Originally posted by maxtor:i agree that there definitely would be cases of misrepresentation and mis-selling. alot of the time bank relationship managers have their own interests at heart, not perfectly understand the product they r selling, etc. etc. but now EVERYONE is playing the same tune, claiming to have no knowledge about this product and it's risk. don't you smell a rat?
The only way to be certain is to look at the contract.
With the level of sophistication and how they repackaged the derivatives and what nots... I don't expect a whole lot of people to understand what exactly are they buying into.
The sales pitch probably shows some very favorably graph charts that shows very favorable past track records.. possibly during the subprime bubble...
People only see the arrow going up up ... ..
The sales people ain't gonna tell potential buyers the downside and the danger in the fundamental level....
Much like the Timeshares... have ya all forgotten how many got burnt with this "Great" product ?
Originally posted by jojobeach:The only way to be certain is to look at the contract.
With the level of sophistication and how they repackaged the derivatives and what nots... I don't expect a whole lot of people to understand what exactly are they buying into.
The sales pitch probably shows some very favorably graph charts that shows very favorable past track records.. possibly during the subprime bubble...
People only see the arrow going up up ... ..
The sales people ain't gonna tell potential buyers the downside and the danger in the fundamental level....
Much like the Timeshares... have ya all forgotten how many got burnt with this "Great" product ?
I'm sure the contracts pretty much say the same thing. whenever bank customers buy a product, there's this form that customers sign indemifying the bank for any losses incurred.
i've heard that courts are usually more sympathetic to the customers in scenarios like these though.
Originally posted by reyes:the winners is Lehman Bros.
Do you know the real issue at hand here? Speaking of Lehman, have you the faintest idea on the gargantuan cost of settling Lehman's Credit Default Swaps (by institutions) in the industry recently? (This is a completely different issue to the minibond saga)
Back to the minibond saga.
How Lehman could be remotely culpable in this entire issue is beyond me. Just to clarify some issues which some folks without extensive knowledge might not get the full picture.
The minibond was a financial product structured by Lehman which other financial institutions (think your local banks like DBS in Singapore) around the world bought into and, in turn, sold to investors (the very people crying foul now). Hence, it makes perfect sense that the investors - whether justified or not - should go after whichever institutions sold them the product because ultimately, Lehman never dealt with these individuals (these small-time investors - by industry standards - would never get a look-in by Lehman to begin with). Clearly, financial institutions that bought the minibonds knew full well what they were buying into and, by extension, so should have been the retail investors who bought them from these financial institutions.
To drive home the point, imagine having a piece of toxic plastic manufactured by a factory in remote China that in turn sells it to Mattel which utilises it to manufacture toys. Now, should an end-user be poisoned for coming into contact with the toxic plastic, it would make perfect sense for them to go after Mattel (instead of the factory), wouldn't it?
Originally posted by walesa:
Do you know the real issue at hand here? Speaking of Lehman, have you the faintest idea on the gargantuan cost of settling Lehman's Credit Default Swaps (by institutions) in the industry recently? (This is a completely different issue to the minibond saga)Back to the minibond saga.
How Lehman could be remotely culpable in this entire issue is beyond me. Just to clarify some issues which some folks without extensive knowledge might not get the full picture.
The minibond was a financial product structured by Lehman which other financial institutions (think your local banks like DBS in Singapore) around the world bought into and, in turn, sold to investors (the very people crying foul now). Hence, it makes perfect sense that the investors - whether justified or not - should go after whichever institutions sold them the product because ultimately, Lehman never dealt with these individuals (these small-time investors - by industry standards - would never get a look-in by Lehman to begin with). Clearly, financial institutions that bought the minibonds knew full well what they were buying into and, by extension, so should have been the retail investors who bought them from these financial institutions.
To drive home the point, imagine having a piece of toxic plastic manufactured by a factory in remote China that in turn sells it to Mattel which utilises it to manufacture toys. Now, should an end-user be poisoned for coming into contact with the toxic plastic, it would make perfect sense for them to go after Mattel (instead of the factory), wouldn't it?
actually, i understand this abit differently. DBS, Hong Leong, and Maybank in this scenario acted as distributors on behalf of Lehmen Bros. Lehmen had these CDOs, in the form of securitised assets, and they were looking to sell them so they can get cash and re-leverage. In return for selling these MiniBonds, the 3 banks would get a distibutor's fee of about 0.5% of amount sold. (i'm not too sure about the exact amount)
in this scenario, to say that Lehmen is not culpable might not be entirely correct. But i agree with your Mattel scenario.
Originally posted by maxtor:actually, i understand this abit differently. DBS, Hong Leong, and Maybank in this scenario acted as distributors on behalf of Lehmen Bros. Lehmen had these CDOs, in the form of securitised assets, and they were looking to sell them so they can get cash and re-leverage. In return for selling these MiniBonds, the 3 banks would get a distibutor's fee of about 0.5% of amount sold. (i'm not too sure about the exact amount)
in this scenario, to say that Lehmen is not culpable might not be entirely correct. But i agree with your Mattel scenario.
So how is Lehman culpable? Are you for a moment suggesting they plotted and schemed their own bankruptcy? You might wish to figure how much it has caused the industry in settling CDS on Lehman following its collapse.
The fact that Lehman structured this product renders their position no different from a corporate bond issuer - any investor (be they institutional or individuals) knows full well (or at least, are expected to do so) the risk they are taking on.
Ironically, the flimsy case in this saga surrounds whether the retail investors (end-users who bought the product through a proxy and not through the originator) were mis-led. Clearly, in light of that, it's the intermediaries and proxies (in this case, the FIs that sold the product on to individual investors) who are accountable to the end-users who buy their product, and not the originator.
Are you therefore not ridiculously contradictory to suggest you agree with my Mattel scenario, but not Lehman considering Lehman never actually dealt with these individuals?
just wondering if these investors who were mislead had made money, will they be returning the profits to the banks?
it's quite subjective, it's like pressing a reboot button when things go awry....sure there are the less savvy and uneducated about such products...to claim miselling is totally inaccurate too, for institutions like lehman, who would have thought it would end up bankrupt? the sales rep probably just passd on their impressions too....assuming one were sold dbs minibonds years ago, the average sg citizen has huge confidence in the bank and should it suddenly go under, is this considered miselling when the buyer was told how solid the bank was then?
Real winner : Those who have bail out from Lehman's collaspe
It is like a musical chair game where everyone is fighting for a chair to sit after the economic booming melody stop.
Those who manage to get the chair will continue the game.
The number of players that wanted to play the game is much more than the number of chairs.
Some will say : I dont know I just follow everyone when the music start.
Some will say : How come they get to find a chair to sit down.
Some will say : I sit down first one, then, they squeezed me out.
Some will say : I saw the chair first one.
Ya... This is very common in games where the game organisers did not restrict the number of players.
Who is the real winner ? Those who bail out before economic boom melody.
I really agree with dinky's and dukedracula point of view. To me, investment is like gambling. You place a bet hoping that the bet will win you something. Otherwise you lose. So you invest on something hoping that this something can give you profit. If not, then that's too bad.
If the banks have 80 million to spare, then they should have given it to those who really need it, i.e. the poor. I mean, if a person has 100K to invest, that means that this person must be well off. I don't believe that by investing 100K, this person has to live solely on bread everyday and stay in a one-bedroom HDB flat. And I am sure these people are not that stupid to put every single cent of their life savings in one basket. I am sure that after investing 100K, this person is still able to live comfortably. So sure, now this person is 100K poorer, but he is still able to live comfortably. So why should he be compensated just because he has lost his bet big time?
This 80 million is better off used in helping those who really has to eat bread everyday, who is really hit by the inflation such that even a 5 cent increase in bus fare is tough for them, who has difficulty making ends meet.
Originally posted by walesa:
So how is Lehman culpable? Are you for a moment suggesting they plotted and schemed their own bankruptcy? You might wish to figure how much it has caused the industry in settling CDS on Lehman following its collapse.
The fact that Lehman structured this product renders their position no different from a corporate bond issuer - any investor (be they institutional or individuals) knows full well (or at least, are expected to do so) the risk they are taking on.
Ironically, the flimsy case in this saga surrounds whether the retail investors (end-users who bought the product through a proxy and not through the originator) were mis-led. Clearly, in light of that, it's the intermediaries and proxies (in this case, the FIs that sold the product on to individual investors) who are accountable to the end-users who buy their product, and not the originator.
Are you therefore not ridiculously contradictory to suggest you agree with my Mattel scenario, but not Lehman considering Lehman never actually dealt with these individuals?
Not really. The banks (DBS,MayBank,HL) were paid a distributor's fee by Lehmen to market the minibonds. In return, they would use their extensive branch network (and therefore their brandname) to sell these products to retail investors. When something like this happens, it's only fair that they partake in taking up responsiblility. That's where the Mattel scenario comes in. Customers would only naturally seek recourse with the 3 banks since these were the institutions they purchased the products from.
But to say Lehmen is not responsible is abit far off. Lehmen, being the creator of these products, should know full well the risks involved. Maybe they are not responsible to the retail investor, but that doesnt absolve them from responsiblity. This whole issue was created because of the lack of risk management and regulation, but i must admit that i say this with the benefit of hindsight.
Originally posted by waitrose:I really agree with dinky's and dukedracula point of view. To me, investment is like gambling. You place a bet hoping that the bet will win you something. Otherwise you lose. So you invest on something hoping that this something can give you profit. If not, then that's too bad.
If the banks have 80 million to spare, then they should have given it to those who really need it, i.e. the poor. I mean, if a person has 100K to invest, that means that this person must be well off. I don't believe that by investing 100K, this person has to live solely on bread everyday and stay in a one-bedroom HDB flat. And I am sure these people are not that stupid to put every single cent of their life savings in one basket. I am sure that after investing 100K, this person is still able to live comfortably. So sure, now this person is 100K poorer, but he is still able to live comfortably. So why should he be compensated just because he has lost his bet big time?
This 80 million is better off used in helping those who really has to eat bread everyday, who is really hit by the inflation such that even a 5 cent increase in bus fare is tough for them, who has difficulty making ends meet.
i think on average, local banks made about S$2 billion (in profits, not revenue) each last year. $80 million might look like alot on an absolute front but pales when you compare it to their annual profit.
Originally posted by maxtor:Not really. The banks (DBS,MayBank,HL) were paid a distributor's fee by Lehmen to market the minibonds. In return, they would use their extensive branch network (and therefore their brandname) to sell these products to retail investors. When something like this happens, it's only fair that they partake in taking up responsiblility. That's where the Mattel scenario comes in. Customers would only naturally seek recourse with the 3 banks since these were the institutions they purchased the products from.
But to say Lehmen is not responsible is abit far off. Lehmen, being the creator of these products, should know full well the risks involved. Maybe they are not responsible to the retail investor, but that doesnt absolve them from responsiblity. This whole issue was created because of the lack of risk management and regulation, but i must admit that i say this with the benefit of hindsight.
You're either misguided or misled - I haven't got a clue where you got your lot of drivel from.
For the record, the minibonds were structured by Lehman Brothers and sold to retail investors worldwide via proxies. HSBC has been acting as the trustee (and not your simple "DBS, Maybank, HL were paid a distributor's fee by Lehman") for this product. If you haven't got a clue on the trustee's role in this whole affair, you might want to check out the following statement from Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission for starters : http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=08PR145 .
Even after ignoring some of the rather rational comments posted by someone above this post suggesting the investors wouldn't have refunded additional dividends had their investment yielded surplus returns, suggesting Lehman is even remotely responsible is downright ridiculous.
After all, if there is any misrepresentation and mis-selling on the end of the retail investors, it's conducted by the proxies (DBS, etc); in other words, Lehman never established any sort of direct contact with these investors. At best, it's these proxies who hold the moral obligation (whether this is substantial remains open to debate) to account to the retail investors since they knew very well the products they were dealing with.
Perhaps, using a more appropriate example. If you bought a desktop from Dell through a retailer to whom you would send it to for servicing during the warranty period (where the product is still effectively guaranteed by Dell), and Dell happens to become insolvent before your warranty expires and your desktop encounters problems during the remaining period of the warranty, are you for a moment suggesting Dell too is culpable of shortchanging you since they too, as the PC manufacturer, should be aware of the risks involved in the system breaking down?
Originally posted by maxtor:i agree that there definitely would be cases of misrepresentation and mis-selling. alot of the time bank relationship managers have their own interests at heart, not perfectly understand the product they r selling, etc. etc. but now EVERYONE is playing the same tune, claiming to have no knowledge about this product and it's risk. don't you smell a rat?
I think one of the contributing factors is the ppl the bank hired as relationship manager.
The Straits Times article about a relationship manager recently. She is a fresh graduate from Arts and Social Sc and selling complex financial product.
Originally posted by reyes:the winners is Lehman Bros.
I don't think the winner is Lehman Bros. Remember, it has collapsed with 100s of millions in debts.
The real winners are the cheating American home buyers who collaberated and/or consipred to get easy home loan thru' false/fake - documentation, letter of credit, testmonials etc.
Originally posted by maxtor:i agree that there definitely would be cases of misrepresentation and mis-selling. alot of the time bank relationship managers have their own interests at heart, not perfectly understand the product they r selling, etc. etc. but now EVERYONE is playing the same tune, claiming to have no knowledge about this product and it's risk. don't you smell a rat?
On Channelnewasia, Tan KL said the saga boils down to ethic. On TV, he can only say this.
For the past 7 to 10 years, there were periodic but frequent reports about the unethical, forced or pressured selling behaviour of the major banks. This issue never dies but surfaces again and again.
The repeated official lines from the authority were it has investigated the involving banks, found no breach of the law and has advised the banks to exercise care and caution. In other words, status quo.
These complaints, media report and letter to the press, were ample warning signs for MAS to clean up the act of these banks. Instead, MAS overlooking the re-occurrence nature of this issue and repeatedly claimed that enough has been done, enough check and balance has been in placed.
If the heart of issue is really about ethic or about global economy integration as some claimed, so be it – a disaster unavoidable. But if MAS had acted on these complains by supervising the banks more stringently, the result would be vastly different.
I disagree with those who said that the govt should not bear the responsibility for the loss, or at least part of this loss. Had our forever-claiming-to-efficient govt and MAS stepped in and intervened in a timely manner, the issue would not have been as it is now.
However, I also see another aspect to this saga. For MAS to admit that it has not been doing a good job, would open up a whole new political dimension.
LHL claimed that he would loosen up the political climate here. This would be a good test for him to put his word where his mouth is. But given our one party state, given our compliant media, given our no-question-ask citizen, this issue would never see the light of the day.
Originally posted by walesa:
You're either misguided or misled - I haven't got a clue where you got your lot of drivel from.
For the record, the minibonds were structured by Lehman Brothers and sold to retail investors worldwide via proxies. HSBC has been acting as the trustee (and not your simple "DBS, Maybank, HL were paid a distributor's fee by Lehman") for this product. If you haven't got a clue on the trustee's role in this whole affair, you might want to check out the following statement from Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission for starters : http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=08PR145 .
Yes. HSBC is the trustee. DBS, Maybank and HL are your distributors.
Originally posted by 4sg:On Channelnewasia, Tan KL said the saga boils down to ethic. On TV, he can only say this.
For the past 7 to 10 years, there were periodic but frequent reports about the unethical, forced or pressured selling behaviour of the major banks. This issue never dies but surfaces again and again.
The repeated official lines from the authority were it has investigated the involving banks, found no breach of the law and has advised the banks to exercise care and caution. In other words, status quo.
These complaints, media report and letter to the press, were ample warning signs for MAS to clean up the act of these banks. Instead, MAS overlooking the re-occurrence nature of this issue and repeatedly claimed that enough has been done, enough check and balance has been in placed.
If the heart of issue is really about ethic or about global economy integration as some claimed, so be it – a disaster unavoidable. But if MAS had acted on these complains by supervising the banks more stringently, the result would be vastly different.
I disagree with those who said that the govt should not bear the responsibility for the loss, or at least part of this loss. Had our forever-claiming-to-efficient govt and MAS stepped in and intervened in a timely manner, the issue would not have been as it is now.
However, I also see another aspect to this saga. For MAS to admit that it has not been doing a good job, would open up a whole new political dimension.
LHL claimed that he would loosen up the political climate here. This would be a good test for him to put his word where his mouth is. But given our one party state, given our compliant media, given our no-question-ask citizen, this issue would never see the light of the day.
seems to me that everything is also the government's fault...
all the complaints, letters to media and to the press are all not proof acceptable in courts.... If the person involved is able to show concrete proof, i.e. record the whole conversation, then MAS will be able to take action...
and for all the action that the banks and MAS takes, it still needs the RMs to actually follow the book... it's actually people like you and me who bend the rules to ensure that they meet the sales target...
and how many of the retirees as shown in the media would have complained if they hadn't lost their fortune. if lehman's hadn't gone bankcrupt, none of the retirees would be complaining.. rather they would be celebrating their 5% return on their investment when the minibonds mature.... and if the children of these retirees had made any noise initially, most banks would have reversed the transaction there and then to prevent any big image problems...
in the end, greed rules on the part of all parties....
Originally posted by jojobeach:Excwees mee... you know what is the meaning of misrepresentation ?
If a salesman convinced you that you are getting a cow.. instead you end up with a donkey at your door.. are you going to say you shouldn't be compensated for a refund?..
Wow wee... our world is a strange place to live..
if it's misrepresentation, then you are just unlucky to be duped or whatever.. you can complain all you want and seek avenues for redress.. what i'm saying is a lot of people expect people to clean up the mess for them whenever they get into a sticky situation be it misrepresentation or not..
Even after ignoring some of the rather rational comments posted by someone above this post suggesting the investors wouldn't have refunded additional dividends had their investment yielded surplus returns, suggesting Lehman is even remotely responsible is downright ridiculous.
After all, if there is any misrepresentation and mis-selling on the end of the retail investors, it's conducted by the proxies (DBS, etc); in other words, Lehman never established any sort of direct contact with these investors. At best, it's these proxies who hold the moral obligation (whether this is substantial remains open to debate) to account to the retail investors since they knew very well the products they were dealing with.
i agree with the part the the proxies should partake in the responsibility toward the retail investor. what i am saying is that lehmen should hold some responsibility too. let's assume they are still around now and instead of going bankrupt, they defaulted on these minibonds. would people blame them? are they responsible? i would say .. yes, definitely.
i see what you are trying to say. u are saying that lehmen shouldn't be held responsible because they are just a packager of these products and they played no part in this mis-selling/misrepresentation by the local financial institutions. what im saying is these securitised assets were ultimately their assets (and probably that of a few other institutions).they knew the risks involved, they knew they were very highly leveraged, but because securitising assets, selling them and getting cash back so they can write loans to securitise again were so profitable, they decided to keep doing it.
whether or not Lehmen were responsible to the retail investors is another question. i think not because the local institutions should take up that responsibility. but lehmen should be responsible to someone.
The winners are the Americans that dumped Lehmans bonds (you hear Americans complaining about Lehmans bonds?) because they have a free press that kept warning the people about Lehmans while the despots here were buying Merill Lynch giving the bond holders a false sense of security and a censored/self censored press trumpeting their decisions as wise instead of pointing out their stupidity.
Originally posted by tinuviel07:
if it's misrepresentation, then you are just unlucky to be duped or whatever.. you can complain all you want and seek avenues for redress.. what i'm saying is a lot of people expect people to clean up the mess for them whenever they get into a sticky situation be it misrepresentation or not..
i agree totally. did u notice how the people who are invested in it seem to not know about what this minibong thing is now that it has turned ugly?
Originally posted by pigsticker:seems to me that everything is also the government's fault...
all the complaints, letters to media and to the press are all not proof acceptable in courts.... If the person involved is able to show concrete proof, i.e. record the whole conversation, then MAS will be able to take action...
and for all the action that the banks and MAS takes, it still needs the RMs to actually follow the book... it's actually people like you and me who bend the rules to ensure that they meet the sales target...
and how many of the retirees as shown in the media would have complained if they hadn't lost their fortune. if lehman's hadn't gone bankcrupt, none of the retirees would be complaining.. rather they would be celebrating their 5% return on their investment when the minibonds mature.... and if the children of these retirees had made any noise initially, most banks would have reversed the transaction there and then to prevent any big image problems...
in the end, greed rules on the part of all parties....
No I did not claimed that everything is the govt fault. I said each and every party involved has to take its fair and proper share of responsibility.
If the rules have been bend, the rules has been breached and the law has to take its course.
For rules not to be breached, there is such things as standard operational procedures. The govt and the industrial players has to come together time and again to update and realign themselves with this reality.
Celebrating their 5% return is their right given the investment they undertook. However, taking away their entire principle sum of 100% without sound financial warning is unethical. This is the main issue and not the return.
Originally posted by 4sg:On Channelnewasia, Tan KL said the saga boils down to ethic. On TV, he can only say this.
For the past 7 to 10 years, there were periodic but frequent reports about the unethical, forced or pressured selling behaviour of the major banks. This issue never dies but surfaces again and again.
The repeated official lines from the authority were it has investigated the involving banks, found no breach of the law and has advised the banks to exercise care and caution. In other words, status quo.
These complaints, media report and letter to the press, were ample warning signs for MAS to clean up the act of these banks. Instead, MAS overlooking the re-occurrence nature of this issue and repeatedly claimed that enough has been done, enough check and balance has been in placed.
If the heart of issue is really about ethic or about global economy integration as some claimed, so be it – a disaster unavoidable. But if MAS had acted on these complains by supervising the banks more stringently, the result would be vastly different.
I disagree with those who said that the govt should not bear the responsibility for the loss, or at least part of this loss. Had our forever-claiming-to-efficient govt and MAS stepped in and intervened in a timely manner, the issue would not have been as it is now.
However, I also see another aspect to this saga. For MAS to admit that it has not been doing a good job, would open up a whole new political dimension.
LHL claimed that he would loosen up the political climate here. This would be a good test for him to put his word where his mouth is. But given our one party state, given our compliant media, given our no-question-ask citizen, this issue would never see the light of the day.
im actually very supportive of Tan KL and what he's trying to do for everyone on his blog. There is a general lack of investment education within the middle-age heartlanders and his website offers alot of good information ranging from insurance, ETFs, structured products etc.
repost ...
Originally posted by maxtor:i see what you are trying to say. u are saying that lehmen shouldn't be held responsible because they are just a packager of these products and they played no part in this mis-selling/misrepresentation by the local financial institutions. what im saying is these securitised assets were ultimately their assets (and probably that of a few other institutions).they knew the risks involved, they knew they were very highly leveraged, but because securitising assets, selling them and getting cash back so they can write loans to securitise again were so profitable, they decided to keep doing it.
whether or not Lehmen were responsible to the retail investors is another question. i think not because the local institutions should take up that responsibility. but lehmen should be responsible to someone.
The whole point about your logic that sounds ridiculous is the notion that Lehman is culpable and should be accountable to someone. In the given circumstances, it's as ridiculous as it gets. (For the record, there's clearly no precedence of any insolvent corporation that fits the bill you describe in any part of the civilised world)
You're talking about a firm that has filed the largest bankruptcy (and one which has done so in the course of conducting their business, not through some fraudulent activities) in US history here, not a conartist that has become a fly-by-night merchant.
If you were to buy any equities or corporate bonds and should the company go bust, you know full well you have no right to a recourse in the form of a compensation of any sort (you could use a million other examples - be it the warranty example I cited or other issues - to justify this). Precisely, assuming an efficient market, equity prices are therefore presumed to have included all known market information while credit/bond ratings obviously exist for a reason.
The fact of the matter is these products have been priced at those levels and still remained attractive to the investors (at least, attractive enough to the FIs, who can hardly claim to be ignorant of the risks) simply because of sound fundamentals which the firm was perceived to be run on (well, if you didn't agree with that, you could have heavily highly-leveraged a naked short for Lehman's stocks which would have yielded handsome returns on 15th September) by investors.
Surely, you'd agree it's not rocket science that the proxies dealing with these products had done so simply because they could not (in fact, no one could reasonably have done so) have imagined Lehman filing for insolvency that soon?
Unless you decide to challenge the very notion that the proxies that dealt directly with Lehman had not done so in good faith on the understanding of being a rational price-taker, there is no case against Lehman to begin with.
Hence, from where do you derive the warped logic that Lehman should be accountable to anyone?
PS : On a sidenote, all investment banks (well, think Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns before the subprime debacle unfolded which has since claimed 3 of these as independent entities) are highly-leveraged - Lehman was no exception. In fact, the same could be said for other commercial banks with a strong IB presence (i.e. citi, DB, CS, UBS, etc) although they had stronger access to liquidity on virtue of the fact they were deposit-taking institutions (through its other non-IB operations). Clearly, on that very basis, being highly-leveraged is hardly a good enough reason for any reasonable investor to cast aspersions on the way Lehman ran business. After all, was it not what propelled such firms to the pinnacle of the industry (which would have benefitted shareholders and other corporate bondholders prior to the crisis) to begin with?
Originally posted by maxtor:im actually very supportive of Tan KL and what he's trying to do for everyone on his blog. There is a general lack of investment education within the middle-age heartlanders and his website offers alot of good information ranging from insurance, ETFs, structured products etc.
I agree with yr view. We need more ppl like him, educated, able and has the free time to help the underdogs.