<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>STRUCTURED PRODUCT SOLD TO 78-YEAR-OLD
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>'Guaranteed' principal was just an 'oversight'
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MY FATHER and I share the frustrations experienced by Mr Victor Khoo ('Minibonds: Bank adamant despite MAS advice'; March 27)
My Cantonese-speaking father, 78, who barely has a Primary 2 Chinese education, went to United Overseas Bank (UOB) to roll over his fixed deposit (FD), which was maturing in July last year. But he was persuaded by a personal banker into buying - with a good part of his retirement savings - what he believed was a three-year FD. It turned out to be a Merrill Lynch principal-protected structured product. At this time, Merrill Lynch was already known to be in financial difficulties.
When my siblings and I discovered this, we met the said personal banker to void this non-FD transaction. We later met the bank's compliance officers, but came away feeling UOB was more interested in justifying its actions than listening to us. We refused to sign the draft minutes which didn't reflect our key points.
Despite many exchanges thereafter, the bank declined our request to void the purchase. In September, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were both reported to be collapsing. Extremely distressed, my father redeemed the product and suffered a loss of nearly $50,000 in just two months.
The reason my father thought it was an FD was because the personal banker had assured him it was guaranteed. She had also written in his 'My Wealth Planner' document that the 'principal is guaranteed upon maturity' - which was untrue and misleading as it was not a guaranteed product.
When questioned, UOB, in its written reply, dismissed it as an 'oversight' by its personal banker, again declining to compensate my father and referring us to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec).
We are truly appalled and disappointed. Clearly, the bank must be accountable for its mistakes. For UOB to just pass this off as an oversight, without redress, is really untenable. We sincerely hope the Monetary Authority of Singapore would render direct help to such affected consumers like my father. Chin Kin Yam (Madam)
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>'Guaranteed' principal was just an 'oversight'
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MY FATHER and I share the frustrations experienced by Mr Victor Khoo ('Minibonds: Bank adamant despite MAS advice'; March 27)
My Cantonese-speaking father, 78, who barely has a Primary 2 Chinese education, went to United Overseas Bank (UOB) to roll over his fixed deposit (FD), which was maturing in July last year. But he was persuaded by a personal banker into buying - with a good part of his retirement savings - what he believed was a three-year FD. It turned out to be a Merrill Lynch principal-protected structured product. At this time, Merrill Lynch was already known to be in financial difficulties.
When my siblings and I discovered this, we met the said personal banker to void this non-FD transaction. We later met the bank's compliance officers, but came away feeling UOB was more interested in justifying its actions than listening to us. We refused to sign the draft minutes which didn't reflect our key points.
Despite many exchanges thereafter, the bank declined our request to void the purchase. In September, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were both reported to be collapsing. Extremely distressed, my father redeemed the product and suffered a loss of nearly $50,000 in just two months.
The reason my father thought it was an FD was because the personal banker had assured him it was guaranteed. She had also written in his 'My Wealth Planner' document that the 'principal is guaranteed upon maturity' - which was untrue and misleading as it was not a guaranteed product.
When questioned, UOB, in its written reply, dismissed it as an 'oversight' by its personal banker, again declining to compensate my father and referring us to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec).
We are truly appalled and disappointed. Clearly, the bank must be accountable for its mistakes. For UOB to just pass this off as an oversight, without redress, is really untenable. We sincerely hope the Monetary Authority of Singapore would render direct help to such affected consumers like my father. Chin Kin Yam (Madam)
