Hi Mr Tan Kin Lian
Our family and friends are very appreciative of your good cause and perseverence to fight for justice for the oppressed. We thank God for your righteousness.
A few key things I would like to summarize here after a long episode of struggle since the fateful day of 15 Sep 08 of Lehman collapse for "a just and fair" resolution resulting in nothing but a fatal rejection. This case is "DBS" High Notes 5 mis-selling.
We feel so helpless and victimised because the product was a DBS product sold as a very safe and low risk product like a FD but later turned out to be such a complex product that we do not even understand, and how is it that we became the "insurer" of the bank?
I wrote letters to the CEO and MD of Consumer Banking, copied MAS and FIDReC. There was no reply to specific questions asked, including:
- The 31 Mar 08 letter to investors from Brandon Lam of DBS which "emphasise that none of the DBS High Notes has any direct exposure to US subprime mortgage-backed securities." Why did this contradict the event of Lehman Brothers.
- The 31 Mar 08 letter to investors from Brandon Lam of DBS stated that "it would take several underlying reference entities in the collateral to suffer Credit Events before investors suffer a loss to their principal amount." Why did a single event of Lehman Brothers lead to zero redemption when there are 8 reference entities?
- The 27 Jun 08 letter from Brandon Lam of DBS urging investors to hold "DBS" High Notes as he said "DBS High Notes are designed to be held to maturity". Why DBS did not uphold its due diligence to safeguard the investment of the people but misled us to hold the funds and later turned around and said that it's zero value? This is "DBS" High Notes, carried under its name.
- Why there is no explicit and clear explanation of the risks associated with this product during sales?
- Why pricing statement and prospectus were not given and explained during sales?
- Why did the RM still claim the product is low risk but the MD admitted that it is high risk in the scale of 8 out of 10?
- Why the product is so complex, yet the RM thought that it is a simple FD kind of investment?
MAS remains on the sideline without any comments. They said they cannot be involved in getting the bank to compensate for the loss or mis-representation. They said they can fine and warn the bank for wrong practice, but we lost our hard-earn money for them to correct their processes and practice?
We are not financially nor legally trained. We wish to know why the authority is also so helpless towards such mis-selling of a financial product that impact so many people.
God help us. For the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous and His ears are open to their cry. When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears and delivers them
from all their distresses and troubles.
You see, the Lord is close to those who have a broken heart, and saves such who are crushed with sorrow and are humbly penitent. We claim this promise. Amen.
- ► 2019 (1610)
- ► 2018 (1406)
- ► 2017 (1258)
- ► 2016 (828)
- ► 2015 (691)
- ► 2014 (144)
- ► 2013 (501)
- ► 2012 (1269)
- ► 2011 (1873)
- ► 2010 (2369)
- ► 2009 (1654)
11/09 - 11/16
- New swap counter party to replace Lehman Brothers
- God help the righteous
- High risk is not disclosed in Prospectus
- High risk of credit linked notes, inadequate retur...
- Retrenchment Loan
- Complexity of Credit Linked Notes
- Be careful if you wish to redeem your credit linke...
- Banker fill up complaint form, but did not disclos...
- Structured products linked to Lehman Brothers
- Why You Need to be at Hong Lim Park Tomorrow (15 N...
- Retrenchment and its impact on Singaporeans
- SCMP:Divine intervention in Legco debate
- Adequate saving for retirement
- Financial Advice for Young People
- Reuters: Financial crisis politically awakens Sing...
- Hear the voices of High Note 2 investors
- Open letter to chairman of DBS Bank
- Unexpected surge - 700,000 visitors to my blog
- Trustees act to terminate the swaps
- SCMP:Approval ratings of finance chiefs drop
- Rebuttal to "invest with your eyes open"
- SCMP:Legco probe best hope for minibond mess
- Morgan Stanley hotline for Pinnacle notes
- Accountabiliy, transparency and social justice
- Reply from MAS on the 3 petitions
- Letter to Prime Minister on Credit Linked Notes
- Speaker's Corner - 15 November 2008
- Sunday Times article on Petitions
- Call to the Government to be fair to the affected ...
- Business Times: Look at pricing structure, risk di...
- SCMP:Time to reconsider class action lawsuits
- SCMP:Two investors reach settlement with bank befo...
- SCMP:Legco likely to pass bill on minibond investi...
- New Paper: Structured Products: "What banks don't ...
- CBS Videos on derivatives, etc
- Obama's Speech at Election Night
- Did the RM explain "first to default" ?
- Sued for misleading investors
- Joseph Stiglitz
- Quality of financial advice and fact find
- Leadership styles
- Investigate the creators of the structured product...
- Decisions of FiDREC
- Investors should be aware about the risk: MM
- HK: Probe into minibonds bankers wins support
- Credit default of Pinnacle Notes Series 9
- Loss in the Singapore reserves
- Obama's Day
- Is this fair?
- SCMP:Bank admits substandard tactics
- SCMP:Minibonds meeting ends in recriminations
- Exchange currency in a bank - an analogy
- Rejection letter by DBS
- ▼ 11/09 - 11/16 (53)
- ► 2007 (1803)
- ► 2006 (696)
- ► 2005 (159)