• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

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

Saturday, November 01, 2008

SPEAKER'S CORNER
Saturday 1 November 2008
Time: 5 - 7 pm
Nearest MRT station: Clarke Quay (NE Line)


Agenda:
1. Update on Petition #4
2. Help to complete complaint form
3. Dialogue with senior management of distributor
4. Collective legal action (as a last resort)
5. Meeting of investors (according to distributor)
6. Translation into Mandarin

Ask your friends and family to attend. Let us aim for a large gathering!
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:20 PM 44 comments
 
Last edited:
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Speaker's Corner - Saturday 1 November 2008
Time: 5 - 7 pm
Nearest MRT station: Clarke Quay (NE Line)


Agenda:
1. Update on Petition #4
2. Help to complete complaint form
3. Dialogue with senior management of distributor
4. Collective legal action (as a last resort)
5. Meeting of investors (according to distributor)
6. Translation into Mandarin

Ask your friends and family to attend. Let us aim for a large gathering!
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:20 PM

28 Comments

Blogger Tiang said...

A very good article by Goh Meng Seng on how Minibonds work:

http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2008/10/this-is-what-minibonds-is-all-about.html

Even after extreme simplification by Mr Goh (Thank you, Mr Goh), I am sure many investors will still need some time to grasp it.

Shocking how such a product can be pushed as an alternative to FD.

10:30 PM
 
Last edited:
28 Comments

Blogger Tiang said...

A very good article by Goh Meng Seng on how Minibonds work:

http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2008/10/this-is-what-minibonds-is-all-about.html

Even after extreme simplification by Mr Goh (Thank you, Mr Goh), I am sure many investors will still need some time to grasp it.

Shocking how such a product can be pushed as an alternative to FD.

10:30 PM

HONG KONG - HONG Kong's Consumer Council said on Friday it was considering suing banks which allegedly mis-sold mini-bonds backed by failed US investment bank Lehman Brothers as risk-free investments.

The 50 cases the council was considering backing mostly concerned vulnerable elderly people who said their banks had not fully explained to them the risks involved when selling them the mini-bonds, a spokesman for the council said.

The complainants in the cases, which involved 14 banks, had invested between HK$100,000 and HK$2 million (S$18,991 and S$379,826) in the controversial financial products.

'We will continue our vetting to identify representative cases for legal action,' the spokesman told AFP.

'We now have HK$16 million in our legal action fund. But the government has promised that it will give us unlimited financial support once we have identified cases with good grounds,' she said.

Mr Johannes Chan, chairman of the council's legal action fund, told the South China Morning Post that their focus on elderly and poorly educated investors would give them a higher chance of success in court.

'It's easier to establish that their trust has been abused or that they have been misled than (to make the same case for), say, someone who has a university education and has invested for years.'

Despite their name, the mini-bonds are complex financial products linked to a bundle of derivatives backed by Lehman, and their value plummeted after the investment bank collapsed in Sept.

The council said in a statement that it had received 3,638 complaints and 1,388 enquiries from investors.

Meanwhile, more than 100 investors protested outside the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the city's de facto central bank, before marching to individual banks to demand a full refund of their investment on Friday morning.

Individual banks, including the Bank of China (Hong Kong), have started to negotiate compensation deals with customers. But many of the cases remained left out as gathering evidence to prove mis-selling could be difficult.

All the banks have agreed to adopt a government proposal for them to buy back the products from customers at their current market value but the move failed to pacify investors who said they would only get back a portion of their investment.
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Saturday, November 01, 2008

SPEAKER'S CORNER
Saturday 1 November 2008
Time: 5 - 7 pm
Nearest MRT station: Clarke Quay (NE Line)


Agenda:
1. Update on Petition #4
2. Help to complete complaint form
3. Dialogue with senior management of distributor
4. Collective legal action (as a last resort)
5. Meeting of investors (according to distributor)
6. Translation into Mandarin

Ask your friends and family to attend. Let us aim for a large gathering!
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 6:20 PM 44 comments

Mr Tan suspects this Siew Khim to be from NTUC Income. I think he is from the management in NTUC Income. This clearly shows that he is really irritated by what Mr Tan is doing. Perhaps his ricebowl has been hurt. Perhaps he is not able to con people because Mr Tan has exposed his antics.

9:57 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All Hong Kong banks have agreed to buy back Lehman minibonds at market value."

think the local are offering something like 9% of value?..

12:05 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Hong Kong consumer watchdog is suing the banks on behalf of some investors. The government is providing financial support to the body.It will be very interesting and good test case

12:39 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Siew Khim, Siew Khim ...

Why are you hiding behind a girl's name here and dare not turn up at Speakers' Corner to show your real face despite our invitation ? Is it because you are a BIG Coward ?? Or because you have no friends and hence have nothing better to do other than to open your dirty mouth & write trash ? Or because you just escaped from Woodbridge ?

We dare you to come to Speakers' Corner this Sat. !!! Show us your guts !!!

1:43 AM
Blogger ph he said...

11:53
Yes, I would NEVER buy such product if I have been told that - you will lose all your money! Not even if the return is 10%, 15%!! No way!!!!! Very honest because I know SOMEONE is watching me!!!!!!!!!

2:42 AM
Blogger ph he said...

12:01
Pinnacle Series - you are definitely right! Although they have not yet collapsed, it is a time bomb and will explode sooner than later! It is not quite possible to wait till maturity!! MAS should act immediately and 'remove' them off the shelf, like the Chinese baby milk, before it KILLS!!!!!!!!!!

3:03 AM
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Saturday, November 01, 2008
Scuffle in HK Protest Over Lehman-Linked Products
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 31, 2008

HONG KONG (AP) --Investors in financial products linked to collapsed U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. scuffled with security guards at a bank in Hong Kong on Friday, as some 200 people protested in the financial district against institutions that sold the now worthless products.

The incident highlights anger among the thousands of Hong Kong investors who've been burnt by the Lehman collapse. The outstanding amount of the products is 20.2 billion Hong Kong dollars ($2.6 billion), according to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the territory's defacto central bank.

Several of the protesters got into a scuffle with security guards at a Hong Kong branch of Singapore bank DBS Group Holdings. No one was injured, according to an Associated Press photographer who witnessed the incident.

They were part of a larger group of 200 protesters who marched through the financial district, stopping at several banks that sold Lehman-related products holding signs that said ''major bank fraud'' and ''My money gone, I don't want to live.''

Bank spokeswoman Glendy Chu said none of the DBS security guards were injured.

Investors have complained that bank sales staff were misleading and didn't fully explain the product or connection to Lehman Brothers.

Jonathan Li, a spokesman for the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong, said the body is still investigating the complaints against the banks.

DBS said recently that most of the 360 million Singapore dollars ($243 million) in Lehman-linked structured notes sold to clients in Singapore and Hong Kong are now worthless. It has offered to pay compensation to clients.

Billions of dollars in souring debt forced Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., once the fourth-largest investment bank in the U.S., to file for bankruptcy last month amid the world's worst financial crisis in decades.
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Saturday, November 01, 2008
Why are banks allowed to sell structured products that give poor value?
Mr Tan,

If there is a silver lining that comes out of this minibond/high note/jubilee fiasco, I would hope that its some serious soul searching by all stakeholders, investors, FIs & the government.

Investors have to ask themselves, what is their investment objective, really.
Structure deposits have been around for some time. I have never purchased any but each time I am at any bank, without fail, bank staff would try to promote them to me.
Over the years, I've seen the way they are structured becoming more and more complex & arcane.

My point is, if the general public has been losing money or making unsatisfactory returns, why have the banks been able to launch series after series of the same products ?

Regulators, are they really out to build a "world class" financial centre in Singapore ?

Efforts to develop a vibrant corporate bond market has fizzled out. Look at the corporate bonds listed on SGX, lacking both depth, breath & also market liquidity.

If the recently launched OCBC NCPS preference shares can yield 5 percent, then any good quality corporate can float coporate bonds at around 5 percent, which at 150 basis point spread to 15 year SGS govt bonds, seems about right.

So, if these alternatives are available, would investors need to even consider the structured deposit nonsense the FIs are putting out ??

Lastly, correct me if I am wrong. SGX, along with the KLSE, I think are the only 2 exchanges left in the whole wide world that allow contra trades, ie. allowing investors to sell shares that they have purchased within 3 days, before they are settled, without paying up first. All other exchanges require some sort of margin or deposit. Is this prudent risk management ? I rest my case.

Regards
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Sunday, November 02, 2008
Reply to SP Services: Don't shoot the messenger
Posted at request of Vincent Sear

Editor
Today paper

I refer to the article November 1-2, 2008: "SP Services" Don't Shoot The Messenger."

The essence of the matter is, even if SP Services is just the middleman or "messenger" as it now calls itself, how can electricity tariffs be based on US$155 per barrel of oil as announced by SP Services itself it September 2008, to justify a 22% price hike based on "forward pricing"?

Now, SP Services is claiming "average price." Whatever, be it forward pricing or average price, how come Singapore households and businesses are billed based on a much higher price? Oil price hit a peak of US$147 per barrel in July 2008 and has been falling thereafter.

How come Singapore consumers are billed based on US$155 per barrel for the quarter of October to Decemeber 2008 when oil price never hit that high? What's going on between the power generating companies (gencos) and SP Services and the Energy Market Authority (EMA)?

Oil price is now about US$70 per barrel or below. Can Singaporeans expect a corresponding 55% cut in tariffs and bills?

Vincent Sear
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Sunday, November 02, 2008
Collective legal action - Leonard Loo
For investors who wish to consider collective legal action, you can attend a briefing by Leonard Loo. Details below:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/lawyer-no-obligation-no-fee.html

Leonard Loo has proposed that the investors give their intent to take collective action and register their claim. He will explain the strategy to the investors at his briefing. The aim is that actual legal action will be taken only at the last resort and out-of-court settlement will be preferred, in the interest of all parties.
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Sunday, November 02, 2008
NTUC Income is different today
Dear Mr Tan,

I will not buy anymore structured products or anything sold by financial institutions after this lesson. I wished I had seek your advice two years ago.

But you also mentioned don't invest in whole life, endowment, policies, etc. I don't understand what you mean? I had total 8 policies with Income and all bought when you were CEO. Can you explain please?

REPLY

I also had 15 whole life and endowment policies over the years from NTUC Income, covering me and my family members. These policies offered good bonuses and a fair return on maturity in the past years.

Today, things are different. Income is now run on different principles - quite similar to the other insurance companies. I have decided to cancel a whole life policy, where the bonus has been cut.

I will decide on the other policies later.
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 7:24 PM
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Sunday, November 02, 2008
Buy a property that you can afford
How much should a person pay for a property? This is an important question. So far, there is no guide on this matter.

When property prices goes up, too many people spent too much money on buying a property thinking that it will go up forever. When the property prices reach a ridiculous level and falls from there, it can cause a lot of problem to the financial system.

I suggest that the limit should be:

> 7 years of the breadwinner's income
> 5 year of the combined family income

If one spouse is working with an annual income of $40,000, the limit should be $280,000. If both spouses are working with an annual income of $70,000, the limit should be $350,000.

In working out the guideline, I have taken into consideration the percentage of income that goes to service the housing loan, the repayment period of 30 years and the long term level of interest rate, and future increase in earnings.

I hope that this gudeline is useful for most people You should not exceed the limit. It is all right to buy a property below this limit.
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Monday, November 03, 2008
New swap counterparty to replace Lehman Brothers
Many investors asked for my view about the new swap counterparty that will be appointed to replace Lehman Brothers. Will they be able to get their money back on the maturity of the mini-bonds?

My reply: It depends on the series of mini-bonds.

The risk of the mini-bonds come from the following sources:

> failure of any one of the reference entities
> failure of the underlying assets (CDOs or other assets)
> failure of the swap counterparty

If you have invested in the earlier series of mini-bonds and many of the underlying assets have already failed, you may lose all of your money when more of the assets failed in the future. You will also lose your money when any one of the reference entities failed.

If none of these events happened, you may get back part or all of your investments (depending on the value of the underlying assets at that time). There is no guarantee that you can get back 100% of the invested sum, as the bonds are "capital protected" but not "capital guaranteed".

Read this:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/capital-protected-product.html

For the newer series of the mini-bonds, the loss in value now is quite small. When the new swap counter-party is found, you can sell the mini-bonds at its current market value (hopefully, the loss is less than 20%). If you do not wish to take the risk, you can take the loss now.

If you have been mis-sold, you can ask the financial institution to buy back the mini-bonds at your original price
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 8:41 AM
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Monday, November 03, 2008
Send your views directly to MAS
Mr Tan

I am the investor of both highnotes and minibonds. I strongly feel that we are the sacrified losers of these unethical financial products which are allowed to be named as "bonds". We are also misled by the rep of the financial institutions that these products were "approved by MAS" and hence they are "safe" and "low risk".

MAS should adopt a more critical view on these "rotten" products and insist on the followings:

1. All the products should label thier risk factors clearly, ie the consequences investors have to face in case there is a financial crisis occurs. In simple language ,investor will stand to loss how much at the end of the redemption.

2. All the products, like other stocks, should give periodical reports and reviews on the linked institutions. They should give proper advise or alarm to the investors so to let them understand the facts and make decision for early redemption or not. Other words, they should not cover up the facts and tell investors that the products are "safe".

3. MAS and the Banks have duties to look after the interest of the investors, not just to achieve the target of selling the products and make
profits out of the selling.

REPLY
I suggest that you write directly to MAS. You can also get a few investors to sign a collective letter.

ok?
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:15 AM
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Monday, November 03, 2008
Open Forum with UOB Kay Hian
MESSAGE

We would like to invite all investors who have invested in the Lehman Brothers Minibonds, Merrill Lynch Jubilee and Morgan Stanley Pinnacle Notes through UOB Kay Hian (UOBKH), to participate in an open forum with UOBKH.

This invitation is open to investors regardless of whether you have or have not attended an interview with UOBKH. We are going to request for Mr Hwang Soo Jin, the independent party appointed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to oversee UOBKH complaints process, to be present at the forum, as we are keen to share our concerns with him.

We have set an agenda for the forum and are extending this invitation to gather as many investors as possible. We believe that with more investors attending this forum, UOBKH cannot ignore our request and will consider more seriously the appeal of all affected investors.

Please submit your name (with some proof that you have invested in one of the above-mentioned notes through UOBKH), your email address and contact number to Mr Ang Soo Cheng at [email protected] by 5 November 2008.

The date for this forum is not yet confirmed, as we have to arrange this with UOBKH. You will be advised when this arrangement is finalised.

Jimmy Liaw
On behalf of the
UOB Kay Hian Investors’ Group
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 10:18 AM
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Monday, November 03, 2008
Petitions on Structured Products
Petition #1 had 983 signatures
Petition #4 had 1,017 signatures.
What is the significance of both numbers?
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 12:03 PM
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Monday, November 03, 2008
Bank claims to be "order executor"
Dear Mr Tan,

I have attended interviews with OCBC Securities( on Jubilee Notes) and ABN AMRO (on Minibond) and the interviewers are using the argument that they are acting as ”Order executor” for customer and thus exempted from giving financial advice as required by Financial Advisers Act. If FI who are distributors of these products can claim such immunity when the products they sold are more risky than insurance or unit trusts, then this is really an unregulated product and the FI are trying to push the responsibility back to MAS.

It is like allowing Chinese medical Hall to sell prescription drug without a licensed Pharmacist but the same drug when sold in Pharmacy must be supervised by Pharmacist. The consequence is disastrous!

I hope you can publish this in your Blog so we can have more reader input on this argument from FI and also confirmation from MAS.

Thank you,
Benedict
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Monday, November 03, 2008
Send your views directly to MAS
Mr Tan

2. They should give proper advise or alarm to the investors so to let them understand the facts and make decision for early redemption or not.

Should be "They should give proper ADVICE....".

"Advise" is a verb.

66.6% of the population don't seem to know when to use "ADVISE" (verb) and "ADVICE" (noun). :rolleyes: What a coincidence.:p
 
Re: Meeting at Speaker's Corner Saturday 1 November 2008 Time: 5 - 7 pm

Monday, November 03, 2008
Mis-selling of Lehman structured notes
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aBJ_0ULSgrjY&refer=home

Lehman Good-for-Retirement Notes Worth Pennies for UBS Clients
By Bradley Keoun and David Scheer

Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- UBS AG, Switzerland's largest bank, faces dozens of claims in the U.S. from clients who bought ``100 percent principal protected notes'' issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that are now almost worthless.

Six attorneys hired to represent clients in the cases say UBS brokers touted the so-called structured notes as low-risk investments and failed to emphasize they were unsecured obligations of Lehman, which filed for bankruptcy in September. State regulators are fielding so many calls about Lehman's notes they're considering a task force to investigate the sales, said Rex Staples, general counsel for the North American Securities Administrators Association Inc., a group of 67 state and provincial regulators based in Washington.

``The sales pitches were that it's good for retirement accounts, and good for the safe, fixed-income part of people's portfolios as an alternative to owning stocks, because it's less risky,'' said Seth Lipner, a lawyer in Garden City, New York, hired by two holders of Lehman notes sold by UBS, including a 65- year-old accountant who says he lost $1.4 million in retirement savings. ``Of course, it turned out to be more risky.''

Any awards for investors would add to the financial industry's burgeoning costs for compensating individuals who bought supposedly safe investments that crumbled in the credit crunch.

Banks and securities firms, including Zurich-based UBS, Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co., already have had to swallow more than $3.6 billion in fines and market losses on auction-rate securities they had to buy back from clients under orders from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and regulators in New York, Massachusetts and other states.
 
No la! All comrades and ex-comrades well taken care of. Just wayang a bit that is all. Remember, how he came out strongly abt the insurance thing, and then came out meek and submissive after NTUC honcho Lim BH spke to him?
 
Back
Top