Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Fair treatment to all

Friday, October 16, 2009

Fair treatment to all

I heard that some investors who were active in organising the class action on the credit linked notes had been offered more attractive terms of compensation than other investors in similar situations. They accepted the compensation and discontinued taking the lead in the class action.

I do not have the chance to verify the truth of this statement, as the terms of the settlement are covered under "non disclosure agreements". If this is true, then we have a situation where people are treated differently "for commercial reasons", according to their special position. Is this a new form of corruption?

In some countries, these allegations will be invested by the authority to ensure that there is fair treatment to all affected parties. I hope that our regulators in Singapore will be willing to take this step.

Tan Kin Lian

15 comments:

Anonymous said...: The FI may also compensate more for their staff or staff family member's investment. When they persuade us to buy, they always mentioned the product is so good, so safe, their bought for their parents also. Now, in order to get back money for themselves, they may have to say something benefit their employer.; October 16, 2009 7:54 AM
Solomon said...: If this is true, it is really unfortunate for those members in the group. Class action is the last resort for people; October 16, 2009 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: That is a dirty trick the FI's are playing if the allegation is true.
I doubt it that the regulator would bother to investigate. If they have this chivalrous attitude, this whole fiasco wouldn't have happend in the first place! Regulator will be only too happy to see everything settle to normal and thorn in the flesh removed and the whole matter forgotten with time. i would guarantee 2000% they wouldn't bother to investigate..unfortunately...
REX; October 16, 2009 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: I heard this happened to DHN5 committee initially. Key and very active members were compensated and then they withdrew thus making the committee very weak.

Some MIAG committee members were first rejected by FIs and then FIs like OCBC and Philips Securities reverse decision and compensate.; October 16, 2009 9:16 AM
Anonymous said...: I think that this outcome sends the correct signal.

Over the course of this episode, we have seen a small number of individuals who have been very active in recovering their money.

We have also seen a very large number of individuals who have tried to freeload off the efforts of others. They prefer to allow others to do all the fighting and only want to come in when victory is certain and it is time to collect money.

The pressence of these freeloaders have made organising effective action very difficult.

The fact that those who have been active in recovering their money have now been offered more compensation seems to be an equitable outcome.

If possible, this outcome should be widely publicised so that it becomes known that you will only get a fair deal if you are prepared to step forward and fight for your rights.; October 16, 2009 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: This is a sad state and it is true but nobody can do anything about it. It will be forgotten eventually and this will please some people with commercial interest because they do not have to deal with it in an open and transparent way that could cause much embarassment. Just look at the whole process and the sudden silence on this matter. Because of the non-disclosure agreement, people are being conned to believe that some just compensation may be offered. If you cannot talk about it, really, it can go either way and remains a guessing game. The strong and determined will get what they want and the weak will just vanish for good. Talk about fairness ? Not in this country after what had happened.; October 16, 2009 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Come, let me tell you something.
(whisper) I give you this but don't tell anyone that you got so much, ok"
"You're lucky, because you sue us , that is why we give high compensation, hor"; October 16, 2009 12:05 PM
A Tan said...: Aurvandil

Spot on. If you hadn't said this, I would.

Apathy and Kia Suism have a price. Activism has a reward, sometimes.; October 16, 2009 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: This is what has happened and will happen under the so-called case-by-case approach adopted by MAS in dealing with the dispute settlement.

Whilst it is important to reveal the trick used by FIs, let's try not to put the blame on individual investors for whatever reasons and divert the focus on the proper approach for the settlement. If MAS continue to reject the majority opinion for the across- the-board general settlement, which is a practical, balanced and fair settlement and has been successfully materialized in Hong Kong, the dispute here can never be fairly and reasonably resolved. MAS should open their eyes to see the reality as disclosed in TKL's blog.

The game is ruled by the regulator. If MAS keep their hand-off over the fiasco, for which they should also be partly responsible, the result of the game more or less is known.

Richard; October 16, 2009 8:34 PM
Anonymous said...: ""This is what has happened and will happen under the so-called case-by-case approach.""

The so-call "case-by-case" approach is very unfair to the weak and the ignorance.
The trouble is, most people are too trusting and do not use their brain to think.
The world has changed.
The trusting people are being penalised.; October 16, 2009 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I wonder why MAS did not investigate Lehman Brothers training material to the FIs? If FA coming out of the training clearly understood that it is low risk, bonds from the reference entities, high value even if credit event happened then the misrepresentation clearly started from Lehman Brothers. MAS should then sue LB for fraud i.e. intentionally misled the FA who inturn misled the retail investors.; October 17, 2009 8:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Bro & Sis,

You people keep talking about MAS. Forget about MAS lah. You just write a letter to any senior staff of MAS, including GCT, LHH and you see for yourself with eyes open "big big" and see what kind of reply you will receive. You can summarise their replies in one sentence: "It has nothing to do with MAS." So plse don't waste your effort talking about MAS.; October 17, 2009 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: For those who funded the first batch who accepted the compensation in the class action, do they still have fund to surface the second batch?; October 17, 2009 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: I think MIAG has to have a financially viable strategy to figh the RBS/LB/Minibond case. Since they are couragous to start the suit, let's not question the next batch but hope they succeed in the first suit. With liquidation happening, there will be more fund available. All the best to MIAG on the above while I think DBS suit is a washout as they are practically asking the sgp court to fine sgp govt, who own the sgp company, guilty. Worst is DBS is represented by a ex-MP who has never lost a cost in sgp court.; October 17, 2009 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: To Oct 17 4pm:
I beg to differ, whatever the outcome, I think the DBS case is important. If investors lose, then it is proven beyond doubt that Our Govt owned companies can do no wrong, and can escape scot-free even when they have made a careless mistake. So investors must go in with their
Eyes Opened Wide, but DBS can issue products with their eyes closed.; October 18, 2009 10:16 AM