Hi Mr Tan,
I am happy to hear that the residual value for Minibonds are finally out and for some Series, the value are surprisngly as high as more than 70%.
However, I questioned the fair deal in MAS for handling the whole saga. Many victims, whom I know, were awarded less than 50% after the judgement in Fidrec. They had transferred all the Minibonds to the FIs. In that case, should Singapore FIs gain from this saga ? Unlike HK, the FIs have to refund back to and not profit from anything. What should we do in this case ?
For my case, it is very clear in the ground of hearing (verdict) that Maybank did mis-sell the Minibonds to me. Now, with all my Minibonds transferred to Maybank, as ordered by Fidrec's judge, Maybank is better off than me. In additional to the costs I have to pay Fidrec, we have to go through all the stress through the hearing, but end up less well of than FI. What should victims like us do ?
REPLY
You should ask the Financial Institution to refund the difference back to you. It is only fair and honorable for them to accede to your request.
Anybody who have received a little compensation from the FI but still retain 100% of the toxic product under his or her name?
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI am abit puzzle on the above issue.
If you return the full amount of 10,000 notes to FI after adjudication, then you are paid $10,000 by FI. The liquidation is correct to return to the FI.
If you are compensated 50% of the 10,000 Notes in MB3A, then you are compensated $5k. With the liquidation, you will get 55.9%. If you add all up, you actually get back 77.9% of your full amount.
This is better then the initial 55.9% if the FI did not compensate you.
I don't think there is such compensation where FI pay a fraction of the Notes and took 100% of the Notes from the investor.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is most unfair Fidrec only offered 50% compensation to investor and ordered 100% surrender of notes to FI's. Now the residual value is more 70% . FI's are benefitting from Fidrec again. FI's - if you have heart, return the surplus to victim out of compassionate ground.
ReplyDeleteI know of a case FI's offered 50% compensation and ask investor to surrender only 40%.
I have heard of another case- little compensation but no surrendering of notes or duduction of past interest.
Look like from now on, compensation will be on a lump sum basis without surrendering of notes which will be paid out shortly to investors direct.
Yes, few cases I heard of were all Minibonds (100%) transfer to FIs at 50%. The judge decision is either you take it or leave it. This is another trap again!
ReplyDeleteGet as much money as possible from the refund and then join the class action suit
ReplyDeleteThe class action suit does not cost a cent but the suit will sue the banks for everything under the sun so Minibond customers can get even more money free !
JOIN THE US CLASS ACTION
NOTHING TO LOSE
Wheck the bums
Buyers Beware! You went in with your eyes open!
ReplyDeleteVoters Beware! You went in with your eyes open too!
Fidrec and FI teamed together to dupe the victims a second round? How can pay 50% for 100% and now get back 70%? Sigh ...
ReplyDeleteFIDREC --->
ReplyDeleteFools
I
Deceive
Really
Easy
Centre
Anonymous 4.41pm, it was the judge's decision to let FI pay only a fraction and take back everything (100%).
ReplyDeleteOnly a few cases right?
ReplyDeleteOr are there many such cases?
Yes. I just spoken to some people who were asked by the Adjudication Judge to let banks buy 100% of the Notes for only 40% of it's value. The banks also never thought the liquidation value is going to be so high.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope those banks do the right thing and return the difference to the victims ie. similar to Hong Kong banks. Next few days will be a good time to show goodwill.
You minibonds holders are really dense. People say once bitten twice shy. Don't you all know who set up Fidrec and who they work for? Election is coming, I have no doubts how you guys will cast your votes...
ReplyDeleteMy case: after written to the FI twice to state my reasons asking for a compensation, FI paid me a small amt out of maybe compassion but I am still holding onto all my minibonds.
ReplyDeleteWith this compensation, I DID NOT make any but helped to reduce my loss further.
Anybody of a similar situation as me?
FIs will not refund back the profit unless someone "forced" them to. It is a joke that if the judge confirmed that there were cases of mislead, FIs gained from the residual values. By right, on top of the refund, they should shoulder more % of the balance losses, else what is the judgement for ?
ReplyDeleteFI like UOB Kay Hian did hardly any compensation throughout. Lesson learnt is to avoid this company for all your financial transaction as they will not give a damn about you, just want your money!
ReplyDeleteI presumed the rulings by the Adjudicators to let banks get 100% of the Notes by paying only a fraction of it's value were made on earlier cases. I got settlements with two FIs only last two months (did not go to adjudication). They pay 100% of the value of Notes transferred to them. I am able to enjoy the residual values for the remaining Notes I hold.
ReplyDeleteShowed that there is no consistency on ruling guidelines for the adjudicators.
The reading of judgement was not given to the FI or the victim but read out by FIDREC executive in a close room.
ReplyDeleteThe 0 people compensated in MB3A for less 50% compensation to MB1 & MB5 which has 63-66% people compensated.
If every series has a significant number of people who bought over-the-counter, then this % should be reflected across all series. It cannot have a series with 0 people compensated <50% and another with 66% compensated <50%.
The key word is whether FIDREC is fair?
I believed all cases of FI purchases 100% notes at a huge discount ordered by Adjudication judge happens in the beginning of Adjudication process in mar 09. Subsequently with Lehman Brothers agreeing to allow the receivers to take over the notes, then adjudication judgement then changed to FI purchasing x% of notes at a value of $1 per note minus the interested previously paid out.
One must go back to the basic principle. FI was asked to compensate because they were found to be at fault. Now, it seems they are rewarded for misleding victims. Looks like Hong Kong SEC is more wise in the minibond saga except that they are paid very much less by tax payers especially the head of the regulators.
Looks like the 7 FIs live on Immoral Profit. They never change. Now economy is recovering, more toxic stuff will be coming as more people are being employed into the service industry. I hope when the next bomb explode, I will not be one of them going to Hong Lim Park.
ReplyDelete