Do you seriously expect the Prime Minister or the MAS to agree to your request for a meeting (on the credit linked notes)?
REPLY
My opinion on this matter is irrelevant. It is more important for the public to know the PM or MAS agree to this request, or just ignore it.
21 comments:
I can say 100% PM Lee will not meet us. Reasons:
1. He always "siam" as usual.
2. He wants to generate more business for the legal industry.
A season Singaporean
Investor of Land Banking can KISS GOODBYE to your investment $. Why buy something that is so far away and something you are not familiar with?
Yes, i agree PM won't meet you because he is afraid to commit himself and be cornered. he is a nice guy and he can't say no , face to face and to embarrass GOhCT and Lim HK. He can't contradict them. Both said eyes big big when investing.
In response to the comments at 8:57 PM
This is not a issue of their buying somethings they were not familiar with but they bought the product based on what the financial advisers had recommended. In other words, they were cheated by the banks. At that time, who knew that the banks could not be trusted.
I have been working in the banking industry for the past 21 years as an Investment manager.
One thing I am certain of: is that banks are out to squeeze and cheat their "customers" as much as they can. The terminology they used (i.e. "VALUABLE" customer) satirically refers to how much value they can squeeze and cheat from them.
Never believe a Bank's gurantee that " this is my best rate and best deal for you". I would rather trust a layman then a "so-called banker."
PM has many top gun people to advise him personally on legal matters. I don't think he will personally get involve with this petition. He will just let MAS handle it. Only 0.2% ikan bilis (small fish) out of 4.8 million people were affected by MB, HN5, PN, etc. so he's not too worried that these people will vote against garmen. LKY had mentioned that garmen will win the coming this election but maybe not the next future election. So garmen is not too worried because they have prepared long time ago & build up enough wealth for their future. They have paid themselves first by getting top class salaries as compare to the whole world & now they have in place a system to protect & safeguard their wealth should the oppositions win future election. PAP is the only garmen in the world not defeated in the election since independence in 1959. I think they know that their undefeated record is going to be broken in the future & that is the end of their era, just look at Japan where the people vote against garmen. So don't depend on garmen to solve your problem.
“Let’s imagine a government caving in and forcing financial institutions to cover the losses incurred or using public funds to do so… such actions will send a signal that irresponsible investment will not lead to negative consequences so long as people can band together to exert political pressures on the government”.(Post-Crisis Reflection, Straits Times Tuesday, 01/09/2009 pageA17)
If minibond investments are considered as irresponsible investments, then I would like to ask: who are the most irresponsible, the issuers (Lehman Brothers), the regulator (MAS), the distributors (FIs), the trustees (HSBC) or the investors?
P
Responding to September 03, 2009 9:54 PM
I don't think Land Banking is sold through FIs. They were sold through some representative UK company. If i remember correctly, i saw they were even interviewed in Channel Newsasia.
To Anonymous September 03, 2009 10:16 PM:
Do you get to sleep in peace through the night knowing the "sins" you have committed over 21 years of your life as a investment manager?
I just wonder how many families, friends, etc..were ever put into situation by professional like you.
With each rejection by MAS and government, I get increasingly angry with them. Can't these scholars step out of their shell?
I believe many investors did not show at Honglim as they were still holding hopes over their Fidrec. But as they get the rejection again the anger will resurface. Dirty tactic by MAS to spread and dilute over time.
From this petition, we see the true colours of the PM
Why should MAS or any of the millionairs want to meet with TKL on petition? They will only do it if they felt there is enough support. Petition is only 777 and those attending HLP is <300.
If 90% of the 777 turned up for 1/2 hour, it drive a different message. Anyway, if MAS and the millionairs refuse to meet on the first few petition, why now....
I just want to say that I don't trust them or the banks anymore. I just have to worker harder and get a good financial education to look after yourself.
Hi,
Why blame the FAs when PSPL failed to train them that this is a risky product. In addition, pressuring them with sales quotas.
First, the brochure listed minibond pte ltd & 6 REs as reference entities. Then PSPL did not review that Swap guarantor & 9/150 underlying securities are also reference entities. When come to face who is responsible, PSPL stick to execution order only business model and that "investors read the prospectus and understand the risk". How to understand prospectus risk if prospectus were not given and investors have to proof it in FIDREC?
Can PSPL survive >30 years of existence if the use execution-order only business model. According to MAS report, they allowed FAs to advise on MB1 and MB2. Then in MB3, PSPL allowed FA to only talk about product features. So what happen to the execution-only business model?
I believe PSPL is not owning up to their responsibility and offload everything to the FAs during crisis. FAs should come out and present their case. I strongly believe this MB bad investment should be shared by 3 parties i.e. PSPL, FAs and investors while PSPL should bear a higher responsibilities as they, in order to make a profit, did not study the product properly, did not train the FAs properly and now blaming the FAs for mis-selling this product.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_425339.html
Pay-back time
=============
Commissions clawed back from staff who sold toxic products, but no decision yet on final sum
By Lorna Tan, Senior Correspondent
LOCAL stockbroker Phillip Securities has started clawing back commissions from staff who sold toxic products - and advisers fear they may have to pay even more out of their own pockets.
The firm has not decided on the final sum, and is withholding a portion of monthly commissions from advisers who sold Minibonds structured products that failed in the financial crisis.
This is pending a final decision on the amount advisers must pay up.
It is industry practice for most financial institutions to claw back commissions from advisers found to have improperly sold investments to customers.
However, affected advisers at Phillip are seeing red over any move to take more than commissions earned from the ill-fated Minibonds.
Read the full story in Friday's edition of The Straits Times.
lorna@sph.com.sg
Yes I do sleep in peace cause I only deal with Big Corporates and Institution Investors.How they squeeze and pass on the cost to the retail customers that I dont care.
Shit!! with all these proofs what is MAS doing about it? still pandering to the FIs?
It takes 9 lies to cover the 1st lie.
PSPL truely understand that investors were mis-sold but in order to cover their first lie "order execution only", they continue to tarnished their hard earned image.
They threw the books at their loyal investors in the complaint process. Then at investor again at FIDREC and now doing the same to their FAs and RMs.
When will PSPL stopped and look into the mirror and realize that each day, the name of PSPL is getting darker. First they hurt the investors then their FAs. I believe in their midst, the backroom staffs believed this is a form of injustice. Who will stay on or work for such organization?
Do the right thing, PSPL. Follow the example of Hong Kong or GE Singapore. Bite the bullet and come clean. We, MB investors, also want to move on but need a satisfactory conclusion. $20 million is not big for PSPL. If you are at fault, be a man and come clean then move on.
To: September 04, 2009 10:43 AM
So you provide the "bullets" and don't care where it lands eventually? It's like saying i can throw my rubbish next door as long as it is not in my backyard.
Invest in Hongkong or Australia, these countries are safer for your money. Singapore, a financial centre who won't protect investors is a shit centre. From this wayang episode you will have lost trust with MAS anmd all Singapore FIs. Come end 2010 when the guarantee for your money in the bank ends, better think of moving your money elsewhere in preparation for another meltdown in year 2012.
In MAS report, it said that PSPL is responsible to ensure their FAs are well trained and qualified. In addition, Phillip Securities sent all their FAs for Lehman Brothers training prior to MB sales.
After the sales training, One Phillip Securities FA emailed MB product promotion to clients:-
a) Safe and low risk
b) product is bonds from 6 companies
c) Credit event if 9/150 underlying securities failed.
Nothing was mentioned that Swap guarrantor and minibond pte are also part of the credit event.
Phillip Securities should know that the odds are stacking against the investors but they ignore all for the sake of profit.
1) This is not a bond while PSPL FAs thought so.
2) 8 credit risk instead of 6 if include Lehman Brother & minibond pte ltd
3) 9/150 underlying securities default is even more risky.
Who to blame? My believe is Phillip Securities. Reason: Their FAs were not properly trained. PSPL know but did nothing about FAs promoting the MB as safe, low risk and it is a bond with quarterly payout.
When MB imploded, Phillip Securities start to point finger at Lehman Brothers, FAs and investors while telling Singaporeans they only execute orders....
It is mission impossible for TKL to meet our MAS officers and our great PM as their mindset and mentality are fixed and some bottom lines have been drawn:
1.Not liable for both MAS who approved the sale and FIs who mis-sell and mis-represent the toxic products.
2.The gains from selling these products by MAS and FIs cannot return to the investors irrgardless of any circumstances.As SG govt is the stake holder of many FIs,both will share the loss if they compensate investors.
3.Let investors take legal action and FIs to defend every case in the court. As many investors are not rich enough to employ lawyer, they will eventually forgo all the demands.
4.Our leaders think they are world class (pay) leaders, hence should handle the scandal in their own way,no need to follow the HK model.
5. FIs and MAS must help each other so to avoid pointing finger to each other.
How to break the stronghold of this united front? The meeting with them is meaningless if this stronghold cannot be broken.
To Mr. Tan and the 777 minibond holders:
Don’t worry about the government ignoring the petitions and avoiding meeting you because the longer they drag on this issue, the more people will know the real facts of minibond. (i.e. the time and tide are with you).
What you should do now is to pool together all the real facts and get someone who can write well to write an easy to understand letter (with all the real facts) and mail it to every household and let the public be the judge.
Post a Comment