Dear Mr. Tan
After reading the explanations from many financial experts, I realize that the real risk for the minibond is the 150 securities CDO.
Out of the 150 securities, if 11 or more credits events then the investor will loose some of their principal. If 13 or more credit events then investors will lose all of their principal.
The risk for this condition is extremely high because this is equivalent to any 2 credit events out of 23 securities (or any 1 out of 11.5).
Since bank should be much safer than others, it is not unreasonable to assume that on average, the risk of one security is 2 times the risk of one bank Then the risk of 13 or more credit events will be about 23 times (2 x 150/13 = 23.1) the risk of credit event for one bank
Moreover, the pricing statement did not disclose the identities of the 150 securities referenced by the synthetic CDO. This makes it difficult for us to assess the risk. The sales brochures and newspaper advertisements did not even mention the 150 securities CDO.
Can we sue the Financial Institutions for the omitting of these important information in the pricing statement/sales brochures/newspaper advertisements ?
In my view, this omission is material. The investors can sue the financial institution.
It is better for the government to act and take action to enforce the law (i.e. Securities and Futures Act) which requires the seller of securities to provide relevant, reliable and complete information about the securities being sold to the public.
- ► 2013 (304)
- ► 2012 (1270)
- ► 2011 (1873)
- ► 2010 (2369)
- ► 2009 (1655)
11/16 - 11/23
- Assessment of liability
- Risk analysis form
- Misrepresentation about the risk of CDOs
- Complaints in Hong Kong and Taiwan
- Damage to integrity and character
- Writing to a Government official
- Writing to your Member of Parliament
- Your experience with credit linked notes
- Selling toxic CDO products
- How RMs are taught to sell financial products
- Social grace in commenting in other people's blog
- Mental health concerns during difficult times
- Much to learn from American politics
- Top up on margin calls
- Relief loans to repay credit card debts
- Poor return from Living policy
- Lodge your complaint now, before the fund collapse...
- Straits Times deleted these sentences
- Sieze the opportunity
- Explanation on CDS - Vanguard's Bogle
- Personal values and characters
- Our Continued Fascination with wall street bankers...
- A tsunami of hope or terror
- How I was misled (3)
- Investing in ETF
- NTUC Income shares
- Bank Negara Zeti appointed to financial reform tas...
- Town councils should take legal action for mis-sel...
- CPF Medishield
- Ask MAS to provide guidelines on mis-selling
- A doctor's definition of caveat emptor
- Reply to Chua Sheng Yang
- Comment on statement by Minister of Finance
- George Washington and the cherry tree
- Revosave and Vivolife
- Pinnacle Notes 9 and 10
- Asians fail to join class action claims
- Local Banks still focused on garnering new sales a...
- High risk of credit linked notes
- None Are So Blind As Those Who Will Not See The Tr...
- My blog and its target audience
- Match investors' needs
- Islamic investment products
- Remembering Mohideen Gany
- Interview of investors on Blogs
- Publish a book on Credit Linked Notes
- Lawyers able to act on credit linked notes
- How I was misled (2)
- Speech at Speaker's Corner - 15 Nov 2008
- Pinnacle Notes value as at 14 Nov 2008
- Check the weekly prices of your credit linked note...
- Ask for your risk analysis form
- Barclays AREIT
- Invitation to investors who bought from UOB Kay Hi...
- How I was misled (1)
- Mibibond has return of 3 (on scale) and risk of 9
- Wayang Party
- Lesson from China: Hu Jintao
- Lesson from President-elect Obama
- Write directly to MAS and your MP
- G20 and G8
- There are still regulations in Singapore
- ▼ 11/16 - 11/23 (62)
- ► 2007 (1803)
- ► 2006 (696)
- ► 2005 (159)