Mr Goh Meng Seng exploit people misery

[scroobal]

Ultimately, as you have said, doubts will be cast on MAS' deregulation process which in my opinion, is the biggest source of mistake made.

Goh Meng Seng

Believe me, since 2003, I have had concerns about MAS. I thought Swee Kiat, knowing his personality and character could swing thing around. Sadly disappointed.

I guarantee you that regulations will pop up after the dust settles that structured products cannot be sold on retail platforms.

 

[Wisely]

I thought that woman was appalling.
Here you have people who have lost their capital and there she goes complaining about low positive returns.
If the crowd had a sense of right and wrong, they should have told her to keep quiet.

Depends whether the woman was tricked into buying them with promise of higher returns. She is not wrong. Only idiots will invest in something with 1.6% returns. Even the miserly CPF gives better.

The difference between what she got and what she would have got if she invested her money elsewhere, is still a loss. Like other minibond/minibomb buyers, she's still a loser.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Sounds like US sub-prime fiasco

In 2000 onwards, things began to change and I nearly fell over when Lee Kwok Mun from MAS issued a circular in 2002 to all FIs that auto loans will be de-regulated. The fox was let loose in the chicken run. It has been a downward slide. People who cannot cars are driving. More interstingly, people are paying car loans when their cars have been re-possessed months/years ago.

I am inclined towards this position as well unless there has been on balance mis-selling/misrepresentation/negligence/breach of fiduciary and statutory duties viz the "non vulnerable" group.

PS. I gather a wealthy retired property developer has recently taken out legal proceedings against UOB and his RM for alleged misrepresentation/negligence/breach of fiduciary and statutory duties. Interesting to see how this pans out.

I still feel that except for the vulnerable groups the rest had no leg to stand on.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Do you mean to say that all those who attended Tan's HL's sessions fall into the "vulnerable" category and all those who have made complaints also fall into the same?

Yes, I do feel that for the benefits of the WHOLE COUNTRY's vulnerable financial reputation, MAS should have intervened and settle these cases once and for all.
Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Then did she make a complaint to Fidrec? Did she sue? To me I got the impression that it was an investment that went wrong based on market conditions, that does happen. She appears to be alleging sharp practice (at the ver least) by DBS. Does she have concrete evidence to support such a claim?

Depends whether the woman was tricked into buying them with promise of higher returns. She is not wrong. Only idiots will invest in something with 1.6% returns. Even the miserly CPF gives better.

The difference between what she got and what she would have got if she invested her money elsewhere, is still a loss. Like other minibond/minibomb buyers, she's still a loser.

 

[Wisely]

Then did she make a complaint to Fidrec? Did she sue? To me I got the impression that it was an investment that went wrong based on market conditions, that does happen. She appears to be alleging sharp practice (at the ver least) by DBS. Does she have concrete evidence to support such a claim?

Maybe she done all you said, maybe not. But does she have a reason to voice out? Of course! That's my point.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Voice out yes, but beware of slander and libel

Maybe she done all you said, maybe not. But does she have a reason to voice out? Of course! That's my point.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

If MAS files could talk. A friendly chat with a middle manager ( non scholar ) from MAS before Lehman's Brother broke the bank indicated to me that they were well aware of the growing problem of the retailing of "structured" products to the unwary, the uneducated, the aunties and uncles who fucking built Singapore. The call by Swee Kiat for the banks to do the right thing stands as indictment in my view to his mea culpa mea culpa.

I can't understand how an SPF scholar who apparently was a decent crime fighter and protector of aunties at Jurong could let this happen on his watch. I can't understand how all the scholars could come up with at MAS was that in order to grow the FI, a total deregulation of what products were sold, and weak protection for how products were was left in place as a structure to protect the vulnerable consumer. Was growth through light financial regulation without regards for protection of the domestic retail base the only SOLUTION possible ?




Locke

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scroobal

If MAS files could talk. A friendly chat with a middle manager ( non scholar ) from MAS before Lehman's Brother broke the bank indicated to me that they were well aware of the growing problem of the retailing of "structured" products to the unwary, the uneducated, the aunties and uncles who fucking built Singapore. The call by Swee Kiat for the banks to do the right thing stands as indictment in my view to his mea culpa mea culpa.

I can't understand how an SPF scholar who apparently was a decent crime fighter and protector of aunties at Jurong could let this happen on his watch. I can't understand how all the scholars could come up with at MAS was that in order to grow the FI, a total deregulation of what products were sold, and weak protection for how products were was left in place as a structure to protect the vulnerable consumer. Was growth through light financial regulation without regards for protection of the domestic retail base the only SOLUTION possible ?




Locke

Completely agree with you. Pillay and Hon would not have allowed this to occur. How auntiesw over 62 and with primary education were sold this by govt owned bank is beyond. I am frankly disappointed by Swee Kiat.

The conflict of interest here is that MAS reports to PMO, DBS owner shares the same bed with PM. How good it that.

I am just waiting on how many countries allowed these products to be sold in the retail base.

 

[Wisely]

Voice out yes, but beware of slander and libel

Did she slander or libel? Bet the ST wouldn't dare report what she said, if she did.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Do you mean to say that all those who attended Tan's HL's sessions fall into the "vulnerable" category and all those who have made complaints also fall into the same?

Dear Porfirio,

I think its a PR effort to undermine legitimate claims by layman over mis-selling and misrepresentation by FIs.

It does not mean that if you do not fall under the "vulnerable group", you are not possibly subjected to mis-selling and misrepresentation. This is especially so when there is a pattern of systematic misinformation, mis-selling and misrepresentation by the various FIs with regards to these structured financial products. Most likely it is due to inadequate training and understanding of the complexity of these structured products they are selling or deliberate omission of vital risk factors of the products they are selling.

People tend to point fingers at investors on their "greed" but I think the FIs themselves are greedy too. Look at it this way, they earned commissions (which they claim of about 3%) over what they are selling; now, if they take in these monies as fixed deposits, they would have to provide interests on their part to the customers and they would have to take the risks of lending out or making good investments out of these deposited monies.

But if they sell these structured products, they earn 3% straight and assume that they do not bear any risks at all and trouble themselves to try to make good investments out of these monies. Thus, we could see that it is Greed on the FIs part to sell these products vs taking them in as Fixed Deposits.

Is Greed good? It is only as good as all you know exactly what risks you are taking in totality. People investing in stock market also greedy in a sense but they knew what they buying and doing. They lose money, they don't kpkb. This issue of structured products is totally different. No matter how educated you are, you are not told of the TOTAL RISKS involved in these products. Being more educated does not exempt you from being misrepresentation and mis-selling.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Latest news is that UBS (USA) is being sued by retail investors in the States over Lehman Notes, again issues of mis-selling and misrepresentation.

I am just waiting on how many countries allowed these products to be sold in the retail base.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Well I may be wrong but that poster that she appear to hold up in the media pictures looked abit dodgy for starters with reference to "fraud"

Did she slander or libel? Bet the ST wouldn't dare report what she said, if she did.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Well to me what you say below is the crux of the matter. If what you say can be be generally proven on balance, then I think MAS should probably intervene, take action against the banks/RMs and proactively assist the 'victim/innocent' investors in getting back compensation from the banks. Failing which, this group would appear to stand quite a good chance of success taking the legal route and thereafter not only shaming the banks/RMs but also MAS for its failure in doing the "right thing" after earlier telling the banks to do likewise.

However, let me also ask this question, is a "total blanket compensation" reasonably justifiable? That is the true "moral hazard" to consider.

It does not mean that if you do not fall under the "vulnerable group", you are not possibly subjected to mis-selling and misrepresentation. This is especially so when there is a pattern of systematic misinformation, mis-selling and misrepresentation by the various FIs with regards to these structured financial products. Most likely it is due to inadequate training and understanding of the complexity of these structured products they are selling or deliberate omission of vital risk factors of the products they are selling.

This issue of structured products is totally different. No matter how educated you are, you are not told of the TOTAL RISKS involved in these products. Being more educated does not exempt you from being misrepresentation and mis-selling.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

Bro, you may want to pass on the message to wait for the outcome of the law suit against UBS in the States. Same instrument, so that outcome if favourable will force the local FIs to cave in. Its a class action so the research will be better funded.

 

[leetahbar]

Well to me what you say below is the crux of the matter. If what you say can be be generally proven on balance, then I think MAS should probably intervene, take action against the banks/RMs and proactively assist the 'victim/innocent' investors in getting back compensation from the banks. Failing which, this group would appear to stand quite a good chance of success taking the legal route and thereafter not only shaming the banks/RMs but also MAS for its failure in doing the "right thing" after earlier telling the banks to do likewise.

However, let me also ask this question, is a "total blanket compensation" reasonably justifiable? That is the true "moral hazard" to consider.

thumb of rule for ALL gabramens' practices around the world. gabramen DO NOT sabo themselves or their kakis. when their kakis goof, they create smoke bomb to cover up.

 

[guavatree]

thumb of rule for ALL gabramens' practices around the world. gabramen DO NOT sabo themselves or their kakis. when their kakis goof, they create smoke bomb to cover up.

PAP cock sucking chao ah kwa

how cum your good friend also knows you steal temple money ... hehehe

did your father asked you to return the temple money?

LOL

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Porifirio

The banks will seek to avoid "corporate" responsibility by blaming the "RMs" " Investors" and point to the safeguards in place currently even though they leak like a sieve. My Family and I were pushed "pinnicale notes" "mini bonds" by local banks and it was only by the grace of god and my intense paranoia that we were not sold a lemon.

I was personally told these products were safe by a pretty RM, similar accounts have surfaced in woes told by other investors. Were RM's taught to market the products by banks in the same manner describing them as safe ? How does "principle protected " even enter the lexicon or was allowed to be used when it can be confused with " principle guaranteed" ? How can a mini bond be used to market something as different from a bond as night is to day ?

The legal language both in the prospectus and in the marketing collateral are in my view air tight. The warnings were clear cut. Yet the fact that the old vulnerable and ill informed were sold these products points to a "systemic failure" across the board when it came to the regulation and sale of these products. These are in fact the 'yellow canaries" warning of something seriously more amiss within the bank.

The legal language is designed to protect the bank as a corporate entity from public liability if the investments go south as they have. Standard boilerplate language. The legal language cannot absolve the bank as a corporate entity from charges of "deception" and "misselling."

The banks will seek to hang a few RM's out as sacrificial lambs and perhaps one VP or two, but they will not admit fault, only that a few "agents" went " rouge" and did not follow established procedure which they will portray to be whiter than white.

Proving systemic failure, proving systemic knowledge by senior management about the problems inherent with the products but then incentivizing staff to aggressively sell the products, proving the fat profit margins that these products earn for the banks, proving the fact that these products were in fact told to be marketed as "safe" and staff were trained to sell them as "safe". This is what a class action law suit will bring through a motion of discovery and a paper trail.





Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

This time may be difficult to "cover up" if what Goh Meng Seng says can be backed up by reasonable evidence. Also interesting to see what position the 14 PAP Town Councils who apparently invested in the Lehman bonds take. Do they also fall within GMS' "victim/innocent" category? If so what are they going to do about it, and if not what are they going to do to account to their respective constituents?

thumb of rule for ALL gabramens' practices around the world. gabramen DO NOT sabo themselves or their kakis. when their kakis goof, they create smoke bomb to cover up.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

The Plaintiffs need a capable aggressive ambitious litigator as he/she shall be up against the best litigators $$$ can buy, because the Defendant banks already have the best/top law firms on retainer.

To me I think flexible dynamic crafty strategy shall be required to achieve optimal success for all the Plaintiffs, probably a mixture of legal, PR and political strategies mixed together. Also cut down on the number "chefs" consulting, because as they say "too many chefs spoil the soup/broth".

The legal language cannot absolve the bank as a corporate entity from charges of "deception" and "misselling."

Proving systemic failure, proving systemic knowledge by senior management about the problems inherent with the products but then incentivizing staff to aggressively sell the products, proving the fat profit margins that these products earn for the banks, proving the fact that these products were in fact told to be marketed as "safe" and staff were trained to sell them as "safe". This is what a class action law suit will bring through a motion of discovery and a paper trail.





Locke