I'd like to applaud Betsy for her point-by-point rebuttal on DBS Chairman. She wasn't bragging in her interview at the Speaker's Corner on the education during the good old days. Perhaps, we can have a table with the official statements from banks/FIs/MAS/professors/journalists/etc on the left-hand-side, and a correspnding list of arguments on the right-hand-side. In this way, it will be clear from 2 perspectives, and let 700,000 or less visitors take a poll which side are they with? The authorities can also use this excercise to guage, not only 10,000 affected investors, but the average man-in-the-street feels about the whole episode.
Please may I appeal to all visitors to this blog and others to warn your relatives and friends and colleagues to be very very very careful when they step into a bank, like dbs.
If people we trust do not look after us, and, instead, insult our intelligence, we have to organise ourselves to seek the justice due to us.
Gather all your relatives, friends and colleagues for a get-together in Hong Lim Park this Saturday and at every meeting, to show we do matter, and to learn how cunning trusted institutions are with your money. If you are unable to, tell them to visit this blog and many others that provide useful information for the difficult situation they are in.
This open letter (to Chairman of DBS Bank) should be published in all local main media so that more local readers can have a better understanding of the 'toxic strucurued products issues'.
All local readers can read 'with their eyes opened' and ' do the right thing in future'.
One of the best comments I've read about CPF http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/11/singaporean-57-employed-married-but-cannot-buy-hdb-flat/ 30) feedmetothefish on November 12th, 2008 8.53 pm Add karma Subtract karma +0 CPF is actually a mirage!
When Mr Silvalinkam started work as a young man, they told him that he could withdraw all his CPF savings at age 55. CPF shifted the goalposts. They then forced him to put some in Medisave. CPF shifted the goalposts. They the forced him to put some in Medifund. CPF shifted the goalposts again. Then they told him he could not get it all out at 55. CPF shifted the goalposts again. The forced him put some in Minimum Sum that can be taken out at age 62. CPF shifted the goalposts again. Cannot take out lump sum at 62. Can only get it back in monthly instalment. CPF shifted the goalposts again. If he were younger, they’d force him to leave it till 67 Again, CPF shifted the goalposts. Now poor blokes under 50 must continue to put some until 85 or death, which ever come first. Should you die before 85, you’d lose . . . you get zilch. . unless you paid them more earlier. Should you survive after 85, you’ll get a fraction (in monthly instalment) of what you’re forced to put it earlier. Oh, the shifting goalposts hasn’t stop yet. Being as old as Mr Silvalinkam, I’ve been there and done that, screwed! Thank God, I’m too old to be sucker-punched by Longevity Noodle Annuity forced by CPF. HDB & CPF have lost the reason of being. HDB is no longer building affordable houses for Singaporeans. CPF is no longer meant as savings or retirement fund for Singaporeans. HDB and CPF with their “honourable” facade are instruments used to serve the greed, power and the addictive needs of a chosen few. In putting an altruistic front of doing good for the nation, they, like gamblers and addicts, have thrown our good hard earned money through their gambling of Suzhou, ShinCorp, Merrill Lynch, UBS and of course, ABC Learning and very soon, LVS gambling dens at Marina. They play with your money. They play you. They claim they are taking good care of you? If they really take care, Mr Silvalinkam should not be sleeping in Bishan Park and risks being fined $200 by NParks.
I still cannot get over the deafening silence of those (paid millions to take care of Singaporeans) on 22% increase of electricity tariffs. Is such profiteering justified? Thanks for letting this fogey let it off his chest. feedmetothefish.
This is another example of how the not-to-be-trusted bankers of the world operate - conspiracy at the highest levels of the bank to cheat the government.
And our sovereign funds are invested in such banks - UBS, Merrill Lynch ( which manufactured one of the poisonous products inflicting pain on our people ), etc ???
one cannot run a country like enterprise. ' Liew Pei' won the heart before he became a King. And he always care for the people. money comes and goes, never trust american bankers for the NEXT 100 YEARS. No AIA, NO Boeing, NO Starbucks, NO MacD. No Apple, NO DELL, NO IBM, NO Ipod, NO COCACOLA>....he he, No microsoft we cannot blog anymore
I feel a lot of pple, the 'victims' so included, are NOT carrying the right, or rather, honest perspective on their PERSONAL responsibility on this matter.
I am almost certain this brutal observation alone will create as much hoohas as they are trying to create FOR themselves.
From the interview, you can see that DBS Chairman is more interested in the profits and growth of DBS than the helpless investors. He talks so much about overhauling the sales tactics and his parting shot is we ...to work extremely hard to re-earn their trust. Very little is said about how investors got into that big hole and how many investors are compensated and many much more are left frustrated.
I REFER to the media reports on the retrenchment exercise by DBS Bank.
I remember that during the last bad recession of 2001-2002, the government and union leaders had worked very hard to push through several proposals to help companies and employees deal with unexpected slowdowns in future. One of the key proposals was the implementation of the monthly variable component (MVC) and/or annual variable component (AVC) mechanism.
This was basically a flexible salary arrangement that employers could build into their wage systems during good times, and which could be relied upon as a first step to help companies cope with unexpected business downturns.
The idea was that companies could first cut workers' salaries (by up to 30 per cent) to help them cut costs instead of taking the more painful step of retrenching staff.
This was actively promoted to companies in Singapore and although not all companies incorporated this wage mechanism into their pay systems, the Singapore banks (including DBS) were among the first to do so.
Now that the time has come to activate the above mechanism, DBS has instead chosen the path of least resistance by retrenching 900 staff. It is still early days in our economic slowdown and I find that DBS has jumped the gun in opting for such a quick and massive retrenchment exercise. It sends all sorts of wrong signals and does not bode well for the future as more companies will be tempted to follow the same route.
I have some questions:
Why did DBS not use the MVC/AVC mechanism first to cope with the downturn in business (it was reported that DBS's Q3 net profit has slumped to $379 million - still a decent profit and not a loss).
Were the unions consulted on the retrenchment exercise? If yes, why did they not press DBS to use the MVC/AVC mechanism first before considering such a massive retrenchment exercise? Even in the last recession, I remember DBS had retrenched just 160 staff.
A good system need not be changed. If the DBS chairman has claimed that changes will be made, indirectly he also acknowledged that the present system is not good enough and have some loopholes. As the Chinese saying, "Failure is the mother of success", to make changes afte committing mistake is applauable, but the loss of investors' monies have also be addressed. DBS cannot just learn the lesson and let the investors paid for it!! HS
Yes, I do feel a personal responsibility in the whole matter - a responsibility for not reading the prospectus/pricing statement given to me AFTER I had signed to buy the Minbonds, by then it would be too late to back out anyway since there was no cooling period.
Yes, I do feel a personal responsibility in the whole matter - a responsibility for not reading the prospectus/pricing statement given to me AFTER I had signed to buy the Minbonds, by then it would be too late to back out anyway since there was no cooling period.
12:27 AM"
You sounded rational and sensible enough here.
Surely you ASKED for those supporting documents BEFORE you signed over?..Yes? No?
Btw I read your last statement "by then it would be too late to back out anyway since there was no cooling period." with jest.
You really sounded you blame the system and everyone else, EXCEPT yourself.
To 3.03pm: I guess you are not one of the 10,000 affected investors? There are plenty of people like you who come to this blog, read the comments, ridicule the writers and pass judgment on them.
I'd like to applaud Betsy for her point-by-point rebuttal on DBS Chairman. She wasn't bragging in her interview at the Speaker's Corner on the education during the good old days. Perhaps, we can have a table with the official statements from banks/FIs/MAS/professors/journalists/etc on the left-hand-side, and a correspnding list of arguments on the right-hand-side. In this way, it will be clear from 2 perspectives, and let 700,000 or less visitors take a poll which side are they with? The authorities can also use this excercise to guage, not only 10,000 affected investors, but the average man-in-the-street feels about the whole episode.
ReplyDeleteCh
Please may I appeal to all visitors to this blog and others to warn your relatives and friends and colleagues to be very very very careful when they step into a bank, like dbs.
ReplyDeleteIf people we trust do not look after us, and, instead, insult our intelligence, we have to organise ourselves to seek the justice due to us.
Gather all your relatives, friends and colleagues for a get-together in Hong Lim Park this Saturday and at every meeting, to show we do matter, and to learn how cunning trusted institutions are with your money. If you are unable to, tell them to visit this blog and many others that provide useful information for the difficult situation they are in.
Dear all ,
ReplyDeleteThis open letter (to Chairman of DBS Bank) should be published in all local main media so that more local readers can have a better understanding of the 'toxic strucurued products issues'.
All local readers can read 'with their eyes opened' and ' do the right thing in future'.
Paulson said not to bail out TOXIC CDOS...today. Mati lor.
ReplyDeleteMeans all the trustee and assurance will get '0'=zero.
Now we starts ' BOYCOTT US PRODUCTS'
Dear all ,
ReplyDeleteFollowing is latest update from HK regarding Minibond and related LB products :
" 港立法会小组委员会获授权调查雷曼事件
(2008-11-13）
在亲建制的民建联及自由党都“转軚”支持下，香港立法会昨日投票通过引用《权力及特权条例》，赋予立法会小组委员会权力调查雷曼事件。
在两日内态度180度转变、由乐观转为悲观的金融界议员李国宝，昨日结上黑领带及白袋巾出席动议辩论，以示“心已死”。他强调，调查国际银行的资料，将损害香港的金融中心地位。
另外，会计界的陈茂波及汇贤智库的叶刘淑均担心，调查雷曼事件会拖延银行与苦主的和解进展，而且希望港府、金融界及各界别，能先集中精神应付当前金融危机。
不过，更多的议员支持该动议，强调调查并非是迫使银行作赔偿，而是要从法律及机制上，找出事件真相，是否存在流弊，并加以堵塞，避免同类事件再发生。议案在功能组别、地区直选两个组别，都分别以大比数获支持获通过。
支持决议案的民主党甘乃威认为，在雷曼事件上，银行界的销售手法及香港的金融监管机构都出现问题，事件已影响了香港国际金融中心地位。
公民党立法会议员余若薇表示，立法会过去曾有调查私人机构的经验，而外国也有同类例子，因此，绝不会是开了一个坏的先例。
多名议员有备而来, 灭火筒黑箱齐亮相
多名议员在动议辩论中均早有准备，有议员带来灭火筒，讽刺港府“灭火无力”；也有议员带来黑箱，指出港府及银行在处理雷曼事件采取闭门的手法。
在立法会大楼门外，300多名购买雷曼相关产品的投资者高叫口号，声援议员支持通过议案。其中有苦主情绪激动，向立法会大楼跪拜及行走一圈，祈求议员支持通过特权法。
而逾300名在星展银行购买雷曼相关投资产品的投资者，在请愿后还分别前往星展位于中环的总行及新加坡驻港领事馆抗议。
香港财经事务及库务局长陈家强表示，港府及监管机构在雷曼事件中，调查时不会姑息违规销售行为。
他说，截至上星期五，金管局已向证监会转介96宗涉及五间分销银行的投诉；此外，截至上星期四，金管局已就约700宗投诉展开调查，同时正就约3100宗投诉搜集资料。
陈家强也说，银行公会及分销银行已就抵押品估值的计算方法取得共识，可望于12月初为所有有价值的迷你债券作回购工作。"
One of the best comments I've read about CPF
ReplyDeletehttp://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/11/singaporean-57-employed-married-but-cannot-buy-hdb-flat/
30) feedmetothefish on November 12th, 2008 8.53 pm Add karma Subtract karma +0
CPF is actually a mirage!
When Mr Silvalinkam started work as a young man, they told him that he could withdraw all his CPF savings at age 55.
CPF shifted the goalposts.
They then forced him to put some in Medisave.
CPF shifted the goalposts.
They the forced him to put some in Medifund.
CPF shifted the goalposts again.
Then they told him he could not get it all out at 55.
CPF shifted the goalposts again.
The forced him put some in Minimum Sum that can be taken out at age 62.
CPF shifted the goalposts again.
Cannot take out lump sum at 62. Can only get it back in monthly instalment.
CPF shifted the goalposts again.
If he were younger, they’d force him to leave it till 67
Again, CPF shifted the goalposts.
Now poor blokes under 50 must continue to put some until 85 or death, which ever come first.
Should you die before 85, you’d lose . . . you get zilch. . unless you paid them more earlier.
Should you survive after 85, you’ll get a fraction (in monthly instalment) of what you’re forced to put it earlier.
Oh, the shifting goalposts hasn’t stop yet.
Being as old as Mr Silvalinkam, I’ve been there and done that, screwed!
Thank God, I’m too old to be sucker-punched by Longevity Noodle Annuity forced by CPF.
HDB & CPF have lost the reason of being.
HDB is no longer building affordable houses for Singaporeans. CPF is no longer meant as savings or retirement fund for Singaporeans.
HDB and CPF with their “honourable” facade are instruments used to serve the greed, power and the addictive needs of a chosen few.
In putting an altruistic front of doing good for the nation, they, like gamblers and addicts, have thrown our good hard earned money through their gambling of Suzhou, ShinCorp, Merrill Lynch, UBS and of course, ABC Learning and very soon, LVS gambling dens at Marina.
They play with your money.
They play you.
They claim they are taking good care of you?
If they really take care, Mr Silvalinkam should not be sleeping in Bishan Park and risks being fined $200 by NParks.
I still cannot get over the deafening silence of those (paid millions to take care of Singaporeans) on 22% increase of electricity tariffs. Is such profiteering justified?
Thanks for letting this fogey let it off his chest.
feedmetothefish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/business/worldbusiness/13ubs.html?em
ReplyDeleteUBS Executive Indicted in U.S. Inquiry
This is another example of how the not-to-be-trusted bankers of the world operate - conspiracy at the highest levels of the bank to cheat the government.
And our sovereign funds are invested in such banks - UBS, Merrill Lynch ( which manufactured one of the poisonous products inflicting pain on our people ), etc ???
one cannot run a country like enterprise.
ReplyDelete' Liew Pei' won the heart before he became a King. And he always care for the people.
money comes and goes, never trust american bankers for the NEXT 100 YEARS.
No AIA, NO Boeing, NO Starbucks, NO MacD. No Apple, NO DELL, NO IBM, NO Ipod, NO COCACOLA>....he he, No microsoft we cannot blog anymore
I feel a lot of pple, the 'victims' so included, are NOT carrying the right, or rather, honest perspective on their PERSONAL responsibility on this matter.
ReplyDeleteI am almost certain this brutal observation alone will create as much hoohas as they are trying to create FOR themselves.
The DBS Chairman must have thought selling derivative financial products can be done the same way like selling HP printers or selling char kway teow.
ReplyDeleteFrom the interview, you can see that DBS Chairman is more interested in the profits and growth of DBS than the helpless investors. He talks so much about overhauling the sales tactics and his parting shot is we ...to work extremely hard to re-earn their trust. Very little is said about how investors got into that big hole and how many investors are compensated and many much more are left frustrated.
ReplyDeleteQUOTE
ReplyDeleteI REFER to the media reports on the retrenchment exercise by DBS Bank.
I remember that during the last bad recession of 2001-2002, the government and union leaders had worked very hard to push through several proposals to help companies and employees deal with unexpected slowdowns in future. One of the key proposals was the implementation of the monthly variable component (MVC) and/or annual variable component (AVC) mechanism.
This was basically a flexible salary arrangement that employers could build into their wage systems during good times, and which could be relied upon as a first step to help companies cope with unexpected business downturns.
The idea was that companies could first cut workers' salaries (by up to 30 per cent) to help them cut costs instead of taking the more painful step of retrenching staff.
This was actively promoted to companies in Singapore and although not all companies incorporated this wage mechanism into their pay systems, the Singapore banks (including DBS) were among the first to do so.
Now that the time has come to activate the above mechanism, DBS has instead chosen the path of least resistance by retrenching 900 staff.
It is still early days in our economic slowdown and I find that DBS has jumped the gun in opting for such a quick and massive retrenchment exercise. It sends all sorts of wrong signals and does not bode well for the future as more companies will be tempted to follow the same route.
I have some questions:
Why did DBS not use the MVC/AVC mechanism first to cope with the downturn in business (it was reported that DBS's Q3 net profit has slumped to $379 million - still a decent profit and not a loss).
Were the unions consulted on the retrenchment exercise? If yes, why did they not press DBS to use the MVC/AVC mechanism first before considering such a massive retrenchment exercise? Even in the last recession, I remember DBS had retrenched just 160 staff.
Bernard Ong
Singapore
UNQUOTE
"...Very little is said about how investors got into that big hole and how many investors are compensated and many much more are left frustrated."
ReplyDeleteQuote of the Day
Who at DBS brought such toxic structured products in?
ReplyDeleteWas it Jackson Tai?
A good system need not be changed. If the DBS chairman has claimed that changes will be made, indirectly he also acknowledged that the present system is not good enough and have some loopholes.
ReplyDeleteAs the Chinese saying, "Failure is the mother of success", to make changes afte committing mistake is applauable, but the loss of investors' monies have also be addressed. DBS cannot just learn the lesson and let the investors paid for it!!
HS
Who at DBS brought such toxic structured products in?
ReplyDeleteWas it Jackson Tai?
AND KOH BOON HWEE
To 11.55 am:
ReplyDeleteYes, I do feel a personal responsibility in the whole matter - a responsibility for not reading the prospectus/pricing statement given to me AFTER I had signed to buy the Minbonds, by then it would be too late to back out anyway since there was no cooling period.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteTo 11.55 am:
Yes, I do feel a personal responsibility in the whole matter - a responsibility for not reading the prospectus/pricing statement given to me AFTER I had signed to buy the Minbonds, by then it would be too late to back out anyway since there was no cooling period.
12:27 AM"
You sounded rational and sensible enough here.
Surely you ASKED for those supporting documents BEFORE you signed over?..Yes? No?
Btw I read your last statement "by then it would be too late to back out anyway since there was no cooling period." with jest.
You really sounded you blame the system and everyone else, EXCEPT yourself.
To 3.03pm:
ReplyDeleteI guess you are not one of the 10,000 affected investors? There are plenty of people like you who come to this blog, read the comments, ridicule the writers and pass judgment on them.