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

[Ah Hai]

SIAS COMMENT may be detriment to INVESTOR

Sunday, February 08, 2009
SIAS COMMENT may be detriment to INVESTOR
Dear Mr. Tan Kin Lian

I have the worry that SIAS statement dated 7 February 2009 and MAS affirmation could actually weaken the investor position, un-wittily. As a result, the FI could corner the investor even if they are in the complete wrong.

Let me give you a HYPOTHETICAL illustration below.

1. FI offers 30% compensation

2. If the investor accepts, the investor will only get 30%. Investor will lose the possibility of full claim (the rest of 70%), reimbursement of costs and compensation for distress. The FI saves 70% of compensation and other related compensation. Most importantly, FI escapes being punished under the Financial Advisor Act.

3. If the investor rejects, the investors will have to fight on his own. That means investor forfeits the original 30% compensation. Investor will have to take out money and time to fight the case, and not to mention the stress and anguish of injustice investor has to go through. While the FI fight the case as an institution with full resource and support eg. full-time staff, corporate lawyer, financial advantage etc. Whilst, the investor has to fight as an individual with bare knuckle and with little knowledge and financial resource. This is another situation of “institution vs individual” and “strong vs weak”.

With the above illustration, FI stands on the upper hand.

If my analysis is correct, and if I were the advisor for the FI, I would be well rewarded by advising the FI to compensate all the investors with investment below $100,000 a compensation of 30%. I think more than 90% of the investors will accept it, as the investors are being cornered. The FI will amass their might to fight the remaining disgruntled 10% investors.

This is an effective strategy. Using the military metaphor, you have effectively segregated and castrated your opponents, thereafter using “an army of Goliaths to fight an infant David”.

If the FI chooses to take advantage of SIAS’s statement, I hope not. The investor will lose out greatly both in terms of unfairness and injustice.

It is unfair because the investor will likely be cornered to accept 30% compensation even if the FI is in the complete wrong. This is especially so when the investor invested less then $100,000 and below. The original words of comfort from MAS that “complaint handling should not be based on legality but guided by principle of fairness” will come to nothing. The investor is misled and suffered loss, he could only recover 30% compensation. Investor is unlikely to spend more than 100,000 legal costs (Note: Structured notes is complicated and legal will not be cheap.) to fight the remaining 70% or $70,000 claim.

It is unjust because investor who is being misled, if investor accepts 30% compensation would have to pay for “70% of the FI who misled”, suffer “anxiety and anguish” and see the FI “escapes punish by law under the Finance Advisor Act”. It is unjust because if investor rejects the 30% compensation, he stands alone fighting a disproportionate battle against the FI. Hopefully, the money invested is not the investor’s coffin money or cash reserved for children tertiary education.

I think FI will take maximum legal leverage. This is because admission to mis-selling is self-incriminating that FI contravenes provision of the Financial Advisor Act.

I really hope that my deepest fear of injustice will not occur to ordinary people.

FROM: CASHEW NUT

REPLY
The position stated by SIAS is correct. If the investor goes to FIDREC or take legal action, the offer by the financial institution is automatically withdrawn.

I believe that a fair offer is 50% of the amount of the loss, i.e. that the loss should be shared equally between the distributor and the investor. I hope that the financial institution will agree to offer 50%, so that most of the investors will accept it as a fair offer.

 

[Ah Hai]

Re: SIAS COMMENT may be detriment to INVESTOR

Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Temasek - slightly less Singaporean

Article
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 4:10 AM
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/02/temasek-slightly-less-singaporean.html

 

[Ah Hai]

Surveys

Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Surveys
Click on the label "Survey" on the right panel to take part in the various surveys (of interest to you) and to view the results.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 4:26 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

UBS posts $26b loss

GENEVA - SWITZERLAND'S biggest bank UBS on Tuesday posted a full-year loss of 19.697 billion Swiss francs (S$26 billion), with about half of the losses incurred in the fourth quarter.

The group said losses for the last three months of the year reached 8.1 billion francs due mainly to losses in its investment bank unit.

It said that it has had 'an encouraging start' this year, with positive inflows of assets at its wealth management and asset management units.

However, the bank warned that the immediate outlook remained 'cautious' and that it would continue to cut costs and risks. -- AFP

 

[Ah Hai]

Term insurance - for family protection

Term insurance - for family protection

Dear Mr. Tan,
You advised a person to have life insurance for 5 to 10 years of earnings. If I earn $50,000 a year, do I need $500,000 of life insurance? How much will it cost? Can I afford it?
REPLY
Assume that you have a young family and you are now 30 years old. If anything happens to you, you your family will need an income for the next 25 years (until the children are grown up). Let us assume that 60% of your income is set aside for the family expenses (i.e. 40% is for taxes, savings, and your personal expenses). Your family needs $30,000 yearly for the next 25 years.
Using a discount rate of 3%, the present value of the 25 year income stream is $538,000. This is 10 years of your income.
If you take a level term insurance for 25 years, you have to pay an annual premium of about $850 (male) or $475 (female). This are my indication of the fair premium rates. It represents less than 2% of your earings. You may be able to find an insurance company to offer a lower premium rate.

You can set aside 10% to 15% of your earnings as savings. You can invest in a balanced fund comprising of bonds and equities.
If you wish to pay a lower cost, you can buy a term insurance that reduces the sum assured gradually over the term. (As your children grows older, you will need less coverage to take care of their needs. Also, you savings would have increased each year). The cost of a decreasing term insurance is less than 50% of the level term insurance (indicative $425 for male, $240 for female).
I will be approaching a few insurance companies to offer attractive term insurance rates to members of FISCA (i.e. the financial services consumer association to be launched soon).
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 11:33 AM
Labels: Insurance


3 comments:

Anonymous said...

$500K is the average amount of insurance needed by average Singaporeans to cover dependent income for family but unfortunately Singaporean are covered only $100K.This is the statistics of MAS.
This prompted a warning by MAS to the LIA to get the members to do something. MAS warned against form filling by insurance agents and conflict of interest. These are the reasons why Singaporean are under insured. Agents only sell whole life and endowment that give them high commission and ignore the interest of the clients and product pushers only fill up the forms. MAS further warned that if this phenomenon continues LIA should look into change of the remuneration, maybe to do away with commission and substitute a fairer way of rewarding agents for WORK or Advice given to prevent conflict of interest which is the cause of under insurance and mis-sellings and misrepresentation.
I hope it will happen soon to stop all the malpractices by insurance agents.
February 11, 2009 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...

Please let us know when FISCA is ready.
I want to seek advice on my existing insurance policies and investment(loss) to see whether my agents have miss-sold and misrepresented me.
I have been reading about insurance in this blog and I feel my agents cheated on me and sold products that benefited them only. I also wonder whether I am under insured.
February 11, 2009 12:57 PM
Yong Qing said...

Hi Mr Tan, is the FISCA the insurance company that you are talking about last year?

I am still looking forward to the Wealth Accumulator plan and the decreasing term insurance. May I know when it will be "on sale"?

Thanks

 

[Ah Hai]

Standard Life to repay clients

Thursday, February 12, 2009
Standard Life to repay clients
Standard Life is to reimburse 97,000 customers who lost 5% of their money when the value of its Pension Sterling Fund, worth £2.1bn, was cut last month. Story.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 5:42 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Minibond Seminar - February 2009

Thursday, February 12, 2009
Minibond Seminar - February 2009

The Minibond Victims Group will be organizing a seminar before the end of February under the theme "Rejected Or Partial Compensation: What Do You Do Next?"

We are expecting a Senior Counsel to be present during the seminar. Further details of the date, venue etc will be posted in Mr. Tan's blog as soon as possible. We will also be sending email updates to all those who have registered with us .

Minibond Victims Group
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:48 PM
Labels: Credit linked notes
3 comments:

Nick said...

Thanks for the gracious effort!
February 12, 2009 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...

Thank! I think people almost forgot us but it is not.
February 12, 2009 5:05 PM
Anonymous said...

Will it cover those be rejected 100%?
February 12, 2009 5:06 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Register for class action now

Thursday, February 12, 2009
Register for class action now
Dear Mr. Tan,
I have registered my complaint with FIDREC. Can I wait for their reply, before deciding on the class action? When is the closing date?

REPLY

You must register for the class action now. The lawyer will accept your registration on a tentative basis, and allow you to withdraw if you accept an offer of settlement through FIDREC. You should also learn about the advantages and risk of the class action now.
If you wait for FIDREC's reply, it may be too late for you to join the class action. It is all too late for the lawyer to accept you at that time.
To register for the class action, you must see the contact person for the product that you have invested. This is shown in my blog. Search for it there. Please do not expect me to handle your individual request or to give individual advice, as I do not have the time to handle so many people.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:14 PM
Labels: Credit linked notes
4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I understand that the Lawyer working towards the Class Action is not interested to include investors who bought from broking firm. This will definitely reduce the class action group size and therefore increase the amount you have to pay for the class action. Can someone explain why investors who bought from broking firm are rejected.
February 12, 2009 8:32 PM
Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Tan,

Have you have shared the Queen Counsel assessment of our case with the various group leaders yet? I have not received any information from them. Thanks.

Willy
February 12, 2009 9:03 PM
Anonymous said...

The ugly side of greedy investors are showing again. They expect to get free advice without any effort on their part. They keep silent and did not play their part to support the group but when the fire is at their backside then they bother to ask redundant questions and expect free help. Now I understand why those honest and straightforward talk did not convince them but they are convinced by crooked and greedy talk. Birds of a feather flock together.
February 12, 2009 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...

I refer to the comment at 8:32pm :
If the lawyer for the class action does not want to include the investors from the broking firms, how much will each investor now have to pay to join the suit? Is it double of what was proposed at the last seminar at Dover Road(since the group is much smaller now). Kindly clarify so that we can decide if we can afford it.
February 12, 2009 11:35 PM

 

[singveld]

still not settle yet???

gov can bust billions of dollar

cannot help the savers in signapore who were trick into buying bonds???

 

[Ah Hai]

See the contact person; read my blog

Thursday, February 12, 2009
See the contact person; read my blog
Dear Mr. Tan,
I have just received a rejection letter from the financial institution. What do I do? Who should I approach?
REPLY
Please read my blog. I do not have the time to give individual advice. I cannot also find the time to search for information for you. You should contact the contact person for the product that you have bought (listed in my blog) and ask for his or her advice on the actions that they are planning.

 

[Ah Hai]

Invest in Government Securities

Thursday, February 12, 2009
Invest in Government Securities
Dear Mr. Tan,
I have written a series of posts this time on Singapore Government Securities i.e. SGS T-Bills and Bonds. Some of the topics I covered includes on an introduction to SGS, how to buy SGS and the advantages of SGS over fixed deposits. If you think it's useful for your readers, I would be glad if you can post on it on your blog. The link is http://www.moneytalk.sg/search/label/SGS. Thanks.

 

[Ah Hai]

Bought credit linked note from stockbroker

Friday, February 13, 2009
Bought credit linked note from stockbroker
X approached me for advice. He bought the Minibond from his broker (i.e. securities firm). The broker telephoned him and advised me to buy the product. The broker gave him the wrong information about the product, but admitted that this was the same information provided by Lehman Brothers in the briefing.

X wanted to join a class action, but there were insufficient number of investors in the same category (i.e. approached by broker through the telephone) to form a class. X decided that his best option was to file a complaint with FIDREC. He felt strongly that he had been misled, but he was not confident of presenting his case clearly.

It is important that X made his point of mis-selling clearly in the complaint filed with FIDREC. I advised X to approach Adrian Tan ([email protected]) and seek his assistance to prepare the complaint. X should pay a fee for the time taken by Adrian to study and write the complaint, but this will be lower than the fee charged by a lawyer. Furthermore, Adrian Tan is more familiar with this matter. X was happy to take my suggestion.

I wish X all the best in lodging his complaint.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:08 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Get a property report for $25 only

Friday, February 13, 2009
Get a property report for $25 only

The newspaper carried the story about a property agent being sued by the seller for giving bad advice to sell a property at below the market value. The property was sold to the buyer (who was a friend of the agent) who then re-sold the property at a big profit.

The court decided in favour of the plaintiff and required the property agent to compensate the original owner for the loss.

It is important for the owner to get a property report that gives relevant information for the owner to form an opinion about the correct market price for the property. An example of this report is shown here. This report is available at an introductory price of only $25. Apart from providing information to help decide on the sale price, it can also be used to get some guidance on the rental price.

This property report is also useful for an owner who wish to sell or rent out the property directly and save on the high fees payable to the agent.

A property agent should also buy this report to advice the owner on the suitable price to sell or rent the property. It will avoid allegations of wrong advice later.

If you are interested to buy a report for your property, send an e-mail to [email protected]. I will forward it to a person who can get you the report.




Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:38 PM
2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can put insurance agents and property agents and they will live happily ever thereafter.
Both supposed to give advice but they don't . They push, mislead and hide facts and con their customers into buying.
It is time that the company they represent should bear the responsibility. It should be top down. Whatever advice they give to clients they are liable. No such thing as caveat emptor.
February 13, 2009 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...

are you into one of those sunshine scam

there are better things to do during retirement
February 13, 2009 9:50 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Visitors to Tan Kin Lian's blog

Saturday, February 14, 2009
Visitors to Tan Kin Lian's blog
I like to ask the regular visitors to my blog to register your e-mail address in the Google Group shown at the top of the right panel. This will allow me to send an e-mail to notify you of matters that may be of interest to you.

 

[Ah Hai]

Local transport within a town

Saturday, February 14, 2009
Local transport within a town
Is there a need to create a local transport service (using light bus or private cars) to serve a town? Give your views in this survey.
Here are the survey results.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:00 PM
Labels: Survey
2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Tan,
It seems that you have turned your blog into a survey mechanism.
February 06, 2009 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...

I like to give my view on the comment that MR TAN has "turned (his) blog into a survey mechanism".

I think MR TAN did the RIGHT and GOOD things. This is one of the way public can engage in policy thinking for the general good of Singapore. The reasons are:
[1] He gives us alternative perspectives
[2] He allows us to speak by voting
[3] He summarizes it for our information
[4] He does it for FREE and without COERCION

You know the government always said, if you criticize the policy then you should have the alternatives!

Thank you MR TAN. ..... FROM CASHEW NUTS
February 07, 2009 7:42 AM

 

[Ah Hai]

Survey: Jobs Credit Scheme

Saturday, February 14, 2009
Survey: Jobs Credit Scheme
Give your views on the Job Credit Scheme in this survey.

49 people responded to the survey within 12 hours. Here are the results. Most of the respondents do not like the scheme. They find the name of "job credit" to be misleading, as it is actually a wage subsidy and not a credit (that needs to be repaid). They prefer other ways to use the $4.5 billion.


Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 2:44 PM
Labels: Survey

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr Tan,
I am unsure if Job Credit scheme will really helps to save jobs.
For instance, if a company has no business, does it make sense or cents to keep all its employees though the government is helping to pay the salaries?

Jasmin
February 04, 2009 8:01 PM
david said...

I totally agree with Jasmin. What is lacking now is the 'ground level' experience. Yes, our leaders say there are jobs out there but Singaporeans are fussy. A $800 job as food court cleaner or whatever all go to foreigners why? To a foreigner $800 is very good, their rental maybe $100 (5 to a room) etc. To a Singaporean, $800 can hardly pay for their HDB loan etc.

With this economic downturn, since majority stay in HDB, there should be a HDB (Housing Deferred Bonus) whereby HDB owners are allowed to opt for special loan repayment be they under Banks or HDB loans.

This will definitely be a great relief and also reduce number of reposession.

Job Credits etc does it help? I really doubt. In the end who benefit? Left to be seen
February 05, 2009 6:34 AM
Anonymous said...

Jobs Credit Scheme will largely benefits MNR & some big organization who are still profitable.Why is the govt giving away the tax payer monies freely to these group?Can't they think of a good scheme to help the citizen?
$4.5b is no small amount.Why should it benefits the profitable companies instead of saving the suffering citizen?Honestly,I really don't understand the logic.

save the $4.5b
February 05, 2009 10:39 AM
WL said...

If $4.5 billion is used to save some 50,000 jobs, then each job costs us $90,000. Why not provide a retrenched worker with a cash grant of $10,000 and annual loan of $10,000 during this period. In this way, the $4.5 billion can help more people and those that would be affected.
February 06, 2009 12:12 AM
C H Yak said...

The Finance Minister had said the Government did not consider a temporary GST cut in the 7 per cent GST rate as "it would not have had a desired impact on demand and on the economy".
A GST cut would also leave lower and middle-income groups worse off, especially since GST revenues are used to fund social support programmes.

I could not understand the logic of such an explanation. The current economic crisis is considered "extra-ordinary", and I am sure it would require "exceptional" solutions.

Various problems in Singapore are self-inflicted. Our civil servants always go at length in crafting, packaging and explaining policies which are complicated to implement and which then stay inflexible. For example, the efforts gone at length into in packaging the Jobs Credit Scheme (JCS).

A cut in GST would help every Singaporean, permanent residents and even foreign workers contributing to our economy here. This is more likely to stimulate the economy. During such difficult times, the Government can always look at other more direct ways to fund social programs to help the lower and middle income groups and the needy. For this purpose, touching the "reserves" would be a honourable cause.

It should not become an excuse not to cut GST just because the increase of GST from 5% to 7% was previously explained as for getting the funds to help the needy.

In touching the "reserves" to fund JCS, profitable employers are enjoying subsidy from state funds contributed by all taxpayers. Putting the issue of whether it would save jobs aside, the indirect flow of subsidy would only help those who are still employed, provided firms would hand down the benefits to their employees. First of all, employers who need to retrench would still retrench whether or not there is JCS. Instead of helping profitable employers through JCS, these precious funds could be channelled directly to help the needy, lower income earners and even those retrenched.

With a further temporay cut in GST, I am sure the average worker would benefit much more and the economy would be stimulated. And it is only a "temporary" cut.

Benefits given directly to those in need of help through a simple process is certainly more effective then benefits handed down indirectly through a complicated crafted program no matter how beautifully it is designed and packaged for delivery. It may not be effective.

The JCS helps every employers, but in effect it may not finally help every worker save his job. We would touch the "reserves" to implement it. A cut in GST would benefits every person living in Singapore regardless of his status, but because the Government wants to use a small part of this GST revenue to help the needy and low income earners, the Government sees it not right to lower GST, and also abstain from touching the reserves to help the average needy Singaporean.

This logic seems funny.
February 06, 2009 5:37 PM
Anonymous said...

I think I can provide an insight into why the Govt think we are fussy when the truth is that the govt has been misled by the middle managers in their hierachy. I have witnessed how this is done even in supposedly govt backed co-operatives.
One example is the govt offer of 50% salary matching to help retrenched Singaporeans some years back. This govt backed co-operative hired qualified Singaporeans and pay them half their salary with the govt paying the other half. Once the six months are up they are told to resign or face termination. Reason given is that the org cannot afford to pay them their "high" salaries. To sweeten the deal, offer of part time employment is given. Not wanting to face the stigma of being sacked and with the offer of continuing part time work, these executives handed in their resignation letters. Thus on paper, Singaporeans are branded as choosy while the executive director, who earns more than ten times what these executives are paid, gets to go on radio to talk about choosy Singaporeans and how he and his organisation has tried to help them.
This is pathetic and shows the hiprocrisy of the whole system. I do not think the upper echelon of the govt knows this and genuinely wants to help Singaporeans who are also the voters of the govt. However, their efforts are being undermined by these middle rungs of hiprocratic directors who are benefitting from the system and ruining the whole country.
February 07, 2009 2:34 PM
Concerned said...

Assuming a company presently has 1,000 employees. In view of the down turn in business, it requires only 800 employees to continue the operation. To optimize the business operation, it retrench 200employees and keep the remaining 800 employees. With this, the company will receive a subsidy of 12% of the salary for the remaining 800 employees and thereby enhance its profits. Therefore the Job credit scheme needs to be amended so that employers will not abuse it.
February 14, 2009 11:47 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Survey: Central database of medical records

Saturday, February 14, 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.

Here are the survey results.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 3:00 PM
Labels: Survey

4 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
Anonymous said...

Sorry for chiming in late here. But am I reading this right: "Singapore does NOT have a centralized medical records system"?

Perhaps my understanding of all this is too simplistic, but:

1. Doesn't Singapore have a medical system where Dr. A (from medical center X) and Dr. B (from medical center Y) are able to access (with some ease, or otherwise) to view medical history or past diagnosis of Joe-Patient?

2. Isn't there any way the insurance company are able to check if Joe-Patient had ever been treated for any condition in the past which he may have inadvertently forgotten to mention to the insurance company?

I am wondering how we safe guard the data and also manage the problems with abuse to the medical system.

-John
January 28, 2009 9:41 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

CPF Life Annuity - reduced to 4 plans

Saturday, February 14, 2009
CPF Life Annuity - reduced to 4 plans
It is good news that the Government has reduced the CPF Life Annuity to 4 plans, from the original 12 plans.

I wonder why they decided on 12 plans in the first place. I have always felt that it was unnecessarily complicated and have given my views on this matter. Anyway, the earlier structure was recommended by a committee of distinguished people that met and received the feedback of a large number of people over several months. It seems that there must be something wrong with the way that decisions are taken in Singapore.

When I gave my feedback to the REACH forum, I suggested that the CPF Life Annuity should be made attractive, rather than compulsory. If it is attractive, many people will opt to join the scheme. It can be made attractive by co-funding by the Government or earn an attractive (higher) rate of interest. The cost to the Government is small and could be easily afforded. (This was before the loss of hundred of billions on the investment of our reserves!)

I do not have the details of the 4 plans. I am not sure if they are placed on the right structure or are still flawed. I shall study it and give my views later.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 5:38 PM

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

When they could lose a mind boggling $58 billions, providing a little extra return to the CPFlife is peanuts, don't you agree?.
Yes, it is made simple. Not only it should be simple but a certain degree of compulsion is needed especailly to help members who are easily swayed by glib tongue insurance agents because nothing beats the CPFlife now. Sometimes compulsion is needed for the good of the members.
February 14, 2009 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...

thanks Mr.Tan,

Yes, pls update me of this plans. I want to know more about this plan through your view.

Jane
February 14, 2009 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...

Hundred of billions ?
Scary. Actually How many?????
At 100 billions, you can make 100,000 millionaires in spore out of 2,000,000 citizens, or 5% of sporean millionaires.
Are u sure?????
Just the interest alone. At 5% interest (what preference shares are paying), every sporean (2 million) can receved S$2,500 of interest per year. Are u sure??
Can afford to loss the interest, but not the principal amount!!
February 14, 2009 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...

They are the best annuties and no other other private annuity is better than them .
February 15, 2009 12:29 AM
ArtBoon said...

Dear Mr Tan

Please read my views on CPF here.

I believe strongly that CPF should be used to help, and not bind the citizens.

I hope my children and I could one day live in a country where we can choose, and not forced to participate in CPF.

Please give us that hope.
February 15, 2009 7:13 AM
Anonymous said...

Hi,
Recently I happened to look at at the scenarios of 1929 Great Depression. An Australian's pension just enough to buy a cup of coffee. Very scary right?
In 194 and 1949, the Guomintang government in the China forced its people to use gold and silver to exchange the so called Gold Yuan Certificates. What happened? The hyperinflation was not suppressed after all but the precious metals were shipped to Taiwan instead.
What will happen to us in the future? Hopefully the inflation rate remains at 2% or else ....I don't dare to imagine!!!!!Just my 2 cents' view.
February 15, 2009 1:20 PM
Anonymous said...

30. What is the monthly income that I would receive under the CPF
LIFE?

Ans: The monthly income that you would receive under CPF LIFE would
depend on the amount of savings you have in your RA and the LIFE plan that you choose. The monthly income may be adjusted depending on the actual interest rate and mortality experience of the scheme. This is to ensure that the scheme is adequately funded and sustainable over the long term.

source: http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/F540570D-A107-488F-A295-67E128643210/0/CPFLIFE_FAQ.pdf

Does this mean the monthly payout would vary?

Jasmin
February 15, 2009 1:32 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Get a property report for $25 only

Saturday, February 14, 2009
Get a property report for $25 only
The newspaper carried the story about a property agent being sued by the seller for giving bad advice to sell a property at below the market value. The property was sold to the buyer (who was a friend of the agent) who then re-sold the property at a big profit.

The court decided in favour of the plaintiff and required the property agent to compensate the original owner for the loss.

What is your view on this matter? Survey.

It is important for the owner to get a property report that gives relevant information for the owner to form an opinion about the correct market price for the property. An example of this report is shown here. This report is available at an introductory price of only $25. Apart from providing information to help decide on the sale price, it can also be used to get some guidance on the rental price.

This property report is also useful for an owner who wish to sell or rent out the property directly and save on the high fees payable to the agent.

A property agent should also buy this report to advice the owner on the suitable price to sell or rent the property. It will avoid allegations of wrong advice later.

If you are interested to buy a report for your property, send an e-mail to [email protected]. I will forward it to a person who can get you the report.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:38 PM
Labels: Investments
7 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can put insurance agents and property agents and they will live happily ever thereafter.
Both supposed to give advice but they don't . They push, mislead and hide facts and con their customers into buying.
It is time that the company they represent should bear the responsibility. It should be top down. Whatever advice they give to clients they are liable. No such thing as caveat emptor.
February 13, 2009 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
February 13, 2009 9:50 PM
Falcon said...

Wow, Mr Tan, this is an awesome report. Well done, so much useful information for such a low price. I particularly liked the page on the possible sale price which will give a clear benchmark to both sellers and buyers and put a stop to those monkey business by unscrupulous agents.
You certainly lived up to the maxim of not "cursing the darkness but providing light to get rid of darkness."
Well Done. This is another example of why we need more people like Mr. Tan in Singapore. He will make a good president for the Republic of Singapore.
February 14, 2009 1:52 PM
Mr. White said...

This report is interesting. We used to pay between $160 to $200 for a valuation report for a valuation company, but they were usually a conveyor belt type. Very surprised at the quality of this report. Ironical that a valuer's report is not as good as this one, and this one is cheaper.


On the topic of the ERA agents, this is really a sign of the time, where capitalism and profit are the motivators. I look forward to a new world order (The president of USA and prime ministers of Australia are calling for such) where responsibility and not just profit would be the goals of businesses.

This really has got to come from top down. Hope springs eternal.
February 14, 2009 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...

Im glad the plaintiff won the case. this is clearly the case where the agent did not act as a fiduciary to the his principle.
February 14, 2009 9:52 PM
Concerned said...

The judge delivered a very honest and good judgement. Hope this will deter any agent from trying to take advantage of the not so informed in any future transactions.
February 14, 2009 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...

The judge's verdict and admonition should also be a message to the insurance agents. Like the property agents , the insurance agents owe a duty to their customers for the best solution to their needs and certainly NOT diluted solution.
I hope policyholders will soon be able to find out what their agents had sold to them.
FISCA will provide a review service for consumers who want to know whether their agents have miss-sold or misrepresented to them
or short changed them with products that don't meet their needs or did not conduct need analysis or have violated section 27 of the FAA.
February 15, 2009 1:58 PM

 

[Ah Hai]

Forum for DBS High Notes 5 investors

Sunday, February 15, 2009
Forum for DBS High Notes 5 investors
DBS High Notes Investor Group (HNIG) will be holding a Forum to discuss legal options.

Date: Wednesday, 18 Feb 2009
Time: 6.30pm Registration begins, 7.00pm sharp forum commences
Place: PSB Academy Delta Road Campus, 355 Jalan Bukit Ho Swee

For new comers, you must register with us at [email protected]
For more information and to register, please email [email protected]

Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:22 AM