• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Flawed Financial Products

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
The following article on Today has highlighted that DBS High 5 Notes is actually a <span style="font-weight:bold;">FLAWED</span> product with a risk factor of 8 or 9 out of 10. But yet, it was systematically sold to people who are only interested in fixed deposits with fixed interests.

Similarly, as explained in my last article <a href="http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2008/10/this-is-what-minibonds-is-all-about.html">"This is what Minibond is all about!"</a> and a similar article in <a href="http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2008/10/blog-post_28.html">Chinese</a> which illustrated that Lehman Minibonds is NOT Bonds at all.

In fact, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with BONDS but just a HIGH RISK product which is TOTALLY FLAWED. Not only that it makes investors become INSURERS of Lehman Brothers but in actual fact, it practically makes investors to GIVE Lehman Brothers the right to use their hard earned money to GAMBLE in the financial derivatives market to earn HIGH RETURNS for Lehman Brothers without having it to bear any risk at all..i.e. Lehman Brothers will have a RISKLESS GAMBLE while all risks are born by investors!

If they make it big gamble, they will only give 5.1% to investors and they keep the rest of the winning. If they lose, sorry, investors will be the ones who will lose the money!

Goh Meng Seng




Products were flawed
High-risk High Notes should not have been sold at all, they contend
By Francis Chan
ST PHOTOS: WANG HUI FEN
View more photos

SOME DBS High Notes 5 investors are broadening their complaints against the bank that sold them Lehman Brothers-linked investments that are now worthless.

They want to press the case that the structured product had 'flaws' and should never have been sold to them to start with.

This is different from complaints that have so far been lodged against the bank, which centre on allegations of 'mis-selling' of products that did not suit investors.

Two representatives from the 250-strong grouping - which has dubbed itself the 'DBS Hi Notes Investor Group' - spoke to The Straits Times in between two forums organised by DBS at Suntec City yesterday. They contend that High Notes 5 was a high-risk product not suitable for retail investors.

'There is a systemic failure in the product itself,' said one, who asked to be known as Mr Leong, 47. 'In fact, we got the bank to admit during the forum that the product is indeed not a low-risk product,' he added. Said the other representative, 38- year-old Kenneth Tay: 'We asked them to rate it on a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the highest, and they said High Notes 5 was between eight and nine.'

Mr Leong invested $100,000 in the doomed product and Mr Tay, $75,000. Their argument marks a shift away from the current focus on investor complaints about mis-selling of Lehman-linked products, especially to elderly or lowly-educated investors who could not understand their complexities.

DBS, like other financial institutions, has agreed to focus on helping 'vulnerable' investors such as the elderly and less educated and to probe mis-selling claims.
The bank is reviewing all sales transactions on a case-by-case basis regardless of whether a complaint has been made.

Mr Leong said the 250 investors agreed that High Notes 5 had three key flaws. 'The first is the product itself, the second is the sales process and third, the way the bank targeted customers,' he said.

On product flaws, Mr Leong said that with help from a 'finance expert' who had experience in manufacturing structured products, the group had learnt that as investors of High Notes 5, they had unfairly become 'insurers' to the credit default swaps (CDS) which backed the product.

On the sales process, Mr Leong said that it was agreed among the group that the DBS relationship managers who sold the product could not even explain the product features clearly.

'It is our view that they are inadequately trained, so how can inadequately trained people with faulty knowledge hope to advise people who know nothing?' he asked. Mr Leong said the third issue was the way in which the bank had approached customers to sell the product.

'Many [investors] share this story: They went to the bank to renew or open a fixed deposit and somehow ended up buying into High Notes 5,' he added. 'How can one associate a customer who is looking for a largely safe product like a fixed deposit ending up with such a high-risk product?'

Mr Leong and Mr Tay said they did not get satisfactory responses at the forums from DBS consumer banking head Rajan Raju. When asked to comment on the systemic flaws raised by investors, Mr Raju told reporters: 'All investments, as you know, are governed by the Financial Advisers Act in Singapore...and so far, all our products are benchmarked to the Financial Advisers Act.'

He added: 'What we are trying to say is that where there is a breakdown in our process, we will make sure that we take the responsibility and fix the problem.'
More than 360 investors of High Notes 5 attended the two sessions of the dialogue organised by DBS.

These came after 166 investors had visited DBS' Shenton Way headquarters on Oct 21 to call for an open forum. One investor, who declined to be named, said he had heard little new. 'But today they gave us this complaint form with 16 questions to complete, and promised us a fair review, so let's hope for the best - there's not much else I can do anyway.'

The 1,400 investors who bought High Notes 5 would have received letters from DBS by today informing them that their investments are worthless.
 

madmansg

Alfrescian
Loyal
fuck lar. NS worst flawed product. IT promise to ward off invasion but it cause ten times more misery than Japanese invasion.
 

lepkwl00

Alfrescian
Loyal
In a letter dated 31 March 2008 sent by DBS regarding DBS High Notes, it was stated “.... it would take several underlying reference entities in the collateral to suffer Credit Events before investors suffer a loss to their principal amount."

In actual fact, it only requires one underlying reference entity to suffer a credit event to wipe out the whole principal amount, not several underlying reference entities. This is the case in the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers which is a credit event to only one single reference entity.

Saying that it requires several reference entities to suffer credit events before any losses will be incurred gives investors the wrong impression that there is some kind of buffer and may have delayed them from selling the product and cutting their losses earlier.

Furthermore, since an official letter from DBS can get it so wrong with regards to the workings of the product, then it is reasonable to conclude that the Relationship Managers selling the product is no better at explaining the exact workings and risks of the product to customers when making the sales.

Thus, I do believe that all the investors of DBS High note series have a strong case against DBS if they wish to recoup all their money. I wish to stress that base my above analysis, every investors have a strong case regardless of your investment risk profile/appetite. The best course of action is for all the investors to negotiate with DBS or take other necessary actions collectively. I urge all investors to seek legal redress if DBS is not willing to accept full responsibility as I believe DBS is standing on shaky grounds as a result of the release of the said letter to the investors.

I wish to give DBS the benefit of the doubt and believe that this is only proof that DBS as an institution is clueless about how the product actually works and that it is not out to defraud the customers with wilful misrepresentation.
 

TeeKee

Alfrescian
Loyal
If they make it big gamble, they will only give 5.1% to investors and they keep the rest of the winning. If they lose, sorry, investors will be the ones who will lose the money!

so super high risk only get 5.1%? kena con man!! just 1% more than CPF?

should get 20% returns man....bloody hell blue chip stocks are even safer than Minibonds..surely it pays more than 5.1%?

hmm...i wonder how much Lehman brothers earn....probably billions...bloody conmans :biggrin:

And the SGP Govt MAS approved its sale!! Tells you how corrupt our govt is!!!

But the real question is...was there anyone in there on the take?
 
Last edited:

besotted

Alfrescian
Loyal
flawed investors

did you buy minibond? i surely didnt, although chiobu at counter asked me too.

why must greedy investors be protected, other than a few uneducated uncles and aunties
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
In a letter dated 31 March 2008 sent by DBS regarding DBS High Notes, it was stated “.... it would take several underlying reference entities in the collateral to suffer Credit Events before investors suffer a loss to their principal amount."

In actual fact, it only requires one underlying reference entity to suffer a credit event to wipe out the whole principal amount, not several underlying reference entities. This is the case in the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers which is a credit event to only one single reference entity.

Saying that it requires several reference entities to suffer credit events before any losses will be incurred gives investors the wrong impression that there is some kind of buffer and may have delayed them from selling the product and cutting their losses earlier.




I believe you have not fully understood the meaning of Credit Events.

You are taking it to mean strictly "bankruptcy" of any one reference entities.

But Credit Events also mean "failure to pay" and they set an amount say "$1 million" in the terms & conditions.

So if one reference entity fails to pay $250k, there is no Credit Event.

And if 4 reference entities fail to pay $250k each, making a total of $1 million, then there are Credit Events.

I have not read the DBS letter, that is what I think DBS was trying to say.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
The following article on Today has highlighted that DBS High 5 Notes is actually a <span style="font-weight:bold;">FLAWED</span> product with a risk factor of 8 or 9 out of 10. But yet, it was systematically sold to people who are only interested in fixed deposits with fixed interests.

Similarly, as explained in my last article <a href="http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2008/10/this-is-what-minibonds-is-all-about.html">"This is what Minibond is all about!"</a> and a similar article in <a href="http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/2008/10/blog-post_28.html">Chinese</a> which illustrated that Lehman Minibonds is NOT Bonds at all.

In fact, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with BONDS but just a HIGH RISK product which is TOTALLY FLAWED. Not only that it makes investors become INSURERS of Lehman Brothers but in actual fact, it practically makes investors to GIVE Lehman Brothers the right to use their hard earned money to GAMBLE in the financial derivatives market to earn HIGH RETURNS for Lehman Brothers without having it to bear any risk at all..i.e. Lehman Brothers will have a RISKLESS GAMBLE while all risks are born by investors!

If they make it big gamble, they will only give 5.1% to investors and they keep the rest of the winning. If they lose, sorry, investors will be the ones who will lose the money!

Goh Meng Seng

Its best that these investors take legal action to address any grievances. I looked at the propectus and it was rather clear to me that the yield reflected the nature of the product. Its another matter if they were advised wrongly because they could not read.

Can you name a financial product sold by banks that gave a much higher yield than this?
 

chupacabra

Alfrescian
Loyal
flawed investors

did you buy minibond? i surely didnt, although chiobu at counter asked me too.

why must greedy investors be protected, other than a few uneducated uncles and aunties

Its not about being protected but more about doing the right thing. DBS being sinkapore mother of all banks should preempt bad financial products.

Its not that these investors bought there shares on ebay. The were coax to buy them .

Just like the Slim 10 saga, financial products must be analized thoroughly before selling it. Lives are at stake.
 

Neh_Neh_Pok

Alfrescian
Loyal
so super high risk only get 5.1%? kena con man!! just 1% more than CPF?

should get 20% returns man....bloody hell blue chip stocks are even safer than Minibonds..surely it pays more than 5.1%?

hmm...i wonder how much Lehman brothers earn....probably billions...bloody conmans :biggrin:

And the SGP Govt MAS approved its sale!! Tells you how corrupt our govt is!!!

But the real question is...was there anyone in there on the take?

No need buy or invest la, you can continue go church and praise, sing, chant and shout LOUD LOUD at your "Goat" and 'he' will transfer some $ into your account :biggrin:
 

ronaldinho

Alfrescian
Loyal
Its not about being protected but more about doing the right thing. DBS being sinkapore mother of all banks should preempt bad financial products.

Its not that these investors bought there shares on ebay. The were coax to buy them .

Just like the Slim 10 saga, financial products must be analized thoroughly before selling it. Lives are at stake.


if coax must buy is it

don't know how to say no and take responsibility for your own welfare

cry to the government help help help

i agree with the other guy, shouldn't pay these greedy investors at all
 

lepkwl00

Alfrescian
Loyal
I believe you have not fully understood the meaning of Credit Events.

You are taking it to mean strictly "bankruptcy" of any one reference entities.

But Credit Events also mean "failure to pay" and they set an amount say "$1 million" in the terms & conditions.

So if one reference entity fails to pay $250k, there is no Credit Event.

And if 4 reference entities fail to pay $250k each, making a total of $1 million, then there are Credit Events.

I have not read the DBS letter, that is what I think DBS was trying to say.

Credit events do not strictly mean bankruptcy and I believe there are many events listed in the product prospectus that will qualify as credit events apart from bankruptcy.

The letter from DBS is flawed because it gives the view that it will take several (ie. more than one) reference entities to suffer from credit events before the principle amount invested will suffer a loss. Any investors reading the letter will reasonably conclude that if only one reference entity suffer a credit event, the principal amount invested will not suffer a loss.

However, it is now very clear that it took only one reference entity (Lehman brothers) on its own to suffer a credit event to reduce the principle amount to zero.
 

chupacabra

Alfrescian
Loyal
if coax must buy is it

don't know how to say no and take responsibility for your own welfare

cry to the government help help help

i agree with the other guy, shouldn't pay these greedy investors at all

There are alot of reasons why people bought these products. Just because you cannot afford it, you label everyone as greedy. If you want to be poor and miserable, thats your problem.

Well the government are the ones that is protecting the banks. Who do you think are in charge? The banks?

You are contridicting yourself when you said that they should take responsibility for themselve. Well they are doing just that right now.

Banks now have to own up to their own responsiblity.
 

Bigfuck

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
You not happy, hook up Singapore investors and HK investors and make everything tlanspalent lah. If world shee DEEBEEASS AKA GLC is a fucking lanjiao, people mai zho sing lee with SHingapore loh. LKY have no power outside Shinkapore.
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
The letter from DBS is flawed because it gives the view that it will take several (ie. more than one) reference entities to suffer from credit events before the principle amount invested will suffer a loss.

"It would" is not a definitive expression.

Replacing "It would" with "It will", changes the meaning.
 

ronaldinho

Alfrescian
Loyal
There are alot of reasons why people bought these products. Just because you cannot afford it, you label everyone as greedy. If you want to be poor and miserable, thats your problem.

Well the government are the ones that is protecting the banks. Who do you think are in charge? The banks?

You are contridicting yourself when you said that they should take responsibility for themselve. Well they are doing just that right now.

Banks now have to own up to their own responsiblity.

hahaha, whether i am rich or poor is irrelevant. at least my few dollars in the bank earning 0.75% is guaranteed and safe

these jokers go for the 5%, now worry whether can get back or not, and if can, how much...

it is greed pure and simple

most people not greedy, that's why only 10,000 out of 4 million population "coaxed"
 

chupacabra

Alfrescian
Loyal
hahaha, whether i am rich or poor is irrelevant. at least my few dollars in the bank earning 0.75% is guaranteed and safe

these jokers go for the 5%, now worry whether can get back or not, and if can, how much...

it is greed pure and simple

most people not greedy, that's why only 10,000 out of 4 million population "coaxed"

You mean 4million pop can afford meh? Grow up. All investers are looking for profits. Nobody wants to lose money.

You are plain jealous and ignorant ah beng la. Oh ya how you know your money safe? Did the banks guarenteed your account? Withdraw la, since you are not greedy and don't need the interest wat.

You are an insecure child.
 

chupacabra

Alfrescian
Loyal
most people not greedy said:
If there were no wrong doing, why all these investigation? Why don't you go to speakers corner and call those people greedy. Plus write to the forum page about your expert analysis on greed. You got no balls to do it.

There are lawyers engage in this saga. You lawyer meh? You are just a jealous small boy.
 

ronaldinho

Alfrescian
Loyal
You mean 4million pop can afford meh? Grow up. All investers are looking for profits. Nobody wants to lose money.

You are plain jealous and ignorant ah beng la. Oh ya how you know your money safe? Did the banks guarenteed your account? Withdraw la, since you are not greedy and don't need the interest wat.

You are an insecure child.


hahaha, it is clear my alternative viewpoint got your knickers twisted

jealous? of what? my money is safe and those greedy for 5% stand to lose everything.
 

ronaldinho

Alfrescian
Loyal
If there were no wrong doing, why all these investigation? Why don't you go to speakers corner and call those people greedy. Plus write to the forum page about your expert analysis on greed. You got no balls to do it.

There are lawyers engage in this saga. You lawyer meh? You are just a jealous small boy.

investigate or not, lawyer or no lawyer, if you have invested in 5% return minibonds, are you getting your money back, how much if so, how many cents on the dollar, and how long gotta wait?

my money is safe in the bank at 0.75%, i can go press ATM button anytime, this morning, lunch, whenever....

i am not the one jumping up and down at speakers corner, i am happy and well fed and although i am not rich my capital is safe

this stupid thing is caused by greed by investors, greed by banks, now greed by lawyers, hahahah
 

besotted

Alfrescian
Loyal
investigate or not, lawyer or no lawyer, if you have invested in 5% return minibonds, are you getting your money back, how much if so, how many cents on the dollar, and how long gotta wait?

my money is safe in the bank at 0.75%, i can go press ATM button anytime, this morning, lunch, whenever....

i am not the one jumping up and down at speakers corner, i am happy and well fed and although i am not rich my capital is safe

this stupid thing is caused by greed by investors, greed by banks, now greed by lawyers, hahahah

intellectually you are not wrong
 
Top