|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goh Eng Yeow
Markets Correspondent
In Lehman's terms
October 16, 2008 Thursday, 02:11 PM
Goh Eng Yeow on the misconceptions dogging DBS Bank.
IT IS in panicky times such as these, that the email inbox gets clogged with requests to help investors recover losses on financial products which they claimed they were misled into buying. I even got an email from an old friend about a blog asking why there seemed to be a complete news blackout on the efforts made by Hong Kong to help distressed Lehman minibond investors. In particular, it cited DBS Hong Kong's "kind" offer to compensate affected minibond holders Let's at least try to get the facts straight on DBS. There is such a massive flow of information in the past four weeks that some facts got buried. In Singapore, DBS did not sell any Lehman minibonds at all. I verified this fact with the bank when I turned up to watch a meeting convened by disgruntled investors at its Shenton Way branch yesterday. Let's be fair to the bank. How is it supposed to make restitution on a product which it had not sold? What DBS did distribute was another product which came with a Lehman component - the DBS High Notes Five. This has indeed gone sour after Lehman Brothers collapsed. I would be very worried if this product had been sold through the bank's vast POSB network to small-time depositors like my aged dad and mom who cannot read or write English - let alone know the difference between principal protected and principal guaranteed. As it turned out, DBS High Notes Five was only sold to priority banking customers - people with $250,000 or more in deposits with the bank. Not many Singaporeans are so privileged to have so much cash, one of my friends pointed out. They are likely to be highly-paid professionals and business people. Many years ago when I started reporting on the financial beat, such "privileged" bank customers were described as "sophisticated" investors. They are supposed to be armed with the expertise to understand complicated financial transactions. Otherwise, they would not have been able to accumulate so much savings, unless they strike 4-Ds or Toto. They are nobody's financial fools. From my observations of the whole sorry episode, the matter could have been handled better. DBS could have nipped the problem in the bud by working much harder to clear the misconception that the High Five notes was a retail financial product which had hurt the naive mom-and-pop investor. Nothing was further from the truth. It is also costly. Try telling jittery fund managers in New York and London that it all boils down to improper understanding of the issue at hand. As a market writer, I find it very painful to watch the beating taken by DBS' share price because of this matter. True, the big picture is jittery and stock markets are falling worldwide. But since Monday, DBS has fallen 7 per cent. In contrast, OCBC Bank is down 3.4 per cent and United Overseas Bank has slipped 4.9 per cent. Tags: banking, singapore, stocks
Your comments are welcome. The following rules apply: |
|
|
Other blogs by Goh Eng Yeow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
![]() |
|
|
|
Best viewed at 1152x864 resolution with IE 6.0 or
FireFox 2.0 and above Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.
Regn No. 198402868E | Privacy Statement
| Terms & Conditions
|
Guys, i have raised similar comments on this topic. Especially after reading the article "tougher action on mis-selling" in Straits Times today, these are some of my views :
1. Investors have to be responsible if they willingly invest in products that are said to come with higher returns. Otherwise, they should just stick to normal time deposit, of course at a much lower interest. I don't think investors should simply put the blame on the bank, So what happens when they make money, do the praise the bank for selling them the right money-making products ?
2. There are exceptions whereby some of the investors are less educated and they probably have difficulty in understanding the complexity and risks that are associated with "high risk investment products". In this case, the way bankers selling their high risk investment products has to be more careful, how the product is being sold is important, as to less sophisticated investors should be given adequate understanding of what can happen if things do not work out as expected. Selling process has to be stringent and checked.
3. High turnover of staff at banks could have some impact on the experience and quality of the frontline staff selling investment products. Especially nowadays we get to see younger personal bankers at the service platform. Selling sophisticated investment products is not as simple as ABC. It requires adequate training of the staff and the experience of the staff, on top of that, you need certain skills to manage the customer's expectations properly.
Cheers
Yew Wah aka Harmony
You said that
" As it turned out, DBS High Notes Five was only sold to priority banking customers - people with $250,000 or more in deposits with the bank.
Not many Singaporeans are so privileged to have so much cash, one of my friends pointed out. They are likely to be highly-paid professionals and business people. "
But in this story http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/My%2BMoney/Story/A1Story20080922-89299.html
it says otherwise... its their CPF money !
"Other investors like retiree Tham Wai Wah, 60, also felt 'cheated'. She had trusted the relationship manager who had explained to her last year that the High Notes 5 product was 'very safe'.
She said that with only an O-level education, she could not fully understand the prospectus. 'I told them I'm a conservative investor and that this was my CPF money.'
She put in $125,000, part of her Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings she withdrew upon retirement after working for 30 years as a clerk. Her husband is also retired."
Dear Sir,
I am a professionalI who was sold this instrument as an instrument which as safe as a FD/bond. My wife who has never invested in anything but an FD did so on my and the bankers gaurantee.
We were always told: If one of the 8 defaults atleast you will get back the money in the balance 7. I am ready to testify this uner oath?? You are defending DBS bank . Are you ready to testify that they did not sell the product by misleading consumers
Pathetic. Stop defending DBS so mindlessly and get on the side of the people which is your job. The financial instruments may be aimed at priority customers but you deny the basic fact that those hard hit and mom-and-pop retirees!
My sister has only less than $100000 deposited with DBS.When matured was approached by the staff to invest in the high note 5 many times instead of renewing her deposit.There was so many calls to the house and meetings until she signed for the note. How come and your explanation pl.
1 2 >