Are you sure democracy cannot help you financially?
-
Are you sure democracy cannot help you financially?
Monday, 27 July 2009 - Singapore Democrats
Is it a coincidence that victims of the Lehman Brothers scam in Hong Kong are being compensated for their losses whereas those in Singapore are not?
Hong Kong's financial authorities have taken action to pressure banks to pay back at least 60 percent (more for older victims) to each investor for their losses incurred as a result of buying the toxic financial products from Lehman.
In contrast, Singaporeans are told that they have to jump through hoops just to have their claims heard.Even then, they are made to wait for their cases to be heard and, in many cases, are told that their money is irretrievably gone.
Either that or they have to initiate litigation to claim compensation which is an expensive process with no guarantee of success.
Perhaps, the most telling difference is DBS's reaction to the two sets of investors.The Singapore bank volunteered that it would refund Hong Kongers who purchased its troubled products whereas no similar move was made for Singaporeans.
So why the difference between Hong Kong and Singapore?
For one thing, the authorities of Hong Kong are still accountable (and therefore responsive) to its people. This is because its elections are much freer and fairer compared to what we have in Singapore.Elected representatives have to respond to the voice and mood of the electorate.
In Singapore, MPs also have to remain attuned to the voice and mood, but not of the voters. Instead they have to keep an eye and ear out from what their party bosses say. In this matter the PAP, and hence all its MPs, were more intent on protecting the establishment and its system than helping the investor-victims.
And their party bosses have molded the election system in such a way that they will never lose power. If they cannot lose power, what incentive is there for them to pay attention to the voters?
Members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong have to be sensitive to what their constituents say. Public opinion matters because it is broadcast and published by the media which is reknowned for its freedom and independence from the ruling class.
Singapore's media, on the other hand, can be turned on and off by the PAP. This is not hard to do when the Singapore Press Holdings is controlled by none other than former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan.
In addition, Hong Kongers enjoy freedoms of speech and public assembly – and the Lehman victims have exercised their freedom well. It was through their public protests that the banks agreed to compensate them for their losses.
Alas, Singaporean investors can only gather at Hong Lim Park – away from the eyes and ears of the people for whom their angry message was intended. As a result, the banks were free of the pressure to negotiate and compensate.
Free and fair elections, a free media, the freedom to assemble are what made the difference between Hong Kong's investors and Singapore's, even though both groups were sold similar products and were caught out by similar events.
So the next time anyone says that democracy and human rights can't make you money, just remember these four items: Hong Kong - Singapore - Lehman Brothers - compensation. -
Isn't there a difference between compensation and making money?
I thought making money is supposed to indicate a profit?
But my first thoughts on the minibonds compensation issue has remained the same, aren't they taking money from the other people who didn't buy the bonds, the ones that just did plain old fixed deposits to compensate for this?
I certainly wouldn't believe that the bank management would dig it from their own pockets to pay for this.
So in the end, one group of people are screwed in order to placate the other group and Capitalism won again!
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Isn't there a difference between compensation and making money?
I thought making money is supposed to indicate a profit?
But my first thoughts on the minibonds compensation issue has remained the same, aren't they taking money from the other people who didn't buy the bonds, the ones that just did plain old fixed deposits to compensate for this?
I certainly wouldn't believe that the bank management would dig it from their own pockets to pay for this.
So in the end, one group of people are screwed in order to placate the other group and Capitalism won again!
It can be true, but not until realization. The banks should be able to fulfil their obligation to those fix depositers. Unless given a mature of deposit of the same day whereby all depositers withdrew their money, then the bank may have problem.However, I believe the Banks had calculated the risk, get approval from MAS and is still able to pay any fix depositer upon their maturity.
-
I think this is a part of greed, nothing to do much with democracy, a greed of capital. Under the free financial trade, whoever you are, when you invest, you take the risk and the gain. It is very much a personnal beholden situation. You are free to put your money anyhwere, but with your eyes open. That goes the same way as today communism or any other socialist or militant rules, and worst it that some of this system are so rigid that the distribution of wealth is totally out of the scope, everything is being control and kept by their rulers/dictators.
-
this article is from which newspaper?
-
Originally posted by Suffocate:
this article is from which newspaper?
either hammer or spanner party newspaper -
Originally posted by angel7030:
either hammer or spanner party newspaperthat means the article cannot be trusted?
-
Originally posted by Suffocate:
that means the article cannot be trusted?
More or less, but it can be read and good if you got nothing to do.Even it is from strait times, its belong to the state, state times, do you believe in state times?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
More or less, but it can be read and good if you got nothing to do.Even it is from strait times, its belong to the state, state times, do you believe in state times?
But like that anybody can just go to the hammer or spanner party newspaper and write?
So its like cannot be trusted whether the content is accurate anot
-
Originally posted by Suffocate:
But like that anybody can just go to the hammer or spanner party newspaper and write?
So its like cannot be trusted whether the content is accurate anot
No lah, most of the time, there are many peoples who wrote articles to state times but were featured, so they find this place the alternate source. However the spectrum of readers are is not wide enough,...maybe only i and u is reading... -
sori, mistake, should be their article not featured...
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
No lah, most of the time, there are many peoples who wrote articles to state times but were featured, so they find this place the alternate source. However the spectrum of readers are is not wide enough,...maybe only i and u is reading...So if you and I want, we also can go and write an article in these newspaper?
-
Can, why cannot, this is democracy mah. Your article will first be vet thru by the operators before going higher, i think at the operators stage, our articles will be deleted without the rubbish bin
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
It can be true, but not until realization. The banks should be able to fulfil their obligation to those fix depositers. Unless given a mature of deposit of the same day whereby all depositers withdrew their money, then the bank may have problem.However, I believe the Banks had calculated the risk, get approval from MAS and is still able to pay any fix depositer upon their maturity.
I didn't even mention the regular bank savings account , since there's relatively little risk of everyone suddenly withdrawing their money from the bank.But my point isn't that the bank would end up so short of money that they couldn't pay the fixed deposits.
It's that ultimately all the money in the bank is ours to begin with, so when you take the money and use it to compensate the people who bought the minibonds you used the money of people who never bought it to pay off the people who lost the money.
So while what the HongKong banks did sound noble, in the end they used the money of the cautious to pay off the people who were reckless. The compensation isn't going to come from the people who suggested selling the minibonds in the first place.
Sure, i don't deny that there were elderly who were duped into buying the bonds with their retirement money. But somehow i don't get the picture that they were the majority.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I didn't even mention the regular bank savings account , since there's relatively little risk of everyone suddenly withdrawing their money from the bank.But my point isn't that the bank would end up so short of money that they couldn't pay the fixed deposits.
It's that ultimately all the money in the bank is ours to begin with, so when you take the money and use it to compensate the people who bought the minibonds you used the money of people who never bought it to pay off the people who lost the money.
So while what the HongKong banks did sound noble, in the end they used the money of the cautious to pay off the people who were reckless. The compensation isn't going to come from the people who suggested selling the minibonds in the first place.
Sure, i don't deny that there were elderly who were duped into buying the bonds with their retirement money. But somehow i don't get the picture that they were the majority.
Anyway, since those whose saving is not at risk, there is no alarm over withdrawer.The insitution that govern that structured bonds or mini bonds is no more there. Basically, the banks who act as the underwriters do not need to pay back anything as the risk of investment is stated as non refundable on the principal value. In fact the banks also lost in term of commission and adminstration when insitution such as lehman collapsed. But the banks have a social responsibility to fulfill and also their reputation are at state, therefore in order to maintain their credibility and dignity to the public, they offer to compensate a lower value to those consider poor in financial investment and that causes everyone who invested to claim that they are poor in investment too. Dun forget that these bonds had been a good bonds yielding good dividends and return for many years. It was very attractive and good product before it collapse. The facts that many had infact make money out of it are coming back for the principle is nothing but greed.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
It can be true, but not until realization. The banks should be able to fulfil their obligation to those fix depositers. Unless given a mature of deposit of the same day whereby all depositers withdrew their money, then the bank may have problem.However, I believe the Banks had calculated the risk, get approval from MAS and is still able to pay any fix depositer upon their maturity.
Did banks "fulfil their obligation to those fix depositers" ?
Certainly, the fallen angel has no clue of the events that have transpired in Singapore in the repeat daily ritual of polluting the Speaker's Corner with thoughtless mischief.
The issue in this thread concerns the toxic bonds which several Singapore financial institutions misled Singaporeans to subscribe to - is there any reference made to any other financial instruments available for investments for Singaporeans ?
Hong Kong investors have received their compensation - what about the interests of those Singaporeans who fell easy prey to the high pressure misleading guidance employed by the investment advisers from local financial institutions ?
Originally posted by angel7030:I think this is a part of greed, nothing to do much with democracy, a greed of capital. Under the free financial trade, whoever you are, when you invest, you take the risk and the gain. It is very much a personnal beholden situation. You are free to put your money anyhwere, but with your eyes open. That goes the same way as today communism or any other socialist or militant rules, and worst it that some of this system are so rigid that the distribution of wealth is totally out of the scope, everything is being control and kept by their rulers/dictators.
Yes, one is responsible for one's actions when fall prey to a con-man.
Should one be responsible for one's actions when one is misled by a financial institution that has license to provide sound financial services ?
If there is no wrong done to Singaporean investors, it is surprising that a report surfaced on 7 July 2009 that - Singapore on Tuesday suspended 10 financial institutions for improperly selling credit notes linked to the collapsed US investment bank Lehmann Brothers. The bans would range from six months to two years starting on July 1 and would only be lifted when the central bank "is satisfied with the measures they have put in place," the Monetary Authority ofSingapore said
Obviously, the fallen angel missed out on this fact that the financial institutions were penalised but the majority of Singaporeans who have lost their hard earned monies to the ingenious misinformation spread by these institutions.
Has it nothing to do with democracy ?
Besides missing out the facts of events that transpired, the fallen angel has also missed out the essence of the thread - that Hongkongers have largely got a positive response from their financial institutions that refunded their investments - as result of the very public and very vocal demonstrations towards their financial institutions.
Singaporeans have largely been left with their hands empty, while the Government worked out a cosy deal with the financial institutions - even when these institutions have to handle a claim of approximately 10,000 investors whom they had misled.
Was it a general run on the financial institutions due to a general loss in confidence - as suggested by the fallen angel in the first response - or is this about the interests of the 10,000 odd investors who were misled ?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Anyway, since those whose saving is not at risk, there is no alarm over withdrawer.The insitution that govern that structured bonds or mini bonds is no more there. Basically, the banks who act as the underwriters do not need to pay back anything as the risk of investment is stated as non refundable on the principal value. In fact the banks also lost in term of commission and adminstration when insitution such as lehman collapsed. But the banks have a social responsibility to fulfill and also their reputation are at state, therefore in order to maintain their credibility and dignity to the public, they offer to compensate a lower value to those consider poor in financial investment and that causes everyone who invested to claim that they are poor in investment too. Dun forget that these bonds had been a good bonds yielding good dividends and return for many years. It was very attractive and good product before it collapse. The facts that many had infact make money out of it are coming back for the principle is nothing but greed.
Did any Singaporean investors make any money out of the Lehman disaster ?
What is the basis for such a statement from the fallen angel ?
It is surprising that the Monetary Authority of Singapore did not make any criminal charges against the various management of the 10 financial institutions that allowed misleading details to be published to promote these toxic bonds to dupe the 10,000 unsuspecting and trusting Singaporeans.
The matter had been identified by the Monetary Authority of Singapore that
The central bank found that risk-ratings to some series of the sold Lehman-linked notes "were inconsistent with risk warnings stated in the prospectus and pricing statement."
Are Singaporeans satisfied with the minimalist compensations when the amount taken from them was far more due to the inconsistent and misleading information -when the information was made without any basis and against clear guidelines ?
How did the fallen angel decide that these bonds were good bonds - when the MAS had stated that the "Lehman-linked notes were inconsistent with risk warnings" ?
It is clear that the fallen angel is either a mouth piece for her PAPa, or is simply in the Speaker's Corner to search for her ASS.
-
With the much publicity given to Great Eastern Announces One-Time Redemption Offer to Greatlink Choice Policyholders - will the other Singapore Financial Institutions do the right thing in making refunds to the Singapore investors ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Did any Singaporean investors make any money out of the Lehman disaster ?
What is the basis for such a statement from the fallen angel ?
It is surprising that the Monetary Authority of Singapore did not make any criminal charges against the various management of the 10 financial institutions that allowed misleading details to be published to promote these toxic bonds to dupe the 10,000 unsuspecting and trusting Singaporeans.
The matter had been identified by the Monetary Authority of Singapore that
The central bank found that risk-ratings to some series of the sold Lehman-linked notes "were inconsistent with risk warnings stated in the prospectus and pricing statement."
Are Singaporeans satisfied with the minimalist compensations when the amount taken from them was far more due to the inconsistent and misleading information -when the information was made without any basis and against clear guidelines ?
How did the fallen angel decide that these bonds were good bonds - when the MAS had stated that the "Lehman-linked notes were inconsistent with risk warnings" ?
It is clear that the fallen angel is either a mouth piece for her PAPa, or is simply in the Speaker's Corner to search for her ASS.
Are you sure the fallen angel is a her?? Fallen angel = Lucifer
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Are you sure the fallen angel is a her?? Fallen angel = Lucifer
Lucifer is a fallen Archangel - no point being sexist in elevating the 'fallen angel'
-
stevenson101, pls grow up. banks are not in business to take care of people's money but to make money! when they make compensation, they don't use other customers' money to pay nor do the bosses dig from their own pockets, they use the banks' profits!
-
Originally posted by lotus999:
stevenson101, pls grow up. banks are not in business to take care of people’s money but to make money!
when they make compensation, they don’t use other customers’ money to pay nor do the bosses dig from their own pockets, they use the banks’ profits!
Please get some specs and read my posts carefully i never said anything about banks being nice.
It's ironic that you say on one hand that the banks are not there to take care of people's money and on the other hand you're so confident that they would use solely profits to pay for the compensation.
-
The old aunty who lost her savings is being used by the wine swilling motherfucker to get his money back. The greedy class doesn't mind stealing its workers money (or stealing money in general) so that they can continue to finance their Parisian cooking classes.
-
Originally posted by lotus999:
stevenson101, pls grow up. banks are not in business to take care of people’s money but to make money!
when they make compensation, they don’t use other customers’ money to pay nor do the bosses dig from their own pockets, they use the banks’ profits!
banks are there to make profits, no reason why they would use their profits to make compensation.
With the profits they make, they pay their bosses bonus first, then the balance is supposed to pay shareholders dividents, the people who put money in the banks!
Just reported few days ago, the 9 banks in america were issuing big bonuses to their senior executives, while taking bail out from the government. so the tax payers paid the bills.
Who is the Bank?
-
Whether the banks refund from their profits or from shareholders' fund, it is only right that they should make amends for their mistaken approach in selling "toxic bonds" to unsuspecting investors - who largely depended on their professional advise.
It is the fiduciary responsibility of the management of the various financial institutions to exercise due diligence in vetting their products prior to their decision to market the same to boost their own profit performance.
As matters stand, in a news report on 1 August 2009, GE Life had made a voluntary refund to about 18,000 of their customers who invested in the "toxic bonds", and in a follow-up ST news report on 4 August 2009 - GE Life is asking their agents to make a refund of the commission that was paid out since four years ago.
When the total commission to be collected from the various GE Life agents will amount to approximately $12 Million - do we need to imagine how much more is gained by GE Life ?
While normal humans slave for a monthly fixed wage, financial institutions make their money by "making the money work for them".
Financial Institutions have their unique ways of making money work that will result in profit growing in geometrical proportions from the hoard of money that they collect through various programs - saving accounts, fixed deposits, investment programs, and dual-benefit or multiple benefits programs.
Cash collected do not simply sit in the vaults and earn interests from tagging on or piggy back ride on programs offered by other financial institutions.
Instead, the money do not even move across borders, while electronic transactions fly across the wire as trades are conducted electronically, and margins are earned by the minute in a 24 Hour day through all the time zones.
The rise and fall in the fortunes of the various financial institutions depend very much on the rarefied atmosphere in which these Money Managers work, and in an exclusively unique environment that is open to a very select few around the globe.
This is evident from the sudden report that Goldman Sachs makes surprise profit of US$1.66 Billion for first three months of 2009 - when they were reported in late 2008 to need US Government bailout.
Great Eastern Life to Refund Greatlink Choice Investors
In a surprise move yesterday, Great Eastern Life (GE) made a voluntarily offer to do an early redemption of their Greatlink Choice (GLC) products from 18,000 of its investors.
The Greatlink Choice products were sold in five tranches between 2005 and 2007, collecting $594 million in premiums. It was marketed as a safe kind of investment with an annual payout of between 3.5% to 4.9% of the capital invested.
It is a similar class of product to the Minibond, DBS High Notes and some of the Pinnacle notes which have been widely sold to other investors. While none of the Greatlink Choice has defaulted yet, their current market valuation ranged from 19% to 61% of the original capital.
Owners of the Greatlink Choice products will now have an option to opt for a full redemption of their Greatlink Choice investment at their original capital less the total payouts they have received to date. This option will be available to them from now till 28th Aug 2009.
GLC policyholders will receive a notice from Great Eastern on the procedure for acceptance of this offer. GLC policyholders who have questions on the offer may also call Great Eastern’s Customer Service Officers at 1800-248-2888 or contact their personal GE life planners.
I applaud this move by GE as it gives investors of the Greatlink Choice products an early exit option. I am sure many of these investors who thought Greatlink Choice was a safe product would have been having sleepless nights seeing the value of their investments plummet. This is especially so for the Greatlink Choice products which are maturing in 2012/2013 and have a higher risk of default.
From the perspective of GE, I am sure this helps to generate tremendous market goodwill. And while they will have to spend $250 million making this early redemption, if you think about it, this $250 million is not exactly a loss at all.
Remember that none of the Greatlink Choice has defaulted yet and if it stays the same way, GE would have to refund 100% of the premiums at maturity back to investors anyway. And in giving this early payout, they would be redeeming at less than 100% of the capital as it is net of total payouts received.
Of course, if there is a default subsequently, then GE would have to bear the loss themselves.
Overall, I think this move is a win-win for both GE and their GLC customers.
I am sure investors of Prudential’s Pru 3Plus and Yield 15/20 will be casting an anxious look at Prudential and see whether they will offer something similar.
http://www.lioninvestor.com/great-eastern-life-to-refund-greatlink-choice-investors/