tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4950101483476071934.post6781062585940219730..comments2024-01-25T21:40:29.232+08:00Comments on Siew Kum Hong: OPQ 20 October 2008: Sale of Structured Financial ProductsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4950101483476071934.post-23604606055172542662009-01-17T12:23:00.000+08:002009-01-17T12:23:00.000+08:00Mr. Siew I hope in the upcoming Parlaiment sitting...Mr. Siew I hope in the upcoming Parlaiment sitting on 19th January 2009 you can further put pressure on the gahment to relook the follwing.<BR/>1.the product check before they are put up for sale<BR/>2.disclosure is useful only to the financially trained . If you are a PhD but not in finance you too cannot understand. MAS is putting too much onus on the investors and it is unfair.Financial experts have said many times that there is NO WAY for investors to make INDEPENDENT decision. Consumers need help of the advisers. Advisory process is about giving an opinion to help the client because the adviser after the analysis knows whether the product is good for bad for the investor. The investors don't know. They only know what they want, high return and low risk.It is natural. Even investment theory assumes this rationality.<BR/>3. review the advisory process and ban product advice or no advice options. This was the cause of mis-selling.Advisers and RMs circumvented the advisory and made customers or claimed that customers chose product advice options which is not true.<BR/>4.Licensing all advisers, tied or independent.<BR/>5.Commission gives rise to conflict of interest<BR/>Thanks , Mr. Siew I hope you can highlight these few issues in parlaiment. All the best and wish you a happy new yearzhummmenghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11494903461266369989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4950101483476071934.post-42453241156133458932008-11-03T13:33:00.000+08:002008-11-03T13:33:00.000+08:00Perhaps this video might shed more light in refere...Perhaps this video might shed more light in referencing to Mdm Ng:<BR/><BR/>http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2008/11/spunky-retiree-hammers-dbs.html<BR/><BR/>KaffeinKaffeinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11958784896341738588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4950101483476071934.post-22475948090462930252008-11-03T13:32:00.000+08:002008-11-03T13:32:00.000+08:00"these products are not low risk or safe products...."these products are not low risk or safe products. These are explained in the first or second page that these are structured products and it is in bold print that you can lose everything. So MAS has never said that these are risk-free products, low-risk products or safe products. "<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if Lim KH understands. The main unhappiness of the people who lost is not whether the products are risk-free or high risk.<BR/><BR/>It is: whether these risks are communicated to the investors like Mdm Ng. Furthermore, what does it mean high risk to them? Going for an operation does not guarantee success. There is always a small clause that something might go wrong.<BR/><BR/>Just like going for an operation. It is the surgeon's and hospital duty to inform you of the calculated risk of doing this operation. The reason we are inquiries is to ascertain if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon, or hospital following the death of a patient.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, these people who lost their money wants to know if they bank had been 'mis-selling' to them.<BR/><BR/>So which part does Minister Lim HK or some of the MPs not understand?<BR/><BR/>Anyway check out this video. Even with written statements by the bank to Mdm Ng, she is no longer available to contact them. Is this how local banks treat the consummers?<BR/><BR/>Another question: Mr Tan KL has been assisting the impacted people. I wonder why he isn't one of the persons in the committee members. Should not one or even two of the committee members be a person selected by the public to represent them?<BR/><BR/>Can the public be assured that the committee team will look towards the interst of the consumers who have been mis-sold as mentioned here by Lim HK:<BR/>"Our main concern is to get the process done and to make sure that any investors who have been mis-sold or who have invested inappropriately in these products have due recourse and compensation."<BR/><BR/>If so, then it astounds me there isn't even one person in the committee that the people want representing them.<BR/><BR/>Bemused,<BR/>KaffeinKaffeinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11958784896341738588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4950101483476071934.post-88707853051515308052008-11-02T16:53:00.000+08:002008-11-02T16:53:00.000+08:00Two big gaps on this issue:Gap 1 - approach to hel...Two big gaps on this issue:<BR/><BR/>Gap 1 - approach to help investors to recover the lost.<BR/><BR/>Gov and banks want to do case-by-case mis-selling investigation.<BR/><BR/>vs<BR/><BR/>Investors want collective settlement on the ground of bad, high-risk product and general mis-selling tactics used.<BR/><BR/>Gap 2 - guiding value in resolving the matter.<BR/><BR/>Responsibility of individuals to check everything.<BR/><BR/>vs<BR/><BR/>Public trust of national institutions like MAS and DBS doing the right things in the first place.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I support a collective settlement on the ground that it is the only way to restore public trust. Pushing the responsibility to the individuals means destroying our collective public trust to national institutions. It sends the message that:<BR/><BR/><B>You are foolish to trust us.</B>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12865097394043281732noreply@blogger.com