• 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.

Punk, 25, Has $2.5M Asset, Dun Mind Losing Minibombs!

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>Subliminal message by the 154th that Sporns are to be blamed?

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - 154th:They r our model minibond investor
</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
icon.aspx
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">kojakbt22 <NOBR>
icon.aspx
</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">9:58 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 5) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>2065.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>'I walked in with my eyes open'

</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>A man stands to lose $50,000, a woman $200,000. But neither will be lodging a complaint about the mis-selling of Lehman-linked products because...</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Mr W. Lai, who owns an IT education business, is one of the 10,000 people who had their fingers burnt by investing in a Lehman Brothers-linked structured product.

But he is not making a formal complaint to the financial institution which sold it to him.
Unlike the hundreds who have come forward to insist that they were mis-sold products like Lehman Minibonds and DBS High Notes5, he has 'never thought of joining the others in lodging a complaint'.
Mr Lai, 25, sank $50,000 into Minibonds.
The money, he said, represents 'no more than a couple of per cent' of his entire investment portfolio.

=> Would this punk be so yaya if this were to be his life savings?


More to the point, he accepts responsibility for any loss he suffers.
'In my case I don't think there was mis-selling,' he said.
'I read through everything in the prospectus and I didn't just rely on the bankers. However, no one could have thought that Lehman would collapse as it had a pretty good credit rating.'
He conceded that there were probably genuine cases in which products were mis-sold, especially to those who had a low-risk profile.
However, he said, investors 'have a responsibility to read everything and not just sign'.
For now, he is holding on to the hope that there will be a new swap counterparty to replace Lehman in the Minibond programme. If this goes through, it is likely that Minibond holders will get back more from their investments at maturity than if they had been forced to cash out now.
Like Mr Lai, a handful of investors that The Sunday Times managed to track down said they had walked into the deals with their eyes open.
A human resources manager in her late 50s is staring at losses of up to $200,000 but is also not lodging a complaint.
She bought $100,000 worth of Lehman Minibonds in July last year based on a recommendation from a relationship manager. She also bought $100,000 of DBS High Notes5, after a friend told her to buy them.
'I blame my friend, but then he also lost money,' she said.
She is not complaining about mis-selling because 'I walked in with my eyes open'.
'At DBS, the relationship manager did tell me that the only time I could lose my money was if there was a credit event, but he also said that all the banks listed were rated AA. But I didn't quite realise that I could lose all my money.
'This is partially my fault. I can read but I didn't read. I knew I might lose some money, but who can predict these things? When we have decided to invest this sum over here and another sum over there, we don't really read the documentation. The decision is made within two seconds.'
As to how she felt about losing her money, she said: 'I know it's painful but I didn't really lose any sleep over it. If you think too much about it, you will feel worse. So be it.
'If I were so upset, I would go and fight like everyone else, but it would take up so much of my time and energy.'
Another investor, Ms Joyce Lou, 40, has also decided that taking out a complaint is not worth the effort.
The financial adviser has $5,000 in Minibonds and $5,000 in Pinnacle Notes, another product which has plunged in value.
'I think everyone should be responsible for his own money. I admit, I should have found out more,' she said.
She added that her profession would also work against any claims of mis-selling.
According to the latest figures from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, one out of every four investors who bought a financial product linked to Lehman Brothers has lodged a formal complaint of mis-selling.
DBS Bank, for example, has received around 450 to 500 complaints of mis-selling. About 1,400 people here invested over $103million in its High Notes5.
But Mr David Gerald, president of the Securities Investors Association of Singapore, warns against jumping to the conclusion that the majority of investors are not bothered by the loss.
'There may be a number of reasons why they have not put up their hands yet. Some of them may think it's still early days and they are waiting to see what the financial institutions will do. There could also be some who feel that they invested with their eyes open or that the amount invested is not much.'
A chief executive of a financial institution said he knows of pockets of 'responsible investors who are facing up to the facts and who are not intending to do anything'.
He estimates that these account for some 10 to 20per cent of his clients.
However, he was not able to let The Sunday Times contact them, citing client confidentiality and 'not wanting to stir up something'.
Other industry sources said it was unlikely that such investors would openly confess to having made a bad investment decision, as it would be not only embarrassing but also harmful in the event that they changed their minds about lodging complaints.
In any case, those who have decided not to complain are determined to move on.
Financial adviser Ms Lou said: 'I'm not going to die because of this $10,000. I invest money that I don't need to use for the next two years at least, so there's no impact on the way I lead my life.'
Year-end vacations will go on as planned and Ms Lou is 'shopping around' for a trip to Australia.
IT entrepreneur Mr Lai is also not about to cancel his four jaunts to Hong Kong, Australia, Japan and Korea. As for the human resources manager who may end up $200,000 poorer, her advice after this fiasco is: 'Put your money in fixed deposits. It's safe.'
[email protected]

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Utterly RUBBISH!

The MAIN RISK does not lie in the Six Reference entities nor Lehman Brothers but rather, on the value and defaults of the underlying assets!

Hell! This whole article is all misleading!

Goh Meng Seng

<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>Subliminal message by the 154th that Sporns are to be blamed?

Coffeeshop Chit Chat - 154th:They r our model minibond investor
</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
icon.aspx
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">kojakbt22 <NOBR>
icon.aspx
</NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">9:58 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 5) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>2065.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>'I walked in with my eyes open'

</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- headline one : end --></TD></TR><TR><TD>A man stands to lose $50,000, a woman $200,000. But neither will be lodging a complaint about the mis-selling of Lehman-linked products because...</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Mr W. Lai, who owns an IT education business, is one of the 10,000 people who had their fingers burnt by investing in a Lehman Brothers-linked structured product.

But he is not making a formal complaint to the financial institution which sold it to him.
Unlike the hundreds who have come forward to insist that they were mis-sold products like Lehman Minibonds and DBS High Notes5, he has 'never thought of joining the others in lodging a complaint'.
Mr Lai, 25, sank $50,000 into Minibonds.
The money, he said, represents 'no more than a couple of per cent' of his entire investment portfolio.

=> Would this punk be so yaya if this were to be his life savings?


More to the point, he accepts responsibility for any loss he suffers.
'In my case I don't think there was mis-selling,' he said.
'I read through everything in the prospectus and I didn't just rely on the bankers. However, no one could have thought that Lehman would collapse as it had a pretty good credit rating.'
He conceded that there were probably genuine cases in which products were mis-sold, especially to those who had a low-risk profile.
However, he said, investors 'have a responsibility to read everything and not just sign'.
For now, he is holding on to the hope that there will be a new swap counterparty to replace Lehman in the Minibond programme. If this goes through, it is likely that Minibond holders will get back more from their investments at maturity than if they had been forced to cash out now.
Like Mr Lai, a handful of investors that The Sunday Times managed to track down said they had walked into the deals with their eyes open.
A human resources manager in her late 50s is staring at losses of up to $200,000 but is also not lodging a complaint.
She bought $100,000 worth of Lehman Minibonds in July last year based on a recommendation from a relationship manager. She also bought $100,000 of DBS High Notes5, after a friend told her to buy them.
'I blame my friend, but then he also lost money,' she said.
She is not complaining about mis-selling because 'I walked in with my eyes open'.
'At DBS, the relationship manager did tell me that the only time I could lose my money was if there was a credit event, but he also said that all the banks listed were rated AA. But I didn't quite realise that I could lose all my money.
'This is partially my fault. I can read but I didn't read. I knew I might lose some money, but who can predict these things? When we have decided to invest this sum over here and another sum over there, we don't really read the documentation. The decision is made within two seconds.'
As to how she felt about losing her money, she said: 'I know it's painful but I didn't really lose any sleep over it. If you think too much about it, you will feel worse. So be it.
'If I were so upset, I would go and fight like everyone else, but it would take up so much of my time and energy.'
Another investor, Ms Joyce Lou, 40, has also decided that taking out a complaint is not worth the effort.
The financial adviser has $5,000 in Minibonds and $5,000 in Pinnacle Notes, another product which has plunged in value.
'I think everyone should be responsible for his own money. I admit, I should have found out more,' she said.
She added that her profession would also work against any claims of mis-selling.
According to the latest figures from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, one out of every four investors who bought a financial product linked to Lehman Brothers has lodged a formal complaint of mis-selling.
DBS Bank, for example, has received around 450 to 500 complaints of mis-selling. About 1,400 people here invested over $103million in its High Notes5.
But Mr David Gerald, president of the Securities Investors Association of Singapore, warns against jumping to the conclusion that the majority of investors are not bothered by the loss.
'There may be a number of reasons why they have not put up their hands yet. Some of them may think it's still early days and they are waiting to see what the financial institutions will do. There could also be some who feel that they invested with their eyes open or that the amount invested is not much.'
A chief executive of a financial institution said he knows of pockets of 'responsible investors who are facing up to the facts and who are not intending to do anything'.
He estimates that these account for some 10 to 20per cent of his clients.
However, he was not able to let The Sunday Times contact them, citing client confidentiality and 'not wanting to stir up something'.
Other industry sources said it was unlikely that such investors would openly confess to having made a bad investment decision, as it would be not only embarrassing but also harmful in the event that they changed their minds about lodging complaints.
In any case, those who have decided not to complain are determined to move on.
Financial adviser Ms Lou said: 'I'm not going to die because of this $10,000. I invest money that I don't need to use for the next two years at least, so there's no impact on the way I lead my life.'
Year-end vacations will go on as planned and Ms Lou is 'shopping around' for a trip to Australia.
IT entrepreneur Mr Lai is also not about to cancel his four jaunts to Hong Kong, Australia, Japan and Korea. As for the human resources manager who may end up $200,000 poorer, her advice after this fiasco is: 'Put your money in fixed deposits. It's safe.'
[email protected]

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
The MAIN RISK does not lie in the Six Reference entities nor Lehman Brothers but rather, on the value and defaults of the underlying assets!

When you buy TOTO, do you check the value and default potential of the underlying assets, just in case you strike first prize?
 

cass888

Alfrescian
Loyal
When you buy TOTO, do you check the value and default potential of the underlying assets, just in case you strike first prize?

You're missing the point. The way it is structured, if Lehman Brothers had gone bust, the underlying assets were supposed to be used to realise the money investor. If Lehman had not gone bust and a trigger event occured, Lehman Brothers was supposed to be able to realise the underlying assets. As it turned out, the underlying assets were merely a house of cards.
 

qwerty

Alfrescian
Loyal
its all fuking damage control to tell ppl not to complain....

tell me,where do they find such ppl if these ppl do not complain..

only exist in their minds?
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
You're missing the point. The way it is structured, if Lehman Brothers had gone bust, the underlying assets were supposed to be used to realise the money investor. If Lehman had not gone bust and a trigger event occured, Lehman Brothers was supposed to be able to realise the underlying assets. As it turned out, the underlying assets were merely a house of cards.

The minibond is not structured to take account of Lehman Brothers going bust. It is not a consideration between buyers and sellers.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
When you buy TOTO, do you check the value and default potential of the underlying assets, just in case you strike first prize?

Dear Zombie,

But Toto does not have any underlying assets! :wink:

Under the law, the sales person of any financial products would have to have FULL DISCLOSURE of all the risks involves with the products they sold. But this is not the case in Lehman Minibonds sales.

The truth is, even in these two cases where the buyers claimed that they have read through the prospectus, from their replies here it is evident that they did not know that main risks lies in the underlying assets! How could that be? :wink:

Goh Meng Seng
 

eeoror88

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear Zombie,

But Toto does not have any underlying assets! :wink:

Under the law, the sales person of any financial products would have to have FULL DISCLOSURE of all the risks involves with the products they sold. But this is not the case in Lehman Minibonds sales.

The truth is, even in these two cases where the buyers claimed that they have read through the prospectus, from their replies here it is evident that they did not know that main risks lies in the underlying assets! How could that be? :wink:

Goh Meng Seng

Dear Goh Sing Sing (Ape, in cantonese)

Can you let go your angst once awhile. I gather that you very uptight leh !!:eek::eek:
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
But Toto does not have any underlying assets! :wink:

That is the core message of my previous post, which I hope you can think about.

When you look at risk of the product, you look at the product itself first.

If I follow your argument, that a product risk depends most entirely on the risk of the underlying assets, and
when you say TOTO has no underlying assets, which means no risk,
then you mean to say that buying TOTO has no risk, which is entirely misleading.

I need not go into disclosure. Anyway, TOTO has to set aside "underlying assets" in the form of cash.

:biggrin:
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
That is the core message of my previous post, which I hope you can think about.

When you look at risk of the product, you look at the product itself first.

If I follow your argument, that a product risk depends most entirely on the risk of the underlying assets, and
when you say TOTO has no underlying assets, which means no risk,
then you mean to say that buying TOTO has no risk, which is entirely misleading.

I need not go into disclosure. Anyway, TOTO has to set aside "underlying assets" in the form of cash.

:biggrin:

Dear Zombie,

Your argument is flawed.

Anyone who walks into Singapore Pools to buy TOTO Understands the ODDS that they are betting against. However, for Minibonds, they were not even TOLD about the TOTAL ODDS, the WHOLE PICTURE of the risks that they are taking.

Unlike TOTO, they are investing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands into Minibonds. And many of them were told, what they have invested will be in the bonds of those Six reference entities. There are many version of misrepresentation, misinformation and mis-selling and it seems to me that those who are selling these products do not even understand the products themselves!

Furthermore, I was told that as late as June or July 2008, they were still selling such instruments which they knew was invested in derivatives that was linked to subprime related products! Subprime problems were already announced as a big issue way back in 2007 but they are still selling them in 2008! This is to me, professional misconduct.

Goh Meng Seng
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
Anyone who walks into Singapore Pools to buy TOTO Understands the ODDS that they are betting against.

You are debating with yourself.

What ODDS? The ODDS of the TOTO, the product itself ie the product risk.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
You are debating with yourself.

What ODDS? The ODDS of the TOTO, the product itself ie the product risk.

The product is the risk while the risk is already known. :wink:

But the Minibond product's risk is not fully made known. That's the difference.

Goh Meng Seng
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
The product is the risk while the risk is already known. :wink:

How they know? Like the method you applied to Minibonds, to look into the underlying assets of TOTO to determine the product risk of TOTO?

Don't mess things up with disclosure issue. We have yet to finish the risk issue.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
How they know? Like the method you applied to Minibonds, to look into the underlying assets of TOTO to determine the product risk of TOTO?

Don't mess things up with disclosure issue. We have yet to finish the risk issue.

Everyone knows the odds, the big odds in Toto and 4D because it is a mathematical bets. And it could be CALCULATED without prejudice. But Minibond? You don't even know exactly what the underlying assets are! How to calculate the risks? :wink:

Goh Meng Seng
 
Z

Zombie

Guest
Everyone knows the odds, the big odds in Toto and 4D because it is a mathematical bets. And it could be CALCULATED without prejudice. But Minibond? You don't even know exactly what the underlying assets are! How to calculate the risks? :wink:

Goh Meng Seng

Don't assume you can run away with the unknowns.

Let's make your job easy. Let's assume the risk of underlying assets is 100% ie total lost. Now tell me what is the risk of minibond?
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
Don't assume you can run away with the unknowns.

Let's make your job easy. Let's assume the risk of underlying assets is 100% ie total lost. Now tell me what is the risk of minibond?

Dear Zombie,

Apparently you have mixed up risk with percentage of losses.

What is the risk of minibond? How can I tell you if I do not even know what the underlying assets are?

I can tell you there is risk of losing everything you have right now, 100%. But that really means nothing! Basically because it may be one out of a billion chance that you will lose 100% of what you have! But before you can determine this one out of a billion chance, you must know what are the factors being considered first, right?

So back to you, so if we do not even know what are included in the underlying assets, how the hell could we know what are the chances of losing everything? :wink:

Goh Meng Seng
 
Top