Investments gone bad

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Forum: Sister was sold financial product clearly not suited for her​

Mar 03, 2025

Some financial advisers are making a mockery of the risk profile assessment and selling financial products not suited to buyers.

My sister recently renewed her fixed deposit at a bank. She was persuaded to buy a financial product for investment that was not suited to her conservative characteristics.

I read through her risk profile assessment and was alarmed that she was assessed as a risk-taker when she is clearly not.

She is not an active stock investor or a bond buyer. She does not understand the workings of a bond and does not know the business of US technology stocks. Yet the financial product consists of mainly US technology stocks and bonds.

The financial adviser painted a glorified picture of high returns but was mute on the annual fee payable. When I questioned the adviser later, he informed me that there is an administration fee payable annually.

After the deduction of the annual administration fee, the returns for the financial product are about 2.5 per cent, about the same as a fixed deposit rate.

My sister managed to get out of the investment as it was within the 14-day cooling-off period, but she needed to pay some fees.


I do not understand how financial advisers are still getting away with practices such as not telling their clients that their initial investment amount is not guaranteed.

What’s worse is my sister’s risk profile indicates that she is willing to hold the investment product for another 99 years when she is already in her 60s. This is nonsensical and truly unacceptable.

Foo Sing Kheng

​

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

SoftBank, Temasek among eFishery investors facing near wipeout​

The labour union of eFishery staged a protest attended by more than 100 employees in January at its headquarters in Bandung, Indonesia.PHOTO: EFISHERY WORKERS' UNION

Feb 24, 2025

Investigators hired by the board of eFishery have determined the Indonesian start-up is in far worse shape than they previously thought, and that investors are likely to get back less than 10 US cents (13 Singapore cents) for every dollar they invested, according to documents seen by Bloomberg News.

The company, which deploys feeders to fish and shrimp farmers in Indonesia, incurred several hundred million dollars in losses between 2018 and 2024 and misrepresented its financial figures for years, according to the documents and a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified because the information isn’t public.

“eFishery is not commercially viable in its current form,” said a presentation prepared for the firm’s investors by FTI Consulting Singapore, the adviser hired to review the business and take over management of the company.

The fallen start-up, whose financial backers include SoftBank Group and Singapore’s Temasek Holdings, had been a star of Indonesia’s start-up scene. eFishery was valued at US$1.4 billion in 2023 after it raised US$200 million from Abu Dhabi’s 42XFund and some of its earlier investors.

In all, global investors plowed around US$315 million into eFishery’s preferred shares over five funding rounds, according to the presentation. In late 2024, the company was rocked by allegations of misconduct and inflated sales and profits, which led to the dismissal of its co-founders Gibran Huzaifah and Chrisna Aditya.

The FTI presentation estimated that eFishery had around US$50 million in cash as of around mid-February, and recommended that much of the business be wound down. “The cash balance continues to deplete without a restructuring plan in place,” it said.

That’s bad news for preference shareholders, all of whom would be paid back on an equal, or pari passu basis in the event of a liquidation. The investors could get back 9.5 US cents on the dollar under an “optimistic scenario”, and just 8.3 US cents on the dollar under a “conservative scenario, according to the presentation. That would mean Abu Dhabi’s G42, which invested US$100 million in the April 2023 round, may get just US$8.3 million back less than two years later.

A spokesperson for FTI Consulting declined to comment. SoftBank didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours, while a Temasek spokesperson declined to comment. G42 didn’t immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

Before its downfall, eFishery said its business revolved around installing AI-driven smart fish feeders, sensors and automated supply chains that connected farmers to buyers via smartphone apps. It also helped farmers obtain financing from peer-to-peer lenders and financial institutions to pay for their feed and operational costs.

The company had claimed to have more than 400,000 fish feeders deployed, and investigators initially estimated the number was closer to 24,000. The current estimate is just 6,300, of which only 600 are sending back data, according to the presentation.

The investigators also found that there was a high default rate on the financing arrangements, and that eFishery bears all losses when farmers fail to repay their loans. “In theory, the proceeds from the harvest or cash collected from farmers should be repaid back to the lenders,” the presentation said. “In practice, however, eFishery faced significant challenges when it comes to collection from borrowers.”

Hampering the debt collection process were the huge distances and fragmented nature of Indonesia’s developing economy, where almost 10 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. About 76 per cent of eFishery’s US$68 million in accounts receivable were deemed as bad debt more than 60 days overdue, with the company ultimately liable for the bulk of loans it facilitated with banks, according to the presentation.

“Substantial costs would need to be incurred to realise or recover these outstanding amounts from borrowers who are scattered all across the country,” it said.

The company’s fish and shrimp businesses were operating on thin margins and “severely loss making”, the presentation said. Key apps were not connected to eFishery’s accounting systems, and many farmers were manually matched with buyers, the investigators found.

Much of the advanced technology that the firm touted did not work as claimed, according to the presentation. None of eFishery’s PondTag sensors that were supposed to help remotely judge water quality and automate fish and shrimp feeders had been deployed. The limited data collection meant fish feed predictions were wrong almost half the time, the document said.

In essence, eFishery was “operating like a traditional trading business without technology”, the presentation said, noting that this helped explain the comp

 

[Betsycrant]

I once put a few grand into collectibles thinking they’d rise fast, but the market took a dump shortly after. Learned the hard way to avoid hype-driven stuff. Surprisingly, I made better returns flipping cs2 skins — faster turnover, more control, and less emotional baggage than stocks or long-term toys. At least with those, I could cut losses quickly and move on.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for ‘key cog’ in cryptocurrency scam in which investors in Singapore lost $1.1m​

Shaffiq Alkhatib
May 06, 2025

SINGAPORE – He was the chief executive of a firm that offered investment schemes, claiming to have 300,000 physical mining machines capable of generating revenue by mining cryptocurrencies.

But this turned out to be a hoax. Lu Huangbin’s firm, A&A Blockchain Technology Innovation, was in fact running a Ponzi scheme.

According to his charges, the company induced 12 investors to part with more than $1.8 million in total. They later suffered losses totalling about $1.1 million.

On May 6, the 61-year-old Chinese national was sentenced to 4½ years’ jail and a fine of $6,000. Lu, who has made no restitution, pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including six counts of cheating.

Nine other charges were considered during his sentencing.

Lu was the last person linked to the case to be dealt with in court. Three others were earlier handed jail sentences.

One of them, Dutch national Yang Bin, then 61, was sentenced to six years’ jail and a fine of $16,000 in August 2024.

At the time of the offences, Yang was the chairman of A&A Blockchain Technology Innovation and was the mastermind of the scam.

Another man, Chinese national Wang Xinghong, then 40, was sentenced to five years’ jail on Aug 6, 2024. He was the firm’s chief technological officer.

A third Chinese national, Chen Wei, then 43, was a director at the company and also Yang’s personal assistant. He was sentenced to four years’ jail and a fine of $6,000 in September 2024.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Wong Shiau Yin told the court on May 6 that Lu was a “key cog” in the scam linked to the firm, which was incorporated on April 20, 2021.

Between May that year and February 2022, it offered a scheme to investors in Singapore.

Known as the A&A Chain Mining Scheme, the company promised investors a fixed daily return of 0.5 per cent on their investments, purportedly generated through the mining of cryptocurrencies.

In its marketing materials – including presentation slides and promotional videos – the company claimed to have an agreement with Yunnan Shun Ai Yun Xun Investment Holdings to acquire 70 per cent ownership of 300,000 mining machines in China.

These machines were said to be able to mine cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

However, the firm did not enter into any such agreement with Yunnan Shun Ai Yun Xun Investment Holdings.

DPP Wong said: “In fact, (A&A Blockchain Technology Innovation) did not mine cryptocurrency to generate revenue. Instead, (it) operated a money circulation or ‘Ponzi’ scheme, using monies from later investors to pay returns owed to earlier investors.”

Lu and his family had invested around US$57,000 (S$73,600) in the scheme and received some US$136,000 in returns.

He did not have a valid work pass in Singapore when he worked as the firm’s chief executive.

The prosecutor also said that between May 2021 and February 2022, the company attracted investments from over 700 investors in Singapore, amounting to around $6.7 million.

Court documents did not disclose if these investors were linked to Lu’s cheating offences.

The documents also did not state how the offences came to light, but all four men were charged in 2023.