According to the MAS statement, the investors would be informed about the compensation offer in stages over the next few weeks. This could explain why so few investors have received their offer of compensation so far.
Someone observed that the compensation offer is not as generous and reported. Most of the full compensation are for the minibonds where the amounts invested were smaller and there is still residual value.
Only a small percentage of investors get full or high compensation for the high notes, where the amounts invested are higher.
It is useful to look at the total amount that is invested and compensated in the various categories.
For stockbroking firms, only 13% of investors will be compensated. The 13% covers both full and partial compensation. This means that 87% of investors will not get a single cent. Is this correct?
For claims above S$50,000, FIDReC will be able to adjudicate such claims if either the FI agrees to allow FIDReC to hear the claim or the investor agrees to limit his claim to S$50,000. Most FIs have indicated they will agree to FIDReC adjudicating claims above S$50,000 on a case-by-case basis. A few FIs have agreed to allow FIDReC to adjudicate all claims up to a limit of S$75,000.
Meaning u invest above 50k, you are finished? How fair is that?
How about those who have yet to complain...? Logically, these mis-selling are so obvious and prevalent....it is quite a joke that we still need to complain to get an obvious "Mis-Selling compensation...58% of complaints are being compensated...these are the Solid proofs that the Miss-Selling are so outrages.
The independent adviser came to my house to persuade me to buy. I am not aware of the product or their launch bec I find it to costly to buy newspaper. But I don't get a single cents. Is this ridiculus???
It doesn't make sense that compensation is not full when mis-selling is recognised as the underlying cause. Mis-selling amounts to cheating. Isn't cheating a crime? There must be full restitution by the wrong doers. It is unfair that age and lack of education are used as criteria to judge whether there was mis -selling. In the many postings before we saw many VERY EDUCATED PhDs couldn't understand the working mechanism of structured products let alone investors without finance background. I think MAS is sticking to the disclosure based regime and wouldn't admit that it is not applicable to all products except stocks. While disclosure is useful and helpful to some but not to the vast majority of consumers. Advisory process requires the adviser to advise whether the product is good or bad and that is advisory and it requires expressing an opinion because the advisor is in the best position to know whether the product meets the consumers' needs and circumstances and not the consumers.Consumers CANNOT make INDEPENDENT decision It is sad that pride is behind MAS refusal to come clean of its mistakes. Legal action is preferred to shame all parties to this debacle.
How can the term ' Almost all elderly investors with little income, formal education or investment experience were compensated ' when mas never show us the numbers of elderly getting compensation. IT JUST SHOW US the % of cases being compensated. Even there is really 58%, who knows this 58% are cases in 5k or 10k? Why dont they give us the $ they paid out if they do instead of giving % of paid out? If you are the bank, will you paid out someone who invest 500k 60 yrs old with no income or 100 cases of 5k to make the book look good. Think about it!
A toxic product is a Toxic product. I received updates from my Financial Adviser Representative (FAR) on Minibond notes, and after receiving advice from him, bought the notes from a brokerage. I received a rejection letter from the brokerage firm. I will take this up with Fidrec, why the investigation process is not thorough or the resolution is not fair? Why "advice" from bank RM is different as "advice" from FAR who represented the brokerage?
MR TAN Please keep up the good work. I think the battle is not over. It is only the beginning. Let's wait and pray.
Most important is to see also the quantum of compensation in terms of VALUE. I think the numbers presented refers to cases. eg. If you compensate ONE small case and no action for the other ONE large case, you have 50% compensation in statistics.
Your reason that the lower percentage of compensation cases from the Stock Broking Firms is because the investors approached the Broking Firms is not correct. In my case, I did not approach the Broking firm, it was the rep from the stock broking who approached me over the phone and convinced me to purchase the product. I submitted my complaint, but was rejected by the Stock Broking firm without giving me any reasons.
Bought from IFA, the IFA hide behind "Introducer agreement", so we get nothing, is it fair??? A mis-selling is a mis-selling. Just bec we are not well verse in legal term we got """"""??? where is justice?
I agree with T.K.L. In transaction, there's a question of representation. Tied agents and bank RMs are usually deemed to represent the sale side of the equation, whereas independent brokers are usually deemed to represent the buy side.
When a product is found to be faulty or "toxic", you're likely to get more compensation if you're sold than if you bought.
On an overall basis, this certainly exceeded my expectation. More important to the monetary compensation is the restore to some extent of people’s confidence in the checks and balances in our financial system. I don’t even know my own outcome so my comments are impartial.
I would like to compliment MAS and the Financial Institutions for their efforts. And the independent persons who oversee the complaint handling process. And, last but not least, Mr. TAN Kin Lian (and many supporting volunteers) for taking the leadership and devoting his time to lead the efforts, rain or shine. Without his leadership and the support, I am sure we would not have gotten over 5,000 people going forward with the complaint process.
In a massive process like this, unfortunately not everyone will get full satisfaction. Now that I have confidence in the complaint handling process, I hope MAS and the Financial Institutions will continue the same spirit in the FIDReC process – particularly in working with the FI’s to raise the $50,000 FIDReC limit. Else I think we will end up with a lot of the remaining cases in court. Or we might have people losing more than $50,000 still going through the FIDReC process to get their case heard before moving on to the court system.
I setup my HK5D alias to challenge Singapore to be faster in this process. Singapore clearly won. And, I promised that I would change my alias to SG5D after Singapore won.
P.S. I just checked – SG5D has been taken. So, SG is indeed 5D after all :-)
The compensation from the brokers is almost zero despite they sent the misleading brochure to promote the sale of minibond to customers. Is not this the same as the RM approached the depositors to ask them to invest in the CLN? They even confirmed CLN were a safe porduct. Why the same product marketed by banks and brokers and yet having different responsibilities. Perhaps, the brokers should not be selling the product is the first place.
Raising claim limit above $50,000 to be tested at Fidric, what mentioned in Parliament and request to the FI are completely different.
I bought Minibonds from a brokerage, but through an IFA representative who spent almost 2 hours with me providing what I had perceived as "advice". I also have emails showing the "advice" given by IFA. Even Banks' RMs probably didn't spend as much time explaining the product to their clients. Irony is that Banks offer compensation.
But Brokerages together with IFAs hide behind the "Introducer" agreement, and simply give a "no reason to accede to your complaint" outcome, without thorough investigation or fair compensation.
Stockbroker firms are smart with their indirect tactics. Just hire some external party to do the promoting and let the investors approach themselves. They can then claim investors have already understood that's why they signed the contract.
Nice move. Very smart. Consumers should learn in the future to be ruthless against these people too. For every action, there will be a reaction.
Regardless of the outcome, be it 58% or 100%, I've already associated the banking industry as incompetent and selfish.
How in the world can you sell a service you can't be responsible for? Apparently you can, as taught.
I've learned a valuable lesson. One that teaches people that you can get away with anything if you play the moves correctly (legally), even if not ethically.
I heard the FAs had only a introducer agreement and NOT a distributor right with the banks and successful closures the FAs would get a referral fee. This agreement required the introducers ONLY to identify the prospects and the advisory process was left to the banks' advisers. It looks like the banks have reneged on the contract to avoid liabilities and compensation. This is no gentleman agreement anymore.
Though i am still waiting for my outcome, i would like to thank Mr Tan for all the things he did, without him, i don't think we could have so many investors get compensated. Thank you very much to Mr Tan and happy CNY to you and your family. Good health.
A group of us even more SUAY. The so-called INTRODUCER did not tell us he is acting in his limited capacity as INTRODUCER only. Instead he sent emails that product is safe etc, met up with us, told us about the products, then we signed forms to buy from BROKERAGE.
ALL OF US ALREADY RECEIVED REJECTION LETTER FROM BROKERAGE.
The INTRODUCER IFA also advised and sold us products, just like the BANKS' RMs. SO WHY WE DON'T GET COMPENSATION???? Just because the BROKER SIGNED SOME INTRODUCER AGREEMENT WITH THE IFA (WHICH WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT UNTIL NOW), IT ABSOLVED BOTH OF THEM THE RESPONSIBILITY !!!
MAS PLEASE RE-OPEN THE CASES FOR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND FAIR COMPENSATION!!!
Even I who bought Jubilee Notes from Broker without any introducer or IFA and no advice from Broker, the broker can still reject my claim. How do you compare Broker with the Banks when broker can claim exemption selling same toxic product?
If the brokerage or FI don't say that the product is safe, most people will not buy the product. Once bitten twice shy. Now everyone will wake up and spend time to read the fine print and ask more questions than before.
This is the most ridiculous result! The ability to claim refund depends on the party from whom we have purchased the toxic product. MAS, SURELY THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!!
I think MAS trying to put a good show to Hong Kong Monetary Authority. As the Class action is going to start next week in Hong Kong.
Still trying to tell the world, SG is number One Finanical Hub. With this Stupid reason, Same toxic products but have differnt outcome with Banks and Brokerage Houses.
100% Investors SHOULD BE COMPESNATED. There are no such things 50-50 or 30-70.
Someone observed that the compensation offer is not as generous and reported. Most of the full compensation are for the minibonds where the amounts invested were smaller and there is still residual value.
ReplyDeleteOnly a small percentage of investors get full or high compensation for the high notes, where the amounts invested are higher.
It is useful to look at the total amount that is invested and compensated in the various categories.
For stockbroking firms, only 13% of investors will be compensated. The 13% covers both full and partial compensation. This means that 87% of investors will not get a single cent. Is this correct?
ReplyDeleteFor claims above S$50,000, FIDReC will be able to adjudicate such claims if either the FI agrees to allow FIDReC to hear the claim or the investor agrees to limit his claim to S$50,000. Most FIs have indicated they will agree to FIDReC adjudicating claims above S$50,000 on a case-by-case basis. A few FIs have agreed to allow FIDReC to adjudicate all claims up to a limit of S$75,000.
ReplyDeleteMeaning u invest above 50k, you are finished? How fair is that?
WELL DONE! Mr. Tan
ReplyDeleteWithout your initiatives I doubt we will see the result today.
Cheers
MAS said investors will lose their compensation offer from the financial institutions if they go to FIDReC.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this tricky and like take it or lose it situation?
How not to accept since this condition clearly deterring the victims from escalating further..
I really praying hard now that my kins will be compensated in FULL
How about those who have yet to complain...? Logically, these mis-selling are so obvious and prevalent....it is quite a joke that we still need to complain to get an obvious "Mis-Selling compensation...58% of complaints are being compensated...these are the Solid proofs that the Miss-Selling are so outrages.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the tables, in future, it is still safer to buy from the banks than the other institutions.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mr Tan and all who has one or another "help to pull this together", which otherwise is lost and gone for good.
ReplyDeleteThe compensation from the brokers are lower than from the banks. Reason?
ReplyDeleteThe investors approached the brokers to buy the credit linked notes after reading the advertisements.
For the banks, the relationship managers approached the depositors to ask them to invest ub the credit linked notes.
I suspect that this is the key difference for the difference in the payouts.
The independent adviser came to my house to persuade me to buy.
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of the product or their launch bec I find it to costly to buy newspaper.
But I don't get a single cents.
Is this ridiculus???
Where is the justice????
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't make sense that compensation is not full when mis-selling is recognised as the underlying cause. Mis-selling amounts to cheating. Isn't cheating a crime? There must be full restitution by the wrong doers.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfair that age and lack of education are used as criteria to judge whether there was mis -selling.
In the many postings before we saw many VERY EDUCATED PhDs couldn't understand the working mechanism of structured products let alone investors without finance background.
I think MAS is sticking to the disclosure based regime and wouldn't admit that it is not applicable to all products except stocks. While disclosure is useful and helpful to some but not to the vast majority of consumers.
Advisory process requires the adviser to advise whether the product is good or bad and that is advisory and it requires expressing an opinion because the advisor is in the best position to know whether the product meets the consumers' needs and circumstances and not the consumers.Consumers CANNOT make INDEPENDENT decision
It is sad that pride is behind MAS refusal to come clean of its mistakes.
Legal action is preferred to shame all parties to this debacle.
MAS couldn't be bothered about the Pinnacle Notes investors!
ReplyDeleteNo mention of PN complains.
How can the term ' Almost all elderly investors with little income, formal education or investment experience were compensated ' when mas never show us the numbers of elderly getting compensation. IT JUST SHOW US the % of cases being compensated. Even there is really 58%, who knows this 58% are cases in 5k or 10k? Why dont they give us the $ they paid out if they do instead of giving % of paid out? If you are the bank, will you paid out someone who invest 500k 60 yrs old with no income or 100 cases of 5k to make the book look good. Think about it!
ReplyDeleteA toxic product is a Toxic product. I received updates from my Financial Adviser Representative (FAR) on Minibond notes, and after receiving advice from him, bought the notes from a brokerage. I received a rejection letter from the brokerage firm.
ReplyDeleteI will take this up with Fidrec, why the investigation process is not thorough or the resolution is not fair? Why "advice" from bank RM is different as "advice" from FAR who represented the brokerage?
MR TAN
ReplyDeletePlease keep up the good work. I think the battle is not over. It is only the beginning. Let's wait and pray.
Most important is to see also the quantum of compensation in terms of VALUE. I think the numbers presented refers to cases.
eg. If you compensate ONE small case and no action for the other ONE large case, you have 50% compensation in statistics.
From CASHEW NUT
Dear Mr.Tan,
ReplyDeleteYour reason that the lower percentage of compensation cases from the Stock Broking Firms is because the investors approached the Broking Firms is not correct. In my case, I did not approach the Broking firm, it was the rep from the stock broking who approached me over the phone and convinced me to purchase the product. I submitted my complaint, but was rejected by the Stock Broking firm without giving me any reasons.
Bought from IFA, the IFA hide behind "Introducer agreement", so we get nothing, is it fair???
ReplyDeleteA mis-selling is a mis-selling. Just bec we are not well verse in legal term we got """"""???
where is justice?
I agree with T.K.L. In transaction, there's a question of representation. Tied agents and bank RMs are usually deemed to represent the sale side of the equation, whereas independent brokers are usually deemed to represent the buy side.
ReplyDeleteWhen a product is found to be faulty or "toxic", you're likely to get more compensation if you're sold than if you bought.
On an overall basis, this certainly exceeded my expectation. More important to the monetary compensation is the restore to some extent of people’s confidence in the checks and balances in our financial system. I don’t even know my own outcome so my comments are impartial.
ReplyDeleteI would like to compliment MAS and the Financial Institutions for their efforts. And the independent persons who oversee the complaint handling process. And, last but not least, Mr. TAN Kin Lian (and many supporting volunteers) for taking the leadership and devoting his time to lead the efforts, rain or shine. Without his leadership and the support, I am sure we would not have gotten over 5,000 people going forward with the complaint process.
In a massive process like this, unfortunately not everyone will get full satisfaction. Now that I have confidence in the complaint handling process, I hope MAS and the Financial Institutions will continue the same spirit in the FIDReC process – particularly in working with the FI’s to raise the $50,000 FIDReC limit. Else I think we will end up with a lot of the remaining cases in court. Or we might have people losing more than $50,000 still going through the FIDReC process to get their case heard before moving on to the court system.
I setup my HK5D alias to challenge Singapore to be faster in this process. Singapore clearly won. And, I promised that I would change my alias to SG5D after Singapore won.
P.S. I just checked – SG5D has been taken. So, SG is indeed 5D after all :-)
The compensation from the brokers is almost zero despite they sent the misleading brochure to promote the sale of minibond to customers. Is not this the same as the RM approached the depositors to ask them to invest in the CLN? They even confirmed CLN were a safe porduct. Why the same product marketed by banks and brokers and yet having different responsibilities. Perhaps, the brokers should not be selling the product is the first place.
ReplyDeleteRaising claim limit above $50,000 to be tested at Fidric, what mentioned in Parliament and request to the FI are completely different.
MAS advised all parties to take a less legalistic approach in this fiasco. Why then a vast difference in compensation between Banks and Brokers?
ReplyDelete100% of Lehman Related products Investors should get compensation and NOT ONLY 58%.
ReplyDeleteThis is what theory.
I bought Minibonds from a brokerage, but through an IFA representative who spent almost 2 hours with me providing what I had perceived as "advice". I also have emails showing the "advice" given by IFA. Even Banks' RMs probably didn't spend as much time explaining the product to their clients. Irony is that Banks offer compensation.
ReplyDeleteBut Brokerages together with IFAs hide behind the "Introducer" agreement, and simply give a "no reason to accede to your complaint" outcome, without thorough investigation or fair compensation.
I think Mr Hwang SJ's job is not yet over.
Stockbroker firms are smart with their indirect tactics. Just hire some external party to do the promoting and let the investors approach themselves. They can then claim investors have already understood that's why they signed the contract.
ReplyDeleteNice move. Very smart. Consumers should learn in the future to be ruthless against these people too. For every action, there will be a reaction.
Regardless of the outcome, be it 58% or 100%, I've already associated the banking industry as incompetent and selfish.
How in the world can you sell a service you can't be responsible for? Apparently you can, as taught.
I've learned a valuable lesson. One that teaches people that you can get away with anything if you play the moves correctly (legally), even if not ethically.
Dear Mr Tan Kin Lian,
ReplyDeleteWhatever the outcome to the FIDReC and/or Court Case, please accept our sincere thanks for guiding us through this different period in our lives.
I heard the FAs had only a introducer agreement and NOT a distributor right with the banks and successful closures the FAs would get a referral fee. This agreement required the introducers ONLY to identify the prospects and the advisory process was left to the banks' advisers.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like the banks have reneged on the contract to avoid liabilities and compensation.
This is no gentleman agreement anymore.
Do you think THIS IS FAIR to those have NOT compensation. Same products but everyone got different outcome.
ReplyDeleteBanks and Brokerage House are selling the products BUT why more are compensation from Banks.
Does this mean MAS have different standard from Banks and Brokerage Houses.
Every Lehman Related Products Investors should get the same compensation And not One more, the rest lesser and some got NONE.
Though i am still waiting for my outcome, i would like to thank Mr Tan for all the things he did, without him, i don't think we could have so many investors get compensated. Thank you very much to Mr Tan and happy CNY to you and your family. Good health.
ReplyDeleteVery unfair.
ReplyDeleteCan forget about IFA forever.
There should not be any more IFA in spore!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most expensive word in spore (or even the world) in 2008 is "INTRODUCER".
ReplyDeleteIt can cost you so much money.
A group of us even more SUAY. The so-called INTRODUCER did not tell us he is acting in his limited capacity as INTRODUCER only. Instead he sent emails that product is safe etc, met up with us, told us about the products, then we signed forms to buy from BROKERAGE.
ReplyDeleteALL OF US ALREADY RECEIVED REJECTION LETTER FROM BROKERAGE.
The INTRODUCER IFA also advised and sold us products, just like the BANKS' RMs. SO WHY WE DON'T GET COMPENSATION???? Just because the BROKER SIGNED SOME INTRODUCER AGREEMENT WITH THE IFA (WHICH WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT UNTIL NOW), IT ABSOLVED BOTH OF THEM THE RESPONSIBILITY !!!
MAS PLEASE RE-OPEN THE CASES FOR THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AND FAIR COMPENSATION!!!
Even I who bought Jubilee Notes from Broker without any introducer or IFA and no advice from Broker, the broker can still reject my claim. How do you compare Broker with the Banks when broker can claim exemption selling same toxic product?
ReplyDeletePerhaps all those who have bought from Brokers should knock on MAS's doors until our voices are heard.
ReplyDeleteIf the basis of compensation is that the buyer did not understand the product, then most of us should be compensated.
Shall we take collective action to boycott the broker concerned since obviously they do not care for our business?
Next time all banks/FIs will learn from stok brokers.
ReplyDeleteThen who will suffer?????
If the brokerage or FI don't say that the product is safe, most people will not buy the product.
ReplyDeleteOnce bitten twice shy.
Now everyone will wake up and spend time to read the fine print and ask more questions than before.
This is the most ridiculous result! The ability to claim refund depends on the party from whom we have purchased the toxic product. MAS, SURELY THIS IS NOT RIGHT!!!
ReplyDeleteI think MAS trying to put a good show to Hong Kong Monetary Authority. As the Class action is going to start next week in Hong Kong.
ReplyDeleteStill trying to tell the world, SG is number One Finanical Hub. With this Stupid reason, Same toxic products but have differnt outcome with Banks and Brokerage Houses.
100% Investors SHOULD BE COMPESNATED. There are no such things 50-50 or 30-70.
THIS TOTATLLY WRONG APPROACH AND UNFAIR. THIS SURE WILL CREATE MORE PEOPLE UNHAPPY AND NOISE.
ReplyDeleteVERY PAINFUL, THOSE TOP GUY GET SO HIGH PAY AND DARE TO COME WITH THIS OUTCOME.