of mis-selling and mis-rep which is a legal concept.

I think MAS is making it worst for investors. Imagine, we are cheated, now we have to prove that we are “idiot” ie “vulnerable or mis-selling or mis-rep” to get back our money?
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:38 PM
1 comments:

Anonymous said...

Suing the RMs is the best bet you have about miss-selling. Is is to force a confession and get them to spill the beans. Otherwise the FIs are sticking to their guns with the blessing of the regulator.
You will be doing a great service to the whole industry. The industry will be embarrassed that they have been fleecing the consumers all these years. This includes the life insurance and the agents.

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Helping Singaporeans to cope with recession (2)

Thursday, January 15, 2009
Learn about insurance

You can find some common concepts explained in a simple way in:
http://www.tankinlian.com/course/


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:27 PM
1 comments:

zhummmeng said...

Selling your whole life policy to get better cash value than the insurer at 65 instead of converting to annuity makes more sense .There is a growing market and it will prove the bane for the insurers
I know NTUC offers another another 5% for conversion to annuity of their vivolife. Is NTUC being generous? You should know the truth.
First, ntuc gets another business.
Second, and this is the very reason why ntuc WANTS TO APPEAR generous. By converting to annuity NTUC stands to save as much as 60% of the death or claim proceed. So, is ntuc generous? It is actually discouraging policyholders from holding for whole life until claim.If all policyholders hold for whole life the insurance companies will go BANKRUPPT.
So this talk and argument by your insurance agents that you need a whole life plan is big scam. It is not sincere. The company doesn't want you to do that.It will put a lot of incentives in your way to stop you from holding it for whole life.
The bad news is ,if the secondary market for life settlement takes off successfully all the life insurance companies will tremble for their days are numbered. This will expose their scam that they are hiding all these years about whole life and endowment products.
They are clever to use greedy insurance agents to promote the scams. These agents, whatever titles they are disguised, they too will meet their doom and the dooms day is near.
Consumers, wake up to this fact. The insurers NEVER had or have your interest at heart. Your money, to pay the greedy agents and upkeep the lifestyle of the ceos and their senior management is the reason for them to roll out dubious products from time to time.
Let me ask you. Are the new products getting better and better in term of more protection and more return or cash value? on the contrary, they are getting more fancifool to fool you and to distract you about the REAL reason for insurance. They are trying to bullshit you that there is such thing as life style insurance products.Spend as you save and live life to the fullest craps is a play of semantics which are confusing and ambiguous to numb your sense of rationality. With the agents pushing and pressuring you , you end up with a load of useless craps and yet you don't even know.
Consumers, support the formation of the FISCA and put an end to the dishonesty of the insurance agents.
January 15, 2009 9:22 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Central database of medical records

Thursday, January 15, 2009
Central database of medical records
Should we have a central database of medical records? Will it lead to more efficient treatment and low medical cost? Give your views in this survey.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=QALcpiAF2TsyYKQ_2bt0yjKg_3d_3d
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 11:00 PM 2 comments Links to this post
Central database of medical records

Summary of 24 replies

1. How old are you?

Less than 30


12.5%

31 to 50


50.0%

Over 50


37.5%

2. Gender

Male


79.2%

Female


20.8%

3. How many times do you see the doctor in a year?

0 to 3 times


58.3%

4 to 7 times


25.0%

More than 7 times


16.7%

4. Do you see the same doctor?

See 1 doctor most of the time


29.2%

See 2 doctors most of the time


37.5%

See more than 2 doctors


33.3%

5. If it useful to have your medical records available to all the doctors that you see?

Yes


95.8%

No


4.2%

6. What type of medical information should be made available to all the doctors that you consult?

Allergy


100.0%

Chronic conditions


95.8%

Medical checkup record


91.7%

Prescribed medicine


87.5%

Family history


83.3%

7. Which of the following approaches is to be used to protect confidentiality of information?

Patient to enter the PIN to access the information (note: this may be troublesome)


31.6%

All access to the patient's information is logged and the patient has the right to check on the identity of the person who access the record


63.2%

The information in the medical record are not confidential


5.3%

9. Do you agree with the following statements?

1=disagree, 3=neutral, 5=agree

The medical records help the doctors to treat me better


4.39

It will result in a more efficient system


4.30

The medical records should be made available to all doctors that treat me


4.13

There is no need for the same medical tests to be repeated


4.04

The central database allows tracking and can minimise mal-practice by doctors


3.96

This will allow the medical expenses to be reduced


3.83

I am not worried about privacy of medical information


2.61


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:30 PM 0 comments Links to this post

 

[Ah Hai]

"Pinnacle Action Group" formed to work on a possible Class Action

Thursday, January 15, 2009
"Pinnacle Action Group" formed to work on a possible Class Action

(1) A working committee of 6 investors (informally called "Pinnacle Action Group") have come together to work on a possible class action for Series 1,2,3,5,6,7,9 & 10 of the Pinnacle Notes. Series 9 & 10 have been declared worthless and the other Series were notified in December 2008 that they are close to but not yet declared worthless. The fate of these other series now hang in the balance. The group feels that we cannot allow this tragic event to go unchallenged

(2) We have briefed several Senior Counsel (SC)and the proposed class action will,unlike the case of Minibonds, be against the arranger of the Notes, viz Morgan Stanley Singapore. An official website to facilitate the organizing of the proposed class action will be launched as soon as one of the SC briefed has been appointed to take on the case.

(3)The proposed class action will target 1000 or more affected investors in the various series to join in .The legal fee structure proposed will be simple and affordable - perhaps as low as only about $1000/- per head - on an all-inclusive basis right up to appeal stage , win or lose. To do this , we need 1000 or more to join in. The process will also be kept simple and the issues raised will be easy to understand for all who wish to join in the proposed class action and try and recoup their losses.

To be kept informed, before the launch the official "Pinnacle Class Action" website, Pinnacle investors are urged to contact us at the email address given below. Please provide us with your:

(a) name; (b) Series bought; (c) email address, and (d) contact tel

Thank you.

Sincerely,
"Pinnacle Action Group"

(J C Chan, S Tan, C S Lim, P Loh, B T Tee and C Y Boey)

Email: [email protected]
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:53 PM
6 comments:

Anonymous said...

TO: PAG [Pinnacle Action Group]
Great and thanks.

TO: BEING CHEATED INVESTORS
This is the direction forward bec MAS actually tells us to fend for ourselves.

I urge all Pinnacles notes holders, whatever series you are holding, TO JOIN THE CLASS ACTION bec they will die in a matter of time. Your only hope is:

[a] file complaint under the MAS 3-step guideline, which is only FORMALITY

be part of the class action, which is the REAL ACTION.

[c] More people the cost will be LOWER eg. $1,000 x 1,000 pax is $1 million war chest; $500 x 3,000 pax is $1.5 million ware chest.

[d] Even we lose (I doubt so) the can of WORMS will be pouring upon the regulators and distributors etc.
January 15, 2009 7:34 PM
Anonymous said...

I urge investors to wait for Mr. Tan QC opinion before rushing in. The opinion will be ready by end of Jan 2009 and there is no urgency to act before that.
January 15, 2009 8:13 PM
Wilson said...

One of my concerns is: If the investors lose in the legal battle with the FIs, will the FIs counter-sue the investors, or will the investors have to bear the legal costs of the FIs (which I believe the FIs would demand so)? If this happen, will the investors' costs be limited to S$1000 or even many times higher?
Can anyone enlighten us on the above issues before we plunge into this class action? As I believe most of us would want to limit our liabilities in the worst case scenario.
January 15, 2009 10:32 PM
Ed said...

We're waiting for the "mid-January" answer/findings from MAS & FIs as well, before deciding on any legal action.
January 15, 2009 10:51 PM
Concerned said...

To sue the arranger, it will be on the basis that the prospectus or the pricing documents are misleading or misrepresented. Since there is a QC taking a look at the Minibond prospectus on any misrepresentation, it would better to wait for the QC opinion.
If there is any mis-selling or misrepresentation, it is between the investors and the FIs as Morgan Stanley did not sold the structured products directly.
January 16, 2009 12:31 AM
Anonymous said...

Financial crooks all think that they can get away with it just by ignoring their customers. Remember the Fitness centre that just ignored the customer? Even did not go and attend the tribunal hearing. Ignore, ignore and ignore. Until the bailiff turn up and want to seize the gym equipment. Then suddenly can contact the big boss and decision made to return cash and keep the change some more. Never see coffin will not shed tears. This is how these opportunists work. They know that most people are afraid of the extra effort and the uncertainty of winning or losing and the fear that they waste more time and money pursuing the case. No venture no gain. These financial crooks who think nothing of eating up your money and insult your intelligence should be taught a lesson. They are not afraid of anything when they plot to take your hard earned money away from you. Why are you afraid to see justice done?
January 16, 2009 1:41 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Mis-selling of structured products

Friday, January 16, 2009
Mis-selling of structured products
Almost all elderly investors with little income, formal education or investment experience were compensated.
By Francis Chan

MORE than half of the reviewed complaints of structured products of Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes 5 and Merril Lynch Jubilee Series 3 Linkearner Notes have received some compensation, said the Monetary Authority of Singapore on Friday. In the latest update, MAS says 58 per cent of investors who have lodged complaints of mis-selling to the financial institutions that sold them the products have received a full or partial settlement.
About 25 per cent of those received full settlements, while 33 per cent got partial settlements.

According to the MAS, almost all elderly investors with little income, formal education or investment experience have been fully or partially compensated.

MAS deputy managing director for market conduct, Shane Tregillis said: 'MAS is satisfied that FIs have carefully reviewed the complaints based on principals of fairness without taking strict legal positions. This is reflected in the settlements offers that the FIs are making to the investors.'

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_326983.html
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:20 PM
18 comments:

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Mis-selling of structured products

Anonymous said...

Someone who ever come to this blog please tell me you got some compensation. I have written evidence and i got nothing and still want to limit the claim to 50k. I dont believe the banks will do any compensation with a complain. This news is a joke.
January 16, 2009 7:28 PM
ym said...

hmmm.. i wonder whats the average % compensation (instead of by numbers)


ym
January 16, 2009 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...

Very good news. Thanks to MAS for providing a fair solution.
January 16, 2009 7:39 PM
Anonymous said...

This is too good to be believed. Is MAS liaring?
January 16, 2009 8:31 PM
Anonymous said...

Wah majority of Lehman Brothers investment products must be elderly and illiterate..... that's why 58% got compensated. These are very impressive statistics, wonder if they can be verified?
January 16, 2009 8:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Most ofthe people I met received nothing.
Who are compensated. Is this true???
Big question mark???
Can' believe!!!!!!
January 16, 2009 9:23 PM
Anonymous said...

My retired father and housewife mother (above 60 years, no income) - should be under elderly with little income - but both had received letters from the FI saying no reason to accede to their complaint, and asking them to go Fidrec.
Is it because they bought through IFA from brokerage, instead of directly from bank?
A product is toxic - it doesn't matter who they buy if from!
Wonder if MAS has looked into this area and to address the victims who bought through IFA from brokerage?
January 16, 2009 9:47 PM
Anonymous said...

Buy thru independent adviser, only 1 to 2 % got compensated.
Is this ridiculus???
Must fight on.....
January 16, 2009 10:38 PM
Anonymous said...

so is it without complaint also get compensation or only those who file complaint?
January 16, 2009 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...

9:47 PM : Friend, think about it, if you are the bank, will you pay those who invest 5k or those who invest 500k? If i am the bank, to make the book look good to the public, i will pay those who invest 5k and say Almost all elderly investors with little income, formal education or investment experience were compensated. Instead of giving %, why dont they show us the number of those who invested above 50k get compensation instead of % getting compensation. How much does your paretns invest?
January 16, 2009 11:03 PM
Ed said...

Why isn't MAS investigating mis-selling of Pinnacle Notes?!
January 16, 2009 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...

By compensating 75% of Minibond holders who bought from Banks, it is saying the product is indeed toxic and too complex to be sold to general public.
It is good news that Banks stepped forward to offer fair compensation. But what about the Brokerages? They seemed to have got away, even though amongst their many investment-savvy clients, there are also many innocent victims.
January 16, 2009 11:35 PM
Anonymous said...

I have an appointment with Maybank next week regarding the outcome of my complaint. The officer was reluctant to say more but after much pressure from me hinted that I may be compensated. I am below 60 years old and am a graduate homemaker, so I guess I don't fall into the 'vulnerable' group.
January 16, 2009 11:59 PM
Anonymous said...

"MAS deputy managing director for market conduct, Shane Tregillis said: 'MAS is satisfied that ..."

The issue is not whether MAS is satisfied. The issue is whether the holders are satisfied with MAS...
Big Joke ... More good years...
January 17, 2009 12:24 AM
Anonymous said...

You see,

no/low education is better sometimes.

if you are highly educated, you can forget about getting compensated.
January 17, 2009 12:29 AM
Anonymous said...

Those got compensation sign non-disclosure agreement.
January 17, 2009 12:53 AM
Anonymous said...

A toxic product sold by 2 diferent agents having different accountability. Some regulatory men must be sleeping.
January 17, 2009 1:31 AM
Anonymous said...

Going by the statistics, with several thousands expected to receive some form of compensation, it shows that there is serious problems in how banks have been selling financial products to the public, and in my opinion, putting banks in the same category as Time Share companies.

It is also an indication that our regulatory body and government's decision to give financial institution a free rein is questionable. Society is yet to mature to a stage where the government can leave such matters to the free market.

With such large compensations, it is apparent that there is a systematic failure in the in the consumer market for financial products....

leading individuals in position, both in the government and banks, need to be accountable for this debacle.
January 17, 2009 7:15 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

58% of investors who complained about Lehman-linked products to be compensated

58% of investors who complained about Lehman-linked products to be compensated
By Nicholas Fang/Valarie Tan/May Wong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 16 January 2009 1836 hrs



Investors gather at Speakers' Corner to share their experience about the failed financial products (file picture)


Related News
• Investors of failed structured products to know outcome of complaints by mid-Jan
• Distributors of Lehman Minibond Notes to contribute to legal costs
• HK investors of Lehman products urge banks for refunds
• Hong Kong securities regulator defends system in financial crisis
• Minibonds investors attend seminar in preparation for class action suit
• FIDReC expands resources to handle expected increase in complaints
Related Videos
58% of investors who complained about Lehman-linked products to be compensated

SINGAPORE: Over half of investors who complained about their investments in products linked to the collapsed Lehman Brothers will get some or all of their money back.

According to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), those who will be compensated had bought Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 products.

For several weekends last year, hundreds of affected investors gathered at the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park to share their experience about the failed financial products.

About 5,400 of them complained to authorities about their investments in those products. Of these, 94 per cent have been addressed. The rest are still being investigated.

One quarter of the some 5,100 investors will get all their money back. A third will get only some of their investment back.

MAS said banks and institutions will take a few weeks to personally inform all investors individually about their cases.

Some 8,000 retail investors in Singapore had bought Lehman Minibonds worth S$375 million. About 350 investors had put S$23 million into the Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 notes, while 1,400 investors had subscribed to S$103 million worth of DBS High Notes 5.

If individuals are still not happy about the compensation they receive, MAS said they can still turn to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC) for further mediation.

As of January 9, FIDReC has received 210 complaints - 40 were for DBS High Notes 5, 129 for Lehman Minibonds, 28 for Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 and five for Morgan Stanley Pinnacle Series 9 and 10 Notes.

FIDReC said the majority of these are in the investigation and mediation stages.

Of the some 530 investors who bought Lehman Minibonds through stockbroking firms, only 3 per cent will be compensated.

"We will file our case to FIDReC first and hopefully FIDReC would be professional to do something about it," said a Lehman Minibonds investor. "If it doesn't work, we will definitely consider class action."

For cancer survivor "Rachel" (not her real name), who invested S$20,000 through Hong Leong Finance, she said: "I shall see how much is the percentage (of compensation) first. After that, I'll decide (what to do)."

MAS said investors will lose their compensation offer from the financial institutions if they go to FIDReC.

MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Inderjit Singh, said: "I would advise customers to think carefully before they reject. There were people who did not know what they were buying. And for such people, I hope banks will treat them fairly. But for those who are in the know and they lost their investment, I think they too want to accept.

"The processes that MAS has in place to control these things and also how these products are released are generally robust and perhaps in the execution is where we may have seen some problems.

"So, we maybe want to look at how the banks and the financial institutions are executing some of the rules that have been put in place, rather than to make drastic changes to the rules, because if you want to be a financial centre and attract other institutions to look at operations here, we cannot over control the environment.

"I personally think there has not been a significant problem in the rules, but how the rules were implemented and executed on the ground.

"One of the ways banks could change is to separate bank deposits areas from (places) where investment products were sold. This is something I would like to see the banks do, as what has happened was simply because many people in this case had thought the minibonds were an extension of deposits."

Mr Inderjit Singh will raise questions on the issue when Parliament sits on Monday.

MAS said it is not able to comment further as it is still investigating the selling practices and policies of banks and financial institutions. But it said a review on current regulations is underway and it would seek feedback from the public by the middle of March 2009.

- CNA/ir
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/402902/1/.html

 

[Ah Hai]

Compensation for credit linked notes

Friday, January 16, 2009
Compensation for credit linked notes
Further details of the compensation are shown in MAS website:
http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/pre...rovides_Updates_on_Complaints_Resolution.html

According to the MAS statement, the investors would be informed about the compensation offer in stages over the next few weeks. This could explain why so few investors have received their offer of compensation so far.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:58 PM
22 comments:

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Compensation for credit linked notes

22 comments:

Tan Kin Lian said...

Someone observed that the compensation offer is not as generous and reported. Most of the full compensation are for the minibonds where the amounts invested were smaller and there is still residual value.

Only a small percentage of investors get full or high compensation for the high notes, where the amounts invested are higher.

It is useful to look at the total amount that is invested and compensated in the various categories.
January 16, 2009 9:11 PM
Tiang said...

For stockbroking firms, only 13% of investors will be compensated. The 13% covers both full and partial compensation. This means that 87% of investors will not get a single cent. Is this correct?
January 16, 2009 9:25 PM
Anonymous said...

For claims above S$50,000, FIDReC will be able to adjudicate such claims if either the FI agrees to allow FIDReC to hear the claim or the investor agrees to limit his claim to S$50,000. Most FIs have indicated they will agree to FIDReC adjudicating claims above S$50,000 on a case-by-case basis. A few FIs have agreed to allow FIDReC to adjudicate all claims up to a limit of S$75,000.

Meaning u invest above 50k, you are finished? How fair is that?
January 16, 2009 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...

WELL DONE! Mr. Tan

Without your initiatives I doubt we will see the result today.

Cheers
January 16, 2009 9:42 PM
Anonymous said...

MAS said investors will lose their compensation offer from the financial institutions if they go to FIDReC.

Isn't this tricky and like take it or lose it situation?

How not to accept since this condition clearly deterring the victims from escalating further..

I really praying hard now that my kins will be compensated in FULL
January 16, 2009 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...

How about those who have yet to complain...? Logically, these mis-selling are so obvious and prevalent....it is quite a joke that we still need to complain to get an obvious "Mis-Selling compensation...58% of complaints are being compensated...these are the Solid proofs that the Miss-Selling are so outrages.
January 16, 2009 10:19 PM
Anonymous said...

Looking at the tables, in future, it is still safer to buy from the banks than the other institutions.
January 16, 2009 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mr Tan and all who has one or another "help to pull this together", which otherwise is lost and gone for good.
January 16, 2009 10:34 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...

The compensation from the brokers are lower than from the banks. Reason?

The investors approached the brokers to buy the credit linked notes after reading the advertisements.

For the banks, the relationship managers approached the depositors to ask them to invest ub the credit linked notes.

I suspect that this is the key difference for the difference in the payouts.
January 16, 2009 10:37 PM
Anonymous said...

The independent adviser came to my house to persuade me to buy.
I am not aware of the product or their launch bec I find it to costly to buy newspaper.
But I don't get a single cents.
Is this ridiculus???
January 16, 2009 10:41 PM
Anonymous said...

Where is the justice????
January 16, 2009 10:42 PM
zhummmeng said...

It doesn't make sense that compensation is not full when mis-selling is recognised as the underlying cause. Mis-selling amounts to cheating. Isn't cheating a crime? There must be full restitution by the wrong doers.
It is unfair that age and lack of education are used as criteria to judge whether there was mis -selling.
In the many postings before we saw many VERY EDUCATED PhDs couldn't understand the working mechanism of structured products let alone investors without finance background.
I think MAS is sticking to the disclosure based regime and wouldn't admit that it is not applicable to all products except stocks. While disclosure is useful and helpful to some but not to the vast majority of consumers.
Advisory process requires the adviser to advise whether the product is good or bad and that is advisory and it requires expressing an opinion because the advisor is in the best position to know whether the product meets the consumers' needs and circumstances and not the consumers.Consumers CANNOT make INDEPENDENT decision
It is sad that pride is behind MAS refusal to come clean of its mistakes.
Legal action is preferred to shame all parties to this debacle.
January 16, 2009 10:55 PM
Ed said...

MAS couldn't be bothered about the Pinnacle Notes investors!

No mention of PN complains.
January 16, 2009 11:01 PM
Anonymous said...

How can the term ' Almost all elderly investors with little income, formal education or investment experience were compensated ' when mas never show us the numbers of elderly getting compensation. IT JUST SHOW US the % of cases being compensated. Even there is really 58%, who knows this 58% are cases in 5k or 10k? Why dont they give us the $ they paid out if they do instead of giving % of paid out? If you are the bank, will you paid out someone who invest 500k 60 yrs old with no income or 100 cases of 5k to make the book look good. Think about it!
January 16, 2009 11:13 PM
Anonymous said...

A toxic product is a Toxic product. I received updates from my Financial Adviser Representative (FAR) on Minibond notes, and after receiving advice from him, bought the notes from a brokerage. I received a rejection letter from the brokerage firm.
I will take this up with Fidrec, why the investigation process is not thorough or the resolution is not fair? Why "advice" from bank RM is different as "advice" from FAR who represented the brokerage?
January 16, 2009 11:23 PM
Anonymous said...

MR TAN
Please keep up the good work. I think the battle is not over. It is only the beginning. Let's wait and pray.

Most important is to see also the quantum of compensation in terms of VALUE. I think the numbers presented refers to cases.
eg. If you compensate ONE small case and no action for the other ONE large case, you have 50% compensation in statistics.

From CASHEW NUT
January 16, 2009 11:40 PM
Anonymous said...

Dear Mr.Tan,

Your reason that the lower percentage of compensation cases from the Stock Broking Firms is because the investors approached the Broking Firms is not correct. In my case, I did not approach the Broking firm, it was the rep from the stock broking who approached me over the phone and convinced me to purchase the product. I submitted my complaint, but was rejected by the Stock Broking firm without giving me any reasons.
January 16, 2009 11:43 PM
Anonymous said...

Bought from IFA, the IFA hide behind "Introducer agreement", so we get nothing, is it fair???
A mis-selling is a mis-selling. Just bec we are not well verse in legal term we got """"""???
where is justice?
January 16, 2009 11:51 PM
Vincent Sear said...

I agree with T.K.L. In transaction, there's a question of representation. Tied agents and bank RMs are usually deemed to represent the sale side of the equation, whereas independent brokers are usually deemed to represent the buy side.

When a product is found to be faulty or "toxic", you're likely to get more compensation if you're sold than if you bought.
January 17, 2009 12:39 AM
5D said...

On an overall basis, this certainly exceeded my expectation. More important to the monetary compensation is the restore to some extent of people’s confidence in the checks and balances in our financial system. I don’t even know my own outcome so my comments are impartial.

I would like to compliment MAS and the Financial Institutions for their efforts. And the independent persons who oversee the complaint handling process. And, last but not least, Mr. TAN Kin Lian (and many supporting volunteers) for taking the leadership and devoting his time to lead the efforts, rain or shine. Without his leadership and the support, I am sure we would not have gotten over 5,000 people going forward with the complaint process.

In a massive process like this, unfortunately not everyone will get full satisfaction. Now that I have confidence in the complaint handling process, I hope MAS and the Financial Institutions will continue the same spirit in the FIDReC process – particularly in working with the FI’s to raise the $50,000 FIDReC limit. Else I think we will end up with a lot of the remaining cases in court. Or we might have people losing more than $50,000 still going through the FIDReC process to get their case heard before moving on to the court system.

I setup my HK5D alias to challenge Singapore to be faster in this process. Singapore clearly won. And, I promised that I would change my alias to SG5D after Singapore won.

P.S. I just checked – SG5D has been taken. So, SG is indeed 5D after all :-)
January 17, 2009 12:50 AM
Anonymous said...

The compensation from the brokers is almost zero despite they sent the misleading brochure to promote the sale of minibond to customers. Is not this the same as the RM approached the depositors to ask them to invest in the CLN? They even confirmed CLN were a safe porduct. Why the same product marketed by banks and brokers and yet having different responsibilities. Perhaps, the brokers should not be selling the product is the first place.

Raising claim limit above $50,000 to be tested at Fidric, what mentioned in Parliament and request to the FI are completely different.
January 17, 2009 12:53 AM
Anonymous said...

MAS advised all parties to take a less legalistic approach in this fiasco. Why then a vast difference in compensation between Banks and Brokers?
January 17, 2009 1:43 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Compensation for Credit Linked Notes

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Compensation for Credit Linked Notes
This survey is for you to share some information about the compensation offer given to you on the credit linked notes. As you are under a "no disclosure agreement", you do not have to provide your particulars. You can avoid giving personal details that can identify your case specifically. Please give general information that can be helpful to other customers who were misled into buying these notes.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=maxJ5w55nQ4QvAzQzEEVIw_3d_3d
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 5:54 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Thought for the day - who will speak the words that need to be heard?

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Thought for the day - who will speak the words that need to be heard?

" If reporters don't report and universities don't debate; if the "open society" is really just a hushed conversation within a gated community; if information is ground under by right-wing think tanks - in short, if power is admired and truth despised - then who will speak the words clearly that need to be heard"
Roger Langen

 

[Ah Hai]

Current market values of the credit linked notes

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Current market values of the credit linked notes
I wish to ask visitors to share what you know to be the current market values of the various series of credit linked notes (i.e. minibonds, high notes, pinnacle notes, jubilee notes, etc).

Please post the current values here, with the dates. Also, indicate the source of the information, e.g. website.

The note-holders will be receiving the offer of compensation from the financial institution soon. They will need to compare the offer with the market values, to make sure that the offer is at least higher.

If I have sufficient information, I shall organise them in an easy to read format. Please share your information for the benefit of all.


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:20 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Full refund of $100,000

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Full refund of $100,000
Dear Mr. Tan,

My mother-in-law obtained a full refund of $100,000 from the financial institution on the minibond that she bought. We positioned our complaint based on the advice given in your blog. (Specific details have been removed, due to non-disclosre requirements). I wish to thank you for your help.


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:57 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Queen's Counsel opinion

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Queen's Counsel opinion

My lawyer contact has sent a request to the Queen's Counsel a week ago. We have still not received a reply from the Queen's Counsel on the cost of the opinion. Hence, the QC opinion will not be ready this month. I hope that it can be ready next month - provided that the cost is within budget.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 3:02 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Complaint on mis-selling of CLN

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Complaint on mis-selling of CLN
MAS has announced the decision made by the financial institutions on the 5,000 complaints received from the holders of the credit-linked notes (i.e. minibond, high note, jubilee note).

The other holders who have not lodged their complaints can still lodge them now. If you do not know how to lodge this complaint, I suggest that you see a lawyer to prepare a statutory declaration containing the truthful answers to the following questions:

1. Your name, NRIC, address, telephone
2. How did you get involved in the investment?
3. Which financial institution, branch, amount invested, date
4. What happened when you purchased the investment?
5. Were you alone or accompanied by another person? Who?
6. What did the representative (who sold the investment to you) tell you about investment?
7. Did the representative tell you about any guarantee on your investment?
8. Did they make you sign any form regarding the investment? Did you understand the content of the form? Was it given to you before or after you agreed to make the investment? Did you read the form? Did you understand the content?
9. Did you rely on the advice of the representative in making the investment? Which were the important aspects of the advice?
10. Do you have any other statements to make regarding this matter?

This declaration can be used to support your complaint to the financial institution that sold the credit linked note to you. It can also be used for your complaint to the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Center (if you have to take it to the second stage). As this statement is made under oath, it is likely to have a stronger impact.

However, you should take note that it is not compulsory for you to have a statutory declaration).

You can contact the following lawyer:

Fee $150 plus GST plus disbursement (total $201.55)
Assomull & Partners
111 North Bridge Road
#22-04/05/06 Peninsula Plaza
Singapore 179098
Contact Person: Ms. Lauereth Loh, Tel: 63394466

You can also contact any of the lawyers listed here:
http://www.tankinlian.com/forms/ListofLawyersFinancialCrisisAssist(081101).pdf

Here is the guide for lodging a complaint to FIDREC:
http://www.mas.gov.sg/consumer/structured_products/fidrec_faqs.html
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 3:09 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Talk to Singapore Governemnt

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Talk to Singapore Governemnt

Message from TKL Volunteers

We have set up a Google moderator group. It allows people to submit questions or give suggestions and let others vote whether they like or dislike the questions. You can also do it anonymously. You can also submit your own questions or suggestions and let other people vote on them.

You can try it at
http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=145db&t=145dc


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 11:00 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Blog will hit 1 million visitors by 23 Feb 2009

Saturday, January 17, 2009
Blog will hit 1 million visitors by 23 Feb 2009
Earlier, this blog was expected to hit 500,000 visitors by 11 Nov 2008. This was hit much earlier, due to the minibond crisis.

Based on the current trends, this blog is expected to hit 1 million visitors by 23 Feb 2009 (i.e 3 months after the earlier target date).


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 4:32 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Blog will hit 1 million visitors by 23 Feb 2009

Sunday, January 18, 2009
Survey: Rating of Government ministries (Singapore)
Participate in this survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ZR_2fOTaCO5_2fQ716EULdhh0w_3d_3d

Here is a prelimary report based on 14 replies:
Survey Results

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:00 AM
2 comments:

Loh Hon Chun said...

I would say, many do not even know how most of the ministries work. Without that knowledge, the survey may not reflect truly.

hongjun
January 17, 2009 11:04 PM
C H Yak said...

The second question should read how do you rate the "Minister" in charge of the Ministries ...?

Not "Ministries" in charge of the Ministries ...
January 17, 2009 11:14 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Blog will hit 1 million visitors by 23 Feb 2009

Sunday, January 18, 2009
Survey: Central database of medical records
Should we have a central database of medical records? Will it lead to more efficient treatment and low medical cost? Give your views in this survey.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=QALcpiAF2TsyYKQ_2bt0yjKg_3d_3d

Here are the results based on 24 replies.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 11:00 AM
3 comments:

Parka said...

I think I've read something similar that's being tested in US. It's a central databased uploaded onto a central server online. Different hospitals (and insurance companies when permitted) can then access information.

The problem is kick starting the project. There's no motivation for hospitals, specifically the people working in the hospitals, to go ahead with this. (Tell me how they are paid and I will tell you how they will behave.) The initiative will have to be from the government.
January 14, 2009 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...

Three things:

1. Everyone should realize that medical information belongs to the individual. It does not get any more personal. It certainly does NOT belong to the hospital or any agency. Hence, instead of centralizing medical information, we should do the opposite to secure (e.g. using a smart card) such information individually but make the information accessible with hospital/clinic systems provided the individual gives consent.

2. A centralized database poses the real danger of a bulk compromise. This applies to medical records, financial, credit card records, etc. It has happened before and it will happen again.

3. The real question is NOT whether the data should be centralized. The systems are just NOT inter-operable, as a result there can be no meaningful exchange of data regardless of where it is stored. This should be fixed first.
January 15, 2009 5:24 PM
Hunter-Gatherer said...

I worked for a company that supplied IT to GPs and collected anonymised information at the end of the month. This data was used to produce health studies that were paid for by drug companies and local health authorities.

Public authorities are not food at IT projects and private companies cannot be trusted with sensitive data. So we need to find a way to standardise the systems used by health professionals and allow the information to be made available.
January 16, 2009 7:13 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: Blog will hit 1 million visitors by 23 Feb 2009

Sunday, January 18, 2009
Survey: Helping Singaporeans to cope with recession

Take part in this survey:
http://www.tankinlian.com/articles/recession.pdf

Here are the results based on 85 responses.


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 11:00 AM
1 comments:

Toidy said...

What about increasing GST to 8.5% in exchange for free bus and MRT?
Job seekers/retrenched would have a better time since travelling to companies for interviews would now be free.
There are other benefits too. It would encourage people to spend less. More importantly, it encourages people to take public transport instead of cars or taxis which do not utilize road efficiently and emit more carbon dioxide per commuter.
January 17, 2009 7:27 PM