Dear Mr. Tan,
1. Three financial insitutions are taking step to compensate some vulnerable investors. What are your views on this latest development?
Reply: It appears that the vulnerable investors will be compensated for the full amount of their investments, less any coupons that they have received. The only lose the interest on the money that they have invested for the past one or two years. This is a generous settlement. I believe that those who receive the offer will be relieved and happy to receive their money back.
I believe that compensation should also be given to the other investors who do not fall within the "vulnerable group", as they have also been misled into making the investments and were not properly advised about the risks. The prospectus was written in a complicated manner and were not easy to read and understand, even for the educated and knowledgeable investors. In some cases, the prospectus were distributed only after the sale was concluded. The sales representative did not highlight and explain the key information in the prospectus concerining the risks.
I suggest that these investors should be compensated for 50% to 80% of their loss.
2. Did you received any calls from investors, expressing their thoughts upon hearing this news? What's their general impression about chances of getting money back?
Reply: I have received many e-mails from investors who expressed their happiness in getting back their money.
Even those who are outside of the "vulnerable group" are hopeful of getting some compensation, although they are still anxious to know how they will be treated. We will have to wait and see. Many of the investors thanked me for organising the Petition and for speaking at Speaker's Corner to voice out their difficulties.
3. What's your advise to investors now?
Reply: I advice the investors who have not lodge their complaint of mis-selling to do so immediately. They should lodge their complaint with the financial institution that sold the structured product to them.The complaint should highlight the areas where they were misled. They have to lodge their complaint truthfully. Some of the points to be covered are set out in this FAQ:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/10/general-advice-to-investors-of.html
4. Will you continue to speak at hong lim park this Sat?
I will continue to hold the meeting at Speaker's Corner on Saturdays from 5 to 7 pm. for the next few weeks, as long as there is a need for the investors to receive an update and to meet with other investors to exchange views and information.
It looks like it is a tactical move my the institutions to sooth the anger of some more vulnerable investors, i.e. those old and gullible. One these people are taken out of the list, the banks may start to play hard ball with those not classified as old and less educated as there will be less sympathy for such group of investors who may be viewed as more educated, still holding a job and thus and bear the loss. I see the issue is going to be more complicated and not getting any easier to settle.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mr Tan. Please continue to highlight the cause of those not belong to "vulnerable" group. We lot much of our savings in this misled selling
ReplyDeleteAnother way to view this is that FIs only follow the yardstick of MAS. MAS asked them to care for the vulnerable group, they responded accordingly.
ReplyDeletetherefore, the key point is that MAS should be fair to all the citizens, not letting them the victim of FIs' misconduct.
Mr. Tan, I am the holder of High Notes 2. Is this fall into the same category as HN5? Do i have the case against the bank who sold me the product as those of HN5? Thanks
ReplyDeleteAgreed. It is far from settled if percent of number of those settled and amount involved out of total is still not known. Also for DBS what is the ratio (number of them and amount) for those here and in HK that DBS agree to settle?
ReplyDeleteHope that this won't be just PR damage control exercise and for the rest not being considered "vulnerable" the issue unsettled and petering out over time for them.
Hence despite the settlement reported, we still need Hong Lim rallies to keep the issue alive and in the picture. Mr Tan, keep it up.
Kin Lian,
ReplyDeleteWhat your basis for cooking up 50-80%? From the thin air just like the way you do your actuarial work?
This is our money. You have nothing to loss only to gain the limelight and glamour.
We want 100% and nothing less and you open your big mouth to speak on our behalf.
Shut up man
My sentiments exactly. Sigh..........
ReplyDeleteMr Tan , Thank you for your selfless effort in propping up our fighting spirit so as not to be written off by these Banks. We appreciate your making yourself available in the next few Saturdays and hence I would appeal to all fellow investors to come together to fight for our course. Unity is strength if we need to plan our next step to take up Class Action.
ReplyDeleteMr. Tan, Many investors feel that your comments about 50% to 80% compensation is wrong. You should not play judge now and it is in the interest of all investors that you withdraw this statement.
ReplyDeleteYou should not prejudice the position of thousands of investors with one sweep of a statement based on your opinion. That's unfair.
Please correct your statement quickly.
We are grateful and thankful for your leadership. You have done alot for everyone. Do not undo your good deed with careless remarks. Thanks.
Hi all
ReplyDeleteI think FI should across the board buy back at 100% (This actually cost the FI the most 97%(max 3% FI already pocket in during the signing up of investment) and 89.5%(min ie, 3%+interest rec'd by investors, est 7.5%)of the investment's principal. Bear in mind, the investor still lost of earning of interest for the period.
The FI should take up the full responsibility in refund to investor, as they had mis-lead, inadequate product knowledge and dishonest toward their client, which most of them are their loyal customer. FI is an organisation which should always be trusted, high ethical in order to continue their operations.
AT23
Zorro, I don't think you should be so demanding and ungrateful. I feel sorry for your predicament but those who are helping you don't deserve your rude remark.
ReplyDeleteIf you think you deserve to be reimbursed fully, negotiate with the bank personally and argue your case with the top personnel.
By the way, did Mr Tan recommend this structured product to you? Please, don't act irresponsibly.
Some investors do not like my suggestion for compensation at 50% to 80% of their loss. This is my view. It does not bind any investor who wishes to ask for 100%.
ReplyDeleteI have spoken to many investors over the past two weeks. Several investors told me that they will be happy to get 50%, but they are not optimistic. Other investors are still hopeful to get more.
I do not know how to get the financial institutions to compensate at 100%. Maybe, someone can take the lead?
Dear Mr. Tan,
ReplyDeleteI hope you are not uset woth Zorro's comment. Keep up the good work!
Zorro, please use yoiur brain before you comment!
Hi 4:28 PM
ReplyDeletePlease give your name and e-mail address. I like you to be the focal point for investors who wish to ask for 100%. They can contact you for leadership.
I am surprised that a certain Zorro had scolded kin lian literally asking him to shut up.
ReplyDeleteZorro is unhappy that a figure of less than 100% is mentioned by kinlian in a certain interview with journalist.
Apart from being unnecessarily emotional and plain rude, i think Zorro should understand that if 100% is refunded to 100% of the people it is a 100% admission of guilt by the bank.
Everybody I believe, can appreciate that MAS (who approved the product) as well as the investor (who signed the document not under duress.. in general) has a part to play, not forgetting the real culprits can be traced to the expert bankers of Wall Street in the very first place. So to be realistic, it is not possible to please 100% of the people with 100% refunds from a single entity. Mathematically if every party admits a little bit of guilt, and is generous and contribute a bit, then perhaps a figure very close to100% may be availed.
What kinlian stated is a reality and should not be challenged with such uncalled for rudeness.
I do not agree that his statement will bias the banks to pay only in this range. From the beginning the banks want to pay as low as zero, so there.
Rex
Zorro,
ReplyDeleteKin Lian has done a lot of good. If you are not happy, you can always start a movement yourself and get the investors to follow you may be on sunday at speaker corner.
Zorro, I am sure you have a nicer way to object to the figure Mr. Tan suggested instead of using L in the mouth to speak. You should your have your mouth F and then rinse it with kerosene. Go fight your own case and make yourself scarce.
ReplyDeleteDisgusted with ungrateful dog.
Mr Tan,
ReplyDeleteWe need you leadership to bring us, otherwise scattered victims of this structure product together. We need your help to bring up issues and highlight the truth. We need your help to give us some hope.
Ignore some of this unwelcome comments, we really do not know what are their intentions.
Keep going, we need you!
Zorro, i can't believe that instead of being thankful to Mr Tan, u can be so rude and unkind to someone who is fighting for u. If u talk to the FI yrself, i'm quite sure u will get zero. If u use yr rude manners against the FI, u may be sue by them in return. Don't believe, go and try. Mr Tan has not done anything to deserve this kind of treatment from u. U should go confront MAS directly. Everyone is very frustrated, not just u, but be realistic and grateful plse.
ReplyDeleteMr, Tan, thank you for all the hard work for us. U can ignore zorro's comment. Fight on, most of us will support u.
I am thankful to Mr Tan and the tireless work he has done to get us to this point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not agree with his view of 50-80% (it's ok to disagree folks. But we can be civil about it)
The FIs admit there was misrepresentation and mis selling and are paying 100% to the vulnearable group. If they find mis selling and misrepresentation in other cases, it would be logical that they pay 100% as well.
Banks can't sell the product as safe and principal protected when it is not and get away with it!
Chong
Angela Tan,
ReplyDeleteHN2 is different from HN5 and minibond in the sense that there is not credit event yet, though there have been 3 defaults already in the underlying securities held by constellation, and this has led to the drastic fall in it market value, but if nothing is going to happen in the next 3 years, investors are likely to get back everything. But the risk is very high now because the likelihood is there that anotherv2 default may occur. Currently, dbs seems to be focus on HN5 which is already in a credit event. So far no indication from dbs as to how they are going to treat HN2. But I think investors of HN2 should ask the bank to take over these notes as the bank did not explain clearly the risk of the notes, in particular the risk associated with any default of the underlying securities held by constellation.
Mr Tan, in view that so many people lodge complain, althugh i bought the product reactively by calling my RM, which she did not tell me much about the structure, should i also lodge a complain just in case there is compensation and i was left out? i have sign up for the petition but till now still haven't lodge any complain as i do not want to put my RM in trouble.
ReplyDeleteHello Mr. Tan,
ReplyDeleteLet's use an analogy to look at what's happening with some objectivity.
This situation is akin to a group of people who bought some apartments in a building just like everybody else. Now that a gigantic earthquake has caused the building, a triple-A rated one, to crumble, and the brand-name developer has gone bust, these people now claim that the property agents who sold the apartments to them never highlighted to them that the building could collapse if a big enough earthquake happened!
Let's face it. This Wall St. earthquake was an extraordinary one, and everyone is still feeling the repercussions. Is it fair to pin everything on the property agents as the villains in this matter just because nobody is left to foot the bill?
Who in all honesty could have predicted the downfall of Lehman Brothers, which has more than 150 years of history and survived the major economic crises of the last century? I hope your blog will put forward some balanced views and not allow all the emotional cries to gain such momentum that they drown out the voices of rationality.
12:24 AM
12.38am,
ReplyDeletewrong analogy... to use a concrete and tangible stuff to illustrate.
Hallo 10:21am, u know what an analogy is or not?
ReplyDeleteHumpty Dumpty 12:38am
ReplyDeletethere is an requirement of counter-quake levels for a building. If the building is proved to miss the requirement, the property builder should be responsible and compensate for it, besides, the builder still need to bear legal penalty.
So to speak, it is fair to ask FIs to take back their mis-designed, misrepresented and misold products.
Hi 2:11pm,
ReplyDeleteI thot the builder/developer in dis case is Lehman brothers? The banks selling the Minibonds are only the property agents rite?