Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Negotiate with financial institutions

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Negotiate with financial institutions

Several investors have sent an e-mailed to me, indicating that they are willing to accept 50% of their investments. They asked me to negotiate with the financial institution. They wish to cut their loss.

I am not able to act on their behalf at this time. None of the financial institutions have contacted me to take up my offer of mediation.

I will arrange another "petition" letter for the interested investors to authorise me to approach their financial instition. Please wait a few days.

17 comments:

Unknown said...: This willingness to accept 50% lost at this early stage is a sign of weakness. The financial institutions will just take cue of this to drag and wear the effort to recover the lost.

If people don't press the matter like HK people is doing, they know what will be the result.; October 16, 2008 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: We are not in Hong Kong and most Singaporean are passive and kiasi.; October 16, 2008 9:44 AM
symmetrix said...: Personally speaking, I would go along with MR TKL's idea. I want to seek closure to this matter soon. I do not want a "Sword of Damocles" hanging over my head for the rest of the tenor period.

While 50% seems reasonable to me, I know that many are still dreaming of getting 100% back.

Sg is sg. HK is HK. We cannot expect to replicate what HK investors are doing in SG. We can learn and get ideas from HK, but cannot copy wholesale. The laws are different in both countries.

Accepting 50% is not a sign of weakness. In life, we must know when to enter and when to exit, when to start and when to stop etc. Come back and fight another day on another issue.

Perhaps Mr TKL can ask the FIs to make a general offer of compensation of x% to all investors. Those who accept will have their case closed and taken out of the circuit. Those who reject the offer can continue to pursue the matter till the cows come home.

-VSL; October 16, 2008 10:15 AM
Anonymous said...: By accepting 50% compensation, we are actually let these unscrupulous
FIs walk away too easily. Few years down the road, they will think of other means to trap you or your children. Don't give way, fight on. Justice is always on our side. This is not North Korea!; October 16, 2008 10:58 AM
Anonymous said...: 50%? You must be joking. If there is evidence of misrepresentation, the remedy would be compensation to the extent of restoring to the claimant to the position he would have been had it not been for the injuries suffered. Too bad Singapore does not practise punitive damages or this will be quite a good case. On the other hand, MAS can fine the FI involved heavily and from the fines establish a trust to fund a class action suit if the FI do not settle to satisfaction.

On the evidence of this statemeent "The Monetary Authority of Singapore may guarantee all Singapore deposits to ensure local banks are not disadvantaged by similar moves in other countries, the Straits Times reported on Wednesday quoting banking sources."
, MAS seemed to only want to protect the interest of the FIs. MAS seem so quick to protect the interest of the BANKS but so slow to protect the man on the street.; October 16, 2008 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Very sad to see this happening here in Singapore.

Knowing that many are willingness to accept 50% of their principle invested even they know they are not in the wrong.

In the first place, how can this STRUCTED product allowed to sell here to the old RETIRED people. No sure whether can we called this place called Home anymore.

No much different as Daylight Robbery.; October 16, 2008 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: we were misled by the sales-man on the minibond on at least two major things:

1. The minibond is not a bond, or at least not a normal bond, like government bond. I was never explained on the nature of the bond (it sounds like more of a derivatives now, but before, i was told it is of low risk, e.g. if 8 banks OK you are OK, etc.)

2. The salesman did not tell us the nature of the Lehman Bro, which is an investment bank and play with a few thousands of billions of dollars with only a few tens of billions of asset.

if we knew these two things, a lot of us would not have invested, for sure.; October 16, 2008 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: If you can get more why settle for less?
The banks are testing your will and they are waiting for some to crumble.
They will try to save as much money as possible.Leave to Mr .Tan. He is doing his best for all of you. Don't disappoint him by being in doubt.You only sabo him.he is putting his time and effort to help. Give him the chance. Don't try to say we are not in Hong Kong. Singapore is no difference unless it is a cheat and bully.; October 16, 2008 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan,
I do not agree with a 50% or even a 80% compensation from the FIs. The real meaning of negotiation is: the investor to place their card of 100% on the table. The reason being - we are TOTALLY NOT AT FAULT, so why should we bear the discounted compensation. If the discounted card is already on the table then there is really no need for a mediation to take place. I believe that those who want to move on with a 50 - 80% compensation are the ones who are presently in the workforce and can earn back the lost. But please SERIOUSLY CONSIDER those retired,medically disabled(partially immobilized, dementia) old folks, who depend on this sum of money to see them through their twilight years. They will never be able to recover this difference. I sincerely hope you can consider my point of view.
Thank you.; October 16, 2008 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi Doris, you are spouting rubbish! What do you mean that Notes investors are totally not at fault?? If people like you are NOT greedy for higher interest rates, then you would NOT have encountered this problem at all.
If the Structured Notes like Mninbonds are as SAFE as bank deposits and pay 5~6% interest, then the whole of Singaporeans would have switched out of bank savings en mass and go straight to buying these Notes. But fortunately, it's not the whole of Singapore, juz a few thousand greedy investors!; October 16, 2008 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...: I too do not support a reduced % claim. Not because of greed or whatever, but because:

1. It's bad negotiation technique. Look at the banks especially DBS. They are not offering or naming any figures. On the contrary, if you attend any of the meetings (i have compared notes with others), their approach is to deny all responsibilities.

2. This is a case where I wanted an apple and the vendor sells me an orange while telling me it is exactly like an apple. The vendor knows exactly what he is doing. Why should we now share the burden of his misdeeds. He has gotten his profits and we should lose our money? I don't think that is reasonable.

3. There ought to be a discussion of punitive damages. If it is proven that the banks are culpable, then there should be penalties imposed.; October 16, 2008 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous 4.14PM

You obviously have some skewed logic. Who would characterise greed as accepting a paltry 5% return in exchange for the abnormally high risks that have now become exposed. You are obviously not familiar with the whole saga, so why bother commenting? It's the banks who knowingly exposed their customers to the high risks so that THEY (the banks) can get the profit margins they want. So, who's the greedy one?

You seem to argue like an FI.; October 16, 2008 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous 4.14PM

Are you a spy sent from the FI ? You sound like one. Please get out of this blog, people who spout rubbish like you are not welcome.

I totally agree with Doris, LSC and Michael. Victims should be compensated 100%, no less.; October 16, 2008 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...: 4:14PM certainly does not belong here. From time to time we encounter people of this nature.
They serve a different purpose in life. I suggest we don't let these people affect our mood, because that's what they hope to see. Back to the topic.I don't think anyone should try to speak for anyone on whether they should accept 50%, 80% or 100%. There is no right or wrong here. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Some people prefers to go with 50-80% because they think they stand a better chance of achieving that. They believe in compromising and is willing to pay a price for the lesson learnt. For them, 100% might mean a long and bitter battle which they do not necessarily hope to see. If you can't guarantee 100% here, don't influence others because it may end up hurting them more. Everyone knows what is their threshold and they should decide for themselves what they want. If the FI is willing to compensate at their threshold, it's a win-win, and they can move on with their life. How is that not a decent choice? Not everybody can take the stress of waiting for an important answer everyday. It's life shortening, especially for the retirees.; October 16, 2008 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: 6.26pm, don't let your emotions cloud your judgement. You want higher returns, so of course your risk correspondingly goes higher too. It's the opposite of insurance. For insurance, you pay your premiums hoping that nothing untoward will ever happen to you in your lifetime. This credit event works in the reverse in that you get paid handsomely if nothing happens, but if something happens... that's it baby.; October 16, 2008 10:31 PM
Anonymous said...: 50% is indeed joking. Some of those holding unit trusts have lost 80% of their money. So if they sell now it is just 20%

Why should this mini bong holders get 50%. Since they get attractive returns of 5%, they should at best get only 10%!; October 16, 2008 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: To Anonymous 4:14PM

For investors who were misled to buy these toxic products, why shoudn't the banks compensate 100% ? Misled and mispresentation amounts to cheating. This is against the law and the offenders should be taken to task lest it encourages others to cheat in the same manner.

Be brave, fight for your rights !

I agree with what Salary 8:32AM wrote :
"This willingness to accept 50% lost at this early stage is a sign of weakness. The financial institutions will just take cue of this to drag and wear the effort to recover the lost.

If people don't press the matter like HK people is doing, they know what will be the result."; October 16, 2008 10:35 PM