wah at least some1 who knows the truth. exactly. y now come and kpkb? becos THEY r exploiting the situation!
-
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.
Petition to MAS Chairman by investors of DBS High Notes 5
- Thread starter masgnoeL
- Start date
Who would make an issue with Lehman Bros, when the ratings agencies were rating it AAAAAAAA. 
The bottom line is MAS chose to be a de-regulator now when it is supposed to be a regulator. Structured products are opaque products which should have sounded alarm bells when it was introduced. MAS should have dis-allowed it if it had taken some time to study the components and not leave it to the FIs, who are business orientated. That's why we need a regulator like MAS and not to have a false sense of security that MAS is there, when it wasn't there to safe-guard retail investors all along.
The bottom line is MAS chose to be a de-regulator now when it is supposed to be a regulator. Structured products are opaque products which should have sounded alarm bells when it was introduced. MAS should have dis-allowed it if it had taken some time to study the components and not leave it to the FIs, who are business orientated. That's why we need a regulator like MAS and not to have a false sense of security that MAS is there, when it wasn't there to safe-guard retail investors all along.
It's not just about Lehman. The reason there is only 10,000 and not many more is because those others still holding on to their Structured Deposits in various other forms are right now shitting in their pants and praying their investments will not be next.
It is a regulatory matter. In 2004, CASE pushed for financial services to come under the Fair Trading Act protection, with emphasis on the manner of selling of such products to consumers. However, the problem lies deeper within the product nature themselves and that is where MAS should not have adopted a hands-off approach in approving such products to be sold.
Now, MAS is saying it had never approve such products as it is not within its scope. Come on, if MAS did not approve such products, why is it that it is a regulator of financial products and giving the false impression to, I assume, many retail investors, that MAS is in fact having strict guidelines on FIs in the selling of such products?
If it had been responsible as a regulator, it should have come forward to let everyone knows its regulatory position earlier enough.
The interesting thing to note is that MAS proclaims to approve certain products marketed by FIs and not certain other products. This is irresponsible regulating.
The retail investors are second or third class sons of a gun to MAS then.
Having said that, I believe that those investors would be laughing to the bank if their investments in Structure Products were doing well but that do not mean that if the investments failed, they had themselves to blame. A regulator must befit its position as a regulator and not shy away from its role. That is my point.
It is a regulatory matter. In 2004, CASE pushed for financial services to come under the Fair Trading Act protection, with emphasis on the manner of selling of such products to consumers. However, the problem lies deeper within the product nature themselves and that is where MAS should not have adopted a hands-off approach in approving such products to be sold.
Now, MAS is saying it had never approve such products as it is not within its scope. Come on, if MAS did not approve such products, why is it that it is a regulator of financial products and giving the false impression to, I assume, many retail investors, that MAS is in fact having strict guidelines on FIs in the selling of such products?
If it had been responsible as a regulator, it should have come forward to let everyone knows its regulatory position earlier enough.
The interesting thing to note is that MAS proclaims to approve certain products marketed by FIs and not certain other products. This is irresponsible regulating.
The retail investors are second or third class sons of a gun to MAS then.
Having said that, I believe that those investors would be laughing to the bank if their investments in Structure Products were doing well but that do not mean that if the investments failed, they had themselves to blame. A regulator must befit its position as a regulator and not shy away from its role. That is my point.
Z
Zombie
Guest
You mean the local regulator has more information to do a better job than US regulator, and could foresee that US investment bank Lehman go bust while US regulator is still dreaming?
Z
Zombie
Guest
MAS already made it known that the product was only registered and not subjected to approval.
These are taken from the first page of the prospectus and pricing statement of minibond. Investors simply ignored them.
You seem to think that the US regulator is dreaming and do not know this coming.
The US public at large do not know but their Feds and Treasury know. They were on a ponzi scheme and one of the CNN broadcasters even said it was a scam. The Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae were quasi-government institutions that can get cheap loan from the Treasury and that was how the ponzi scheme was started when such loans were re-packaged into derivatives and sold.
The responsible of MAS is to ensure that our financial system is sound and that investors are kept safe from losing their money. In this regard, it has failed its role. The rest of the rhetoric are just plain excuses.
The approach for MAS is not to shift blame and say "You mean the local regulator has more information to do a better job than US regulator, and could foresee that US investment bank Lehman go bust while US regulator is still dreaming?"
Why other countries besides Hong Kong do not have Structured Products marketed to retail consumers like it is done here in Sinkiepore?
The US public at large do not know but their Feds and Treasury know. They were on a ponzi scheme and one of the CNN broadcasters even said it was a scam. The Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae were quasi-government institutions that can get cheap loan from the Treasury and that was how the ponzi scheme was started when such loans were re-packaged into derivatives and sold.
The responsible of MAS is to ensure that our financial system is sound and that investors are kept safe from losing their money. In this regard, it has failed its role. The rest of the rhetoric are just plain excuses.
The approach for MAS is not to shift blame and say "You mean the local regulator has more information to do a better job than US regulator, and could foresee that US investment bank Lehman go bust while US regulator is still dreaming?"
Why other countries besides Hong Kong do not have Structured Products marketed to retail consumers like it is done here in Sinkiepore?
Z
Zombie
Guest
This is hogwash. Which regulatory systems in the world are to ensure that investors are kept safe from losing their money?
That is what I meant by shirking responsibility as a regulator.
Whether it is caveat emptor or not, and that MAS did not approve the products to be sold and that it is entirely at the investors' own risk...all these do not sit well in the financial environment of Sinkiepore, which look to MAS for direction and guidelines for a safe, cohesive and the financial centre of excellence. This is all contained in MAS mission statement, I believe.
Today, we are not saying who is blind or who was greedy. What is important to note that all FIs in Sinkiepore need a licence to sell and market financial products and MAS is the one who issue this licence. Of course, when the retail investors felt betrayed, they will petition to the licensor. In this case, MAS is the licensor as well as the de-facto regulator in Sinkiepore.
In fact, all regulatory systems in the world are to ensure that investors are kept safe from losing their money. When they succeed in doing so, the government gets elected over and over again. When the financial system collapses and fail, the government loses favor. That is a fact in all countries, discounting those dictatorial regimes.
Z
Zombie
Guest
If it is like you've said, that these people really look to MAS for directions and guidelines, then they should have listened to those words in the first page of prospectus and pricing statement; And those who cannot take risks should have stayed away. See the irony.
Z
Zombie
Guest
The duty of regulatory system is not ensure that investors are kept safe from losing their money. Even a primary school kid can tell you that investment is about return and risk. And risk is about losing your money.
And please, do not mix the issue with the political agenda of the government. There is no ending when things go out of focus.
There is no irony. If you are the Managing Director Heng Swee Kiat of MAS, you would feel the immense pressure to uphold the role of MAS as the regulator of all financial services, other than financial planning for retirement. The only irony is that MAS is not responsible for any financial planning for retirement of the investors, but you will notice that most of those who would be compensated are 62 years and older and mostly retirees, I should say. The other statutory board that has been deafeningly silent on this debacle is CPF Board.
Structured products are not allowed in the stable of investment instruments offered to its members BUT CPF Board had better watch out for those endowment insurance plans, investment-linked insurance, unit trusts, fund management accounts, shares, proterty funds, corporate funds, exchanged traded funds that it had allowed and approved. Many are losing huge amount of their retirement funds invested in these already.
MAS and CPF Board are answerable to the government and the government is answerable to the people at large. This is not the time to say the investors are blind and did not listen. To someone like Heng of MAS, this is not the issue. The issue is graver than this. He would and should know better. Ask him.
Whether you like it or not, politics and finance do mix and will always affect each other. I like to stress this again. The role of regulatory financial system like MAS is to ensure that investors are kept safe from losing their money. Whether you agree or not, it will be reflected in the electoral polls, as it is happening in USA now, as an example. Go watch it and be amazed how Alan Greenspan was grilled by Congress until he had to own up he was dead wrong about his ideology of free market and how he had to shoulder his portion of the blame. You like to think it is caveat emptor. It is not at the political level and public level, unless you are talking about a dictatorial regime, then nothing matters.
Z
Zombie
Guest
MAS is forced to do something because TKL has misled many ignorant people to think that everyone in the finance industry (except the investors) are to be blamed.
And why are you going into CPF board for Lehman's related cases?
Please don't do a TKL (ie Anyhow Blame).
Many would not agree with you about what TKL is doing. Even Chua Mui Hoong, in her article, had somewhat written her personal sentiments into her article and that is that there must be an activist voice where the normal channels had failed to rise to the occasion and TKL filled the void or voice.
Why can't I go into highlighting about the similar risks investors are facing in their retirement funds in CPF as well as saying that while you said MAS only registered but not approved such Structured Products like the Mini-bonds, the issue is much larger in scope than you deliberately chose to compartmentalize. Put it this way. If a regulator (MAS or CPF) has mandate to adminster the laws and to penalize those who contravene, then it too should shoulder the blame if its governance fails. That is the hallmark of a responsible regulator in any given political environment. If such topics are debated in parliament, then it is relevant for public interest and you can't say not to mix politics and financial stability because your argument definitely goes contrary to the spirit of parliament.
Z
Zombie
Guest
The role of regulatory financial system like MAS is to ensure a safe and secured business environment. MAS must ensure that there are enough information for investors to make an informed investment decisions. That is the purpose of prospectus and pricing statement.
This has nothing to do with ensuring that investors are kept safe from losing their money. But TKL has misled many people to think so.
Z
Zombie
Guest
There is nothing wrong with TKL making noises, but he should not misled the people.
This discussion is about "We are investors of the Mini-bond, High Notes, Pinnacle Notes, Jubilee Notes and/or other similar credit linked securities." as in the first post. Unless you are saying that CPF Board has something to do with credit-linked products, there is no reason to bring them into this.
Listen, TKL has 42 years of experience as a financial adviser and 31 years as a CEO of a government owned NTUC Insurance Co-operative and he knows what he is saying and he certainly knows what he is doing, whether you choose to like it or not.
Finally, if you think MAS role as regulator is just this: "The role of regulatory financial system like MAS is to ensure a safe and secured business environment. MAS must ensure that there are enough information for investors to make an informed investment decisions. That is the purpose of prospectus and pricing statement.", then you are dead mis-informed.
Really, you should be in Heng Swee Kiat's shoes as MD of MAS. If you think he agrees with your naive view about the role of MAS as a regulator, then he is re-writing MAS mission statement with you.
TKL did not mislead the people. Such thoughts are ridiculous.
To make you understand the role of regulatory bodies like MAS, which you seem not to fully comprehend, I have to bring in CPF board, to put the role of regulators into its proper perspective and their responsibilities to the public who are also retail investors.
Similar threads
