Real copy of DBS letter of rejection to minibond investors

[Avantas]

This letter was sent to us by one of our reader which is a standard letter received by many DBS High Notes investors:

Attached pic

DBS High Notes 5:

We refer to your inquiry regarding High Notes 5. We also refer to our subsequent conversation on 25 September 2008.

We have carefully revisited the matter raised in your inquiry and are satisfied that we have fully disclosed and explained the terms and risks of an investment in DBS High Notes 5

XXX

EDITORS’ NOTE:

Notice the patronizing tone of the letter and the callous manner in which this DBS “valued customer” is treated. DBS is obviously pushing the responsibility of the failed structure-linked investments entirely to its customers which fall outside the “vulnerable” group.

How convenient it is for them to state they are “satisfied” that they have fully disclosed and explained the risks of the products to simply brush away the concerns, anxiety and frustration of their customers ! Is DBS satisfied too that they have one less customer to compensate ?


View the actual letter and read the full article here:

http://wayangparty.com/2008/11/03/dbs-standard-letter-of-rejection-to-investors/

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Not happy then complain to Fidrec, MP and finally sue.

 

[Avantas]

not so easy to sue, cost a lot and will drag for a long time, is it worth the effort at the end of the day ?

Not happy then complain to Fidrec, MP and finally sue.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Like I told Goh Meng Seng, apart from the "vulnerable" group, the rest have to be able to show on balance some concrete evidence supporting a claim of mis-selling/misrepresentation/negligence/breach of fiduciary and statutory duties by the vendor banks and their RMs.

If they are able to do so, then I think it may be possible to make a collaborative appeal (assuming the whole group is generally able to provide such evidence) to MAS to intervene to expeditiously settle the matter. Under such circumstances MAS would probably have to take swift and proactive action like what happened in an English case where Lloyds TSB was fined for mis-selling precipice high risk bonds to retail customers by the City regulatory body FSA, which led to Lloyds TSB having to pay out 98m pounds to over 2,000 retial customers in compensation.

Bottom line, were all in the "non vulnerable" group acting under misrepresentation/mis-selling of the banks/RMs, or is this an afterthought by some in the "non vulnerable" group?

not so easy to sue, cost a lot and will drag for a long time, is it worth the effort at the end of the day ?