Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Meeting of High Notes investors

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Meeting of High Notes investors

To investors of High Notes

The organisers have decided to call off the meeting at DBS headquarters tomorrow (Wednesday). They are arranging a meeting at Speaker's corner on Saturday from 5 - 7 p.m.

Investor of the High Notes will be asked to sign a Collective Letter to DBS Senior Management requesting a meeting to address:

1) To review the Statement of Account for each of the High Notes as to the total amount collected, the amount paid out as commission, the premium collected from the list Credit reference list and the Credit Debt Obligations and the expenses incurred.

2) To discuss how DBS propose to remedy our investments.

End of message

15 comments:

Anonymous said...: Why was the meeting called off? I took leave to be there. Why wasnt this possibility highlighted to me at first before I took my leave? Where there non-disclosure from the organisers?; October 14, 2008 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear anonymous,

Unity is strength. What is essential is that all DBS High Notes Investors remain united together, so we can use our collective bargaining rights to secure a better deal with DBS.

At least everyone is concerned enough to not see you go to prison for nothing. You have already lost money, so why add on a prison term to your misery?

See you on Saturday.

Best regards
Daniel; October 14, 2008 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Huh? Why are we meeting to address stuffs like commission paid and expenses incurred? If i buy a BMW that is faulty, I will fight for either full refund or one to one replacement. Why would I be asking how much did the sales rep make in comm? Mr Tan, I understand you are a strong advocate of cheaper distribution channels but is this really relevant here?; October 15, 2008 4:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Tan,

I am not a HN5 holder. but I am always wondering how DBS and constellation handle the CDOs under the Notes, so to HN2.

according to the general knowlege, CDOs can be sold and bought everyday, like stocks. If constellation encahsed the CDOs before the situation deteriorated, it is unfair to calculate the balance of HN5 based on the price after Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy. On the other hand, if constellation never swapped any CDOs, holding them all the way, aren't DBS and constellation disqualified to manage the product? Have they ever born and taken care of the interest of the investors? What kind of responsibility should they bear for the failure?; October 15, 2008 8:44 AM
Anonymous said...: To Anon 10:23am
I am not one of the organisers but an investor like you. I too made plans to be at DBS, but we cannot blame the organisers for this change since it was a police advisory. In fact, we shld be thankful to the organisers to come forward and do this. Have you contributed?; October 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan,

If you want banks to refund monies to those Notes investors (after the event), then should those investors also return the quaterly interests that they have been quietly receiving fot the past 1,2 yrs??
It seems like a bad case of complaining after enjoying the product for some time and then discover that it's broken now.; October 15, 2008 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous 1:12pm,

I am not involved in HN5, minibond or Jubilee 3, but I think, if you are making this offer on behalf of the FIs, the investors will be more than happen to accpet your offer, i.e, the principal-interest received + a low fixed deposit interst, or even only the principal-interest received.; October 16, 2008 9:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi 1.12pm,

what a silly proposal of yours!
The sore Notes investors have only themselves to blame becos they were seduced by the 6% p.a. interest payouts in the first place. Imagine if nothing happened to Lehman Brothers or any of the major US banks for the duration of the Notes, then these investors would have bragged that they made the RIGHT choice.
IT"S JUST VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THE WORLD HAD ENCOUNTERED A ONE-IN-A LIFETIME FINANCIAL EVENT.

If there is any compensation, it must be only to the REALLY genuine case of misrepresentation.
I honestly believe that at most it's 10% of those sore investors who screamed "SCAM" once they lost their money.; October 16, 2008 12:05 PM
Anonymous said...: 12.05pm said: "I honestly believe that at most it's 10% of those sore investors who screamed "SCAM" once they lost their money."

Pray tell us on what basis you arrived at this deduction? If you do not have the full facts of all the issues, perhaps you should not be too quick to offer your comments.

The biggest issue is misrepresentation - people were told something that was not true. So, whether Lehman went bust or not is beside the point. It's like melamine in milk - do you have a case only if you develop kidney stones?; October 16, 2008 1:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Mis-representation?
To be fair to all parties involved,we should refer to the Documents that were presented to and signed by the investors themselves.
Sore investors, cannot after signing the documents and receivng quarterly payments for the past 1 year, then turned around and screamed MIS-SELLING or MISREPRESENTATION or whatever.
For the so-called uneducated, elderly folks, they should know better than to claim to have "blindly" signed documents!
If it's so easy to cheat elderly folks, then ALL the elderly folks in Singapore would have been cheated by RMs long time ago!; October 16, 2008 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: 4.25pm,
are you one of the chek-ark RMs.It is in the document that the miss-selling will be found. Don't ,that document which the RMs' superior refused to release is the last nail to the coffin of RMs and their supervisors.; October 16, 2008 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous 4:25pm

You sound exactly like the bank officers from the FIs we talk to. Why are you are in this blog ? To add salt to the wound ? If your mother was one of the victims, bet you would not say such heartless things, do you realise you are worse than MAS and all the FIs that sold the toxic products ? Heartless and brainless.; October 16, 2008 8:38 PM
Donaldson Tan said...: Anonymous (4.25pm),

Misrepresentation, if proven true, means whatever that has been stated in the contract is voided, even if the investor had signed it. You know what happens to a void contract...; October 16, 2008 8:58 PM
Anonymous said...: From my understanding, Lehman is one of the reference entities within High Notes 5. So how do you alleged misrepresentation unless i) the RM did not go through the reference entities at all ii) you didn't read the prospectus/term sheet etc iii) you are elderly and illiterate etc. So I'm wondering what is most people's basis for claiming misrepresentation for this product? Lehman Minibonds I can understand but HN5? I think one should also consider that this kind of product has a low probability of default (due to high credit ratings) but could adversely impact individuals when this happens. So investors should take a calculated risk after weighing both probability of default and impact to their portfolio when it does before investing. Most people seems to grossly undervalue the latter and concentrate on the former. However, you can't deny that you know that you are exposed to risk of Lehman by the virtue of the fact that it is one of the product's pertinent feature. If there's anything, I think it's due to lack of focus on the latter.; October 16, 2008 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...: The FI's are saying that they will compensate the old, non English speaking group (vulnerable group).....In essence what they are saying is that all English sepaking people are good enough to be a lawyer. Take a look at the prospectus and all documents. They are crafted by lawyers and there are so many jargons, cross-references......

I suspect that the RMs who sold HNs and minibond don't really know the risk involved outside the reference entities.....For DBS's case, do the RMs really know the risk associated with Constellation and it is portfolio of "assets" (or is it toxic derivatives again)? I doubt so....Up to today, DBS has not clarify/announce what are the actual "assets" held in Constellation, other than the names of 100 companies. If it is pure Senior Notes, the credit market has already accorded a price for Lehman's default. Freddie and Fannie's "technial default" pricing has also been decided. Further, if the portfolio of assets is really Senior Notes, I cannot see how HN2 is currently value at 11% of original value, when only ONE SINGLE ENTRY has defaulted. Government of US has come out and say that they will protect debt holders. Thus I strongly suspect that the "assets" are not pure Senior Notes but toxic derivatives, maybe even Credit default swap (CDS) of the 100 companies.

I think the vulnerable group deserve quick resolution with priority to them, but all investors of HNs and Minibond should be treat equally. So much for our pledge " regardless of race, language..........based on justice and EQUALITY.........; October 24, 2008 6:47 PM