I appeal to the financial institutions to act honorably. If your sales representatives have made a mistake and have given the wrong advice to the retail investors on the credit linked securities, please step forward and offer to settle this matter through mediation.
You can buy back the securities from the retail investors at a value that is higher than the current market value. Your institution will be able to hold the securities to the maturity date and realise a better value, compared to the current value. You will be able to minimise the loss.
You should also be prepared to offer more than the current value as your institution should bear some of the loss, due to the failure to advice the investors properly about the actual nature of the product or the risk.
I am willing to act as the mediator to get the investors to agree on a fair settlement, where both parties should share the loss fairly. Most investors are willing to take a cut on their original investment.
I suggest that the amount to be paid can be the current value plus half of the difference, i.e. the investor and distributor share the loss equally. If you like to consider this approach, please send an e-mail to kinlian@gmail.com.
Friday, October 17, 2008
A new financial system - back to the safe old days
The current financial system has collapsed. This system was built on the following:
> private capital to fund the banks
> short term deposits
> greed of bankers, taking excessive risk
The central banks have to bail out the system by putting in taxpayers' money to recapitalised the banks. The outcome - governments will be the majority owner of most of the large banks. I think that this is a good outcome (contrary to what most other people think).
I believe that the new financial system should be built on the following pillars:
> public ownership of the large financial institutions
> a limited range of low cost, fair financial products (forget about the innovative complex products designed to cheat the public)
> government guarantee for long term bonds or deposits (better still, issued by the government)
> a bigger role for government, more government control
This was the financial system a few decades ago. Let us go back to the safe old days.
> private capital to fund the banks
> short term deposits
> greed of bankers, taking excessive risk
The central banks have to bail out the system by putting in taxpayers' money to recapitalised the banks. The outcome - governments will be the majority owner of most of the large banks. I think that this is a good outcome (contrary to what most other people think).
I believe that the new financial system should be built on the following pillars:
> public ownership of the large financial institutions
> a limited range of low cost, fair financial products (forget about the innovative complex products designed to cheat the public)
> government guarantee for long term bonds or deposits (better still, issued by the government)
> a bigger role for government, more government control
This was the financial system a few decades ago. Let us go back to the safe old days.
Ponzi Scheme
Dear Mr Tan,
Somebody put it in a nutshell on how the fortune of this world's musical money chair came to a grid lock.. called the Ponzi Scheme! Simple anedotal way to explain a complex situation... please publish it for the benefit of those who read your blogs. Thank you!
S8N
Starting Point
The Ponzi Scheme
The crux of the fraudulent Ponzi scheme is the twin pillars of:
) Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac – the two giant mortgage corporations of USA
2) The Derivative financial tool known as Credit Default Swap (CDS)
Once you have a grasp of these two concepts, you cannot but agree that we are facing total global banking collapse. Why? Because the entire global banking system has been built on these two financial pillars! But the system became irreparable in the last 7 years when CDS became the linchpin in the massive expansion of derivative trading and financial engineering.
The Mechanics
1. Banks became greedy and were unwilling to earn safe and steady profits from mortgages for housing and commercial properties which usually spread over a period of between 5 to 30 years.
2. Banks wanted massive profits in the shortest period of time and the ability to lend massive amounts and not be regulated as to how to do it.
3. The crooks devised a scheme. It was a simple idea.
4. Banks will provide mortgages to all and sundry.
5. I am going to use a simple example and using small numbers to illustrate for ease of calculation. Thus, assuming the Bank gave out US$1 million to finance mortgages, bearing interest at 10%.
6. The bank then sold the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a discount. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being Government Sponsored Companies (GSCs) are able to get cheap financing to purchase these mortgages as they were assumed to be "guaranteed by the US Government".
7. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then package these mortgages into all sorts of structured financial products and these were sold to investors (private as well governments) . Central Banks hold massive amounts of dollar reserves and they need to find a safe haven for them. Hence, and invariably, Central Banks invest their reserves in US Treasuries and financial "mortgage-backed" products issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as other US financial institutions.
8. With the payment of US$ 1 million by Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, the bank by law, can lend ten times the amount after keeping 10% reserves i.e.US$100,000. Therefore, the bank can lend US$9 million by "creating money out of thin air" i.e. by crediting the borrowers in their loan accounts in amount of the loans extended. These US$9 million loans secured by mortgages are then sold to Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac again.
The cycle keeps repeating and the banks keep creating more and more loans.
It was so easy that the banks decided to create dubious loans called "Liars Loans" whereby the borrower need not state the actual income and or ability to repay.
9. As more and more of these loans were created, investors (government and private) demanded assurances that these loans were good for investments. The rating agencies (e.g. Moodys, Standard & Poor and Fitch etc.) who in collusion with banks, gave AAA ratings to what were essentially junks. This fraud led investors to believe that these financial products were good investments.
10. The rating agencies were only too aware that this scheme needed something more concrete to prolong the fraud and induce the investors to part with their monies.
11. The insurance companies like A.I.G. came into the picture. They were seduced by the idea that if they can insure against risks of accidents, storms etc., they could also insure risks against default by the mortgage holders. Thus was born the financial innovation – Credit Default Swap (CDS). Any financial product with a sound CDS would be rated AAA. It was as good as being guaranteed by Uncle Sam. Central banks all over the world fell for it – hook, line and sinker.
12. The scheme works out like this – AIG sells protection – i.e. in the event there is a default, AIG will pay out to the buyer who buys the protection (the CDS) in exchange for the payment of premiums covering the period of protection not unlike your usual insurance policy. It was easy money for everyone.
The banks get to sell their loans and have the liquidity to create more loans.
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac and other financial institutions get the opportunity to repackage these loans / mortgages and sells them to investors with a tidy profit.
The investors are happy with their so-called guaranteed returns. The insurance companies, investment banks and other players get their premium income for selling protection. It was old fashion mafia loan sharking and protection business dressed up in modern financial jargon and everyone was too arrogant and greedy to see through the fraud.
13. When loans default and continue to be delinquent, the law (depending on each country) provides that if the loan is in default for 90 days or more, it should be declared a Non-Performing Loan (NPL) and banks must provide reserve to cover the loss.
14. What happened was banks were covering the defaults and kept them on the books for two years or more in the hope that no one would be wiser and interest income from new loans would cover the defaulted old loans – the classic ponzi modus operandi.
15. When the two years default reached critical proportions starting with the sub-prime loans, the fraud began to unravel. Investors began demanding their protection money for the losses arising from these defaults. It has been estimated that the market value of the CDS was in excess of US$60 trillion but the capital of the insurance companies like AIG are only in the billions. It is therefore a physical impossibility to make good the demand for payment for the defaults.
16. If AIG the No. 1 insurer in US and the world is in default, it means the rest are in deep shits. You can take it as a given that no one and no one has good coverage and protection anymore.
17. When there is no coverage and protection, how can there be AAA ratings for new issues of such financial products? Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac etc. cannot package these products for sale to investors and if they cannot sell, they will have no funds to buy more dubious mortgages from corrupt and fraudulent Wall Street banks. With no additional funds, these crooks in JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Bros., Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, UBS, Barclays, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, etc. will have difficulty extending new loans.
The "Musical Money Chair" will have to come to a complete halt. The entire system gets into a gridlock.
Given the above explanation, can the US government and the Fed continue to bail out banks and other financial institutions? When US is in deficit in both the budget and current accounts, where else can they get the extra monies except by creating out of thin air (virtually by keying digits into computers) or print more dollars.
If you are a sovereign lender or a private hedge fund, knowing the situation, would you lend more monies to the US Treasury knowing that each dollar issued (whether digitally or in printed notes) are not worth the value stated therein.
These dollars ARE NO BETTER THAN TOILET PAPER.
The bulk of our reserves are in US dollars. Our trade – petroleum products, palm oil and other exports are mainly traded in dollars. When the dollar dives into the cesspool of waste, what then?
Somebody put it in a nutshell on how the fortune of this world's musical money chair came to a grid lock.. called the Ponzi Scheme! Simple anedotal way to explain a complex situation... please publish it for the benefit of those who read your blogs. Thank you!
S8N
Starting Point
The Ponzi Scheme
The crux of the fraudulent Ponzi scheme is the twin pillars of:
) Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac – the two giant mortgage corporations of USA
2) The Derivative financial tool known as Credit Default Swap (CDS)
Once you have a grasp of these two concepts, you cannot but agree that we are facing total global banking collapse. Why? Because the entire global banking system has been built on these two financial pillars! But the system became irreparable in the last 7 years when CDS became the linchpin in the massive expansion of derivative trading and financial engineering.
The Mechanics
1. Banks became greedy and were unwilling to earn safe and steady profits from mortgages for housing and commercial properties which usually spread over a period of between 5 to 30 years.
2. Banks wanted massive profits in the shortest period of time and the ability to lend massive amounts and not be regulated as to how to do it.
3. The crooks devised a scheme. It was a simple idea.
4. Banks will provide mortgages to all and sundry.
5. I am going to use a simple example and using small numbers to illustrate for ease of calculation. Thus, assuming the Bank gave out US$1 million to finance mortgages, bearing interest at 10%.
6. The bank then sold the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at a discount. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being Government Sponsored Companies (GSCs) are able to get cheap financing to purchase these mortgages as they were assumed to be "guaranteed by the US Government".
7. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then package these mortgages into all sorts of structured financial products and these were sold to investors (private as well governments) . Central Banks hold massive amounts of dollar reserves and they need to find a safe haven for them. Hence, and invariably, Central Banks invest their reserves in US Treasuries and financial "mortgage-backed" products issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as other US financial institutions.
8. With the payment of US$ 1 million by Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, the bank by law, can lend ten times the amount after keeping 10% reserves i.e.US$100,000. Therefore, the bank can lend US$9 million by "creating money out of thin air" i.e. by crediting the borrowers in their loan accounts in amount of the loans extended. These US$9 million loans secured by mortgages are then sold to Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac again.
The cycle keeps repeating and the banks keep creating more and more loans.
It was so easy that the banks decided to create dubious loans called "Liars Loans" whereby the borrower need not state the actual income and or ability to repay.
9. As more and more of these loans were created, investors (government and private) demanded assurances that these loans were good for investments. The rating agencies (e.g. Moodys, Standard & Poor and Fitch etc.) who in collusion with banks, gave AAA ratings to what were essentially junks. This fraud led investors to believe that these financial products were good investments.
10. The rating agencies were only too aware that this scheme needed something more concrete to prolong the fraud and induce the investors to part with their monies.
11. The insurance companies like A.I.G. came into the picture. They were seduced by the idea that if they can insure against risks of accidents, storms etc., they could also insure risks against default by the mortgage holders. Thus was born the financial innovation – Credit Default Swap (CDS). Any financial product with a sound CDS would be rated AAA. It was as good as being guaranteed by Uncle Sam. Central banks all over the world fell for it – hook, line and sinker.
12. The scheme works out like this – AIG sells protection – i.e. in the event there is a default, AIG will pay out to the buyer who buys the protection (the CDS) in exchange for the payment of premiums covering the period of protection not unlike your usual insurance policy. It was easy money for everyone.
The banks get to sell their loans and have the liquidity to create more loans.
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac and other financial institutions get the opportunity to repackage these loans / mortgages and sells them to investors with a tidy profit.
The investors are happy with their so-called guaranteed returns. The insurance companies, investment banks and other players get their premium income for selling protection. It was old fashion mafia loan sharking and protection business dressed up in modern financial jargon and everyone was too arrogant and greedy to see through the fraud.
13. When loans default and continue to be delinquent, the law (depending on each country) provides that if the loan is in default for 90 days or more, it should be declared a Non-Performing Loan (NPL) and banks must provide reserve to cover the loss.
14. What happened was banks were covering the defaults and kept them on the books for two years or more in the hope that no one would be wiser and interest income from new loans would cover the defaulted old loans – the classic ponzi modus operandi.
15. When the two years default reached critical proportions starting with the sub-prime loans, the fraud began to unravel. Investors began demanding their protection money for the losses arising from these defaults. It has been estimated that the market value of the CDS was in excess of US$60 trillion but the capital of the insurance companies like AIG are only in the billions. It is therefore a physical impossibility to make good the demand for payment for the defaults.
16. If AIG the No. 1 insurer in US and the world is in default, it means the rest are in deep shits. You can take it as a given that no one and no one has good coverage and protection anymore.
17. When there is no coverage and protection, how can there be AAA ratings for new issues of such financial products? Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac etc. cannot package these products for sale to investors and if they cannot sell, they will have no funds to buy more dubious mortgages from corrupt and fraudulent Wall Street banks. With no additional funds, these crooks in JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Bros., Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, UBS, Barclays, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, etc. will have difficulty extending new loans.
The "Musical Money Chair" will have to come to a complete halt. The entire system gets into a gridlock.
Given the above explanation, can the US government and the Fed continue to bail out banks and other financial institutions? When US is in deficit in both the budget and current accounts, where else can they get the extra monies except by creating out of thin air (virtually by keying digits into computers) or print more dollars.
If you are a sovereign lender or a private hedge fund, knowing the situation, would you lend more monies to the US Treasury knowing that each dollar issued (whether digitally or in printed notes) are not worth the value stated therein.
These dollars ARE NO BETTER THAN TOILET PAPER.
The bulk of our reserves are in US dollars. Our trade – petroleum products, palm oil and other exports are mainly traded in dollars. When the dollar dives into the cesspool of waste, what then?
Caring and responsible country
Comment posted in my blog
Though I am not a Singaporean but I follow your blog with keenness especially on the issues of losses suffered by the retail investors in the structured investments.
I believe that Mr. Tan has a point and a cause to fight for. Can you imagine those retiree who has been some how misled into these investments and now they have loss all or most of their hard earn saving.
It is only right that a caring and responsible country like Singapore should act in its upmost honesty and responsibility to get at least part if not all of the money invested by the innocents investors.
While saying that I do hope country like Singapore will set as a good example that follow what Hong Kong is doing it now.
May God bless all those who has suffered not because of their faults.
Though I am not a Singaporean but I follow your blog with keenness especially on the issues of losses suffered by the retail investors in the structured investments.
I believe that Mr. Tan has a point and a cause to fight for. Can you imagine those retiree who has been some how misled into these investments and now they have loss all or most of their hard earn saving.
It is only right that a caring and responsible country like Singapore should act in its upmost honesty and responsibility to get at least part if not all of the money invested by the innocents investors.
While saying that I do hope country like Singapore will set as a good example that follow what Hong Kong is doing it now.
May God bless all those who has suffered not because of their faults.
Petition to MAS - review sales training and marketing processes
I have extracted the particulars of 273 investors who signed the Petition to MAS to review the sales training and marketing process of the financial institutions. I will be sending the Petition to MAS today.
It does not matter that other people did not sign yet. The number of signatories is more than sufficient.
If MAS acts and carries out the review, and found that the bank has not provided sufficient training to the sales representatives, it will be helpful to the investors who have been misled.
Investors who bought directly from the brochures or advertisements, can claim that the sales materials were misleading, and that essential information have been withheld, or were presented in a misleading way. Your case is not as strong as those who were misled by the sales representatives, but there are grounds to support your case as well.
All the best!
It does not matter that other people did not sign yet. The number of signatories is more than sufficient.
If MAS acts and carries out the review, and found that the bank has not provided sufficient training to the sales representatives, it will be helpful to the investors who have been misled.
Investors who bought directly from the brochures or advertisements, can claim that the sales materials were misleading, and that essential information have been withheld, or were presented in a misleading way. Your case is not as strong as those who were misled by the sales representatives, but there are grounds to support your case as well.
All the best!
HK: Tsang vows to get justice for minibonds investors
Tsang vows to get justice for minibonds investors
Bonnie Chen, Diana Leeand Beatrice Siu
Friday, October 17, 2008
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam- kuen has pledged to help those caught up in the Lehman Brothers minibond row get justice if any criminal or civil liability is identified.
"Officials found guilty of misconduct in handling the Lehman Brothers minibond saga will be punished but it is not an appropriate time to see who should be responsible - all efforts should be focused on tackling the matter," Tsang said in response to a question by financial services legislator Chim Pui- chung in the Legislative Council.
Much as he hopes litigation could be avoided, he promised to pursue cases to the end. "If cases are found to have criminal liability, we will follow up seriously," he said.
Banks involved in the case are expected to respond today to Tsang's ultimatum on a buyback proposal.
Also, the Hong Kong Association of Banks will announce the appointment of Ernst & Young to evaluate the value of all Lehman-related products, including minibonds and equity-linked notes, or ELNs. The ELN evaluation is expected to be completed next Friday.
Meanwhile, DBS Bank (Hong Kong) has reportedly settled with two clients. In one case, a man surnamed Chan said his 84-year-old mother and 50-year- old brother had bought HK$560,000 worth of ELNs from the bank.
Chan declined to disclose the amount of compensation but said the bank told his family that it was a capital preservation product that would have interest paid every three months. He said the bank staff admitted they realized his brother had a mental illness.
A spokeswoman for DBS Bank (Hong Kong), however, clarified that as of yesterday, "the bank has not made any settlements with any parties on the grounds of alleged mis-selling."
Tsang reiterated the administration will inject capital to the Consumer Legal Action Fund if necessary. "But I hope banks will not seek litigation. Reputation is an invaluable asset to banks. It will be shameful and troublesome to banks if they go to court and it is time-consuming too," he said.
Tsang rejected Chim's idea of setting up a special court to handle the Lehman saga as impractical. Neither did he accept Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee's suggestion of settling the problem through arbitration.
Tsang said both parties had to agree on arbitration or the case will have to be handled by the court. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, he said, will also set up a mediation group for this purpose.
Spokesmen for the Bank of East Asia, ABN Amro, ICBC (HK) and Dah Sing Bank said they are considering the buyout proposal.
Consumer Council chief Connie Lau Yin-hing declined to say whether the current HK$16 million litigation fund would be enough to help people caught up in the Lehman scandal. She also hoped the problem could be solved by mediation.
Up to yesterday, the council had received 1,702 complaints from investors, involving a total amount of HK$12
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=73064&sid=21037896&con_type=1
Bonnie Chen, Diana Leeand Beatrice Siu
Friday, October 17, 2008
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam- kuen has pledged to help those caught up in the Lehman Brothers minibond row get justice if any criminal or civil liability is identified.
"Officials found guilty of misconduct in handling the Lehman Brothers minibond saga will be punished but it is not an appropriate time to see who should be responsible - all efforts should be focused on tackling the matter," Tsang said in response to a question by financial services legislator Chim Pui- chung in the Legislative Council.
Much as he hopes litigation could be avoided, he promised to pursue cases to the end. "If cases are found to have criminal liability, we will follow up seriously," he said.
Banks involved in the case are expected to respond today to Tsang's ultimatum on a buyback proposal.
Also, the Hong Kong Association of Banks will announce the appointment of Ernst & Young to evaluate the value of all Lehman-related products, including minibonds and equity-linked notes, or ELNs. The ELN evaluation is expected to be completed next Friday.
Meanwhile, DBS Bank (Hong Kong) has reportedly settled with two clients. In one case, a man surnamed Chan said his 84-year-old mother and 50-year- old brother had bought HK$560,000 worth of ELNs from the bank.
Chan declined to disclose the amount of compensation but said the bank told his family that it was a capital preservation product that would have interest paid every three months. He said the bank staff admitted they realized his brother had a mental illness.
A spokeswoman for DBS Bank (Hong Kong), however, clarified that as of yesterday, "the bank has not made any settlements with any parties on the grounds of alleged mis-selling."
Tsang reiterated the administration will inject capital to the Consumer Legal Action Fund if necessary. "But I hope banks will not seek litigation. Reputation is an invaluable asset to banks. It will be shameful and troublesome to banks if they go to court and it is time-consuming too," he said.
Tsang rejected Chim's idea of setting up a special court to handle the Lehman saga as impractical. Neither did he accept Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee's suggestion of settling the problem through arbitration.
Tsang said both parties had to agree on arbitration or the case will have to be handled by the court. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, he said, will also set up a mediation group for this purpose.
Spokesmen for the Bank of East Asia, ABN Amro, ICBC (HK) and Dah Sing Bank said they are considering the buyout proposal.
Consumer Council chief Connie Lau Yin-hing declined to say whether the current HK$16 million litigation fund would be enough to help people caught up in the Lehman scandal. She also hoped the problem could be solved by mediation.
Up to yesterday, the council had received 1,702 complaints from investors, involving a total amount of HK$12
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=73064&sid=21037896&con_type=1
Petition to investigate the sales training
A financial institution has announced that they will compensate investors who can prove that they have been "mis-sold".
This Petition is to ask MAS to investigate the sales training process of the financial institutions. If the training materials did not show the actual nature and risks of the products, it will show that the sales representatives had provided the wrong information or recommendation to the retail investors, i.e. misrepresentation or mis-selling.
Please read the wordings of this petition carefully. If you agree with the content, you can sign the Petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ISTFI1/petition.html
This Petition is to ask MAS to investigate the sales training process of the financial institutions. If the training materials did not show the actual nature and risks of the products, it will show that the sales representatives had provided the wrong information or recommendation to the retail investors, i.e. misrepresentation or mis-selling.
Please read the wordings of this petition carefully. If you agree with the content, you can sign the Petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ISTFI1/petition.html
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Who let the sharks in?
Here is a story told by Betsybug
The maritime watchdog (the Maritime Authority or MA) has put out a warning about the dangers of sharks - "look, long sharp teeth, large mouth, strong bite. Stay away at all costs. You could be killed by these predators".
After putting out this warning, it stands idly by when a seaside resort (let's call it the Delmar Beach Sports Seaside or DBSS) lets in sharks into its swimming lagoon. They have made a huge investment by advertising this new attraction at its resort. Many holiday-makers visit the resort as a result of this promotion. Nobody notices that the sharks were promoted as an exotic dog-fish species. In a foot-note in the promotion brochure, there is mention of the dog-fish species which called by its proper scientic name, "Carcharodon carcharias". Its layman's name is the Great White Shark. However, no-one quite understood all the marine biology jargon. Everyone thought this was a safe holiday at home, far from fears of terrorism and air-crashes.
The DBSS resort tells the holiday-makers, "Don't worry, this is a unique resort attraction. You are perfectly safe as long as you stay within the lagoon. It's not like you are swimming in the open sea. Go right ahead and swim and you will have a good time". The holiday-makers, being rather trusting of this reputable resort, proceed to wade out into the lagoon. Soon, entire families were having a wonderful time, splashing merrily in the cool waters of the lagoon. Everyone thought this was a perfect holiday.
The inevitable happens - someone has a little accident and suffers a small cut. Unfortunately, the sharks detected the minute amount of blood and their predatory instincts kicked in. They begin to attack and gobble up the poor swimmers. The carnage is quite heart-breaking. Young and old are killed or are maimed and injured. The swimming lagoon is awash with blood and gore, and very few managed to crawl out of the lagoon untouched.
The resort's lifeguards are not much help - after all, this was not something they trained for. They knew about CPR and water rescues, but shark attacks were completely new to them. Ambulances were called, but for many of the victims, help came too late. In the aftermath of the disaster, the DBSS management was hard to reach for comments. They asked that all enquiries be sent to its PR department, and that all queries will be handled in due time.
Meanwhile, MA said that the families of victims or surviving victims should put in their claims for compensation to DBSS. It said that DBSS is the correct party to judge whether the claims are valid or not. It also reminds everyone that it has issued a warning about sharks. An MA official said that there is inherent risk in every activity even on holidays. And the more fun you have, the greater is the risk you run.
A prominent marine biologist, Mr TK Lynch set up a support centre to counsel and answer the questions by the bewildered families who have lost their loved ones. He helps organise support group meetings, and writes to the MA to seek answers and redress. At the time of writing, nothing has yet happened. Meanwhile, throughout the country, at many wakes and funerals, the grieving continues and many heart-rending questions are sent skywards. But no answers descend.
The maritime watchdog (the Maritime Authority or MA) has put out a warning about the dangers of sharks - "look, long sharp teeth, large mouth, strong bite. Stay away at all costs. You could be killed by these predators".
After putting out this warning, it stands idly by when a seaside resort (let's call it the Delmar Beach Sports Seaside or DBSS) lets in sharks into its swimming lagoon. They have made a huge investment by advertising this new attraction at its resort. Many holiday-makers visit the resort as a result of this promotion. Nobody notices that the sharks were promoted as an exotic dog-fish species. In a foot-note in the promotion brochure, there is mention of the dog-fish species which called by its proper scientic name, "Carcharodon carcharias". Its layman's name is the Great White Shark. However, no-one quite understood all the marine biology jargon. Everyone thought this was a safe holiday at home, far from fears of terrorism and air-crashes.
The DBSS resort tells the holiday-makers, "Don't worry, this is a unique resort attraction. You are perfectly safe as long as you stay within the lagoon. It's not like you are swimming in the open sea. Go right ahead and swim and you will have a good time". The holiday-makers, being rather trusting of this reputable resort, proceed to wade out into the lagoon. Soon, entire families were having a wonderful time, splashing merrily in the cool waters of the lagoon. Everyone thought this was a perfect holiday.
The inevitable happens - someone has a little accident and suffers a small cut. Unfortunately, the sharks detected the minute amount of blood and their predatory instincts kicked in. They begin to attack and gobble up the poor swimmers. The carnage is quite heart-breaking. Young and old are killed or are maimed and injured. The swimming lagoon is awash with blood and gore, and very few managed to crawl out of the lagoon untouched.
The resort's lifeguards are not much help - after all, this was not something they trained for. They knew about CPR and water rescues, but shark attacks were completely new to them. Ambulances were called, but for many of the victims, help came too late. In the aftermath of the disaster, the DBSS management was hard to reach for comments. They asked that all enquiries be sent to its PR department, and that all queries will be handled in due time.
Meanwhile, MA said that the families of victims or surviving victims should put in their claims for compensation to DBSS. It said that DBSS is the correct party to judge whether the claims are valid or not. It also reminds everyone that it has issued a warning about sharks. An MA official said that there is inherent risk in every activity even on holidays. And the more fun you have, the greater is the risk you run.
A prominent marine biologist, Mr TK Lynch set up a support centre to counsel and answer the questions by the bewildered families who have lost their loved ones. He helps organise support group meetings, and writes to the MA to seek answers and redress. At the time of writing, nothing has yet happened. Meanwhile, throughout the country, at many wakes and funerals, the grieving continues and many heart-rending questions are sent skywards. But no answers descend.
Fearful about speaking
Hi Mr. Tan,
I am sure, there are many who quietly hope that you would, when the time comes, volunteer yourself for election into Parliament.
Whilst some may wish that you avail yourself for the chair of the Presidency, however, I personally feel your entry into Parliament can contribute more to the betterment of the Singapore society. Time for a change in the way how our lives is governed.
In the meantime, dear Mr. Tan, I hope to see you and your fellow cohorts in Hong Lim Park as often as it possibly permit.
It is a shame to suggest that you tread carefully in your speeches, and hence I hope you do not take offence to this reminder which I am sure you are also fully aware of.
I wish you well, dear Mr. Tan
REPLY
Thank you. It is shameful that in Singapore, we cannot speak honestly and have to be fearful.
I am sure, there are many who quietly hope that you would, when the time comes, volunteer yourself for election into Parliament.
Whilst some may wish that you avail yourself for the chair of the Presidency, however, I personally feel your entry into Parliament can contribute more to the betterment of the Singapore society. Time for a change in the way how our lives is governed.
In the meantime, dear Mr. Tan, I hope to see you and your fellow cohorts in Hong Lim Park as often as it possibly permit.
It is a shame to suggest that you tread carefully in your speeches, and hence I hope you do not take offence to this reminder which I am sure you are also fully aware of.
I wish you well, dear Mr. Tan
REPLY
Thank you. It is shameful that in Singapore, we cannot speak honestly and have to be fearful.
MAS International Advisory Panel (IAP)
Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Trade & Industry and Deputy Chairman of MAS (Chairman of IAP)
Dr Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
Mr Jacques Aigrain, Chief Executive Officer, Swiss Re
Mr Claude Bebear, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, The AXA Group
Mr Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Goldman Sachs, Inc
Mr Michael Diekmann, Chairman of the Board of Management, Allianz AG
Mr James L. Dimon, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Mr David Fisher, Chairman, Capital International
Mr Rijkman Groenink, former Chairman, ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
Mr Kenneth D. Lewis, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer & President, Bank of America Corporation
Mr John Mack, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
Mr Shigemitsu Miki, Senior Advisor, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd
Mr Vikram Pandit, Chief Executive Officer, Citigroup Inc
Mr Michel Pebereau, Chairman, BNP Paribas
Mr Marcel Rohner, Chief Executive Officer, UBS AG
Mr Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Son Ltd
Mr John A. Thain, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc
Dr Junichi Ujiie, Chairman, Nomura Holdings, Inc
Mr John Varley, Group Chief Executive, Barclays PLC
Dr Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
Mr Jacques Aigrain, Chief Executive Officer, Swiss Re
Mr Claude Bebear, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, The AXA Group
Mr Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Goldman Sachs, Inc
Mr Michael Diekmann, Chairman of the Board of Management, Allianz AG
Mr James L. Dimon, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Mr David Fisher, Chairman, Capital International
Mr Rijkman Groenink, former Chairman, ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
Mr Kenneth D. Lewis, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer & President, Bank of America Corporation
Mr John Mack, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
Mr Shigemitsu Miki, Senior Advisor, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd
Mr Vikram Pandit, Chief Executive Officer, Citigroup Inc
Mr Michel Pebereau, Chairman, BNP Paribas
Mr Marcel Rohner, Chief Executive Officer, UBS AG
Mr Ratan Tata, Chairman, Tata Son Ltd
Mr John A. Thain, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc
Dr Junichi Ujiie, Chairman, Nomura Holdings, Inc
Mr John Varley, Group Chief Executive, Barclays PLC
Impact of an offer to settle
Dear Mr. Tan,
If there is a settlement, does it apply to everybody or only those who signed the Petition?
REPLY
If there is a proposal from the distributor, it will be offered to those who fit into a certain category (e.g. who have been misled into the investment). It is subject to acceptance by the offered party.
Some investors may not be offered the settlement, e.g. they were not misled, or may not accept the offer (e.g. it was too low).
The offer for a settlement will have no unrelated to the signing of the Petition. Any party offered can accept or rejected the offer, regardless of whether they sign the Petition.
So far, none of the financial institutions have responded to my suggestion for a mediation. So, this question is premature.
If there is a settlement, does it apply to everybody or only those who signed the Petition?
REPLY
If there is a proposal from the distributor, it will be offered to those who fit into a certain category (e.g. who have been misled into the investment). It is subject to acceptance by the offered party.
Some investors may not be offered the settlement, e.g. they were not misled, or may not accept the offer (e.g. it was too low).
The offer for a settlement will have no unrelated to the signing of the Petition. Any party offered can accept or rejected the offer, regardless of whether they sign the Petition.
So far, none of the financial institutions have responded to my suggestion for a mediation. So, this question is premature.
Hong Kong Chief Talks Tough on Minibonds - Bravo
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=0AZY6TE60DJ4&linkid=8af62784-11aa-47af-89c0-d408e77ac3c9&pdaffid=8HM4kDzWViwfc7AqkYlqIQ%3d%3d
16 Oct 2008
South China Morning Post
Joyce Man
The chief executive appears to be losing his patience with banks over their handling of minibonds linked to bankrupt US bank Lehman Brothers – insisting they respond swiftly to a government buy-back proposal and warning the administration may fund legal action by minibond investors.
“They cannot keep dragging on,” he said in a strongly worded message after delivering his policy address.
He said investors had waited for weeks and the Monetary Authority had found evidence of mis-selling by some banks.
“Considering this situation, I am now requiring that banks reply this week,” he said.
Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah announced the proposal on Monday last week, and said banks had a week to respond.
His proposal is that banks which sold the minibonds buy them back at their current value.
Investors bought HK$12.7 billion of minibonds issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers. They face losing much or all of their investment. Many claim that banks and brokers mis-sold them as low-risk. In fact, minibonds are high- risk creditlinked derivatives.
A further HK$3 billion has been invested in similar, equity-linked Lehman derivatives.
Several banks have responded positively to the proposal, but none of the 16 banks that sold minibonds have publicly agreed to a buy-back. Many banks say they cannot respond until they have a valuation. A taskforce set up under the Hong Kong Association of Banks will assess the minibonds’ current value.
The Monetary Authority has received more than 9,200 complaints about the sale of complex derivatives. Mr Tsang said it would set up an independent panel to mediate with banks in cases where it finds evidence of mis-selling.
If mediation fails, the Consumer Council will help complainants apply to its consumer legal action fund, which provides help for joint lawsuits. Mr Tsang promised the government would inject money into the fund if necessary.
“It’s a positive step,” said one man who bought HK$10 million in minibonds. He would welcome a buyback as long as it left him free to pursue his bank for the rest of his money.
Mr Tsang also ordered the banks to communicate with the complainants yesterday.
One bank, DBS, has agreed to buy back similar complex derivatives once it has valued them. Citibank has agreed to full refunds if its inquiries prove mis-selling by any of its agents.
16 Oct 2008
South China Morning Post
Joyce Man
The chief executive appears to be losing his patience with banks over their handling of minibonds linked to bankrupt US bank Lehman Brothers – insisting they respond swiftly to a government buy-back proposal and warning the administration may fund legal action by minibond investors.
“They cannot keep dragging on,” he said in a strongly worded message after delivering his policy address.
He said investors had waited for weeks and the Monetary Authority had found evidence of mis-selling by some banks.
“Considering this situation, I am now requiring that banks reply this week,” he said.
Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah announced the proposal on Monday last week, and said banks had a week to respond.
His proposal is that banks which sold the minibonds buy them back at their current value.
Investors bought HK$12.7 billion of minibonds issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers. They face losing much or all of their investment. Many claim that banks and brokers mis-sold them as low-risk. In fact, minibonds are high- risk creditlinked derivatives.
A further HK$3 billion has been invested in similar, equity-linked Lehman derivatives.
Several banks have responded positively to the proposal, but none of the 16 banks that sold minibonds have publicly agreed to a buy-back. Many banks say they cannot respond until they have a valuation. A taskforce set up under the Hong Kong Association of Banks will assess the minibonds’ current value.
The Monetary Authority has received more than 9,200 complaints about the sale of complex derivatives. Mr Tsang said it would set up an independent panel to mediate with banks in cases where it finds evidence of mis-selling.
If mediation fails, the Consumer Council will help complainants apply to its consumer legal action fund, which provides help for joint lawsuits. Mr Tsang promised the government would inject money into the fund if necessary.
“It’s a positive step,” said one man who bought HK$10 million in minibonds. He would welcome a buyback as long as it left him free to pursue his bank for the rest of his money.
Mr Tsang also ordered the banks to communicate with the complainants yesterday.
One bank, DBS, has agreed to buy back similar complex derivatives once it has valued them. Citibank has agreed to full refunds if its inquiries prove mis-selling by any of its agents.
Request for MAS to give an update on the Petition
I have sent this letter to Dr. Andrew Khoo, copied to Mr. Goh Chok Tong
Dear Dr. Khoo
Several signatories of the Petition have asked me for the response of MAS to the Petition. Can you give me a progress report, so that I can communicate with them? Does MAS find the issues raised in the Petition to have merit?
Dear Dr. Khoo
Several signatories of the Petition have asked me for the response of MAS to the Petition. Can you give me a progress report, so that I can communicate with them? Does MAS find the issues raised in the Petition to have merit?
Statement by DBS CEO
Posted in my blog
DBS CEO Richard Stanley says in his message dated 19 September 08 that
"While we do not know how long the turbulence will last, at DBS, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity. Of that, you have our deepest assurance"
Refer to website :
http://www.dbs.com/dbsgroup/announcements/
Is this DBS rhetoric or do they really mean it ? I guess we will find out from the outcome of how they handle this situation
DBS CEO Richard Stanley says in his message dated 19 September 08 that
"While we do not know how long the turbulence will last, at DBS, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity. Of that, you have our deepest assurance"
Refer to website :
http://www.dbs.com/dbsgroup/announcements/
Is this DBS rhetoric or do they really mean it ? I guess we will find out from the outcome of how they handle this situation
Negotiate with financial institutions
Several investors have sent an e-mailed to me, indicating that they are willing to accept 50% of their investments. They asked me to negotiate with the financial institution. They wish to cut their loss.
I am not able to act on their behalf at this time. None of the financial institutions have contacted me to take up my offer of mediation.
I will arrange another "petition" letter for the interested investors to authorise me to approach their financial instition. Please wait a few days.
I am not able to act on their behalf at this time. None of the financial institutions have contacted me to take up my offer of mediation.
I will arrange another "petition" letter for the interested investors to authorise me to approach their financial instition. Please wait a few days.
Hong Kong: Minibond fix may prove a risky business
Minibond fix may prove a risky business
StephenKwok
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The worldwide financial turbulence has triggered widespread public concern over the marketing of retail structured products - in particular, minibonds backed by toppled investment bank Lehman Brothers.
Distributors of the minibonds include local and foreign banks, as well as brokerages.
From the investors' perspective, the concerns right now are twofold. Firstly, investors are claiming they were misled into buying the minibonds - believing they actually had bought "bonds" that were low risk.
As such, they have been demanding action against the intermediaries that sold them the products. Secondly, many are also demanding back the full amount or a substantial portion of their investments.
The financial regulatory authorities in Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission, have launched investigations into the possible mis-selling of the complex financial products backed by Lehman. Part of the focus is on allegations that the full risks of the instruments were not fully disclosed and explained to the investors.
The pressure is growing for the government to bail out the investors, who are not satisfied with a government proposal for the distribution banks to buy back the minibonds at prevailing market prices so investors quickly get back their money, although not in full. The banks are considering the proposal.
Regulators have been blamed for lax oversight and there are now demands for them to strengthen supervision of the marketing and selling of financial products. This has resulted in discussions as to whether a ban on banks selling complex financial products should be imposed to protect unsophisticated investors.
However, that is not an appropriate move. Firstly, access to capital is vital for financial institutions. This is why once formidable investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are transforming themselves into commercial banks.
Secondly, many of the retail banks registered in Hong Kong are part of global and/or regional financial institutions. These institutions should be well-equipped to provide the necessary training for staff to undertake the selling process.
If we consider restricting the business of selling financial products to participants such as brokerages or independent financial advisers, I do not see how they will do better than the banks without improvements to existing regulation. The solution is to strengthen supervision of the distributors of such products, especially the selling process.
From the distributors' perspective, whether they have adequate guidelines for selling the products, have provided sales staff with adequate training and monitored staff performance should be investigated.
Parties found to have committed wrongdoings should be penalized. These investigation areas should also form the basis for new regulations.
From the staff perspective, the selling process should also be investigated to identify if it has been in accordance with the institutions' own guidelines and in compliance with regulations. Staff should be held responsible for any wrongdoings only if they are found to have not followed regulations.
As investigations are ongoing, it is premature for the government to recommend banks buy back the minibonds at prevailing market prices. Part or full compensation for losses for investors should only be considered if investigations show that investors were misled by the bank or its sales staff during the selling process.
Compensation for minibond investors before any evidence of misleading sales is found is not the way things are supposed to work in a free economy such as Hong Kong.
If intermediaries are required to buy back the products before any malpractice is confirmed and just because investments in the product suffer losses, this will have a significant and long-lasting impact on all kinds of intermediary businesses, including property agencies and brokerages.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=72938&sid=21014657&con_type=1
StephenKwok
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The worldwide financial turbulence has triggered widespread public concern over the marketing of retail structured products - in particular, minibonds backed by toppled investment bank Lehman Brothers.
Distributors of the minibonds include local and foreign banks, as well as brokerages.
From the investors' perspective, the concerns right now are twofold. Firstly, investors are claiming they were misled into buying the minibonds - believing they actually had bought "bonds" that were low risk.
As such, they have been demanding action against the intermediaries that sold them the products. Secondly, many are also demanding back the full amount or a substantial portion of their investments.
The financial regulatory authorities in Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission, have launched investigations into the possible mis-selling of the complex financial products backed by Lehman. Part of the focus is on allegations that the full risks of the instruments were not fully disclosed and explained to the investors.
The pressure is growing for the government to bail out the investors, who are not satisfied with a government proposal for the distribution banks to buy back the minibonds at prevailing market prices so investors quickly get back their money, although not in full. The banks are considering the proposal.
Regulators have been blamed for lax oversight and there are now demands for them to strengthen supervision of the marketing and selling of financial products. This has resulted in discussions as to whether a ban on banks selling complex financial products should be imposed to protect unsophisticated investors.
However, that is not an appropriate move. Firstly, access to capital is vital for financial institutions. This is why once formidable investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are transforming themselves into commercial banks.
Secondly, many of the retail banks registered in Hong Kong are part of global and/or regional financial institutions. These institutions should be well-equipped to provide the necessary training for staff to undertake the selling process.
If we consider restricting the business of selling financial products to participants such as brokerages or independent financial advisers, I do not see how they will do better than the banks without improvements to existing regulation. The solution is to strengthen supervision of the distributors of such products, especially the selling process.
From the distributors' perspective, whether they have adequate guidelines for selling the products, have provided sales staff with adequate training and monitored staff performance should be investigated.
Parties found to have committed wrongdoings should be penalized. These investigation areas should also form the basis for new regulations.
From the staff perspective, the selling process should also be investigated to identify if it has been in accordance with the institutions' own guidelines and in compliance with regulations. Staff should be held responsible for any wrongdoings only if they are found to have not followed regulations.
As investigations are ongoing, it is premature for the government to recommend banks buy back the minibonds at prevailing market prices. Part or full compensation for losses for investors should only be considered if investigations show that investors were misled by the bank or its sales staff during the selling process.
Compensation for minibond investors before any evidence of misleading sales is found is not the way things are supposed to work in a free economy such as Hong Kong.
If intermediaries are required to buy back the products before any malpractice is confirmed and just because investments in the product suffer losses, this will have a significant and long-lasting impact on all kinds of intermediary businesses, including property agencies and brokerages.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=72938&sid=21014657&con_type=1
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
New "petition" to collect particulars of investors
I have created a new "petition" to collect updated particulars of investors of the credit-linked securities.
I wish to invite investors who signed the Petition previously and new investors who missed the earlier Petition, to provide your particulars again. I am using this platform to collect particulars. I am NOT organising a new petition.
Click here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/PICLS4
I wish to invite investors who signed the Petition previously and new investors who missed the earlier Petition, to provide your particulars again. I am using this platform to collect particulars. I am NOT organising a new petition.
Click here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/PICLS4
Jubilee Series 3 LinkEarner Notes
At the request of an investor, I draft this letter for your use. You can sign and send it to the trustee. Please send it on your own, immediately. I am not organising a collective letter.
date
HSBC Trustee
(take the address or fax number from the letter that you received from them)
JUBILEE SERIES 3 LINKEARNER NOTES
I am an investor in the above Notes. I was informed by the distributor that the redemption value of my investment is nil.
My particulars are:
Name:
Account reference:
Amount invested: $
Distributor:
I wish to ask you, as the trustee, to provide the following information to me within 14 days:
a) A full statement of account showing the money invested by all the investors into the Notes, the charges that are taken out of the fund (showing the amount, payee, purpose of payment), the investment of the fund (showing the amount invested and realised value, and loss incurred) and other relevant information.
b) Why were the investors not informed earlier about the intention of the arranger to liquidate the underlying assets? What is the provision of the trust deed relating to this matter?
c) Why were the assets liquidated at this time, when the prices are at rock bottom, due to the lack of liquidity? Was it possible to wait for a better time to liquidate the assets? Which were the parties that bought the assets? How were the prices of these assets determined? Which broker handled the transactions?
d) Please provide details of the underlying assets that led to a total loss of the principal invested in these Notes.
I wish to register my protest at the disposal of the underlying assets at this bad time, and want to be assured that, as the trustee, you have dischrage your fiduciary duty in looking after my interest in the disposal of the assets.
(name of investor,
signature)
cc Monetary Authority of Singapore
date
HSBC Trustee
(take the address or fax number from the letter that you received from them)
JUBILEE SERIES 3 LINKEARNER NOTES
I am an investor in the above Notes. I was informed by the distributor that the redemption value of my investment is nil.
My particulars are:
Name:
Account reference:
Amount invested: $
Distributor:
I wish to ask you, as the trustee, to provide the following information to me within 14 days:
a) A full statement of account showing the money invested by all the investors into the Notes, the charges that are taken out of the fund (showing the amount, payee, purpose of payment), the investment of the fund (showing the amount invested and realised value, and loss incurred) and other relevant information.
b) Why were the investors not informed earlier about the intention of the arranger to liquidate the underlying assets? What is the provision of the trust deed relating to this matter?
c) Why were the assets liquidated at this time, when the prices are at rock bottom, due to the lack of liquidity? Was it possible to wait for a better time to liquidate the assets? Which were the parties that bought the assets? How were the prices of these assets determined? Which broker handled the transactions?
d) Please provide details of the underlying assets that led to a total loss of the principal invested in these Notes.
I wish to register my protest at the disposal of the underlying assets at this bad time, and want to be assured that, as the trustee, you have dischrage your fiduciary duty in looking after my interest in the disposal of the assets.
(name of investor,
signature)
cc Monetary Authority of Singapore
Facilities at Speaker's Corner
1. Can we use the stage, instead of the grass mound?
The stage belongs to the community center. I asked the manager, but he told me that it is not available for booking for the purpose of giving a speech.
2. What are the contingency plan in case of rain?
Bring an umbrella. Wait for the rain to stop.
3. Can we book an indoor auditorium or hall?
It is quite expensive. Can cost $2,000 or more. We do not have the budget.
4. Can we use a sound system?
The NParks does not allow a sound system.
The stage belongs to the community center. I asked the manager, but he told me that it is not available for booking for the purpose of giving a speech.
2. What are the contingency plan in case of rain?
Bring an umbrella. Wait for the rain to stop.
3. Can we book an indoor auditorium or hall?
It is quite expensive. Can cost $2,000 or more. We do not have the budget.
4. Can we use a sound system?
The NParks does not allow a sound system.
Strategy Committee for CLS
Latest: I have sufficient members for this committee for the time being. Thanks for responding.
I wish to ask for volunteers to serve in the Strategy Committee. This committee will meet once a week to discuss the strategy to be recommended for the retail investors. It should comprise of people who are knowledgeable about law or the financial market.
If you are willing to serve in this strategy committee, please send your particulars to kinlian@gmail.com.
Your name
Email
Telephone
Amount invested, product, distributor
Any special expertise?
I wish to ask for volunteers to serve in the Strategy Committee. This committee will meet once a week to discuss the strategy to be recommended for the retail investors. It should comprise of people who are knowledgeable about law or the financial market.
If you are willing to serve in this strategy committee, please send your particulars to kinlian@gmail.com.
Your name
Telephone
Amount invested, product, distributor
Any special expertise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)