Several people talked to me about this matter. I gave them the following facts and observations:
1. Most investors who received full compensation invested small sums, i.e. $20,000 or less.
2. Most investors who invested large sums, i.e. $50000 or more, received rejection letters
3. Most offered partial compensation rejected the offer, as the amount was too small
4. I estimate that the actual compensation is probably 10% to 15% of the invested sums
Most people that I talked to were shocked! They had been given the wrong impression through reading the newspapers. They now realise that the perception and reality are quite different. Many investors are still very disappointed and angry.
23 comments:
The soonest legal action is taken the better. The FIs are dragging with the blessing of MAS. Both hope by dragging the whole thing will be forgotten.. They are mistaken. They will realise that their reputation is
plummeting . They won't be able to sell bancassurance products any more.They are finished.
It is really disappointing that the authorities and the media publicity on the compensation of credit linked notes investor by FIs gave an impression to the public that most of the investors were fairly compensated. On the contrary many have not been compensated. In reality there is a large cloud on class action looming over the FIs. The aggrieved investors have been compliant following the steps to pursue justice over their investment losses like going to FIDREC first. If the FIs think they can stonewall the aggrieved investors they are wrong. The mis-selling saga will break open. FIs will find themselves having the aggrieved investor clinging on them like a crying baby clinging on the mother leg.
The other point is SIAS offer of assistance. I read with an impression that the slant is towards encouraging the investors to accept the unfair compensation by the FIs rather then takes the FIDREC or legal approach to pursue fair compensation for the FIs mis-selling? SIAS may want to clarify this stand.
I am not surprised that the public were misled into believing that most aggrieved investors were compensated. Our dear SPH had contributed to this misconception. And by MAS saying that they are pleased with the level of compensation, PAP had lost the opportunity to show Singaporeans that they are neutral and that they are here to serve the people.
Very good in wayang.
Waht u read from the NP can be quite misleading.
If they can bully u, why shd they compensated u??
I have not heard of any case that went to Fridec had been ruled favourably against the FI. It will be a great victory for the investors if any case that has been rejected by the FI can be over-ruled by Fridec as this will certainly lead to many other case rejected on similar basis to be over-ruled. Can you imagine the impact:
1. It proves that the FIs have not handled the complaints fairly
2. The FIs will have to pay out many millions of dollars
3. It is a slap on the face of the independent parties who said earlier that they were happy with the way the FIs were handling the cases
Can you think of any other consequences that if complaints are given favourable judgement by Fridec.
If SPH, a division/mouthpice of the government, can even blatantly mis-sell and misrepresent such information, how can the government even blame of FI doing it ?
For what I know from friends who use to work in those area, the SPH has been doing such fabulous work of window dressing unbeknownst to the general public for many decades. Leopard just never change its spot.
Mine is minibond series 2. Till now, I have yet to receive any reply from Maybank.
Anybody in the same boat as me?
Jasmin
Mr Tan,
What you said is right. What we read in the newspaper is merely a window dressing report.
Let's go for class action.
I have been asked to go for a meeting with the bank regarding the compensation next month. I was told to bing my latest CDP account statement. Why do they need to see the statement? Do they have the right to look at my statement?
Investors in High Notes 5 got the worse deal. Compensation is the lowest amongst all FIs.
They want to see your CDP statement to see whether you have invested in other high risk shares. They want to use that information against you. This is the time when you should say:" I refuse to comply for fear of incriminating myself" In a truly democratic country you will have the right to:" remain silent, any thing you say or show can and will be used against you"
It is an adversarial relationship that banks and financial institutions nowadays develop with clients. One should just ignore them to save oneself a lot of heartache nowadays.
Hi Jasmin,
I have not received any news from Maybank either. Wonder how long they take to decide.
Gina
Totally agree that NP presentations were misleading. I know of a friend with investment more than $500k and was rejected, still very unhappy and thinking of class action.
I agree with the analysis. I invested >$50K and was offered nothing. So are another 3 of my friends/colleagues who were in similar situation of $50-200K, all get nothing. Only one colleague who purchased $10K was offered compensation but she afraid to reveal details as the bank's letter threaten to withdraw if so. I guess she was offered 50%.
It's all a wayang.
Unless you have a strong case (eg. written evidence) and small amount, otherwise expect to get nothing. The written evidence may get you more/full in court, but the FI are smart to offer you partial now to back off.
The bokerages are worst, all that I spoke to got nothing.
I wonder where the numbers in MAS annoucement came from. We certainly don't think the outcome is fair.
Frankly, I was shocked that the percentage of "compensated" investors was so high. There's no reason to believe that the lehman-related products were sold better or worse than any other financial product in Singapore. If such a high percentage of investors were compensated that would imply that the majority of them were mis-sold not just the credit-linked products but EVERY financial product out there.
Maybe true in the case of retail ah mak, ah pek persuaded to turn in their FDs for these alternative products, but HNWIs cannot cry after the fact. For those who did get "partial" compensation offers, what the bank is offering is actually a chance to liquidate their investments now. It's possible that the banks will make a lot of money if the final value of the notes is higher than what they are offering; on the other hand they might also lose everything.
This is essentially a TARP for the investors. Is it a good idea for the Singapore bank shareholders (and depositors) to pay above market-value to the investors ? Not sure about that. Just like a lot of people wonder why the US taxpayer has to pay above market-value for "toxic assets"
I attended an interview with Philip Securities recently. I discovered that no risk profiling was done when I purchased the minibonds. The interviewer claimed that risk profiling is not required for such transaction in 2007.
Is this true and what is the impact on this on my claims for mis-selling by the brokerage?
Thanks.
DEAR FRIENDS,
I am trying to solve your mystery question posted on "February 08, 2009 4:56 PM" by Anonymous: QUOTE" Why do they need to see the statement ("CDP statement)?" UNQUOTE.
Imagine you are being raped. When you see the police, he asked you whether you are a virgin? This is a same type of question the FI is asking you!
"Puzzled Reader"
I seriously doubt the need to see our CDP statements. Do we have to show the FIs our bank passbooks, salary slips etc?
The rules "here" are lopsided.
Jasmin
If the compensation percentage is as high as ST and MAS is trying to mis-led the public, then it clearly shows that there is blatant mis-selling across all the structured products. The FAA has been breached on many instances.
Thus it is time to ask the authorities to step in and sue the FIs and bring them to justice.
My folks were treated like "criminals" going thru multiple 3 or 4-hrs interrogations/interviews and was ultimately offered "beggars" compensations.
Although they are in the vulnearble group, but they still accept the "goodwill money" as they don't trust the government anymore.
They have no faith with Fidrec.
They don't want to be interrogated again.
They don't think they can fight our national bank.
They just simply give up.
To rub salt to their misery, the media and authorities are still trying to portray the FIs as fair and generous and without any fault.
To that bank and gov, our family has one word for you.
That is ...."Pooouuuiii"
I accepted my "compensation" from the bank. But I make it known strongly that I do not agree with their settlement nor do I think I had been fairly dealt with. I have just lost trust in the system to pursue.
I agree with Febraury 10, 2009 5:08PM:
To that bank and gov, our family has one word for you.
That is ...."Pooouuuiii"
How can MAS and financial regulator allow the securities firms to reject all compensation? I have lost faith in our system. From now on, I will be anti-MAS, anti-FI and anti-government. These people have let me down
MAS need to learn from HK SFC. 100% of HK victims get 100% compensation, but 1% of spore victims are compensated by bokerages. What a world of difference. It speaks clearly of the competence of these 2 regulators
It turns out HK victims may not be getting back any compensation. The HK institution had expected to buy back and then sell the underlying assets. However, US said that this violates US bankruptcy law.
Post a Comment