On Monday, I read a report about some Singaporeans deciding to go to DBS HQ for a silent protest at 10am, Wednesday, 15 Oct.
And on Tuesday, Police issued a warning that such a protest would be considered illegal gathering.
And so today, 15 Oct, at 1000hrs, as expected, media reported that there was no protest. Because being Singaporean, all kiasi, decided to listen to Gah-men and therefore chose to stay at home and hide.
It was reported that there were some disgruntled investors, nonetheless, and media loitering around the building, but that was it.
So Singaporeans, are you still expecting to have the same treatment to have your investment capital returned like your Hong Kong counterparts? First, you've got learn to be as gung-ho as them. Otherwise, don't expect to receive the same outcome. No pain, no gain.
11 comments:
Please read this article ( published in BT dated 15 Oct ) titled 'Times to make sellers beware, not just buyers'.
I quote the followings : " ... Here we have essentially an insurance policy taken out by Lehman Brothers via its own special-purpose vehicle named Minibond to protect its exposure to six prominent banks known as 'reference entities' or REs. The money invested by the Singapore and Hong Kong public formed the insurance payout should any of the six have failed over the period in question, and in return for use of the public's money, Lehman paid the public an attractive annual coupon of 5 per cent which was, in effect, an insurance premium.
It was brilliant in its conception, simplicity and execution: Lehman transferred its risk of loss from any RE failure to the public but structured the deal and its sale documents to give the impression this was a desirable arrangement.
If caveat emptor is to be reasonably used as a defence (or a criticism of the retail investing public for not reading or understanding the offer documents), then the cover of the prospectus should have had a description of the exact nature of the product as an insurance policy, the fact that Minibond was Lehman, the financial standing of Lehman, Lehman's reasons for needing the insurance and that the risk of loss was not limited to one of six banks failing but, in fact, seven.
Since this was not the case, there must surely be grounds for claims that disclosure was poor, possibly even misleading and that a defence of caveat emptor is not good enough. If buyers were to beware, then there should have been full and proper disclosure of all
val I think your remarks are extremely insensitive N arrogant towards the plight of these people. How would you feel if your parents were one of them? Losing their retirement money because some PFCs sold them these products under the pretext of being a FD?
I contemplated writing a long comment but i know no matter what I say it won't make a difference.
I strongly suggest you look into the facts of the situation and more importantly ask your conscience what is right and what is wrong.
its just a comment about the kiasi mentality of singaporeans, y get so uptight? i also find it equally ridiculous, amusing and funny for the person whom came up with the dbs-shenton-way-sit-outside-branch-silent-protest idea. must have suggested the dumb idea during the heat of things in the speaker's corner protest and i bet must have regretted. use butt think also know its not possible la! im not criticising those poor, illiterate and old souls whom went into it unknowingly. to make things clear and not hurt any feelings here, im talking about savvy sophisticated ones that planned all these 'activities'.
Thanks anonymous for your long comments. There's no end to this Lehman saga - no information is ever enough, and no one can ever find the truth over the whole sales process. Even if the whole sales process was recorded, no one would ever be able to know what went on the minds of the sales person or the customer. Was the sales person selling base on greed for the commission, or that s/he really thinks it's a good investment for the customer. And was the customer investing because of greed to earn that extra interest and therefore chose to hear only the good things or simply because s/he misunderstood the investment and was 'pressured' into it.
Until one day, someone invents a special tool to identify the blacks and whites. Then we will not be spending time arguing about this issue. We're now into the 3rd week of the Lehman saga.
Linda: Thanks. You are the only one who fully understood my simple entry about Singaporeans being Kiasi. Period.
Eh... Sunshine Gal, I wonder if you read my short blog entry clearly and understood it before making such curt comments... The content was not about HN5 or investments or banking. I wrote about their kiasi-ness - so typical Singaporean.
This whole protest saga is only a classic example of a typical kiasi Singaporean epidome. It has nothing to do with me not being sensitive.
There is no end to it about this HN5 (or any other investments) argument. You were once a RM. It's quite disappointing to hear from an ex-RM as if putting all the blame on the salespeople. Having left the industry doesn't erase the fact that you also made your fair share of commission from selling these products.
It is not about who's right or wrong here anymore. There are good RMs with conscience and there are customers who are irresponsible when investments fail. This argument will never end.
You've left this industry for some time. I'm still in it. I believe I am clearer than you on what is happening as well as the facts. Let's not be so personal to talk about conscience here. It's quite hurting to hear from you, an ex RM and a good friend, to ask that I search my conscience.
I hope we can all read and understand a blog entry before jumping to click on the 'comment' button and type away.
Oh by the way, my conscience is clear.
let your conscience be your guide.
i suggest if this job always puts your conscience to the test it is better to quit than to be stressed .
I suggest u join an FA firm . You will still do the same but without pressure from those unethical people up there and be used to do the dirty work. As a FA you have choice between ethics and malpractice
MAS will be coming down hard next year. Be braced for them because section 27 will the doom of many RMs, consultants and insurance agents.
just trying to help straighten things
Thanks so much Anonymous #2, for your fair comments! That's what I call a responsible adult! =)
Actually, we all agreed to move our protest to Speaker´s Corner this Saturday. The protest hasn´t been called off.
err, normally i don't really engage in this topic but both luxlass and sunshine gal are my friends and I think there's been some misunderstanding.
luxlass meant for this entry to be a personal observation of people's behaviour. Very understandable coming from her background. and it's her blog so she's entitled to voice her opinions.
but sunshine gal just feels for a lot of those investors who bleed money in this whole saga. It's a general market sentiment that things are gloomy, not just sunshine gal alone. I don't think sunshine gal meant to finger-point. Rather, she's appealing for some sensitivity when it comes to this topic, particularly when it can work for or against you depending on who's reading it.
I think it's fair to say that it takes two hands to clap i.e. the investor who decides to part with their money cannot come around and shrike their responsibilities as an adult. An adult needs to be accountable for all the consequences of their decisions. Similarly, there are some black sheeps amongst sales force in the whole of financial industry, IFAs, banks, insurance, etc. where forceful sales tactics do make some investors go into investments totally unsuitable for themselves.
Hence, I hope this comment won't come across to either of you as offensive or siding either party. But I believe that as friends, we trust in each other to do the right thing. ie we trust luxlass in her area of job and we trust sunshine gal to voice out things which she feels may disadvantage luxlass if not put in the right context.
and we can see that there are lots of anonymous here who prefers to hide under a veil of secrecy who affects your emotions if they do say unfair things.
I believe sunshine gal didn't want luxlass to become the tool in someone's else agenda.
I would like to end by citing the difference between 'blind spots' and 'death spots'. A 'blind spot' is something we cannot see in ourselves but maybe others can. And we depend on our friends to point our blind spot to better ourselves. However, if I am to 'attack' my friends for pointing our my blind spot, then it will become my 'death spot' as I am too blinded to stand corrected by well-meaning people.
So my friends, I truly believe that there's a huge misunderstanding here and hope that none of you would scold me for just pointing out obvious gaps that I saw as a 3rd party. And don't let this hurt the friendship we have built over years of hard work.
Anonymous #3: =)
Post a Comment