Comments on: Investor protection, Singapore style http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/07/07/investor-protection-singapore-style/ Now raising intellectual capital Sun, 08 Nov 2015 08:31:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: phil http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/07/07/investor-protection-singapore-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1442 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:43:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/?p=891#comment-1442 It seems the MAS has done no more than the very minimum a regulator is obliged and to do. What is the worst thus far should be the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong because:
(a) it has not reported any findings of its so-called investigation;
(b) it agrees with the banks recently a settlement plan to justify ending of the investigation;
(c) the settlement plan hardly inflicts any monetary penalty on the banks nor does it criticise the banks in any way. On the contrary, the banks are praised for their cooperation.
Only sketchy detail about the settlement plan is available now which is at:http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/ sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=09PR100
I wonder if there are prospectuses for the fraudulent structured notes issued by the Lehman Brothers, and if so, where could I find them. Anyone who can help with our search for such prospectuses are requested to let us know via the contact of Lehman Brothers Victims in Hong Kong web-page at: http://www.lbv.org.hk/content/pages/cont actus.php

Thank you in advance for your help.

]]>
By: Anderson http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/07/07/investor-protection-singapore-style/comment-page-1/#comment-740 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:59:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/?p=891#comment-740 Did you know in first place that this MAS and LKY are the first to turn the back against the investor through Caveat Emptor mocking the investor of hind investing blindly rather than performing due negligence of investigation ? Did you not know that they are making judgement that there is nothing wrong of mis-selling and mis-representation initially because the bank that sold the product tell them so. Did you not know that the person MAS seeks to clarify issues are not the investors who are mislead and misrepresent but through the very bank that sell the product.
Did you not know that not until that the majority of Town Councils of Singapore have been discovered to incur huge loss over these investment that MAS start to take note and trying to wayang some out ?

Perhaps you should start to learn the word “Wayang” because this is what the local associate the gov with. Wayang means “pretending”

Now back to the case, now to be critical, why do you feel that MAS is doing something effective now where the public already know the “evil” of such structure product and not going to buy it anymore long ago ? That is a wayang, right ? People are not buying structured product anymore long ago, and now MAS announced that structured product would not be sold until further notice, but what effect can that be when no one care anyway ? It is just damage control to create public perception that they are doing something.

IN fact, concerning issue should be compensation of the investor and not a single word mention by MAS.

]]>