Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Update (1) to investors of credit linked securities

Friday, September 26, 2008

Update (1) to investors of credit linked securities

I have received more than 800 signatures to my "petition". It is not really a "petition". I used the "petition" software to collect the particulars (i.e. name, telephone number and e-mail address) of the signatories, so that they can contact each other.

I do not wish to send the full list (of more than 800 people) to each of the signatory, as the list could be mis-used by any recipient for other purposes. To reduce the risk of mis-use, I shall be creating smaller lists of 50 signatories. The list will be sent to the people named in the list. This allows the recipients to contact and talk to the other people in the smaller list. I hope that this is suitable as a first step.

I will be arranging for a new Petition to be signed online. This Petition will call on the authority (MAS or Attorney General) to take action on behalf of the investors and bring the financial institutions to court. The aim is to get compensation for the investors for their loss due to mis-selling. The wording of this new Petition is being worked out now.

I am arranging a meeting of the investors. It is expensive to book a large auditorium and to have people to handle the registration and logistics. I am considering to hold smaller meetings of up to 100 people at a time. I shall discuss this matter with my team and update the investors separately.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...: Thank you Mr. Tan.
It would be meaningless for an ant to fight a dinasour. If MAS or SGX could help, it might be better.; September 26, 2008 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan, I want to let you know that you are doing a very good thing to raise the profile of this issue. Normally I don't comment on blogs but I felt strongly about it even though I did not suffer from these products. I am a CFA and I am always very very annoyed by the banks, including OCBC and DBS, that automatically channel me to their investment advisors or push their brochures at me - so much so that I always end up telling them off loudly and clearly. It is high time that the higher powers realise this is a serious problem. And in a way, this is one good thing that came out of this sorry story. Once again, I am very glad that you are doing your part ot raise the profile of the issue. Keep up the great work!; September 26, 2008 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: I hope the 600 policyholders who signed your collective protest earlier in relation to NTUC Income cutting annual bonuses will not be forgotten since your withdrawal of the protest at the last minute.; September 26, 2008 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I loss some money in unit trusts long long time ago. Since then I have stopped buying unit trusts because it may not be transparaent, and have to place too much trust in the company.
I invested in minibond, etc. thinking that they are safe products, paid regular incomes, and the big names would not play with their reputations, but the loss could be 100 times the loss in unit trust.
Very sad. The world has now become so danerous.; September 26, 2008 9:56 AM
Hanqing said...: I want to sign the petition. can keep me informed >? we must unite. after taking a look of HSBC's statement, sadly found it seems it has nothing to do with them. that was said by them when then sold this product to us >?; September 26, 2008 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: It is not uncommon this day that financial institutions cook up some products to sell. From the banks to insurance companies they are bankrupt of ideas that they put together some rubbish and call the as new products. From minibonds to ELNs they are nothing but some toxic waste hidden below a pile of seemingly known credible names.In insurance it is the same thing. You have products with rotten core covered up by a heap of rubbish additional benefits.
Somewhere in this blog a 55 year old complained that he was sold a modified or repackaged anticipated endowment called revosave. Hiding the rotten return a few layers of useless options cover it to hood wink and divert the consumers.This seems to be the trend nowadays.These structured products are intended to cover up the rising costs of operation and the frills are used to disguise the toxic bottom..; September 26, 2008 12:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Why such products are allowed to be sold.
They are legal so we have to sign all kinds of forms to protect them. One common term is "buyer beware". Is it fair?; September 26, 2008 1:36 PM
Martin Lee said...: Hi Mr Tan,

Just a suggestion. If you are breaking up the investors into small groups, it might be worthwhile to group them based on which distributor they bought the product from.

Warmly,

Martin aka Lion Investor; September 26, 2008 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Hello Mr Tan,

How about organising a meeting for all affected investor that could accomodate many people and it's free?
Hold it at the speaker's corner. Just have to register with N-Park.
It is near MRT. It is in town.
It is legal. It can stand many people. There is also a stage.

Just register with N-Park. "Advertise" in your blog.
Tell investor to spread the word in forums. I am sure many affected investor will come forward.
If a lot of people come, then I think a lot of reporters will be interested also.; September 26, 2008 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi Kin Lian,
I believe if you were to approach the People's Association for venues, I am sure they will open up some CCs for this purpose. Since its a 'People Issue'. I do not see any reason to turn you down. Perhaps ask them for a few 'New Generation CCs' with bigger auditorium, then the groups can meet at the CC nearer to them. My husband & i will be glad to help out in whatever way we can since WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT' Email: admin@genie.com.sg
Cheers!; September 26, 2008 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Can I suggest that we approach MAS to open up their facility free for this meeting? This is the least they can do, since they have not done much!!; September 26, 2008 5:29 PM
Anonymous said...: better check with Wong Kan Seng first whether you can use public facilities for such a large event. He has said before that events that threaten public security will not be allowed.; September 27, 2008 1:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said " . . . One common term is "buyer beware" . . .".
Absolutely not! If you have a critical emergency, say a stroke, and the doctor has to do certain operations urgently, what could you do? Seek a second opinion in case the doctor is not acting in your interest? Are you in the position to exercise the "buyer beware" option? (Is the case different? Oh, the doctor is a professional, is it? So should investment advisors!)
Or have you not seen situations where the boundaries between simple sale, naggy persuasion, outright deception are blurred?; September 27, 2008 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: George says:

Dear Mr Tan,

I think concurrent with this is for something to be done for the crying need for complete transparency by the vendors.

One very good way is for laws and regulations to require complete details/terms to be provided WRITTEN IN PLAIN LAYMEN'S LANGUAGE. The law should also require that such details which form part of the contract should not exceed a certain length, say 3 A4 pages, font size 12 poins minimum. In addition, certain essential paragraphs MUST be included and printed in BOLD or RED, eg the cost, the benefits, deliverables and most important, THE RISKS AND LIABILITIES INVOLVED with genuine illustrations given.

It has been a long heard complaint about the legalese and jargons used in documents such as contracts. It should be made compulsory for all contracts to be written in plain English, with jargons explained in a foot note, and clearly explained in person to a client.; September 29, 2008 11:38 AM