YPAP Elaina's pathetic attempt at supporting PAP govt in TOC!

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

9) Elaina Olivia Chong on November 30th, 2008 2.55 pm

There’s no such thing as a zero-risk investment. Are you trying to say that the town council fundmanagers did not do their due diligence before investing in the omnibonds? It can’t be that the banks entirely missold to everyone, there must be something wrong with the product to begin with.

I hope the law will accord justice to those who have been truly missold vis a vis those who actually know what they are doing and the inherent risks. Bottomline is trust no big name regardless of reputation, market buzz or legacy. Times have changed. And give the Government some credit. MAS is now trying to protect the Masses if you notice, bans on naked short selling, stricter regulations on Corporate Governance, information disclosures etc are examples.

All of these designed to help the masses who have lost millions in their equities just because the big money boys like institutional funds and brokerages are chucking out everything they have now.

Respect pro-active Action rather than ReAction, if you please.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

10) alky on November 30th, 2008 3.44 pm Dear Elaina

So do you think the town councils went in to buy these products with their “eyes” open or closed? Were they mislead into buying these structured products or they knew the risks and were taking a gamble with the sinking funds?

Their silence on this issue and the side stepping is not helping to clear the air.

 

[Wisely]

She's obviously dumb enough to miss the point. Who doesn't know there's no zero risk investment. All investments will be gone if Earth is swallowed by the air.

There are high risks and high returns, low risk and low returns. Those minibombs offered s**t returns and are the first to disappear in a crisis.

 

[cleareyes]

9) Elaina Olivia Chong on November 30th, 2008 2.55 pm

There’s no such thing as a zero-risk investment. Are you trying to say that the town council fundmanagers did not do their due diligence before investing in the omnibonds? It can’t be that the banks entirely missold to everyone, there must be something wrong with the product to begin with.

I hope the law will accord justice to those who have been truly missold vis a vis those who actually know what they are doing and the inherent risks. Bottomline is trust no big name regardless of reputation, market buzz or legacy. Times have changed. And give the Government some credit. MAS is now trying to protect the Masses if you notice, bans on naked short selling, stricter regulations on Corporate Governance, information disclosures etc are examples.

All of these designed to help the masses who have lost millions in their equities just because the big money boys like institutional funds and brokerages are chucking out everything they have now.

Respect pro-active Action rather than ReAction, if you please.

My Question is:

Are town councils suppose to take our money and use it for investments of which the people do not benefit at all?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

16) Elaina Olivia Chong on November 30th, 2008 9.23 pm Dear Alky

You must understand that investments are a way to generate future returns on existing funds. Whether eyes open or closed is not the debate here. I will say that it is whether the investor is willing to take on the pitfalls and risks or not.

Also, the investment community is not just the mass community but also spans across a sophisticated audience – town council, retail investors, fund managers regardless. There is no silence, its just what you need to know. So what do you want to know?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

24) alky on December 1st, 2008 10.23 am Dear Elaina,

If you still fail to see what we want to know after the numerous posts, then I am afraid it is because you have chosen only what is considered important to you. Your stand that “There is no silence, its just what you need to know.” smacks of the typical PAP speak that has been espoused to us time and again.

We do not need the PAP to decide for us what we need to know, it is for them to answer to us and not the other way round.

We are not disputing the fact that investing the sinking funds to generate returns is wrong. What we want to know is why these particular structured products were chosen and on what basis?

No rational investor would risk losing 100% of his capital for a mere 5% return. I believe even if one had bought into the worst performing tech related unit trusts, he would still have had at least 10 to 20% of his capital intact even after the bubble burst.

And so now we come to the same question again. Did they buy into these structured products with their eyes open and if so why? Also no one knows if they have filed a complaint with FIDREC on this matter. It seems that they are not even concerned about the money they have lost. Maybe they fall under the category of “those who actually know what they are doing and the inherent risks” and are inadvertently admitting that they have no case?

 

[locky2ky]

My Question is:

Are town councils suppose to take our money and use it for investments of which the people do not benefit at all?

correct! moreover without accountability it would be tempting for them to be reckless.

 

[The_Latest_H]

This is not about zero-risk investments. Investments are never zero-risk to begin with. But what this case is all about is about negligence and using silence to bluff potential investors- whom some are not well educated in this area- that these are risk-free.

Banks, and investment firms must allow their potential clients some time to seek advice from people(outside of the banks and firms) who know more about this before these investors sign on the dotted line.

If the investors have seeked advice and still signed, then the responsibility is much more on these investors than the bank. But if the banks and firms have pressurised these clients to sign even before they seek independent advice, and then midway, returned silence to queries about risk from these potential clients, then the banks would be responsible for any suit filed for customer negligence and for misleading customers.

And that's the crux of this issue. Besides, customer negligence is an offence in some countries and by at least, customers and clients are allowed to file a civil suit against any company for that kind of offence.