Lehman Bros being sued

Sued for misleading investors Nov 10, 2008 Suit against Lehman, UBS seeks an order certifying it as a class-action. LEHMAN Brothers Holdings Inc's Chief Executive Officer Richard Fuld and UBS AG's US brokerage were accused in a lawsuit of misleading investors who bought Lehman's 'principal protected notes' before its September bankruptcy. The complaint, filed on Nov 6 in federal court in Manhattan, claims Mr Fuld and 10 other past and current Lehman directors deceived investors about the risks of buying notes that are now almost worthless, Bloomberg news reported on Monday. The suit seeks unspecified damages and an order certifying it as a class-action, or group lawsuit, on behalf of other investors.... The above was posted in Tan Kin Lian's blog. I am just wondering how it will affect the cases here if Lehman Bros is found guilty, and has to compensate the investors in full. Will the investors here be entitled to the same full compensation, maybe with damages as well, despite the fact that they have read and signed the disclaimers, that they are implied to have agreed with all the terms in the sales agreements?

06.06.06 and 66.6 are ominous signs

Too coincidental, too bad. Believers of these signs will say, 'I tell you so.' These are signs that may not be relevant to the non believers. But these are not the only signs that are appearing since the ominous day of 06.06.06. Things are happening and getting more serious in nature. The very first inkling of things going awry was the Wee Shu Min episode. This established the kind of discord and the distancing of the elite from the losers in paradise. The divide was not only widening but became public. Then came NKF, Mas Selamat, delay of CPF withdrawal, the ERPs, no pay rise for the workers, high prices of everything, and now the financial crisis. I must not forget to mention the banning of a cycling event in a park. Though these events were trying, testing to the govt, they could be handled and turned towards the govt's favour. Unfortunately every single event was handled in a way that left much to be desired. The consequences were the lost of political capital. Wonder if there is any left in the bag for the next general election. To make matters worst, the comments from the leaders were less than enlightening. Often people felt so hurt by them that they reacted by ridiculing the speakers. Throughout our independence, never have our leadership been found so wanting, so wishy washy in tackling problems and in siding with the wrong side, not on the side of the people. The leaders may think that they were speaking from a legalistic or factual point of view and expected the people to see the logic and wisdom of their words. Would the people be so rational and so sheepish, and accept the profound wisdom, and move on? Apparently the people are dumbfounded.

Time for a minority PM

There were many discussions about the eventuality of a minority PM in govt. This is a rather sensitive issue that is close to the hearts of the minorities. It is only a natural human instinct that they want to see their own kind becoming successful, rising to the peak of any profession. And as the number of the minorities grows in strength, the voice will be louder. The rooting for a minority PM should not be seen as a racial thing. It is just their aspiration. But if the majority takes a stand that the PM must be from the majority, then it may be seen from a different light, maybe a racist thing. So the majority should not talk too much about such an issue and let the minorities air their 'grievances', a bit of letting off the steam. From my observation of events, it would not be long before a minority PM be elected by popular vote. We have excellent minority ministers in the like of Tharman, Vivian and Shanmugam. They stand a head above the others in terms of leadership quality, charisma and eloquence. And professionally they are the cream of their profession. All they need is to turn on their offensive charm. And knowing the shallowness of the majority politicians in politics, though they all believe that they are shrewd and inborn politicians, they will soon vote for a minority PM. As far as politiking is concerned, the majority is at best naive or plainly inadequate. Look at all the interest groups and associations and it is no surprise that the one that is calling the shot is often from the minority. Anyone from the majority that assumes the position of chairman or president is likely to be a pet of the real power holder. Another point in favour of the minority is that the majority are also believers in meritocracy. And when they see a better candidate than themselves, they will be the first to give the candidate their full support. My advice to the minorities is to be impatient. A minority PM is a high probability. And they may get a bonus, with a minority President and a minority PM at the same time. They need not wait for long.

A wise and prudent move

There are many people demanding that Temasek and GIC should be more transparent and to reveal how much they really have in their portfolios. We have heard of $200b or thereabout. Some speculated that it could be more. Temasek and GIC’s stand not to disclose what are in their coffers should be appreciated. The world is infested with ruthless and greedy predators and they are constantly eyeing any organisation that has money. When they have winds of that, soon they will make their way in with their brilliant proposals only to con these organisations of their hoards. To these financial experts, it is as easy as ABC. We have seen this happening a bit too often. The moral of the story is not to let people know that you have money. They will come and help themselves with it. And the $200m per annum calibre thieves from Wall Street are not easy to parry off especially when your treasures are guarded by $20m calibre material. No fight. Alternatively we may want to employ the $200m type to prey on other smaller funds managed by lesser material. Let’s be prudent and not to tell anyone about how much we have in our savings

Equal misery?

I just read Gerald Giam's article on axing staff by companies to boost profitability. Down sizing is always a last step in a company's list of options to cut cost as its impact on the affected employees is more than just losing a job. It is something that responsible management should think very carefully before doing. Maybe the trade unions should take a stand on this issue. Companies that are still making profits, though lower, should not be allowed to axe staff. Such a measure can only be supported by the unions when the company is going into the red. A few years of lower profits or even no profit is not something that is intolerable. And just a play on numbers. If companies are paying 12 mths or more bonuses, by halving the bonus payout is equivalent to cutting the staff by a quarter. And to cut a 10% workforce, the company could simply reduce the bonuses by 20 or 30%. No need for desperate measures like retrenchment. Companies have a social obligation to their employees and to society to avoid such drastic and destructive measures. Do companies resort to retrenchment to protect their big bonuses?