Monday, November 03, 2008

Clarification from Dr Lan Luh Luh

Dear Mr Tan,

With regard to my comments on "Structured Products: Let's not forget about personal responsibility" in TODAY on 2008/10/30, I would like to clarify that I was asked to express my views on our PM's statement on the two approaches the government can take after the debacle on structured products and the general duty of investors themselves. I was not asked to comment on whether there was any alleged mis-sellings or misrepresentations by the banks or their agents nor whether the banks had covered themselves adequately, which are separate issues altogether.

In addition, for the investors, I was talking about the normal investors and not our senior citizens whom I even mentioned to the reporter that the government can consider imposing a total ban or at least some form of restriction on the selling of such complex structured products to them. These senior folks will never understand the complex intricacies of these products no matter how many times you explain to them. It was also in that context that I mentioned that I never invest in things I don't understand, because many of these structured products are really, really very complex and they vary from one to another and no two products are the same (well, this part was omitted from the report:-).

As for whether I agree with PM's statement on the two approaches our government can take after this debacle, one which is essentially going for more regulation and back to the paternalistic or merit-based regime or the other which is the current disclosure-based and less regulation regime, my comment was that I do not think that a general increase in regulations is the way to go and I would advocate for the current regime to remain as this is the only way we can move forward. More regulation will only make us less competitive in comparison to HK and other developed markets.

However, there can be regulation on a need basis esp. on the protection of the older folks who may not be financial literate. That said, in order for a disclosure-based regime to be effective, the government has the duty to ensure that there are more enforceable laws on disclosure such that there is increase transparency and more information flow to the public. In addition, banks and the financial industry have the duty to educate the general public as to the products they are selling. The key points I emphasised are disclosure and education.

I also mentioned that there should be more stringent requirements as to the qualifications of these financial managers -- from the Lehman episode, it can be seen that quite a number of them did not even understand the products that they were selling (which was what I found out as well when I talked to some of them on many previous occasions).

I told the reporter that for the selling of highly sophisticated engineering or medical equipments, we general require trained engineers or qualified medical personnel to sell them. It should therefore be the same for sophisticated financial products. Bank and financial institutions should only hire business or accounting graduates or at least graduates who have the requisite financial literacy rather than fresh graduates from disciples with no prior financial education to sell these products.

Although I understand that many of these financial managers are required to go through related financial courses and tests (and that these tests are not necessary easy to clear), the fact that there can be so many alleged mis-selling incidents may indicate that some of these people themselves might not have been adequately trained.

Under these circumstances, the normal investors who are supposed to be savvy and understood the products they bought cannot complain subsequently when the products turn bad. In Lehman's case, actually many might know about the risk (i.e. they may stand to lose all if the banks collapse), but who would have heard of 6 months ago that any American bank, esp. one as strong as 158-year old Lehman, would go into liquidation? This is generally the worst risk -- almost like an unthinkable apocalypse -- and in this case, it materialized. So barring all the talks about misselling etc., people who knew the risk but just thought that it would never materialized cannot complain.

Warmest regards,

Luh Luh

39 comments:

  1. My biggest grievance in Minibond is that there's inadequate disclosure on the "underlying securities" in the sales brochure & during the sales process.

    I thought the monies have been invested in a basket of AAA or AA bonds issued by the Reference Entities...hence "Mini-bond".

    Had the underlying securities been bonds, the value would not have dropped so much even if they are forced liquidated today due to the inability to carry on the CDS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So now the professor is saying that he didn't say what?
    Or has the printed media twisted the words?
    Who is the evil one?
    Both are the same.
    Both need to support our men in white and MAS.
    Not suprising anyway if both are as guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am glad that Professor Lan clarified to everyone. The reporter has indeed gave an incomplete report on her comments.

    I noticed lately when i read the news, in particular Strait Times, that the articles are heavily biased towards the financial institutions. The reporters at Strait Times tend to write one-sided stories without doing much research.

    The papers are running stories of investors who claimed "They walk in with their eyes open"(Sunday Times), without running enough counter stories of investors who are genuinely misled.

    Together with this article which Ms Christine Loh wrote that gave an incomplete picture, the standards at SPH seem to be dropping.

    I think this is a very worrying trend, as the articles in Straits Times can undermine everybody's effort to seek a fair compensation. The public may be misled into thinking that the financial institutions are free from responsibility.

    Anyone has any comments and ideas on how to get the local paper to give a fair picture?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Please be fair to those normal investor, if they are good at complex structured products, why they still need to pay the commission to those FI that only excuted the Orders.

    Everyone in the street also can sell these products that Approved by MAS, right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Clearly the main issues are not addressed -

    10,000 victims ( not a tiny number ) trusted their banks, as "normal investors", on "Solid Foundation.. Low Risk" promises, only to be fooled by mind-boggling 83-page Propectus.

    Our banks ( and strangely enough, those in competitive HK and Taiwan as well )were fooled by Wall Street investment banks, manufacturing a whole series of toxic and poisonous products. In the US, these banks have been successfully prosecuted and are being prosecuted by law enforcement agencies like the FBI, US Attorneys for Manhattan, Brooklyn and the New York State Attorney General. These so-called investment banks have been required to buy back these toxic and poisonous products in FULL. Similarly, US municipalities ( similar to our Town Councils ) were pressured into exotic but similarly poisonous products, and many are on the verge of bankruptcy. There is a PATTERN here, and what chance have our so-called sophisticated "normal" investors have, if our own banks can be fooled ( except, perhaps, the GIC ).

    ReplyDelete
  6. True, if FI are taking commissions, then they must make sure they are doing their job well and give good advice. If not, they are just unethical. I was thinking of putting my money with OCBC. But after this episode, I will not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problem is many investors didn't even know they are dealing with Lehman Brothers on a life and death matter regarding their funds!! They still thought they are dealing with good, old DBS, their big local friendly bank!
    That's why DBS and the RMs are guilty of mis-selling by not pointing out this clearly.
    They have been mislead into investing dangerously all the while without their knowing. When they knew, the sword has been dropped on their neck!

    ReplyDelete
  8. My comment is the FIs should take full responsibility on the products and not the RM who was under the FIs employment. No with standing the how qualify the RM could be they are reporting and responsible to their employers ie the Fis who also act as the distributors of the products. It is therefor the duties and responsibility of the FIs to ensure that proper disclosure are make to prospective investors.

    In this case we are talking the like mis leading information on such as the marketing strategic, financial packaging and even the name of the products could be highly mis leading in the first place.

    Therefore it was no the case as you bought at your own risk. It is the issue the products should be safe to consume regardless how high the risk will be. As I commented before why market such an inferior products to the investors as an alternative for FD if the market have more superior products than the one marketed? This the question the FIs should ask themselves and get an answer?

    One must be socially responsible and honest not with standing that the FIs should be encouraged to be creative in its products in order to stay competitive.

    I also wish to mention that regardless the education level and how inform the investors and how much knowledge the investors may have on the understanding of the financial products, if the product is inferior and there is other more superior alternative available, such an inferior products should be be marketed just for the sake of innovation.

    G C Tham

    ReplyDelete
  9. gohct is right. Why pay an adviser or why need an adviser. The product could be displayed on the supermarket shelves with prospectus attached. The investment savvy can DIY and know that it is an caveat emptor transaction.Why put an adviser or RMs to 'influence , to seduce you to buy, to distort , to mis-sell' when you can make an informed decision by reading up the prospectus. Or maybe first attend a MONEYSENSE TALK as recommended by the deputy chairman of MAS to empower yourself to make the informed decision.
    This kind of cheap talk.
    If an adviser or RMs is necessary this must mean that these products are complex and not easily understood and the RMs are the experts to give the advice whether they are suitable for you or not after examining your financial circumstances and risk appetite.
    Caveat Emptor is a unfair means to protect the sellers and should not be applied to financial products where an adviser is necessary. Stock brokers don't advise. Their is execution only. This is known that they CANNOT advise. They don't have this license.It is caveat empptor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does the Professor think that people would invest in a product that will wipe you off totally and lock you in for 5 years for 5% return? Again, did she check her facts?

    If there are people like that, they should make an appointment with woodbridge.

    Granted that no one expect Lehman to fail but hey, we were told that we are investing in the referenced entities and not lehman and the bonds are kept by hsbc!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well one thing the professor has said and I quote him is, "These senior folks will never understand the complex intricacies of these products no matter how many times you explain to them."
    I feel very sorry for our senior citizens. Not only are they victims of misrepresentation but they are dismissed as incapable of understanding anything. I think we should be more considerate towards our senior citizens, among which we may number a number of senior civil servangts, bankers and politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sad to say this LLL actually generalised the investors into 2 groups namely 'normal investors' and 'senior citizens'. Has she not known that 'Senior Citizens' can also include any (including professionals) normal investors who are savvy & understood the products. I am really confused with her clarification.

    I am not a senior citizen and do not think I am a normal investor as I only put my money in normal deposits until FIs cheated me into believing that Minibonds (name itself already coined to deceive) which gives better returns are as safe as FD (with maturity). No mention at all about Lehman Brothers. What was clearly indicated was the 6 reputable & sound FIs/banks (namely DBS, Citigroup, Std Chart, HSBC, Goldman Sach, Merill Lynch - refer to Series 5).

    Being cautious (probably our apartment is our only investment), we asked about the worst case scenario and was given a very different picture by the Maybank RM.


    Why are we not told the truth in the 1st place that if Lehman Brothers were to go bankrupt we will lose ALL. We would THEN start asking who the hell is Lehman Brothers???

    I have been wondering which sound-minded person would put their hard-earned & life-savings at such a risk of losing ALL for a mere 5-6% pa returns?? had one being told of such high risk upfront. But interesting it looks like there are. I believe these people do not put their hard-earned or life-savings money but their SPARE money which they CAN afford to lose. I now wonder if can I classify them as sound-minded ...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I beg to differ in opinion that ALL the FI's are fooled by Lehmen, at least not DBS. Look at the HN2 and HN5, DBS is the equivalent of Lehmen, Constillation is the image of Minibond, 8 entities and a basket of CDO. Sound similar, may be. just may be DBS has understood the whole episode very clearly and see that it also could make profit from this type of product.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ordinary investors are no match against the deception of those greedy, no conscience investment bankers. Therefore, it is essential that the regulators who are knowledgable in financial engineering should regulate whatever financial products put to the ordinary investors (whatever level of education), so as to prevent a repeat of such incidents in the future. Like Minibond, ordinary investors think that it is the collective bonds of 7 entities, but with some financial engineering, it becomes a very high risk complex derivatives and sold to the unsuspecting public by conduiting through respectable FIs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Compassion for the senior folks, is NEVER a consideration, in resolving this crisis.

    Come on. All this is gg no where.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Prof is a law prof not a finance prof. The finance prof will know that the risk/reward of minibond will have no buyer if the investor know that, that it is not the referenced entities bonds but dangerous structured product!

    ReplyDelete
  17. FIs should take full responsibility on the products and not the RM who was under the FIs employment. Misrepresentation has been established and be it fraudulent, reckless or innocent the FIs being the employers are fully responsible.

    Btw, who determine the AA rated CDOs to be bought? The issuers Minibond P L (in Lehman Br) & Pinnacle CLS (in Morgan Stanley) and the trustee HSBC had Freddie Mac & Fannie Mac in the list of CDOs drawn by them. Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae were AA or better rated? It is terrible and unbelievable.

    The professor seems to suggest that the 'complacency' in Mat Selamat's escape is again the cause of the debacle. The outcome is that Lehman Bro had gone bankrupt but will it be the end? It is certainly 'No'. What is the next to fall after Lehman Bro? Morgan Stanley? Imagine the scenario that the numbers of Pinnacle CLS investor swamp to Speaker's corner if MS fails.

    ReplyDelete
  18. referring to this anoynim's comment, 'Does the Professor think that people would invest in a product that will wipe you off totally and lock you in for 5 years for 5% return? Again, did she check her facts?'

    The question should be, 'Did the investors do their homework?'
    1) FD was paying less than 2%p.a.
    2) 10 Yr SGS Bond pays less than 3%p.a.
    3) 10 Year US Treasury was paying less than 4%p.a.
    4) Why is there a 'free lunch' that offers 5% or 6%p.a. over 5 or 6 years?

    this is the importance of 'caveat emptor'

    there might be 'wrong doings' among FIs and RMs, however the investor public has undeniable personal responsibilites.

    ReplyDelete
  19. fingers pointing is the name of the game.

    when nothing happen, pple were keeping quiet and happy with the 5%p.a. return.

    when something happens, it's not my fault, you got to compensate me!

    this finger pointing game happens to all levels, from normal pple like us, to the politicians. its happening everyday, everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  20. actually, many (non-establishement) experts ie those NOT on the payroll of banks, gov agencies, fund managers expected the following firms to get into trouble :
    - AIG, LEH, CITI, SACH, LYNCH, ..etc...
    and they were right...


    The public need to memorise this passage from a great economist : "The inherent difficulties economics would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in physics and mathematics - the special pleading of SELFISH INTERESTS..."

    The experts you hear on TV, take them with a pinch of salt because of their selfish interests...

    ReplyDelete
  21. It appeared professor is victim of media's mis-reporting. What people read is whatever came out in the paper. Nobody knew in what context those were being commented. If the media truely mis-reported what professor said/meant, isn't to professor's interest to clarify in the paper instead of clarifying here ?

    BH

    ReplyDelete
  22. Adego,
    You are just like the press! Quoting only the first paragraph to make a point and ignore the last that mentioned about investors investing in the referenced entities bond that they tought their investment money has gone to.

    You are such a looser in trying to convince people!

    ReplyDelete
  23. the journalist's job is to write stories. the more readers they can capture, the more 'successful' it will seems to be.

    there is an obvious 'conflict of interest' when the professor or lecturers of financial engineering were invited to give their opinion. They will be out of job if they present any negative pictures of financial engineering.

    there was a faq written by a lecturer of financial engineering, published by lorna tan, on 26th october 2008.

    the faq was superficial.
    one should ask question like, if structured product can do so much 'wonders' to suit different investors' risk appetite and financial goal, why are they not doing a good job? the lehmen brothers-linked debacle has spoke for themselves!

    why can't they structure something that pays 5%p.a. and guranteed no risk of loosing? because it is impossible! even it is possible, it is not going to be profitable!

    lorna tan is one of the most senseless storywriter I've ever come across. she has no mind of her own. I can't imagine a financial correspondent who owned 14 aia policies!!! you and I know how 'good' aia offer 'good' values to investors, with 'premier' pricings, 'light-weight' bonuses, and first class advisers, who can sell in any market conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think this 'caveat emptor' should also be applied to all parties including all the FIs. My view is that when the FIs took over the products for distribution are they not buyers of the products? I now apply caveat emptor. Hence, they should have the sole reponsibility to ensure that the products are safe and harmless before these are re-
    packaged and sell to the general consumers, old folks and professors alike. They should have thought of the after-sale consquence.
    The FIs have the case to answer. I should leave it the professor to look into this. Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  25. btw, FD rates were never at 2% across the board.

    remember, each bank offers different FD rates. some were giving 5% or 10-10 or whatever promotional offers.

    so there is no basis to say an investor should be aware of the FD rate difference to minibond.

    ReplyDelete
  26. adego,
    what you are saying is already cliched now and i must remind you that you are barking up the wrong tree. The issue is mis-selling and misrepresentation
    to the man in the street, uncle and aunties. You think that these people are as clever as you , able to understand risk/reward trade off.But you must remember no one knew the trade off of the minibomb is disproportionate ie. 5% return against 100% risk( whole life lunch for some) and they also didn't realise that they were the insurers.This was not disclosed and the product was misrepresented as low risk or no risk and the RMs mis-sold it as some bond/FD but it turned out to be a bomb.
    I hope you are clear and that you won't 'char' with your caveat emptor crap. Common sense will tell you that if one can avoid paying by finger pointing why not try.Blame game is a simple game ,. right.But good try.

    Adious

    ReplyDelete
  27. prof needs to do some research. lehman is a 14 year old company with a 158 year old NAME.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Warren Buffett is a senior citizen. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Adious,
    Singapore has one of the highest educated workforce in the world.

    when investors of minibond lost their life savings, they said they are 'uncles and aunties' who does not know much.

    Let's look at the 'vulnerable groups', u may wish to check it out, how many % belong to this group?

    missing the point on caveat emptor?
    u just don't have the depth to understand...
    I 'published' the rate of returns on those low risk investment, that serves as 'market benchmark', anything excess is considered 'free lunch'. Is there free lunch in this world, yes, sometimes. but when the RMs are selling these products aggressively, din't you ask why they keep offering 'free lunch' so happily? think again. caveat emptor applies.
    u get it? nut head

    I did not disagree with issues of mis-selling, however, the food chain involves several parties, including investors, without this big group, we will not be arguing here! I am just addressing the problems of this group. It's a problematic food chain, begins from greedy CEOs, highly paid financial engineers, quota driven RMs, yield-hungry investors, there u go, the party begins...

    when u say 'common sense', why are there doctors and professors got themselves trapped with minibond? don't they have more of common sense than the common folks? from hindsight, everything is common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  30. adego said...
    The question should be, 'Did the investors do their homework?'

    Why is there a 'free lunch' that offers 5% or 6%p.a. over 5 or 6 years?
    And lose all of your life saving when you just need any 1 out of 8 RE collapse?
    Did adego do the homework?

    Btw, GST is 7%,
    CPF 4%, Electricity 21%,
    Inflation 6%,
    are you saying the gov are having free buffet?

    ReplyDelete
  31. One consequence of what the professor has written is that there are now two groups of investors of the money losing structured products and minibonds:
    1. the senior citizens who "do not and cannot understand: and therefore should be compensated and 2. the other investors (who presumably understand the risks fully and therefore should be left empty handed or at best given minimum compensation.Sounds famliar?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Adego

    When I bought Minibond Series 1 (4%p.a.) in Apr 2006, the 5-year SGS bond at that time was slightly above 3% p.a.

    The additional interest rate of <1% p.a. is only small enough for me to accept:
    (1) lock-in period of 5.5 yr
    (2) partial loss on 1 credit event
    BUT not
    (3) loss even when there's no
    credit event, which is the case
    now for Minibond!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Steven,

    You have done your homework, however, there's one more step to weigh the risk / reward. to some extent is qualitative works...

    I did spent some hours to study some other structured products, the lock-in is some kind of 'profit killer' and of course tie us down on liquidity.
    And this kind of product usually deduct the fee at inception, which could be as high as 7% to 9%(inclusive management fees for years ahead)

    doing homework could also mean by asking lots of questions. sgporeans lacks the ability to ask questions, I mean good questions.

    You mentioned 'loss even when there's no credit event...'
    If there is non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of this product, the parties involved will be accountable. Legal actions shall follow.

    it's important to assess how does the structure work.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The <1% or 1% interest is purported to deceive those 'non-vulnerable' group - ie. below 62 yrs old & education level above Primary 6 into buying a safe BOND (3% or 3+%). Who should check? MAS-the regulator? FIs - the distributors, agents of the issuers? FA/RMs, employees of the distributor? The 'non-vulnerable' group noteholders? CHEAT? MISREPRESENTAION? COMPLACENCY?

    Why compare the <1 or 1% to safe BOND 3% or 3+%? Why didn't go to the root of the high return it should yield with such an enormously high risk? The premium collected from the imaginary BOND associated with the REs & the premium collected from the extremely high risk CDOs go to WHO? Are there not the issuers & distributor benefited from the capital provided by the note holders.
    In short, the noteholders' 100% capital at risk contributes to the MAS's SP Asia finanical hub prospect, Issuers & distributors fat pocket collection.
    Who has stolen 'the free lunch'?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dr Lan,

    Cut your story short, use your professor status advice our PM or MAS to order the FIs to label the risk level on every pricing statement ot prospectus. for examples: DBS HN5 : Risk level 8 (scale 1 to 10, announced by DBS MD Mr Raju)
    MiniBond: Risk level 9
    NCPS : Risk level 2
    Unit Trust: Risk level 5
    In this case all investors will go in with eyes open and able to take their own responsibilities and no mis-selling will happen. It is so simple and yet so difficult to our authorities.

    Zhong

    ReplyDelete
  36. Professor Lan, I suggest u write an article on those who had been misled instead of just parrot what the PM said. U had simplify it like there are only 2 groups, one deserve compensation, the other deserve to lose their money. If u had not been misled, on what basis u make yr comment, academic or feeling or u want to join the next election?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dear Luh Luh, MOST normal investors (people who are not 62 years old or older and have primary school education) are NOT financially savvy. I am a MBA holder and I am bewildered by all the complicated legal and financial jargons in the prospectus. So pls do not assume that we are SUPPOSED to be savvy.

    Do yourself a favour and try reading one and see how much you understand.

    Besides, RMs do not provide the investors with the pricing statement or prospectus upfront or review the latter with them. So kindly stop assuming that investors are given adequate knowledge of the products and their risks.

    Anyway, the best thing to do for now:

    DON'T TRUST THE BANKS AND DON'T BUY ANY FINANCIAL PRODUCTS
    (unless you are able to understand all the relevant documents and the accompanied risks)

    With government guarantee, we can still put our hard earned savings in saving accounts and fixed deposits.

    Forget about trying to earn enough interest to cover the 6% inflation.

    I know this is extremist view but what choices do I have since I can't trust the banks and RMs to tell the truth and the prospectus is too complicated for me (a normal investor).

    ReplyDelete
  38. MBA so what? Financial Controller of a MNC for 20+ years also declared he cannot fully understand the prospectus. Prof Lan should read them from front to back before she made those one-sided comment. And prepare some Panadol before you start reading.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Professor Lan,

    I have a Diploma in Investment, Diploma in Life Insurance as well as full insurance qualifications and also Chartered Financial Consultant charter. In all my studies, my lecturer keeps on emphaizing the importance of due diligence, code of ethics, integrity, honesty, etc.. My point here is not merely stringent requirements as to the qualifications, experience, training, financial literacy prior to selling these products.

    I come across many Financial Services Consultant, RM, Private Banker, etc.. have the relevant qualifications and experiences but did not practice professionalism, code of ethics and intergrity in their duties towards the client. At the end of the day, it is the investor who is at a disadvantage because he/she trusted and depended on their Advisor and yet is unware that he/she has been
    mis-led into buying the products.

    ReplyDelete