What next after Lehman's?
-
Are those bonds considered structured products with possibility of higher gains or are they just fixed interest bearing deposits?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Are those bonds considered structured products with possibility of higher gains or are they just fixed interest bearing deposits?
kizarny?
-
Originally posted by grandmaster89:
I wonder if Lehman hadn't collapsed and the structured products had reaped in loads of cash, would the old and 'misinformed' be begging DBS to take away the ill-gotten gains? Pure hypocrisy.
Only you will be that stupid. The old and misinformed are not as idiotic as you are. I guess if you buy a faulty computer from DELL that gave you an electric shock, that is not a problem because if it were not faulty, you would have begged DELL to let you pay more. Seriously, I doubt that the old and misinformed are as stupid as you to consider paying DELL more because the computer is not faulty.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Only you will be that stupid. The old and misinformed are not as idiotic as you are. I guess if you buy a faulty computer from DELL that gave you an electric shock, that is not a problem because if it were not faulty, you would have begged DELL to let you pay more. Seriously, I doubt that the old and misinformed are as stupid as you to consider paying DELL more because the computer is not faulty.
wad abt kizarny
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Are those bonds considered structured products with possibility of higher gains or are they just fixed interest bearing deposits?
they bear dividends, can be 3mths, 6mths or anytime payout once it is declared. The dividends should be much higher than fix interest, but it varies in accordance to the fund managers investment, all bonds are stated clearly on what investment they are putting the money into, just like lehman bonds was be tied to Subprime markets in US, which promised good profits and high returns at the time of buying.Other option is that you are can plough yr dividend back into the bonds at a discount or higher value. And that is what most singaporeans do as they hv gained much on paper and plough back to increase the stake as most of them have enuf money to spend and take the bonds as saving plan.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Only you will be that stupid. The old and misinformed are not as idiotic as you are. I guess if you buy a faulty computer from DELL that gave you an electric shock, that is not a problem because if it were not faulty, you would have begged DELL to let you pay more. Seriously, I doubt that the old and misinformed are as stupid as you to consider paying DELL more because the computer is not faulty.
The minibonds aren't even defective. Please tell me how are they defective? Are all investment losses due to defects? Clearly not. In this case, when you choose to buy high risk bonds, and if the companies fails, you only have yourself to blame. Every investments has risk. The higher the risk, the higher the returns. The 'old and msinformed' let greed dictate their thinking. That was their folly. I mean seriously if you afford to fork out 100K for investments (already ignoring the fact that you should only invest spare cash), I dont see why you can't afford to spent a few hundred dollars to get advice from a financial advisor to explain the terms to you.
-
The 'old and msinformed' let greed dictate their thinking.
Some of them were misinformed by sales people at the bank who did not explain the details of investment to the old people.
See:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com
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. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Some of them were misinformed by sales people at the bank who did not explain the details of investment to the old people.
Thats why they should ahve gone to a financial advisor to explain the situation to them. But they didn't as they were blinded by the dizzy thoughts of high returns. High returns = high risk.They should just bought some SGS bonds and Treasury bills. But it didn't cross their minds cos of the low interest I presume.
-
Sales people at bank also at fault for their sales tactics.
It is possible that some of them misinformed people in order to reach sales targets.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Sales people at bank also at fault for their sales tactics.
It is possible that some of them misinformed people in order to reach sales targets.
That is certainly possible. They might skip certain facts or paint a rosy picture. But which salesperson dont? Moreover, the seller in question even provided a honest assesement of the minibonds in its prospectus. Ultimately, the bank/seller's official stand on that particular product lies in its prospectus where it clearly states the nature of the bonds and the risk of default. As such, how could the people be misinformed when they are clutching the prospectus. If they couldn't understand, then they should have consulted a financial advisor. Ultimately, their naivety and greed burnt a hole in their pocket. -
They might skip certain facts or paint a rosy picture.
Then they are at fault also.
As such, how could the people be misinformed when they are clutching the prospectus. If they couldn't understand, then they should have consulted a financial advisor.
Actually, in many cases, the sales people are also the financial advisor.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Then they are at fault also.
Actually, in many cases, the sales people are also the financial advisor.
Hard to say cos the bank's official assesement is its prospectus. If you don't understand it, don't buy it. (Peter Lynch) -
Hard to say cos the bank's official assesement is its prospectus. If you don't understand it, don't buy it. (Peter Lynch)It's not that simple.
See:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ISTFI1/
Who is Peter Lynch?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Sales people at bank also at fault for their sales tactics.
It is possible that some of them misinformed people in order to reach sales targets.
Then when they get the good dividends and returns why dun they blame the sales people?? It is not fair to the sales people, they are trying to sell, everything go by verbally, it is up to consumers to open their eyes big big before putting their wonderful signature on it.Just like those pimps outside my house, he trade his business by telling customers his gals are good service provider, big and solid. Then they book our rooms, then the customer can complain to me that actually outside look big, but inside very small only leh...kenna cheated, i just smile smile, but in my back, i am thinking, WTF he wanted it in the first place.
-
To: Chairman of Monetary Authority of Singapore
Dear Sir,
We have invested in the credit linked securities, including Mini bonds, High Notes, Pinnacle Notes and Jubilee Notes, on the misrepresentation by the sales representatives working for the financial institutions.
The misrepresentations include, among others, some or all of the following:
a) That the funds are invested in the bonds of the reference entitles
b) That all of the reference entitles have to fail, before we lose our entire principal
c) That our principal is protected, if we keep the investment to the maturity date
We were not told that our monies were invested in other underlying poorer quality assets and that credit default swaps were transacted that could wipe out our entire capital in the event of a credit event involving only one of these reference entities. The prospectus and sales materials do not explain the actual nature and risks transparently.
If we were correctly informed, we would have avoided the structured product, as we are risk adverse investors. Previously, we have invested our monies in fixed deposits of finance institutions in Singapore.
We were misled by the assurances and explanations given by the sales representatives, which have now turned out to be wrong. These statements were, in most cases, made verbally to us. We believed these statements as they came from the financial institutions that we had trusted for many years.
We petition the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to review the sales training and marketing processes of the financial institutions, in particular, on the following areas:
a) Did the financial institutions provide adequate training to their sales representatives, on the actual nature and risks of the structured products? In particular, were the representatives trained on the contents of the prospectus? Were they tested on their knowledge of the contents? If not, why?
b) Did the financial institutions target fixed deposit holders to market these products? Was this targeting done in a systematic way? Was it done with the knowledge and approval of senior management? Did the senior management consider these structured products to be a reasonable alternative to fixed deposits: to be sold to a conservative, risk adverse investor?
c) Did the financial institutions have systems to monitor the conduct of sales representative to ensure that the products were sold to the appropriate people, based on their risk profile and preference? Was a higher incentive given to sell this risky product? Was there pressure to move the product?
d) Were the sales materials appropriate in explaining the riskiness of the product?
We believe that many sales representatives were unaware about the actual nature and risk of the products. Consequently, they gave the wrong information and advice to the retail investors. This has caused us to lose large sums of money on our investments.
If the investigation by MAS confirms that the sales representatives were not properly trained and monitored; we appeal to MAS to help us to obtain appropriate compensation for our financial loss.
Our appeal is for MAS to act in accordance with the objectives or desired outcomes of its supervisory activities: transparent and fair-dealing intermediaries and offerors and well-informed and empowered consumers.Sincerely,
-
Originally posted by grandmaster89:
That is certainly possible. They might skip certain facts or paint a rosy picture.
they did actually going by the news are reporting. i went to the bank(posb) a few times in the past 2 years and they kept offering plans which would earn money instead of leaving my money in a bank account. same thing happened at DBS when i tried to open a new account. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
To: Chairman of Monetary Authority of Singapore
Dear Sir,
The prospectus and sales materials do not explain the actual nature and risks transparently.
If we were correctly informed, we would have avoided the structured product, as we are risk adverse investors.
We believe that many sales representatives were unaware about the actual nature and risk of the products. Consequently, they gave the wrong information and advice to the retail investors.
Our appeal is for MAS to act in accordance with the objectives or desired outcomes of its supervisory activities: transparent and fair-dealing intermediaries and offerors and well-informed and empowered consumers.Sincerely,
As a Defender
To the financial dispute court.
Dear Sir/ your honor,
First, there is no proof that the said product was not explained properly, there is simply a private seller and a buyer conversation that was not recorded in any way.
Secondly, as a sales person plying his/her trade, the objectives is to sell his/her products as the job required. And at the time of selling, our professionalism require us to promote the products, and as the buyers claimed to be adversed investor, they should be able to balance the pros n cons.
Thirdly, we did not give the wrong advices and in any one time we had questioned the buyers if he/she got any doubts, please ask, however most happily agreed to the terms and conditions stipulated in the contracts.
Fourthly, we are transparent, we do work professionally with open door concepts accepting all inquiries, be it selling or buying, we do our business as per any other business, we hv good record and alway align ourselves to the laws and fiscal policies of the republic of Singapore.
Lastly, the turn of events is unpredicatable, no one wanted it to be this way, but we had to accept a global capital malfunction that is not within our sole control. We should all learn from it.
The defend rest
-
Originally posted by grandmaster89:
The minibonds aren't even defective. Please tell me how are they defective? Are all investment losses due to defects? Clearly not. In this case, when you choose to buy high risk bonds, and if the companies fails, you only have yourself to blame. Every investments has risk. The higher the risk, the higher the returns. The 'old and msinformed' let greed dictate their thinking. That was their folly. I mean seriously if you afford to fork out 100K for investments (already ignoring the fact that you should only invest spare cash), I dont see why you can't afford to spent a few hundred dollars to get advice from a financial advisor to explain the terms to you.
So you are suggesting that people cannot trust the banks and the bankers? They have to spend "a few hundred dollars to get advice from a financial advisor"?
The banks sold the products and told the people that it is safe. Let's see, the product is supposed to be safe and sold as safe. There is a defect, it is not safe. The seller must compensate the buyer for selling them a safe product that is defective because it is not safe.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I am just wondering. What other products did the banks here sell besides Lehman's that might collapse like Lehman?
You cannot hope for the propaganda press to publicize it. If more people come to know of it, if we discuss it here, they might be able to escape with losses instead of losing everything.
If you wanna call people stupid, ignorant and brainwashed, then don't bother coming here for information, you chose what you want to see, even if people make sense you simply dismiss their arguements as "PAP propaganda". Now you know why the Lee's always win lawsuits, its cuz of idiots like you who make lots of accusations without solid evidence. Difference is, CSJ and co have the balls to post them in the papers, you don't, which makes you a typical sg uncle, sit behind com complain
-
A roadsweeper was called to the witness stand.
Prosecutor: Have you ever been approached by DBS for investments?
Witness: Yes sir.
Prosecutor: What products did they offer?
Witness: I don't know them even as the relationship manager tried to explain to me. She told me i could get 6 to 10% returns on my life savings for my $25,000 life savings.
Prosecutor: Why were you not attracted to better returns, afterall the banks only offer 1 to 2% interest returns?
Witness: I may be low educated, but i am not stupid. If anyone offers better returns than what bank gives means there will be risks. Money where got so easy to make one.
They will use my money to make more money for themselves than pass a bit to me. I rather save at home, but i scared kena rob. So put in bank and get 1% also nevermind. If i want risk, i buy soccer bets better. At least win or lose, i am responsible, no one else. -
Originally posted by Chris88110:
If you wanna call people stupid, ignorant and brainwashed, then don't bother coming here for information, you chose what you want to see, even if people make sense you simply dismiss their arguements as "PAP propaganda". Now you know why the Lee's always win lawsuits, its cuz of idiots like you who make lots of accusations without solid evidence. Difference is, CSJ and co have the balls to post them in the papers, you don't, which makes you a typical sg uncle, sit behind com complain
... the point you are trying to make is? hahahahaha......
-
Originally posted by Wolverine®:
A roadsweeper was called to the witness stand.
Prosecutor: Have you ever been approached by DBS for investments?
Witness: Yes sir.
Prosecutor: What products did they offer?
Witness: I don't know them even as the relationship manager tried to explain to me. She told me i could get 6 to 10% returns on my life savings for my $25,000 life savings.
Prosecutor: Why were you not attracted to better returns, afterall the banks only offer 1 to 2% interest returns?
Witness: I may be low educated, but i am not stupid. If anyone offers better returns than what bank gives means there will be risks. Money where got so easy to make one.
They will use my money to make more money for themselves than pass a bit to me. I rather save at home, but i scared kena rob. So put in bank and get 1% also nevermind. If i want risk, i buy soccer bets better. At least win or lose, i am responsible, no one else.Road sweeper: The bank told me that it is safe. I cannot trust the bank then whom can I trust?
Judge: Don;'t you know you are living in a country run by dishonorable despots and that you cannot even trust the bankers?
-
Originally posted by grandmaster89:
That is certainly possible. They might skip certain facts or paint a rosy picture. But which salesperson dont? Moreover, the seller in question even provided a honest assesement of the minibonds in its prospectus. Ultimately, the bank/seller's official stand on that particular product lies in its prospectus where it clearly states the nature of the bonds and the risk of default. As such, how could the people be misinformed when they are clutching the prospectus. If they couldn't understand, then they should have consulted a financial advisor. Ultimately, their naivety and greed burnt a hole in their pocket.Didn't the banks already employ so-called financial advisors to sell these products?
And these were old folks who had totally no idea about such stuff, being approached by these sellers (from the bank they trust) telling them it is safe. I don't think they would even know what is a financial advisor.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Road sweeper: The bank told me that it is safe. I cannot trust the bank then whom can I trust?
Judge: Don;'t you know you are living in a country run by dishonorable despots and that you cannot even trust the bankers?
Precisely what I mean. You won't like someone calling you a dishonourable despot won't you? And because you don't have solid evidence, you get sued for publishing these kind of things. My point is, people here give you their opinions, don't be so quick to label them as "brainwashed". Or else, don't bother posting here at all -
Originally posted by eagle:
Didn't the banks already employ so-called financial advisors to sell these products?
And these were old folks who had totally no idea about such stuff, being approached by these sellers (from the bank they trust) telling them it is safe. I don't think they would even know what is a financial advisor.
But these old folks should hv gone home and discuss with their family members, some of their childrens are U grads or at least diploma, when you invest big amount of money, u simply cannot just agree and sign on it, just like buying cars or houses, u need to reconsider your options, discuss with people you know, me 20yo also can think, why ah peks and ah ma cannot think meh, then how come on the street they can scold me stupid gal??