Minibonds and High Notes - Any mis selling?

It is difficult to find an acceptable definition of mis selling or fit a case under it unless it is an obvious one. What could be more reasonable to ask is whether a toxic product is sold to customers that obviously have no stomach for high risk. The Financial and Securities Acts have provisions to prevent selling high risk products to inappropriate customers. Some customers, especially the old, retirees, the uneducated, unsophisticated, people who are living on their lifesavings, are clearly not the type of risk takers that such toxic products like minibonds and high notes are meant for. The risk of losing everything is simply unacceptable to these people. These are people who are trying to earn a little better interests to live the rest of their lives without bearing the risk of losing their capital. And at 5%, even savvy investors would think very hard to want to risk losing everything. So, why were these retirees targeted in the first place? It seems that there is a pattern of execution, that when someone is about to renew his fixed deposit, regardless of risk profile, he will be approached to switch to these high risk instruments. Were these moves the initiatives of the relationship managers? Or was there a systematic plan to target these investors who are clearly not appropriate for such instruments?

Awarding the Plaque of Distinction

I was considering very carefully whether the Energy Market Authority should be awarded this plaque. In order to qualify, it must satisfy the three conditions, ie no corruption, no guanxi and transparency. I can waltz pass the first two conditions easily. Next, transparency? EMA has been actively engaging the public for their criticism of the 21% tariff hike and has given all kinds of explanation and justification for its high electricity tariff rate, one of the highest in the world, as the best they can do with the electricity price. And it is good to see public bodies communicating with the people when issues are raised instead of hiding under no comments or just keeping mum. What would be better is for EMS to show the public the formula and methodology used to compute the tariff rate which it so far have yet to reveal. If the formula and methodology are so efficient and effective, then all the more EMA should share it with the people and for the rest of world to learn from it. It cannot be an issue of patent or copyright. If only EMA can publish this for all to see, then it shall deserve the Plaque of Distinction. Where is the transparency? Compare to the high water tariff and the rationale behind it, at least the latter is transparent. The Minister said it out front that the exceptionally high price of water was to discourage people from wasting water as water was a precious commodity. And it was charged very high to prepare the people to get use to paying high water prices in the future. I may find the reasoning cocky, callous, arrogant, unreasonable and distasteful, but at least it is transparent.

Hong Kong watchdog may sue banks

Hong Kong watchdog may sue banks over Lehman minibond sales 31 October 2008 1343 hrs . HONG KONG - Hong Kong's Consumer Council said Friday it was considering suing banks which allegedly mis-sold minibonds backed by failed US investment bank Lehman Brothers as risk-free investments.... "We now have 16 million dollars in our legal action fund. But the government has promised that it will give us unlimited financial support once we have identified cases with good grounds," she said. (Johannes Chan, chairman of the council's legal action fund) Would any govt body or CASE take up the case of the minibond and high notes investors and sue our banks? Quite inconceiveable for it to happen. It even sounds queer.

The risks were clearly highlighted

Investors of High Notes and Minibonds are in for a tough time. The risks were clearly highlighted in the front page of the brochures with copies printed in the Straits Times. In the High Notes case, it states 'investors may lose their entire investment and may nor receive any principal amount on the Notes.' In the case of Minibonds, 'There will be no guarantee from any entity to you that you will recover any amount payable under the Notes and you could lose all or a substantial part of your investment in the Notes.' Given the above, it would be better if these were in big black bold letters, it is difficult for the investors to say they don't know or did not read. For those who cannot read English, there can still be an escape route. For the rest, jiat lat liao. The only thing now is whether such an important point has been carefully explained to the investors and they went in with their eyes wide shut. The other point is that indeed the products are highly dangerous and the issuers knew of this risk. The regulators who approved the products too must know of the risk. So it is not a case of nobody knows what they are selling. They are really toxic stuff. For the kind of returns, they should not be sold at all.

Don't forget personal responsibility

We espoused 'a financial system of free will and flexibility instead of a paternalistic one where the govt decides for the consumer what's risky and what's not.' Said David Gerald in the Today paper. 'Let people make their own choices and decisions, but within a proper system, and with appropriate safeguards.' He added. This is the crux of the matter. A proper system that is fair and transparent. And regulations got to be fair, consistent, transparent and not arbitrary. Gerald ended by saying, 'I expect the financial instututions to be fair to investors because they're going to them with trust.' When we have a fair and proper system, personal responsibility makes a lot of sense. The investors to the minibonds, or investors investing in the stock market must bear personal responsibility when this is the case. If the system is not proper, if the products are found wanting, it is not a simple case of personal responsibility. When you eat in a restaurant, you don't expect foreign objects or poisonous material in your food. Put it in another way, people going into a boxing match will expect that the rules are fair and to fight in their same weight. When a 50kg boxer goes into the ring to fight against a 100kg boxer, and has his eyes blindfolded, it is not fair and unacceptable. Or if the bigger boxer is armed with a pair of gloves with metal inserts, then it is not alright. Under such circumstances, caveat emptor and personal responsibility will not do. The administrators and regulators need to be hanged.