Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Intention to deceive?

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Intention to deceive?

Comment posted in my blog

Being a victim of Minibond, I can't help but to suspect:

(1) swap ctt, reference entities are just smoke screens to divert our attention from the underlying securities, CDO

(2) could the real purpose be: to get rid of the toxic CDO?

If above suspicions are true, then the intention to deceive starts from the product design stage! We will have a strong case to demand compensation, whether in FIDRec or Court.

Only the authorities have the rights to open the records/ correspondences in the arranger & issuer, & determine whether (1) & (2) are true or false.

If true, bring the culprits to Court on behalf of the investors! If false, at least the investors know the truth.

I'm pinning my hope on HKMA and MAS.

12 comments:

ym said...: banks will only sell things they do not want..

in fact, things that they do want, they will design the product such that you sell it to them..; November 02, 2008 4:38 PM
Anonymous said...: I feel that you should listen to the BBC documentary posted recently in October.

There are suggestion that seems to point to your suspicion, where it state that bank are repackaging their losses into financial product sold to consumer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2008/10/081022_failure_or_fraud.shtml; November 02, 2008 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...: YM is right. Why should bank do you a favour and sell your something that help you make money. One example is the callable structured deposit. If the bank continues to pay you low interest based on the formula of the structured deposit, you will get stuck with the low interest or no interest till maturity. But if the market conditions turn against the bank and it has to pay you higher interest than market, then the bank will happily terminate the deposit. Investors are only in losing situation. Never buy anything from the banks that is callable.; November 02, 2008 6:04 PM
Unknown said...: Wilson is rite, dun buy anything callable. But how many ppl really is savvy enuf to understand & identify it?

But i do hope wilson's advise will help those who do understand.

And to the blog msg... you are pinning hope on MAS? I don't know much of HKMA, but we can only hope MAS will follow if HKMA is gg to be successful.

I won't hav high hopes for MAS to really come up with smthg original to help investor, other than following HKMA (or other Authorities around the Globe, for that matter).; November 02, 2008 9:28 PM
Anonymous said...: To pin your hope on HKMA would have a better chance than MAS. MAS' stand is very clear --- your problem is yours to solve.; November 02, 2008 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: If indeed there is a scam scheme in the structured product/fraud, MAS should step in without hesitation. We want our financial institutions to be open, transparent & have integrtity which Singapore is well-known for worldwide!!; November 03, 2008 7:04 AM
Anonymous said...: I suspected that too. Most of the products pushed by DBS's RMs are like gambling. I suspect that to lower Banks' exposure, the Banks took those toxic products from their portfolio and packaged and sold them to unsuspecting loyal customers. They knew that they could not sell them in the open market without incuring a loss, so, the easy targets were people like us for them to exploit.; November 03, 2008 8:47 AM
Anonymous said...: I have been referred by a fellow victim investor to an article in IHT which suggests that this is a global scam ( seehttp://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/02/business/02global.php : )

I think we may have a reasonable case for a class action suit if it can be established that in each jurisdiction that the product was sold,

1) local reference entities were included to lull the targetted market that they were exposed to only safe names that they are familiar with whereas the real risk was the universe of 125 CDOs
2) no serious studies were made to establish a strong risk correlation between the two categories of debt ie the reference obligations and the CDOs. This is their only defensible argument to use the local names as reference entities if deceit as mentioned in para 1) was not the aim.

For the Minibond series 1 the cold comfort local refence entities were DBS Bank and Singtel. I do not know what were the local names used for the other series or products. But if in all cases the same 125 names were the "other" investment universe then there appears strong suggestions of deceit.

For more effective action this should be pursued simultaneously if not jointly across other markets where such products were sold.

Hope that investors in other toxic products can verify if para 1) holds true and if the two legal firms who have expressed interest in assisting hapless investors can comment. Many tks.; November 03, 2008 1:02 PM
freeier said...: don't speculate.
alot of this chain of related comments regarding the technical part of the product is not accurate and it will only stirr more emotion than solve problem at this juncture.; November 03, 2008 2:49 PM
Anonymous said...: How certain are you that it is not accurate? Were you working in Lehman Bro? Are you in the industry? I was...this is a plausible scenario IMHO; November 03, 2008 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Whether it is the truth or not, no one would admit, BUT, IF you are EASY targets, then you ARE easy targets.

Blame your poor judgement. Its YOUR money. Dont try to take on the bull by its horn when you havent worn your gloves.

It might be an expensive lesson, but take it as a one learnt, please.; November 03, 2008 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: To 4:57pm

Your comments how clearly you do not understand the crux of the issue we are discussing on this blog ! Mis-selling and Mispresentation !! This is FRAUD !!

If you claim you understand, then you must be from one of the FIs !!!; November 10, 2008 12:02 AM