Monday, January 19, 2009

Happy noteholders who received 100% compensation

I wish to pass this message to the 1,200 happy noteholders who received 100% compensation. 
You have spent a few months of agony and worry. You were uncertain about whether your money would be gone forever. 
You were deilighted to receive the recent letter or telephone call that you would be getting 100% compensation. Some of you wrote an e-mail to thank me for helping to achieve this happy outcome.
I wish to ask you to consider this possible situation. Suppose you had received a offer of partial compensation (which you consider to be insufficient) or a rejection. How would you have felt? There are 10,000 noteholders who are in this unhappy situation.
What can you do to help the other noteholders? I ask you to consider to express your support and solidarity for them. 
Perhaps, if you are generous, you can consider donating 5% of the amount that you received towards a fund to help them to get legal opinion and assistance? This is just a thought. If there are sufficient people interested to make this donation, I will get someone to organise it.


Anonymous said...

I agree that those who recieved 100% compensation should help the rest to defray the legal fees when they sue the FIs and the RMs.
5% as suggested may not be enough but it is demonstration of empathy and solidarity.

Anonymous said...

If I were to get any compensation for any amount, I would be gratefully contributing 5% to this fund to help those who are still in the process. I know the pain involved as I am journeying with my wife's battle, who was lied, mis-rep and mis-led into buying and now spending time researching instead of time with family. We are still awaits the outcome of our battle . . . . Please advise the BANK ACCT details.

Anonymous said...

I have yet to receive any news or update for this minibond saga.


Chan J C said...

Thank you Mr. Tan for the innovative iddea to get help from those who receive 100% compensation.

I would like to appeal to those who receive 100% compensation to show your compassion with some % of contribution to Mr. Tan so that he can help the rest of the victims.


ym said...

Mr Tan, i am really interested in the average amount of compensation (% wise and absolute amount)...

In actuarial speak, we have seen the average frequency (number of compensation), but MAS has not been so transparent with the average severity...

i think this is more indicative of fairness in the compensation package..

Anonymous said...

Any contribution from fellow innocent investors is a noble ideal! I purchased from brokering house and got zero compensation. Likewise , I will donate portion of the money if successful in court action.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tan,

While donation is one way to help those who are not compensated, I am wondering if it is also possible for those getting compensation to voice in public or in court their empathy and solidarity to those who are not compensated, making the public and in particular, the decision makers know that no one could acutally understand the risk, no matter they are vulnerable people or Treasury Customers.


Anonymous said...

good idea. why 5%? pledge a tithe instead for a worthy cause.

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

While Mr. Tan has made a very good suggestion, I would like to contribute some views that I hope it will be of some usefulness.

I would like to suggest the volunteers of each groupings (in products and in FIs), to compile the list of people that have been compensated both in full or partially.

And also very importantly, what are the common points they have if they are being fully compensated (and partially compensated).

Do those fully compensated have common points that made them into strong cases to have 100% compensation ?
What are these points ?
I believe many distressed ones are eager to know about them.
I am saying this because there are still many who have not taken any action as they thought that it was a hopeless case ... until the recent good news.
Some might not have known that they have a strong case.
And I believe with this new found hope, more will approach the FIs or Fidrec.

And also, I am curious about the compensation process.
Will the compensated ones have to sign any documents that will again be too complicated for them to understand ?
Where can they find help for this matter ?
Or they can't even disclose any info, like they have to sign a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) ?

Happy CNY to ALL !

ym said...

Mr Tan,
I hope the gahmen will dig into their reserves and give your new financial association abit of fiscal stimulus for consumer education in financial matters...

robert shiller sees a need for better financial education too :

"...don’t forget the countless fundamental mistakes made by millions of people who were caught up in the excitement of the real estate bubble, taking on debt they could ill afford. Many errors in personal finance can be prevented.

But first, people need to understand what they ought to do. The government’s various bailout plans need to take this into account — by starting a major program to subsidize personal financial advice for everyone.

Most people get financial advice only from sales representatives of one sort or another: real estate agents, mortgage brokers, sellers of financial products. Some of these providers could use their sophistication to exploit people’s tendency to behave irrationally, and to manipulate the judgment errors that consumers typically make..."

A Minibond Fraud Victim. said...

News From Hong Kong:
明報專訊】繼多批雷曼事主入稟法院索償後, 購入比雷曼更早出現信貸危機的房利美產品的事主, 早前亦入稟區院,指負責發行的星展銀行 誤導及欺騙,「銷售純屬一場騙局」, 要求星展償還投資款連利息至少4.16萬美元 (即約32.4萬港元)。

原訴人王道中為退休人士,沒有律師代表的他自行入稟, 指於2006年5月26日在南洋商業銀行以9萬美元(即約70. 2萬港元) 購入被告星展銀行有限公司及Constellation Investment Ltd.發行的「Constellation Notes Series 39(結構性零售債券系列39)」

該系列39與去年9月初被美國 政府接管的房利美掛鈎。入稟狀指出,王於去年9月接到銀行電話, 指他共損手三成;而系列39的發行章程中文版本字眼不清晰,「 是打着合法外衣的欺騙性集資行為」。


Anonymous said...

MAS should show how much each FIs is compensating. Or the total amount is compensated. Percentage figure cant figure out anything....

Anonymous said...

Percentage figure shows the world they are doing something, but people with brains will ask why are they showing % instead of $ paid out. The 58% figure can be only 20 to 40% of the total $ invest in minibonds. Nobody knows at this point of time.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tan, This is a very brilliant idea to help those in distress due to the failed structured notes investment. I have invested in HN2. Though the notes are not dead yet, I feel the same frustration and anger as those whoese investments in minibonds and the like that has become zero in value. I certainly am prepared to contribute to the pool of money to fight against our national bank.

Edmund Sim said...

noble idea but had any one donated any amount? i would be really surprise if a large number of people donated part of their capital towards this cause.

Anonymous said...

In most cases, they comp u not bec they are kind or generous, but bec they hv commited some errors along the line which was cannot be denied.

If they can bully u, such as using the word "INTRO....", they wld not hestistate to do so.

Anonymous said...

I have not heard from the bank. Anyone else like me?

Concerned said...

The idea of selling structured products start with one big bank here and promoted to almost all their customers who walked into their banking halls. It is imported from USA, the financial supermarket created by Stanley Weil. In the beginning structured products offered egligible or no returns although promises of high returns were espoused during the sales process. As time goes, risky and complicated structured products are introduced. Slowly, other financial institutions see the profits rolling in and jumps on the bandwagon. Investors bought the products without understanding the structure and risk of the product, but only see the promised high returns. There is a disconnect between the investors and the regulators on the products offered. Investors perceived the products would have passed the scrutiny of the regulators, but the regulators said the products' prospectus are just registered with them, only after the whole 'credit event' is blown out. The regulators preached the concept of “caveat emptor” or “let the buyer beware”. The FIs and their RMs just kept quite on the prospectus status with the regulators during the sale process and the prospectus is only given after the sale process is completed.
Are investors mislead, irrespective of their eduction status???

Anonymous said...

I would like to say that if FI would have compensate 100% to the 1200 peoples.. which means that they had really mis-sell.. and therefore how do they justify that the other group which they have no compensated is not mis-sell.

Blog Archive