Dear Mr Tan KL,
Here are the comments posted by Ming Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:25 am on Channel News Asia -forum- Market Talk
'Finally, the CAD is involved. The MAS only has powers over civil matters. Crimes such as financial fraud would have to be referred to the CAD as they are the ones who are empowered to act on the criminal provisions of the relevant statutes.
Tan Kin Lian has been quite selfless and I would urge any stragglers left to contact him about joining up and forming a group, but petitions are probably insufficient if you wish to motivate an investigation into the matter.
Evidence is needed to demonstrate, even if only on a prima facie level, that the financial institutions have misrepresented their products. To do so, the oral testimony of the various affected parties must be collected. If a large number of people say that DBS for instance represented their offerings as essentially risk free or had the equivalence to capital protected products, then that becomes evidence which cannot simply be brushed aside.
To make the case even stronger, the testimony of former relationship managers could be added. DBS is known to have a high staff turnover and it may be possible to find former employees who are willing to step out and speak the truth. If the protocol had been to say whatever was necessary to close the sale, then the so called ‘ironclad’ contracts can be called into question.
Do not just sit back and hope that someone will help you. More than ever, you need to be active citizens who are willing to stand up for your rights, and in protecting your interests, fulfill your duty as citizens of our republic. Everyone needs to take the initiative, find the courage and be a leader.'
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=180122&start=80
It is heartening to know CAD is involved in this debacle.
ReplyDeleteCAD should take a look into the Credit Default Swaps been used in the HN5 and other affected investment products sold.
Using CDS instrument by the bank issuing this structured products is equivalent to using investors fund to protect their own investments.
Is this allowed under MAS regulation?
CAD or MAS should look into the Credit Default Swaps instrument used in the affected structured products.
ReplyDeleteUsing this instrument is equivalent to using investors fund to protect the Issuing bank own investments tie to the product.
OK, it is important to ensure no fraud but where will this lead? What is the end game these petitioners are trying to see? They must understand that they made an investment voluntarily. No one forced them and their failure to read the fine prints does not constitute to fraud. It's called negligence - gross negligence on the investors' part. They should take this as a life lesson instead of bellyaching to the government and entire society, which should focus their resources to more pressing matters at hand.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how the Govt works. Don't they have eyes to see what's happening in Hong Kong and the plight of 8000 people in Sgp is asking for a more active action by the govt? Why must we go from one petition to another and the Govt is still muted on this issue? Is this how victimized investors are treated or is it because DBS is belonging to the govt thus the left hand cannot investigate the right hand. Sign....
ReplyDeleteKin Lian,
ReplyDeleteGreetings, long time no hear.
Are you also one of the victim of this structure products?
Please let me know asap.
Socialist,
ReplyDeleteMay we all know what your interest is in this saga? It appears that you are not part of the solution.
You ask for the end game? The end game is for investors to seek justice if it proven in a court of law that there was an intent to cheat investors out of their money. Cheating is an offence.
siewkhim,
ReplyDeleteas far as I know from his blogs and the media, Mr. Tan does not buy any such structured product.
Mr. Tan, no matter what will be the result of this event, I respect you, support you.
Socialist, the investors of the structured product do lack of sufficient knowledge to see though the tricks of the banks, especially the issuers and the lawyers who drafted the flyers and the pricing statement of such product.
However, I have lodged my complaint with DBS about HN2, asking them where the pricing statement told us that 5 credit events in their CDO basket will cause a total loss of our principal. No response. I contacted with the RM who told me this new clause after the bankcruptcy of Lehman Brothers, she said she did not know either, need to ask her high-level boss. Then, I asked her to give me an answer afther she get advice from her boss. almost one week passed, no response either. Just imagine when I told her for the first time, that I was not aware of this term, she talked me back by "hasn't your original RM (she is assigned to me recently) told you that when you bought HN2? it is impossible!".
Socialist, how would you explain this? HN2 has not been terminated yet, would you help to study the pricing statement and elaborate on all the risk terms and gauge the impact one by one?
One investor suggested the following idea:
ReplyDelete"We should suggest to MAS to let Singapore Pools handle all the structured products. All uncles and auties knows S'pore Pools products very well and they know that once you invest you will get something or nothing. No need fine print or explanation by RM.
Wonder whether S'pore Pools will take up the suggestion as the odds offered by structured products seems to be very low. S'pore Pools may be able to offer better odds."
Please read this article by Washington AP: Bank of America, RBC agree to buy back auction-rate securities in SEC, state settlements
ReplyDeleteThe regulator in US (The Securities and Exchange Commission) intervened and investigated when bank misled its investors. It has resulted in the bank buying back the securities.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081008/bank_of_america_settlement.html?.v=11
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Bank of America Corp. has agreed to buy back up to $4.7 billion in auction-rate securities to settle charges it misled thousands of customers about the risky investments, federal and state regulators said Wednesday.
We've sent a petition letter to Minister of Finance. The only reply we got back was that our letters will be forwarded to MAS, who will reply to us directly. Looks like the duties are cut out so clear that even our Minister of Finance has to look upon to MAS for action ! sigh :(
ReplyDeleteDBO High Notes were sold to their "high-worth" customers, i.e. Treasures Customer.
ReplyDeleteMost of the banks identified us who can put min $200K in their pockets and called us Treasures, Privilege, Premier ... Let us feel good with the special service of the relationship managers/ manageress.
In fact, we become their marketing target for high risk products and not aware.
Beware, when they call you someboby special. They are worse then .....
Relationship manager, Treasures, Privilege, Premier..
ReplyDeleteAny relationship with any of them, customers will always land up poorer.
Normally the 200K doesn't earn you a reasonable rate.
Still want to continue the relationship?
SiewKhim,
ReplyDeleteI think you are a fraud. If you have been following Mr. Tan's blog you will definitely know that he always advises people against buying such things. I think you are probably a guy hiding behind a girl's name. Shame on you, yeah, long time no see, where have you been hiding? Why didn't respond to invitation to meet up? Did you buy any toxic minibonds?