yeah and at the same time they can plunder the billions too...
-
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.
ST Forum: Town Council losses: Who's accountable?
- Thread starter Ah Hai
- Start date
yeah and at the same time they can plunder the billions too...
bro silverfox,
the guy running our country now also know nuts about running a country..
I don't compare how would things be, if I do the running, because talk is cheap. I compare singapore with many countries I been to, and I think at least we didn't had the worst govt. That's the lucky part:o
the countries which u have been to who are not as good, is their government as highly paid as ours??
i doubt so right..
then how to compare??
the countries which u have been to who are not as good, is their government as highly paid as ours??
i doubt so right..
How they are paid, not within my control. No 2 CEOs have the same salary structure because they work in 2 different companies.
Many who join politics is because of the 'spin-offs' that come with the position. Like in Taiwan, Thailand, super many kangtaos. If not you think why people want to be in politics.
If you look at China too, they have a lot of top brass who left pocket in, right pocket in too. In some of these countries, money loss, they don't even bother accountability. They don't even bother that the money is lost and need to give explanation:o
when they make profits, they justify all sorts of reasons to give themselves perks. when they lost, they pretend nothing happens, and nobody's taking the wrap it? 1st class leadership huh?
no matter what we still have a world class governance with first world facilities...hallelujah and with $2.3 billions pumping into smes....good sign we will not slump into a deep depression. so spend spend and spend. merry christmas!!!!
wah, like that also can ah.. like those low-salaried workers comforting themselves that they are ok that they are not beggars or collecting carton boxes for a living.
and those beggars will says lucky the have carton boxes to collect and sell, otherwise gotta hunt rats and insects for food.
Risky products: Town councils should not have invested
I REFER to last Friday's report, 'Two town councils reviewing investments'.
Many Singaporeans are concerned about eight town councils which had made an estimated $16 million in investment losses from troubled structured products linked to the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers investment bank.
Although the latest press report shows that Pasir Ris-Punggol and Tampines town councils are reviewing their investment strategies and now opt for safer options, there are pressing questions which need to be answered:
- Why invest in such high-risk high-return products, like principal-unprotected Lehman Minibonds, the now worthless Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes and DBS High Note 5? Do the town councils realise their sinking funds are built up from service and conservancy charges collected from residents?
- Who should be accountable and responsible for the consequences of losses in investments, on which I do not think any rule or guideline is spelt out by the authorities?
- Were management committees of town councils misled or misguided by financial-services companies and appointed fund managers?
- Why did the town councils not subsidise HDB upgrading work and residents' utility bills or service and conservancy charges more for lower-income households or those with retrenched breadwinners, especially when in the past, town councils had generated sizeable returns from investment in financial products?
(Sembawang Town Council made 6 to 7 per cent a year in the past five years, and Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council yielded about 4.1 per cent a year over six years.)
- Why did the town councils not have the initiative or make the first move to inform Singaporeans that they have made huge losses in investments, instead of letting the Nominated Member of Parliament Eunice Olsen raise this vital query in Parliament?
While it is true that the news would alarm and worry citizens, keeping them in the dark would be effective only temporarily. Also, where is the close-link approach between citizens and government the Government has said to adopt as its model of governance?
Teo Kueh Liang
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_306627.html
I REFER to last Friday's report, 'Two town councils reviewing investments'.
Many Singaporeans are concerned about eight town councils which had made an estimated $16 million in investment losses from troubled structured products linked to the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers investment bank.
Although the latest press report shows that Pasir Ris-Punggol and Tampines town councils are reviewing their investment strategies and now opt for safer options, there are pressing questions which need to be answered:
- Why invest in such high-risk high-return products, like principal-unprotected Lehman Minibonds, the now worthless Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes and DBS High Note 5? Do the town councils realise their sinking funds are built up from service and conservancy charges collected from residents?
- Who should be accountable and responsible for the consequences of losses in investments, on which I do not think any rule or guideline is spelt out by the authorities?
- Were management committees of town councils misled or misguided by financial-services companies and appointed fund managers?
- Why did the town councils not subsidise HDB upgrading work and residents' utility bills or service and conservancy charges more for lower-income households or those with retrenched breadwinners, especially when in the past, town councils had generated sizeable returns from investment in financial products?
(Sembawang Town Council made 6 to 7 per cent a year in the past five years, and Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council yielded about 4.1 per cent a year over six years.)
- Why did the town councils not have the initiative or make the first move to inform Singaporeans that they have made huge losses in investments, instead of letting the Nominated Member of Parliament Eunice Olsen raise this vital query in Parliament?
While it is true that the news would alarm and worry citizens, keeping them in the dark would be effective only temporarily. Also, where is the close-link approach between citizens and government the Government has said to adopt as its model of governance?
Teo Kueh Liang
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_306627.html
Re: Risky products: Town councils should not have invested
Latest comments
Dun complaint.... that's why we need all the smart people in the govt to outsmart all the singaporeans.... :p
Posted by: aikon8210 at Wed Nov 26 11:56:11 SGT 2008
"Very ironical! Imagine what will happen during Parliament debate when the "Bad" investments and $16 Million losses were made by the 2 opposition parties Town Councils???"
Our MIW will tear the 2 opposition members into pieces in Parliament and tell us that this is what we deserve for voting opposition.
"In Sat. newspaper, Mr Mah Bow Tan pointed out the TCs should be answerable to the public about those bad investments.
The questions are :
1. Who should these TCs report to ? Sure enough they should not report to
the HDB, and now MR Mah said it not his Ministry , then who is ?"
Town councils are run by those voted into Parliament. Since the TCs who made the bad investments need not answer to MBT and refused to answer to the public, then throw them out in the next GE. Only then will other TCs wake up.
Posted by: Faircomment at Wed Nov 26 11:49:26 SGT 2008
For TC investment, the rational thing to do is only invest when it is principal protected, as it is residents' money, you can't afford to lose a cent. I don't think it is right for TC, which is not meant to be revenue generating setup, to lose the princial sum, collected from conservancy charges. It is pure greed, and risk taken on wrong principal.
Just like you don't advice your elderly mother to put her entire life savings in non-principal protected investments, right? Similarly, if a seasoned investor wants to take up such non-protected investments, its ok. TC need to understand that the investment profile it takes can only be as risky as the residents' welfare that they have to protect.
Heard that if someone defaults on conservancy payment, TC has no mercy and haul them to court.
Posted by: speak_up at Wed Nov 26 11:18:19 SGT 2008
#39
He doing something..
He smile and shake hands..
Posted by: layperson at Wed Nov 26 11:12:25 SGT 2008
Just wondering.
Had the peg of the gahman salary to the economic performance had anything to do with the decision of TC to invest?? Like if TC A got a higher return on their invest than other TC, TC A will see a higher bonus or pay increase??
Well..just a thought
Posted by: layperson at Wed Nov 26 10:51:19 SGT 2008
Latest comments
Dun complaint.... that's why we need all the smart people in the govt to outsmart all the singaporeans.... :p
Posted by: aikon8210 at Wed Nov 26 11:56:11 SGT 2008
"Very ironical! Imagine what will happen during Parliament debate when the "Bad" investments and $16 Million losses were made by the 2 opposition parties Town Councils???"
Our MIW will tear the 2 opposition members into pieces in Parliament and tell us that this is what we deserve for voting opposition.
"In Sat. newspaper, Mr Mah Bow Tan pointed out the TCs should be answerable to the public about those bad investments.
The questions are :
1. Who should these TCs report to ? Sure enough they should not report to
the HDB, and now MR Mah said it not his Ministry , then who is ?"
Town councils are run by those voted into Parliament. Since the TCs who made the bad investments need not answer to MBT and refused to answer to the public, then throw them out in the next GE. Only then will other TCs wake up.
Posted by: Faircomment at Wed Nov 26 11:49:26 SGT 2008
For TC investment, the rational thing to do is only invest when it is principal protected, as it is residents' money, you can't afford to lose a cent. I don't think it is right for TC, which is not meant to be revenue generating setup, to lose the princial sum, collected from conservancy charges. It is pure greed, and risk taken on wrong principal.
Just like you don't advice your elderly mother to put her entire life savings in non-principal protected investments, right? Similarly, if a seasoned investor wants to take up such non-protected investments, its ok. TC need to understand that the investment profile it takes can only be as risky as the residents' welfare that they have to protect.
Heard that if someone defaults on conservancy payment, TC has no mercy and haul them to court.
Posted by: speak_up at Wed Nov 26 11:18:19 SGT 2008
#39
He doing something..
He smile and shake hands..
Posted by: layperson at Wed Nov 26 11:12:25 SGT 2008
Just wondering.
Had the peg of the gahman salary to the economic performance had anything to do with the decision of TC to invest?? Like if TC A got a higher return on their invest than other TC, TC A will see a higher bonus or pay increase??
Well..just a thought
Posted by: layperson at Wed Nov 26 10:51:19 SGT 2008
Re: Risky products: Town councils should not have invested
Investing is gambling... Next the TC will used the money to by TOTO or 4D and claimed that it is investment too!
Latest comments
Dun complaint.... that's why we need all the smart people in the govt to outsmart all the singaporeans.... :p
Posted by: aikon8210 at Wed Nov 26 11:56:11 SGT 2008
"Very ironical! Imagine what will happen during Parliament debate when the "Bad" investments and $16 Million losses were made by the 2 opposition parties Town Councils???"
Our MIW will tear the 2 opposition members into pieces in Parliament and tell us that this is what we deserve for voting opposition.
"In Sat. newspaper, Mr Mah Bow Tan pointed out the TCs should be answerable to the public about those bad investments.
The questions are :
1. Who should these TCs report to ? Sure enough they should not report to
the HDB, and now MR Mah said it not his Ministry , then who is ?"
Town councils are run by those voted into Parliament. Since the TCs who made the bad investments need not answer to MBT and refused to answer to the public, then throw them out in the next GE. Only then will other TCs wake up.
Posted by: Faircomment at Wed Nov 26 11:49:26 SGT 2008
For TC investment, the rational thing to do is only invest when it is principal protected, as it is residents' money, you can't afford to lose a cent. I don't think it is right for TC, which is not meant to be revenue generating setup, to lose the princial sum, collected from conservancy charges. It is pure greed, and risk taken on wrong principal.
Just like you don't advice your elderly mother to put her entire life savings in non-principal protected investments, right? Similarly, if a seasoned investor wants to take up such non-protected investments, its ok. TC need to understand that the investment profile it takes can only be as risky as the residents' welfare that they have to protect.
Heard that if someone defaults on conservancy payment, TC has no mercy and haul them to court.
Posted by: speak_up at Wed Nov 26 11:18:19 SGT 2008
#39
He doing something..
He smile and shake hands..
Posted by: layperson at Wed Nov 26 11:12:25 SGT 2008
Just wondering.
Had the peg of the gahman salary to the economic performance had anything to do with the decision of TC to invest?? Like if TC A got a higher return on their invest than other TC, TC A will see a higher bonus or pay increase??
Well..just a thought
Posted by: layperson at Wed Nov 26 10:51:19 SGT 2008
Investing is gambling... Next the TC will used the money to by TOTO or 4D and claimed that it is investment too!
Silverfox, the sinking fund should not be used for investment at all. When TC make money from the investment, the resident did not benefit from it. They would still have to pay monthly conservancy charges. But when TC lost money on investment, they lost the money belonging to the people. If TC is allowed to invest the sinking fund, might as well return them to the people. At least in certain circumstance as with the minibond saga, the elderly and uneducated may be reimbursed on their losses. It is just like passing you my money for you to gamble might as well i gamble myself since i wun get anything from you even if you win.
What a dumb message. Of course making money is expected. Do you pay people a salary to lose money for you?
Minibonds, Pinnacle Notes and such: What constitutes mis-selling?
ANYONE who represents the 'vulnerable' group of investors seeking redress from financial institutions and brokerage firms will know it is difficult to prove 'mis-selling'. These institutions lay the burden of proof on investors who are mainly senior citizens with little education to understand the meaning of difficult terms. At interviews, they are given a long questionnaire, with staff helping those who are illiterate to fill in the blanks, and to tick responses to leading questions, often resulting in the prognosis that there was no 'mis-selling'.
What constitutes 'mis-selling'? It is not just false representations at the point of sale. To me, it is also misleading representations in newspaper advertisements and circulars, cajoling the man in the street to buy.
Consider a few of these simplified one-liners :
- 'Mini-bond'
- 'Invest on the shoulders of giants'
- 'Total returns payable unless a credit event occurs' in any of these six or seven AA-rated giants
- 'Good low-risk alternative to term deposits' (appearing in circulars to clients)
Now, if you modestly wish to diversify from less than 1 per cent return on your bank deposits, would you not consider this supposedly low risk product? And what are these giants? AA-rated corporations, and in the case of one Pinnacle Notes series, even entities like 'People's Republic of China' and 'Republic of Korea', among others. In many of these notes, none of these entities has suffered a credit event, yet the notes are now worth next to nothing. Why?
The truth is, these products have been creatively and deceptively mis-packaged. These notes are not 'mini-bonds' (a misleading misnomer) nor tied to credit worthiness of six or seven underlying AA-rated reference entities. The products are instead credit insurance swaps against these entities, tied to a basket of 100 or more collateralised debt obligations, all leveraged with low buffer margin. You may lose your capital, even if the six or seven entities do not fail, or if the arranger goes bust.
The regulators have a moral responsibility to investigate such misleading and grossly simplified marketing materials aimed at retail investors. How could these products have been approved to be marketed this way in the first place? Even those with CFAs and degrees in finance cannot understand these products, much less the average investor.
The vulnerable group deserving of compensation should also include widows and the disadvantaged. They bought with their life savings, wrongly told they were 'investing on the shoulders of giants', a deceptively low-risk proposition. They have been grossly misinformed of the risk implications.
Lin Xiao Fen (Ms)
ANYONE who represents the 'vulnerable' group of investors seeking redress from financial institutions and brokerage firms will know it is difficult to prove 'mis-selling'. These institutions lay the burden of proof on investors who are mainly senior citizens with little education to understand the meaning of difficult terms. At interviews, they are given a long questionnaire, with staff helping those who are illiterate to fill in the blanks, and to tick responses to leading questions, often resulting in the prognosis that there was no 'mis-selling'.
What constitutes 'mis-selling'? It is not just false representations at the point of sale. To me, it is also misleading representations in newspaper advertisements and circulars, cajoling the man in the street to buy.
Consider a few of these simplified one-liners :
- 'Mini-bond'
- 'Invest on the shoulders of giants'
- 'Total returns payable unless a credit event occurs' in any of these six or seven AA-rated giants
- 'Good low-risk alternative to term deposits' (appearing in circulars to clients)
Now, if you modestly wish to diversify from less than 1 per cent return on your bank deposits, would you not consider this supposedly low risk product? And what are these giants? AA-rated corporations, and in the case of one Pinnacle Notes series, even entities like 'People's Republic of China' and 'Republic of Korea', among others. In many of these notes, none of these entities has suffered a credit event, yet the notes are now worth next to nothing. Why?
The truth is, these products have been creatively and deceptively mis-packaged. These notes are not 'mini-bonds' (a misleading misnomer) nor tied to credit worthiness of six or seven underlying AA-rated reference entities. The products are instead credit insurance swaps against these entities, tied to a basket of 100 or more collateralised debt obligations, all leveraged with low buffer margin. You may lose your capital, even if the six or seven entities do not fail, or if the arranger goes bust.
The regulators have a moral responsibility to investigate such misleading and grossly simplified marketing materials aimed at retail investors. How could these products have been approved to be marketed this way in the first place? Even those with CFAs and degrees in finance cannot understand these products, much less the average investor.
The vulnerable group deserving of compensation should also include widows and the disadvantaged. They bought with their life savings, wrongly told they were 'investing on the shoulders of giants', a deceptively low-risk proposition. They have been grossly misinformed of the risk implications.
Lin Xiao Fen (Ms)
Petition to Town Council - arranged by Gilbert Goh
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Petition to Town Council - arranged by Gilbert Goh
Hi Friends
There are widespread unhappiness on the way our town councils have invested into toxic instruments. This is not helped by some wayward reporting by our authorities.
I have just posted an online petition for more transparency with regard to our town councils' investment.
http://www.petitiononline.com/tc0502/petition.html
Please support this petition for more transparency with town councils' investment so that we can participate fully together in our nation building.
Please also help to spread this online petition movement if you feel inclined to.
Regds
Gilbert Goh:oIo:
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Petition to Town Council - arranged by Gilbert Goh
Hi Friends
There are widespread unhappiness on the way our town councils have invested into toxic instruments. This is not helped by some wayward reporting by our authorities.
I have just posted an online petition for more transparency with regard to our town councils' investment.
http://www.petitiononline.com/tc0502/petition.html
Please support this petition for more transparency with town councils' investment so that we can participate fully together in our nation building.
Please also help to spread this online petition movement if you feel inclined to.
Regds
Gilbert Goh:oIo:
Similar threads
