In sad contrast, MAS took a super long time to respond and when they eventually did respond, all they could say is "not my problem, go take it up with your bank". WTF???
But thank goodness for the internet, affected investors were able to come together through blogs and hopefully take a collective action in order to be heard more effectively.
This is impact of just one investment bank (lehman) going down, there are numerous notes tied to others like Goldman, UBS, Merril, Morgan Stanley, all of whom are in serious trouble now. I think we should all collectively pray that the US bail out plan works man otherwise the amount of wealth literally down the drain is too scary to imagine.
Check out the links:
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/09/sad-experience-of-minibond-investor.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Money/Story/STIStory_281540.html
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=13637
http://www.lioninvestor.com/what-will-happen-to-my-lehman-minibond/
7 comments:
I guess the reason why MAS doesn't want to get involved is because once it's involved, there's a precedence and there will be no end to it. There is FidRec (equivalent of CASE), which is an independent authority where consumers can go to seek redress.
I seriously do not believe all customers who invested into DBS High Note (or Mini Bonds for that matter) were 'conned' into investing it. After all, if they were never greedy in the first place (for the interest), why would they have even considered investing?
Of course, I cannot be 100% sure that everyone in the banking industry is totally upright and honest, and there may be some customers who become victim of the whole saga. For such customers, there is always FidRec they can go to. But whether the outcome favours the customers is a totally different story because of all the documents which are in placed when customers sign on the dotted line.
With Investment Banking going into history, maybe, just maybe, the entire banking sector may emerge as another world very soon.
I've been wanting to ask. Do RMs explicitly tell clients that the brutal truth of the downside risk of these notes are either:
(a) your capital may be totally wiped out
(b) your capital may possibly suffer up to 50% loss if you redeem before maturity
Do RMs even know the risks involved and how such products are structured?
Or are investors told that these are low risk products?
When RMs target customers, do they target customers who tend to prefer leaving their savings in savings accounts/FDs? Or do they target customers who have high risk appetite?
From what I recall, these products were created specifically to target low risk appetite individual, converting their FDs into Investment sales revenue.
This is the gist of what went wrong and why so many investors are upset.
I'm not sure about the rest, but at the level where I am, I discuss with my customers as a one before making any investment decision together.
For HN5, we read the prospectus together and only when they are comfortable, they then decide investing into it.
But of course, I cannot assume that most of them would be like that, or have the luxury of time to do this, especially at the branches.
But are customers inform of the possibility of losing almost all or half their capital?
Just like if you need to go for a serious surgery you will always want to find out what's the chance of fatality. If you're told that there's a 50% to almost 100% chance of fatality and only 5% chance of survival, would one still go for this surgery? Same goes for this investment.
The upside simply does not justifiy the downside.
I vividly recall bringing this up at one of the product training meetings at OCBC where after much questions, I realised that the potential loss at early redemption was 60%. However, Daphne then quickly injected to say that we don't need to "confuse" clients with such "technical details" and to focus on key product features like "higher interest", "capital protected" etc
Also who are these products marketed to? Are these products marketed as Low risk products for conservative investors?
They are of medium to aggressive risk profile, not conservative. As for early redemption, we do inform customers of this potential loss and stress the importance that structures are designed to be held to maturity. This Lehman issue is really a unique case - just how often huge investment banks like that goes bankrupt? To use this as a conclusion that banks are liars or structures are lousy is really unfair. It's just like when you place a deposit with a bank, it is precisely you believe the bank won't go bankrupt. So when it does, are you going to scold the bank as a liar to have accepted your deposit?
The public outcry, while it is understandable because money (many people are very emotional when it comes to $) is involved, I also think it is important to take a step back, think objectively before pointing fingers everywhere but themselves.
There have been customers who refuse to invest in anything and only fixed deposits, doesn't matter how low the interest is. So why can't these people be?
i think if people knew how these products are structured and the intentions behind it they'll realise how bad these products actually are. It is also inaccurate comparing this note to the likes of the bankruptcy risk of a bank. As depositors, when the bank goes down, you're first in line when assets are liquidated. As for lehman, investors are not equivalent to depositors worse still they rank below bond holders. Plus as a credit note, you are exposed to the risk of not just one institution but several others.
It's rather coincidental that the DBS notes were issued last year just when Lehman brothers were starting to face credit difficulties. Given the deteriorating credit standing of Lehman, I won't be surprised that the department who structured these notes made a HUGE sum from the option premiums passing on only a miserly 5% to the retail investors.
Given what I know of how banks conduct their sales, it's very hard for me to believe that some of these retail investors were not misled into thinking that these are safe investments. I'm sure you've seen or heard your fair share of errant RMs or PFCs.
As for whether Lehman's a unique case, let's hope so but alot depends on how successful the US bailout plan is. If it fails, not only will other banks start to go under but major MNCs as well. That's probably why Bush's looks extremely distressed now.
Post a Comment