The majority of the investors who visit my block agree with my views, including my suggestion to seek compensation at between 50% to 80% of the amount that they have lost. My view is that both parties (i.e the financial institution and the investor) should share the loss. The distributor earns 3% to 5% commission for selling the product. If they have to compensate 50%, it will be 10 times (or more) of what they earned.
A few people, such as Zorro, disagree with this view. They like to seek 100%. They have posted their views in a rude way. I have asked them to give their name and e-mail addresss, and be the focal point for other investors who hold similar views. They can also set up another blog.
They can also send an e-mail to me, arguing their point of view. They should disclose their name and contact. I will post it up in the blog.
I am aware that some visitors to my blog represents the financial institutions. They are posting certain views to distract the investors. It will be more honorable for them to disclose their real identity and argue these points.
I continue to get postings from SiewKhim with the sole purpose of insulting me. If SiewKhim has a real grievance against me, he (or she) can send an e-mail to me, rather than continue to behave in this manner. I hope that he realise that he is causing a lot of harm to the thousand of investors who need genuine help.
The investors can take collective legal action. Many people have warned that this will be expensive and a long drawn out affair. I agree with this point of view. It should only be considered at the last resort. The investors should be properly briefed and be aware about the cost and consequence, before they take this action.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(1580)
-
►
December
(33)
- Rechargeable torchlight with locator light
- Poor return on special funds
- Lock up for 2 years at low return
- Use of Medisave for health screening
- Temasek 20 and 30 year bonds
- Poor yield on life insurance policy
- Profit of health insurers
- John Bogel' website
- Lehman Note Arbitration in USA
- Tour of Jiuzhaigou, China
- Security measures went absurd
- Least corrupt countries
- Foreign shares listed in SGX
- Over-investing in mortgages
- Denying insurance claims
- Bus owner practices risk management
- Claim payable under a hospital bill
- Microsoft .NET developer
- Signs and messages
- Messy IT systems used in banks
- Insurance company need to hold more capital
- Creating jobs in America
- Low payout for medical claim
- The uninsured cannot afford health care
- Urgency to create jobs
- Avoid over insurance and moral hazard
- SCMP: Businessman sues Merill Lynch over loss on w...
- Policy loan
- How much life insurance to own?
- Optimism in Banda Aceh
- Holiday in Banda Aceh
- Risk Management
- Sayings of Confucius
-
►
November
(157)
- Emergency jobs program
- Location map - fast and easy
- Keynesian Economics
- False wealth
- Get Ready for Half a Recovery
- EPL matches for 2010
- Buy term insurance directly through internet porta...
- Termination of Living Policy
- Life insurance can serve a useful purpose
- Payout under CPF Life
- Family Income Benefit
- Keep cash, and be safe
- New immigrant's loyalty to Singapore
- An alternative to the free market economy
- Confucianism
- Pension planning
- Economic problems of Ireland
-
►
December
(33)
10 comments:
Well, while I am being interviewed by the FI, I did mentioned that since I bought the product from you, I will claim against you, but if your company felt cheated by minibond, six of you (the distributors) should sue Minibond for compensation. I did mentioned that the name Minibond is misleading because the company did not deal in bond, just pretending that the company offer bond in smaller denomination. The company should, if they want to use the name, warned the customer that Minibond is just a name and have nothing to do with bond. Just like "Seafood restaurant" selling chicken rice and "Halal foodcourt selling pork.
I agree SiewKhim should stand out and identify yourself. We will be glad to hold a forum with you for discussion, or join us at speaker corner as a speaker to air your views. Else just do the honourable thing of apologizing to Mr Tan Kin Lian and the rest of us.
new to this blog. who is siew kim?
I would like to propose terming it as Financial institution and bank customer, instead of Financial institution and investor.
The reason is that, bank customers are doing FD or bank transaction, clearly as not intention of being an investor. They have not investment background as well.
They even sold complicated investment product to 62 year old and primary educated people! 20%? Clearly, they have no control on who to sell to, how it is being sold and whether customer understands the risks and investment nature.
Let's help these investors sort this out and not revert to attacks on kind people like Mr. Tan. If you are not part of the solution, don't add to the problem.
I believe if there is mis-selling it should not discriminate. FI's may just be playing to pay as little as possible to show that they have acted and letting the majority burn. If 'selling' standards are not met, they are simply not met regardless of age, race , language or religion.
Agree that legal action must be last resort as it's costly but if you have lost everything wouldn't you fight ?
The SS.
Mr Tan,
Sharing the loss is fair to both victims (ie investors) and FIs. But I am worry that FIs are not willing to do so.
Thanks.
Jasmin
Frankly speaking, i feel that the FI is also the victims of this minibond crisis.
They only earning a mere 2-3 percent of the distributer cost yet have to face with the compersation issue. They may have fail to audit or check the product before sell it to us. similar to us, who failed to re-search and read more before we invested.
In my view, we are all fool by the 'smart' Americian people. Now, Asia investors are fighting with Asia bank while, whoever took our money are enjoying themselves somewhere.
since both the investor and the FI are the victim of this minibond crisis, and both parties have certain responsibility in whatever we signed and sell.
it is fair to share the losses together.
Siew Khim is from NTUC Income. Probably one of the senior management who is now giving Mr Tan a hard time for his involvement in standing up for policyholders during the bonus cut saga.
Mr or Ms Siew Khim,
What do you get out of creating additional work for people. Life is too short like the saying "You Only Live ONCE. But If You Live It RIGHT, ONCE Is Enough". Today you may be here, Tomorrow you may be gone. So why bother to make life difficult for others. If it had been you as one of the victims, you can't thank Mr Tan enough for doing all these for you. So please don't be childish. Try to put yourself in the shoe of others. Money is not everything. Look around you, there are alot of beautiful things. Count yourself fortunate that you are born a complete self. I used to do alot of social service work in old folks' home, children's home and even "half-way house". "Half-way house" is a recupperating centre for the residents that came out from Institute of Mental Health. Whenever one sees those unfortunate people, our tears just automatically flow down. These tears are because you feel you are one hundred million thousand times luckier than them.
So please give it a thought and stop harassing Mr Tan.
Why 50% - 80%? A distribution earn only 3-5%
out of the 3-5% commission earn, this FA earn less than 50% of the 3-5% commission. If this ruling applied, there won't be any FA around in Singapore.
FA are induvidual who had to work for their living too. think, they are also a victim of the minibond saga
Post a Comment