迷你债券事项重要通告

有位银行公关经理打电话联络了陈钦亮先生。他表示他愿意走出来供证，签署声明承认他在对这一些信贷产品认知不够的情况之下，给于银行客户错误的资讯。他会联系其他的银行公关经理，设法说服他们勇敢的走出来作出同样的声明。

他对陈钦亮先生说，他所服务的银行对他施加压力，警告他如果他承认给于银行客户的资讯是错误的话，他将会对客户的赔偿负起全部责任！他说，当他把这一些信贷金融产品售卖给客户的时候，他对这一些产品所承受的真正风险一无所知。这是因为这一些产品的结构非常复杂而银行给于公关经理的训练非常差。

陈钦亮先生对这一位公关经理说，银行没有权力对他的无心之过要他负起赔偿的责任。尤其是当银行对于这类产品给以许多其他银行公共经理的训练都不足的情况之下，银行更没有理由要求公关经理负全责。银行这时要公关经理昧着良心撒谎来掩饰这一些错误是完全不对的。

陈钦亮先生会为这一些银行公关经理安排律师给于他们法律咨询和协助，并且为他们草拟正式的宣誓书，详细的记录他们给以银行客户对于这一些产品的真正陈述和保证。

陈钦亮先生和我本人希望其他的银行公关经理能拿出正义、诚实、勇气和良知，走出来作同样的供证。我们希望他们能拿出勇气、诚实和良知，为这件事做出公平、正义和正确的事情。如果你愿意做出这样的供证，你可以电邮陈钦亮先生，kinlian@gmail.com. 陈钦亮先生会设法说服一大组的银行公关经理为此事做出类似的供证宣誓，所以你将不会是唯一供证宣誓的人。

墮馬多夫騙案 滙控或損77.5億

(星島)12月16日 星期二 05:30

(綜合報道)

(星島日報 報道)美國 納斯達克交易所前主席馬多夫布下金字塔層壓式騙局詐騙投資者達五百億美元 一案，受害者名單愈揭愈長，幾乎覆蓋全球，歐、亞多家頂級金融機構均告損手成為「苦主」，其中以市值計算屬全球第三大的滙控周一晚發表聲明，承認在馬多夫騙局中涉及潛在風險約十億美元（七十七億五千萬港元）。迄今所知，西班牙 桑坦德 銀行的損失最慘重，可能被騙二十三億歐羅 （二百四十二億港元）。

　　本報國際組

　　滙控表示曾向少數機構客戶提供融資投資於馬多夫（Bernard Madoff）的各項基金，涉及潛在風險在十億美元左右，此外在其託管業務中，也有客戶投資於馬多夫，但滙控不認為這些託管安排，會成為集團的風險來源。

　　滙控客戶借貸投「黑洞」

　　英國 《金融時報》周一引述消息人士報道，滙控大部分潛在風險來自向投資於馬多夫的機構客戶所提供的貸款，這些客戶主要是「對沖基金 中的基金」；而滙控的直接風險相信是給客戶的十億美元貸款，這些客戶另外投資了約五億美元在馬多夫的投資計畫上。按照這類交易的通常條款，如果美國政府向馬多夫追回被騙金額的話，滙控會優先獲得償還資金。

　　騙局的頭號受害者該算是西班牙的桑坦德銀行（Banco Santander），這家歐洲第二大銀行旗下的投資基金Optimal共投資三十一億美元在馬多夫的避險基金，銀行本身亦投資了一千七百萬歐羅在馬多夫產品。該銀行股價周四早曾跌百分之四點九。法國 國衞保險（AXA）表示估計損失低於一億歐羅。蘇格蘭 皇家銀行則表示他們的潛在損失約為六億美元。英國投資基金Bramdean Alternatives在馬多夫投資了約三千一百萬美元，該公司表示，馬多夫事件令人質疑美國金融監管體系的「根本問題」。

　　法銀上當 共被騙101億

　　較早時，法國巴黎 銀行承認有份投資入馬多夫的基金，估計損失了三億五千萬歐羅。瑞士 多個金融機構也聲稱損失了五十億瑞士法郎。法國的銀行估計損失總值逾十三億美元（約一百零一億港元）。

　　在日本 金融界具有領導地位的野村證券周一早上也承認與馬多夫有交易，估計損失達三億○三百萬美元。南韓 一家保險公司和六家資產管理公司在馬多夫共投資了九千五百一十萬美元。

　　已屆七十歲高齡的馬多夫上周四在美國被捕，被控以層壓式手法秘密經營對沖基金，多年來替大量客戶進行投資，估計總共損失了五百億美元。在其騙局中，早期加入的投資者，獲保證享有高回報；但實際上，他是利用後期加入的投資者所投入的資金，去支付這些回報。

Minimum Wage & Democracy

The following are two responses I have given to one forumer in deliberating on the Minimum Wage issue which I feel meaningful enough to be put on my blog.


Dear pfingo,

I understand where you are coming from and I have already qualify, talking about minimum wage will not get me votes in Singapore!

But, that's the catch. You are acting like PAP who digitized human beings. Never mind about these people if they are the minority?

Minimum wage may not affect many people, only 1% maybe? But it is significant for a country developing into a First World country. The intrinsic values that we past on as a nation to many children of future generation, is tremendous. It is a belief of human decency. A belief based on EQUALITY and FAIRNESS to everyone contributing to the whole country's development, be it Singaporeans or foreigners.

We are just too used to the PAP talk of dollar and cents but not the SENSE of the Nation. It may look insignificant to many people here, but it means a lot for a Nation to set its footing RIGHT on basic respect to human decency.

The Americans always feel proud of their country, most of the time, due to the CORE VALUES that their forefathers have set in their constitution. Do our country, no matter how small it is, have any CORE VALUES to start with?

Surprisingly, yes, it's all there but the fact is, PAP has been drifting away from the very CORE VALUES set in our constitution and National Pledge.

Minimum Wage is not just about dollar and cents, not only about how many people will benefit. But it is about setting the basic fundamental core values for our nation in rejecting exploitation of honest, hard working people on this land.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear pfingo,

I find your above statements intriguing.

If the market is truly efficient and there are true balance of powers within the system, there will still be rich and poor. All is relative. True about that.

However, there is one absolute thing: whether there are exploitation by the rich on the poor that will make them richer while the poor more poor.

It is a well known fact that PERFECT Free Market only exists in text books because although the principle assumptions of Free Market is very simple, yet it is very difficult to have such assumptions implemented in real world.

You may think that I am trying to close the income gap "artificially", but this itself is RELATIVE. If the real world is left to work on its own, what will happen is the polars of the rich and the poor will GROW WIDER. It grew wider not because of "EXCEPTIONAL DIFFERENCES" between the skill factors, intelligence, intrinsic biological merits of human beings but merely due to inherited or implied "social influence and powers" that comes along with wealth, status and network connections.

Just state one simple example, one can be a mediocre idiot that is born into a wealthy family. All it needs is for the man to inherit properties with regular rental income to maintain a lavish lifestyle. The man could use his network built by the family to make money much easier than anyone else.

There is no such thing as "equal opportunities" for all because opportunities vary according to different social class status. It would mean that the rich will get richer while it will be more difficult for those at the bottom of the social class to upgrade themselves.

Education used to be a means of providing equal opportunities, but I think the present system does not provide that any more. Well, I shall leave this topic for another day.

What I aim to do is not about closing income gaps. Mistake me not, that's not my intention at all. As long as men and women are born differently, there will bound to be difference in abilities and income disparity.

However, the basic fundamental is that the society or econmic system cannot be left alone in the guise of "Free Market" when we know REAL Free Market hardly exists at all. because asymmetric information, influence, networking etc etc will deter the development of the TEXT BOOK Free Market.

My baseline is simple, the system cannot be skewed towards in such a direction that when the rich get richer, while the poor cannot earn enough to lead a decent life. I have no problem of the rich getting richer as long as the vulnerable group of people, the lowest percentile of the social-economic segment, is not pushed towards poverty with no jobs that could offer them a "living wage" and savings for retirement. This "living wage" is relative in different societies. For example, in countries with big agriculture sector and land, the living wage can be very small because they could basically live off their land. But in a matured urban society like Singapore, this is not possible and naturally, the living wage will be higher than those other countries with big agricultural land.

Interesting enough that you have made your last statement that Economic growth under capitalism has led to democratisation. This may not be always true you.

Singapore is a prime example.

In fact, I think there is a potential danger for ultra-capitalism to lead the whole political spectrum into a vicious cycle of power and influences being monopolized by the few wealthy families who could afford to invest in the political field. Ironically, we will be going round in circles and what we will get is pseudo-democracy in the end, which is in fact a monopoly of power by the few in the guise of democratic process.

In fact, the populace has been brain washed into thinking along that line of only ELITES should be acceptable to become MPs or voted into the democratic power centre--parliament or Congress. Elitism should not be mixed by meritocracy. Meritocracy in politics is about those who will represent the different classes of people best, should be elected into a real democratic power house. But in Singapore's context, we equate a paper qualification with the ability as a politician!

Just ask yourself frankly, would you accept a non-graduate to be your MP? Why not? We have always been subtlely brain washed to believe that only those with at least a degree would be "talented" as parliamentarians. If this is what capitalist democratic system is all about, then it is not going to provide a really representative democratic system.

In a very crude way, I would say that for every social class in the society, there should be adequate representation in the parliament for their interests. Thus, for the high percentage of non-graduates, we should have people who could empathize with their aspirations, worries, problems etc etc.

However, with the "capitalized democracy", we end up is a bunch of "political elites" who could be totally lost touch with the populace that they are supposed to represent! Is this real deomcracy we want from the capitalized system?

Goh Meng Seng

内疚

主题:内疚
作者:cheahsps 1:44pm 15/12/2008

内疚

如果有人问我，什么最痛苦，我会不暇思索地告诉他，是内疚。
外伤，经过医治就好，感情的创伤，一段长时间，就会淡化。惟有内疚，如影随形，甩之不去。
我有两则深感内疚的事，迄今午夜梦回时仍然痴痴地缠。

一则，在江沙崇华小学读三年级的时候，有一天在草场和一名同班姓许的同学打架，后来被巡察员捉去见训育主任黄世昌老师。黄老师是人见人怕的老师。黄老师很会讲故事，不过也很会打人。黄老师问是谁先动手，我看到他拿着拇指般粗的藤条，我怕打，明明是我先动手，我说是许同学先动手。可能我样子比较斯文，黄老师信以为真，狠狠打了许同学三藤屁股，打得许同学呜哇大叫。回教室的时候，许同学一面走，一面哭丧着脸指着我骂。我难过，我内疚。

二则，我在北海励华小学实习的时候，一个晚上，我在祠堂的楼上睡不着，我听到同学和郑老师在楼下小声谈大声笑，我好奇。我赤脚蹑足摸黑走到後楼倾听。突然，我听到有人说，三更半夜楼上的祠坛怎么有脚步声？我又蹑足摸黑经过祠堂和教室回到前楼的宿舍床上睡觉。不久听到有人上楼在我身边说话，老梁是棋王他明察秋毫，他说是老谢走路，老陈是老实人，他说老谢睡着了，不是他。郑老师半信半疑说真奇怪。

这间又是祠堂又是教室的宿舍是有名的猛鬼楼，牡牛不怕虎，鬼都怕了我们。隔天早上，他们问是不是我梦游，我做戏做全套，我说不是。眨眼过了几年，我上了金马伦，当了校长。

一天，一个妇女带了一女孩来找我，这个妇女好面熟，她问，你是不是谢某？她带她的侄女骆桂玉从槟城来报到。阿！她是郑老师的太太。我问候郑老师是否安好？郑太太红着眼说，郑某往生好几年了，不过，他临终前喃喃自语，他不相信猛鬼楼会跑出声音来，他说他不知道真相，死不瞑目。我听了，如雷劈顶，我无言以对，觉得非常难过。傻了一阵子，我想，小小的一个玩笑，竟会令人牵肠挂肚，真是令我终生内疚！

最后信贷产品演说者角落集会2008年12月27日- 陈钦亮

演说者角落最后集会集会-2008年12月27日

陈钦亮先生将于2008年12月27日在演说者角落举行最后一次关于迷你债券和相关金融产品的集会。

目前各别受影响的金融产品投资者（有如迷你债券，高升票据）已经组成他们自己的组织，也积极的在他们各自所选择的地点开会。如果你有意参与这一些组织，你可以联络他们的组长。

陈钦亮先生将利用他的网站来给投资者提供关于接下来法律诉讼的事项和其他有关的最新消息。我也尽可能在我的网站翻译和转载这一些讯息。

吴明盛

2008年12月13日演说者角落陈钦亮演讲翻译稿

1．女皇律师的意见

我已经给于一位新加坡高级律师针对这一些与信贷挂钩的票据做出了简短的报告。他将到伦敦与一位女皇律师商讨和征求他的意见。我们将在明年一月得到这位女皇律师的意见。

2．律师的讲解
有一位已经得到250位投资者的授权书以便采取集体法律行动。他将在2009年1月给更多的投资者讲解他所要采取的法律诉讼途径。他希望能有更多的投资者（DBS High Note 除外）能参与这集体诉讼行动。


3．DBS High Notes 投资者组织

DBS High Notes 的投资者组织得非常好，他们已经召开了好几次会议。他们已经有了自己的网站。

4． 迷你债券投资者组织

这一些投资者也正在筹备自己的网站以便收集他们同类投资者的资料。他们也打算在明年1月召开会议，给投资者提供简报。

5．法律行动

最迟至明年1月底，投资者将会对法律诉讼的途径有更清晰的观点。在此同时，投资者可以继续在我的网站，www.tankinlian.blogspot.com，得到最新的进展报告。

6．美国的法律诉讼

有许多投资者读了一些关于在美国的集体法律诉讼，有如香港方面所做出诉讼行动。我已向新加坡律师查询此途径的可行性。他们的议见是这途径不适合我们。我们将密切注意此事。

7．双汇投资产品

我吁请投资者对这双汇投资产品必须提高警惕。有一些投资者已经在这类产品蒙受了巨大亏损。这类产品的坏处是，你的获利将被局限，但是你所可能承担的亏损是无限的。如果你是以杠杆操作投资，你很可能血本无归。

8． 金融投资者协会

有一些人向我提议成立一个针对金融服务的消费者协会（金融投资者协会， 我已经成立了一个临时工作委员会来探讨成立这协会的事项。这协会的宗旨将是教育投资者和帮助他们检视金融产品是否为投资者提供好的回报率。更多的资讯将会刊载在我的部落格，www.tankinlian.blogspot.com. 我们也将为这协会成立一个新的网站。

9．投诉指南

我已经在这里分发一份拥有关于为这信贷相连产品的投诉过程的相关联络人、网站和资料。

陈钦亮

Human Rights - Minimum Wage & Modern Slavery

I spoke about minimum wage on 13 Dec 2008 at Hong Lim Park, in conjunction with U60 group which is there to speak about Labour Rights.



Against Exploitation and modern Slavery

This topic about Labour Rights and minimum wage is not a very "HOT Topic" politically and any politicians can figure out that in a society which is dominated by a huge middle class citizens, there is really little "political points" to be gained, but potentially lots to lose in talking about it. But I believe in speaking up of what I believe as a social-political activist.

However, I feel that for a self-proclaimed 1st world country, we will have to re-examine ourselves in the policies that we set for our country. Singapore is a Republic, not some ancient feudal state where SLAVERY is the norm. As a modern society, we need to uphold a certain basic values of human decency.

The failure of Free Market Principles

The basis of our society should be built upon certain principles against EXPLOITATION and even modern slavery. All economist of free market believes that in a FREE MARKET, pricing would be determined efficiently by the market itself. Thus, they believe that minimum wage should be avoided. They also believe in fiscal distortions imposed by taxes and levies are also bad.

But the basic principles of a Free market is based on some fundamental assumptions that there are free and efficient flow of market information, labour mobility and such. It basically implies that both the employers and employees have equal standing, negotiation power and freedom of choices. This would apply to most of the middle class workers who have the power of modern information technology and mobility not only within the country's industries, but also global markets.

But for those of "Vulnerable group", such as manual labourers, cleaners and low wage earners, they lack such equal standing against employers. They lack bargaining power basically because they lack labour mobility, in both depth and scope. Thus, Free market principles could not be applied to such group of workers and the industries that they are in.

Most of the time, these people are being exploited, almost as modern slaves. Be it local or foreign workers, they are always the ones being exploited by employers.

The absurd wage comparisons

The most common reason I gather on why local fellow citizen cleaners are paid so lowly is that their employers will claim that they could employ foreign workers at "lower wages". For example, they would cite foreign maids' wage as an example, they were only paid $400 or less, thus paying cleaners $400 is "comparable".

However they did not mention that the total cost of employing a foreign maid includes Government levy ($190), lodging and meals. It could easily add up to $700 or $800 per month. Thus, taking the $400 maid's salary as a gauge to a cleaner's take home pay is totally unfair, because the cleaners have to pay for his or her own food, transport and lodging!

Maids/Workers' levies - Government Exploitation

At this juncture, I would like to talk about government levies imposed on foreign maids and workers. It is totally unacceptable to me that such high levies are applied to these foreign maids and workers.

Take maid levy for example. $190 maid levy on a maid who only earns $400! That is almost half of what the maid earns! That is ridiculous and obscene. Basically, it means Exorbitant EXPLOITATION by our very own government on other people's labour! How could a FIRST WORLD government allowed to exploit other people's labour?

Someone who favor government maid levy argued that these foreign workers should be "taxed". However, I would like to ask, even million dollar ministers are not taxed more than 22%! How could the government tax a maid that earn a miserable wage 30% of the total potential wage ($400 + $190)? Besides, maids are basically taxed through GST, 7% when they consume in Singapore.

Some argue that such levies are to ""protect local workers". But the truth is, it protects nobody as cleaners are still being exploited by their employers and their employers are not paying $590 but only $400 or slightly more than that to their cleaners.

Such high maid levy is basically a "Modern Slavery TAX", an exploitation by the government on other people's labour.


Implications of Government levies on Maid Employers

Most of the middle class maid employers would think that this issue about maid levy is none of their business. But the truth is, they are being reaped off. Let me explain using Hong Kong as an example.

In Hong Kong, there is a minimum wage policy for maids. It amounts to about S$670. They used to have maid levy about S$80 but it has been waived lately. (Contrary to Singapore, the levies collected were put into a fund to help local workers in job training.) But with such a wage, the Hong Kongers are employing more experienced and higher quality maids. Most of the time, the basic requirement is at least 3 years of working experience in Singapore.

But in Singapore, what we get are new, inexperienced and young recruits from the countries of original. And most of the time, they used Singapore as a stepping board or training ground to gain enough experience to get themselves employed in other places like Hong Kong, Taiwan or even Middle East. This is basically why Singapore maid employers always have so much problems with their maids and frequent changing of maids.

Waive the Maid/Worker Levy and set minimum wage

Some people who oppose minimum would use the common propaganda reasoning that minimum wage would increase business cost and cost of living.

First of all, not many MAIN businesses are affected by minimum wages. Most probably only construction sector and the cleaning industry would be affected. But the impace may not be big as the cost of employing foreign workers could be maintained as the same when the workers levy is being cut or waived after the minimum wage is set. Those who exploit local workers from the vulnerable group would have to up their wage accordingly and this is for the cause of prevention of labour exploitation or basically modern slavery. They should not exploit another human being of their fair wage in the very first place.

Some argue that if minimum wage is set for maids, for example, then the middle class would have to suffer higher cost of employing a maid. This may not true at all in Singapore context.

My objective is to eradicate modern slavery, not only by the employers but also the government. Cut down the maid/worker levy to the minimum (maybe $20) or even waive it totally. At the same time, set the minimum wage at the total cost of employing a maid, i.e. $590.

This would mean that the total cost of employing maids would be the same for the middle class employers. And it not only prevent the government of modern slavery but it further prevents exploitation from other employers.

Who gain the most? Not only the maids or low wage foreign workers gain, but local citizens who fall in the vulnerable group will gain too. On top of that, the middle class maid employers would gain by using the increased maid's wage without increasing their cost of employment, to employ more experienced maids. They could demand maids that have worked in places like Malaysia or other places for at least 3 years.

Who would be the loser? The government. Well, if the government is unfair in applying such taxes or levies without diverting such money for the benefits of local workers, then it deserved to be cut from such UNFAIR and IMMORAL revenues.

Goh Meng Seng

雷曼苦主擬聘律師美國集體興訟

(星島)12月5日 星期五 13:01

代表數千名雷曼迷你債券投資者的大聯盟計劃聘請美國 律師，就雷曼迷債在當地展開集體訴訟。大聯盟會與律師簽訂協議，定明收費上限。

雷曼迷債「銀行苦主大聯盟」發言人陳光譽認為，特區政府 與雷曼迷債分銷銀行就回購安排的法律觀點分歧，已令回購迷債計劃「胎死腹中」，決定透過集體訴訟方式，轉而入稟美國法院，控告美國匯豐銀行 ，亦希望政府和苦主代表研究其他方法。但有雷曼迷債投資者就對訴訟有保留，認為應該由政府及銀行去做。

不過，政府仍然希望銀行透過回購解決事件。有學者認為，由於美國投資者亦入稟要求賠償，要出售雷曼迷債資產有困難，估計事件或拖延一段長時間

ICT, SAR 21 & Loyalty

First of all, I must, again, thank all my comrades, officers and men alike, in my reservist unit for their continuous support of my political struggle. Although I didn't manage to convince anyone of you to join opposition politics, but we do have healthy discussions to enhance our understanding what our nation needs most at this juncture.

Loyalty is one of the key value that we share when we are back for In Camp Training and I am glad that our Commander has made it one of the Core Values of our unit. Yes, even as an opposition politician, I do share this very important and key value of Loyalty to the Country with all of you. We still do salute the very same flag of our Nation. Having different political perspective from the ruling party do not make one less loyal than any PAP members.

During this ICT, we have the opportunity to test our "new" weapon, SAR 21. Well, this weapon is not supposed to be new in Singapore Armed Forces, but for my reservist unit, this is the first time we have our hands on this standard issued weapon. This is a Singapore-Designed, Singapore-manufactured weapon which is shorter but heavier than the standard M16. The good thing about this weapon is that its telescope has increased its accuracy tremendously.

I have written about my ICT back in Jan 2007 which included a range. The conditions of the rifle ranges were very poor back then.

However, this time round, I have a pleasant surprised. The same old range has been upgraded. Toilets are clean and the system has improved tremendously. Although there is still a bit of hiccup on the electronic butt, it was rectified quite quickly with well trained wardens.

I just hope that they could keep up with such standards of range maintenance in the future. It would

Goh Meng Seng

2008年十一月30日演说者角落李蕙玲替陈钦亮演讲翻译稿

李蕙玲目前是工人党党员。她曾经是工人党两届中委，而曾在2006年大选时，代表工人党角逐李显龙总理的宏茂桥集选区。她是2006年大选时，在工人党年35岁以下的轻候选人里唯一能用流利华语演讲的候选人。虽然她的团队在总理的宏茂桥集选区里以33.4%败下阵来，但她个人的表现不凡。

蕙玲目前专注于专业翻译的生意，拥有长达5年的翻译经验。这次很有幸能得到她的帮助，为我们的团队做出义务的贡献。在此我要特别感谢她所给以的帮助。

吴明盛



Speaker’s Corner – 29 November 2008
Speech by Tan Kin Lian

投资者应该去见他们的国会议员

我建议你连同其他跟你住在同个区域的投资者一起去见你们的国会议员。如果你之前已经见过你的国会议员，你可以去再见他一次。这次，你必须要求你的国会议员做出正确的举动，毕竟他身为国家领导人的职责就是要代表你发表心声。你可以要求你的国会议员向金融管理局询问以下的问题。

1. 我们之前发出第一份请愿书，要求金融管理局调查某些制造并推销这些信用联结票据的金融机构是否犯了任何错。调查的结果如何？这些金融机构是否触犯了证券期货法和金融顾问法？

2. 金融机构了解了多少投资者的案件？拒绝了多少案件？提出了多少遭到投资者拒绝的提议？有多少案件还在等待裁决？金融机构需要多久才能做出他们的决定？

3. 金融业争议调解中心接到了多少投诉？有多少案件已经被他们裁决了？有多少案件还在待审？金融业争议调解中心需要多久才能处理这些投诉？

国会议员有义务代表你发问这些问题，他们也可以在国会上发问。

商业计划书应该提供实质资料

投资者曾被告知，商业计划书在第一或第二页强调了这一句警告，那就是“你可能损失你的部分或全部投资”。但如果商业计划书没有透露实质资料呢？

新报的财经栏目在2008年11月4日提到：

所有联结票据的共同点就是投资者从没看到收费。这包括

〉初步价格所包含的收费
〉产品的风险和回报架构里的对手风险回报
〉买卖期权、信贷交换契约和债券的佣金
〉庄家费和弃权费
〉每年的管理费，包括商检换证费

这些费用都从殖利率中直接扣除。投资者通常会把低回报归咎于市场环境而不是这些隐藏的费用。

更重要的是，信托基金和投资连结产品会定期地刊登他们的费用。不过联结票据却不会显示其费用。

你可以向律师恰询，不透露以上资料是否相等于触犯了证券期货法的第243章第1a条例。此章程提到：“提供证券的商业计划书应该包含所有投资者和他们的专业顾问所需用来评估第3副章程所列明的事宜的资料。”

新报的这个财经栏目还提到 – 我们应该问的是：“不提供联结票据所包含的费用是否能使联结票据的销售契约失效，我们是否能要求联结票据的发放者和经销商退还款项？”

要求得到书面资料

投资者曾经找客户关系经理洽谈。把联结票据卖给他们的客户关系经理无法提供令人满意的答案。这些投资者于是来向我询问。

我也无法给你答案。我没有答案，因为市面上有很多系列的联结票据，每个系列都不同。

你应该把你的提问以电邮或信件的书面方式向客户关系经理查询，并要求客户关系经理给予你书面的答复。如果你没有得到让你满意的答复，你应该向金融管理局提出书面投诉。如果客户关系经理不知道详情，他有义务向产品发放者得到相关资料。

身为投资者，你有权就你所购买的产品得到相关的资料。如果有任何足以影响你的产品的变动，你也有权得到信托者或协调者的通知。

你一定要采取行动，保护自己的利益。不要接受马虎的答案，如果有任何不妥，一定要提出投诉。

金融业争议调解中心的经历

如果你已经经过了金融业争议调解中心的程序，请让我知道结果如何，好让我们能跟其他投资者分享经验。

虽然你签署了保密协议，但如果只是提供一般的资料，那应该没关系，就好比说你接受裁决了吗？你出席过几项会议？你花了多久的时间呈现你的案件？金融业争议调解中心花了多久的时间提供答案？

对于其他仍在等待着金融业争议调解中心的裁决的投资者而言，这样的资料是相当有用的。

我已经要求媒体向金融业争议调解中心查出他们所通过的案例数据，并且简单描述其结果。我相信公众有必要知道这方面的资料。

到目前为止，他们所提供的答案真的让人觉得心灰意冷。金融业争议调解中心已经收到了很多投诉。要了解案件还需要很长的一段时间。

在这艰难时期的精神健康顾虑

我在此向你们读出这一位投资者的来信。

致：陈先生

首先，谢谢你在你的博格上和芳林公园里所提供的一切援助和资料。

结构性产品和迷你债券的事情最近闹得沸沸扬扬，许多受影响的投资者在经济上和情绪上都受到了很多压力。

遗憾的是，我也购买了其中一样产品，每天都必须经历情绪上的艰熬。

我一方面得时时保持警惕，以处理日常程序，另一方面则要担心我的血汗钱的下落如何。

我相信所有受影响的投资者都会经过这种过程：在迈出每一步之前，等待着更多讯息的当儿，你必须一而再再而三地经历许多精神压力。

〉首先，你向金融机构投诉
〉然后等待他们的答复
〉你再前往金融业争议调解中心
〉然后又再回去等待最新的新闻报道
〉你内心里不停地自问：我到底可以拿回我的血汗钱吗？我可以拿回多少？什么时候才可以拿回？

这就好像你在充满泥巴的操场上托着脚行走，你要向前进，不过却力不从心。

这就好像你在休息时，你的脑还是转个不停。

这就好像当你的孩子向你微笑时，你要费更多的力气来动你的脸部肌肉以回应他。

这就好像当你要关电脑时，硬盘却不肯停下，反而继续转动。

这就好像你上床睡觉时也担心着这件事的结果，并且担心你手头上的其他投资产品也充满毒素。

但是你不知道怎么去查证，你也不知道你是否该相信你的客户关系经理、保险经纪或者是向你出售这些产品的朋友。这并不表示他们在撒谎，只是他们不知道如何探查毒素的存在。

还有更多的问题在后头。

我和我太太的压力大得我们必需去看医生。这样一来，我们明天在忙碌的当儿，就不会忽略我们年幼的儿子还有我们的健康。

我就是我要向所有正在担心正在困惑的人所要传达的主要讯息。我们在伸张正义的当儿，还必须照顾好我们的身体和我们所关心的人。

集体诉讼

不同的团体正在跟律师恰询，看看他们是否能采取集体诉讼。他们还不太清楚律师费的估价和他们的成功几率。

我目前正在跟几位资深律师洽谈，看看商业计划书、收费表、行销手册和广告宣传方面是否有任何误导性的元素。

如果有必要，我们会要求英国的王室法律顾问提供他们的书面提议。我们会查询相关的费用，并且找到支付这笔费用的方法。


下个星期六12月6日，下午5点的特别聚会

我们将在这特别的一天庆祝网上公民成立两周年的纪念。我会在活动上致词，讲解跟信用联结票据有关的课题。

如果你当天有空，请前来参加这一场特别的活动，给予你的支持。

陈钦亮

My Speech at Hong Lim Park 29 Nov 2008

Click here for Forms for Petition to Mr. Tan Kin Lian

My speech at Hong Lim Park this evening:

Part One



Part Two




Part Three

十一月二十九日芳林公园集会事项

由于我们接到消息说芳林公园目前被一个基层举办的项目占据了很大的地方，所以也许我们可能没法在那里进行巨大的集会。无论如何，陈钦亮先生和本人照旧会到会场，并会分发今天的演讲稿。但至于我们会否演讲，那就要看情况而定。

吴明盛

Synthetic CDOs

Someone has asked me about what Synthetic CDOs is all about but I am currently busy with my In-Camp-Training now, thus I am not able to translate one of the Chinese articles on this topic.

But the reader came back with this answer himself and I wish to share with all of you here:

* Cash CDOs involve a portfolio of cash assets, such as loans, corporate bonds, asset-backed securities or mortgage-backed securities. Ownership of the assets is transferred to the legal entity (known as a special purpose vehicle) issuing the CDO's tranches. The risk of loss on the assets is divided among tranches in reverse order of seniority. Cash CDO issuance exceeded $400 billion in 2006.
* Synthetic CDOs do not own cash assets like bonds or loans. Instead, synthetic CDOs gain credit exposure to a portfolio of fixed income assets without owning those assets through the use of credit default swaps, a derivatives instrument. (Under such a swap, the credit protection seller, the CDO, receives periodic cash payments, called premiums, in exchange for agreeing to assume the risk of loss on a specific asset in the event that asset experiences a default or other credit event.) Like a cash CDO, the risk of loss on the CDO's portfolio is divided into tranches. Losses will first affect the equity tranche, next the mezzanine tranches, and finally the senior tranche. Each tranche pays a periodic payment (the swap premium), with the junior tranches offering higher yields.

:A synthetic CDO tranche may be either funded or unfunded. A funded tranche requires investors to fund their credit exposure. Under the swap agreement, the tranche could have to pay up to a certain amount of money in the event of a credit event on assets in CDO's reference portfolio. This credit exposure is funded at the time of investment by the tranche's investors. Typically, the junior tranches that face the greatest risk of experiencing a loss have to fund their exposure. At maturity, the funding minus any realized losses is returned to investors. In contrast, senior tranches are usually unfunded since the risk of loss is much lower. Unlike a cash CDO, investors in a senior tranche receive periodic payments but do not place any capital in the CDO when entering into the investment. Instead, the investors retain continuing liability exposure and may have to make a payment to the CDO in the rare event the portfolio's losses reach the senior tranche. Funded synthetic issuance exceeded $80 billion in 2006. From an issuance perspective, synthetic CDOs take less time to create. Cash assets do not have to be purchased and managed, and the CDO's tranches can be precisely structured.

It basically means that synthetic CDOs are technically just a Credit Default (Risk) Swap; meaning, here again, investors are made to be INSURERS of those financial institutions!

This is a double blow in the sense that for structured deposits like Lehman's Minibonds, the underlying assets may consist of synthetic CDOs as well.

Goh Meng Seng

Petition Form for Elected Presidency II

Petition Form for Elected Presidency
Note: If you do not wish to disclose your full NRIC, you can show the first 3 digits as XXX.

If you wish to help to collect 100,000 signatures, please print this form and get 20 signatures.

Forms for petition

Please scan the completed form (with 20 signatures) and send to the e-mail address shown, i.e. epsingapore1@gmail.com.

Sign the online petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/TKLFPO1/petition.html

Volunteers to help in getting signatures:
http://www.petitiononline.com/VTHTKL1/petition.html

Long Term Becomes WRONG TERM! WHERE ARE YOUR EYES?

Long Term becomes WRONG TERM! I must first qualify this: this is a quote I get out of Sammyboy forum recently.

When Singapore government Sovereign Wealth funds like Temasek Holdings and GIC started to throw money in Citibank, Merryl Lynch and UBS last year, there were so much coverage about what a "good bargain" they have gotten. I was very skeptical about such deals for the simple reason that nobody, professional investors, will walk into such deals at the first sight of trouble. This is simply because one would not be able to assess the seriousness of the whole issue at first instance when there were almost simultaneously three BIG international banks putting up the red cards together.

Any investors or fund managers worth his salt would have become very wary and cautious when he is put into such situation. At most, he would put a small bet into one, not ALL THREE together. But this is NOT the case for Singapore Government's investment arms. They WALK RIGHT INTO the center of financial tornado WITH THEIR EYES WIDE OPEN, or do they have eyes in the first place? Even if the chances of these banks making a come back are more than 60%, I guess any prudent investors would have waited slightly longer, just for the stock price to fall further.

The irony is that after the ill-fated investments were made, our PAP ministers backed these ill-fated investments up WITH THEIR EYES WIDE OPEN again. They claimed these are GOOD BARGAINS. And when the stock prices start free falling, they still claim that these are for LONG TERM INVESTMENT.

Mind you, our ministers are EXTRAORDINARY politicians (or technocrats, if you may want to call them) that demands the WORLD'S HIGHEST PAY as political office holders. They self-proclaimed to be WORLD CLASS TALENTS who are running a WORLD CLASS country. And thus, they demand WORLD CLASS salaries for their "services to the country". But it seems that they are just like any ordinary fund managers when they made such ill-fated judgment! We would expect TOP MONEY with TOP PERFORMANCE, not MEDIOCRE PERFORMANCE, right?

Well, never mind if you justify that I am talking on hindsight, which I know I am not. I was one of the few that cast doubts on such investment moves at that time. Simply because I believe we could wait for a little while longer to get the REAL BARGAIN if we really believe that these would be good buy. Waiting a little bit longer will also allow us to assess the extent of the problems these banks were facing. Either way, we win. Besides, we are just a little tiny red dot with limited reserves which are meant for our very own survival if anything hit us back home. We should not think too greatly of ourselves as the "world saver" of the day. Prudence is lost when arrogance emerges. This is the golden truth.

Back home here, the whole nation has just found out that the lack of prudence is not just limited to the Government's SWF. The ruling party's municipal Town Councils, which have accumulated quite a huge amount of funds over the years, have made great blunders in making EYE OPENING investments in the HIGH RISK structured financial products which the pitiful returns that do not match the risks embedded.

Even the government statutory boards, which I believe, includes the defacto Central Bank MAS, have made such EYE OPENING BLUNDERS, even under the WATCHFUL EYES of the WORLD CLASS TALENTED Ministers. It all happens when MAS decided to go on imprudent deregulation on the financial system back in 2000. These toxic financial products should not be allowed to be sold in Singapore to retail investors in the very first place. Whose fault? Obviously its the MAS' fault to start with. MAS should have assessed such products WITH THEIR EYES OPEN.

Well, some claims that people invest, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. No big deal. However, THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S MONEY, not theirs to start with. If any ministers or PAP MPs made losses in their OWN investments in these structured products, I swear that I won't laugh or MOCK at them by saying they "WALK IN WITH EYES OPEN". Nope. Its perfectly alright to make a mistake on their personal investments. BUT IT IS NOT OK for them to show such TOTAL INCOMPETENCY when it comes to investing PUBLIC MONEY!

The irony is that instead of doing the SIMPLE DECENT THING of apologizing for the various mistakes made in such investments, these WORLD CLASS POLITICIANS actually have the cheeks to DEFEND their position by saying "it's a small sum" (nearly a peanut or what?), its small percentage, their investment is "top secret" and even go to such an extend of being ARROGANT in declaring that Singaporeans "SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO THEM" for their past success in investments!

As I have said, Prudence is lost when Arrogance emerges. If you are a company director and you pay TOP MONEY to employ supposedly TOP TALENTS to help you run the company. The company makes money in the first few years, do you need to be "grateful" to these TOP TALENTS that demanded TOP MONEY? Well, maybe so, but less so; because it is simply JUST A DEAL and TOP MONEY warrants TOP PERFORMANCE, this is natural. But when the company starts to lose BIG MONEY, would you just sit there and say take the crap of these TOP TALENTS refusing to admit their mistakes but keep reminding you that you should be grateful to them for their past good performance?

From the assertion of LONG TERM has turned into WRONG TERM. Hopefully it will not turn into LOST TERM. Our PAP ELITES are totally lost; LOST OF FORESIGHT, HELICOPTER SIGHT and what is more interesting is that we are witnessing them losing HUMILITY but GAINED SUBSTANTIALLY on ARROGANCE.

I guess the worst is yet to come. Temasek Holdings with GIC combined, have lost multi-billion dollars for the last one and a half year. This is substantial lost in terms of losses per capital. And yet, we are still witnessing Temasek Holdings and GIC pumping money relentless into the world's financial institutions, which in my view, putting too much risks in throwing good money after bad ones. When will they learn to be prudent? This is just the beginning of the whole crisis. They lost huge amount in the "prelude" back in 2007 and now, they are pumping money in just like that when apparently this is only the beginning of a long drawn crisis!

Heaven please helps us!

Goh Meng Seng

Petition Form for Elected Presidency

Petition Form for Elected Presidency


If you wish to help to collect 100,000 signatures, please print this form and get 20 signatures. Please scan the completed form (with 20 signatures) and send to the e-mail address shown, i.e. epsingapore1@gmail.com.

www.tankinlian.com/forms/epsingapore1.pdf

Well, it seems that someone has already started the online petition.

Sign the online petition here :


Support Tan Kin Lian

Goh Meng Seng

A Petition to Mr. Tan Kin Lian

This is a petition to Mr. Tan Kin Lian to contest in next General Elections.

I have come to know Mr. Tan Kin Lian early this year after hearing about his effort to fight for the NTUC Income policy holders' interests and rights. I have emailed Kin Lian personally to ask him to consider to run for the next Presidential Elections. He is fully well qualified to become an independent Presidential candidate. We met up subsequently but Kin Lian has his reservations about running for Presidential Elections mainly of his wife's preference as well as whether he is not sure whether Singaporeans want a contest at all.

Recently, Kin Lian called me up to help him with his Mandarin speeches at Hong Lim Park, to help those structured products investors to seek fair compensation from these mis-sold products. I have agreed to help him and in the process, I get to know him better as a person.

Kin Lian is a person with great convictions and beliefs in Fairness as well as Social Justice. The reason why he has acted TWICE in a short span of time to stand up for aggrieved insurance policy holders as well as structured product investors is mainly because he believes that they are not been FAIRLY TREATED. In the course of meeting up with him, I do find that he has strong beliefs in good governance in which the government must take care of the people's interests first rather than their own. Most importantly, he has shown great patriotism and convictions for this country. He has even joked that if there are enough people who want him to stand as Presidential candidate and gets elected, he would only keep a small part of the hefty annual salary that the President drawn and donated the rest to the charities around Singapore. He believes that political office holders should not be there just for the money and keep comparing it with private top salaries. A political office is PUBLIC SERVICE, not a commercial post. A decent salary to keep them to live in comfort should be enough and it definitely need not be a million dollar annual pay. This is what Kin Lian believes.

Yes, a man at his age, status and well being, does not need to get involved at all in this political arena and fully understand his position. But from recent happenings, I believe many people's eyes have been opened to see the ugly side of what a lopsided political system could do to us. The government has unfairly sided with big financial institutions even without conducting any OPEN AND TRANSPARENT investigations into the Minibond saga.

When PAP Town Councils lost money in these structured products, tens of millions dollars are considered as "small" (maybe even peanuts) and yet PAP MP still insist that we must be thankful to them for making money in the past! I can understand that even big institutions could lose money in investment especially so when they are mis-sold (yes, as MM Lee says, they should have "walk in with their eyes open") but to present such aloof and arrogant attitude towards the whole matter is unbecoming of ELECTED political office holders! Maybe its because ministers have million or even multi-million dollar annual pay and thus, a couple of ten million dollars are just "peanuts" to them. But for most people who earn less than $50K a year, a couple of 10 million dollars IS A BIG DEAL to them! To add salt to injury and insults, they even claim that WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL to them! Its not merely about the monetary lost but rather the total lost of humility and SENSE OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY as PUBLIC SERVANTS.

I would say that they SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO VOTERS whom voted them in to give them the opportunity to SERVE the people. It is their job to manage the funds well because they are elected and paid to do the job.

I feel very sad about such attitude from PAP MPs and ministers alike. They have totally forgotten that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS. And I believe that we should have more people with great status and beliefs in what PUBLIC SERVICE should be to be elected into parliament as an alternative MPs to PAP. I have spoken to Kin Lian about this and although he agrees with what I have said, he still feels that he does not want to get into parliamentary politics if there is no PUBLIC DEMAND for alternatives to PAP. I have suggested to him that I will start a Nation wide petition for a call and show of PUBLIC SUPPORT and DEMAND of him to stand up for our beloved country. If I can get a substantial amount of signatures in the thousands or even tens of thousands signature, I really hope that he could reconsider to lead a group of credible people whom he thinks could serve the country better as Alternative MPs to the ruling party.

And so, here I am, writing to all my beloved Singaporeans, to do your part in signing this petition here if you agree with what I say here and strongly believe in the need of having a credible team of alternative MPs led by Mr. Tan Kin Lian. Mr. Tan Kin Lian has been writing petitions and collecting signatures for all these while for many Singaporeans out there to fight for their rights and interests. It is time that we should do something in return, to petition him to lead a group of credible people to stand up for our rights and interests in parliament. All information collected will be kept in confidence. We need your action and support to create a better Singapore for our future generations.

An Online Petition will be created very soon and if we have the resources, we will go round island to collect signatures for this petition by next month. Watch this space for the next few days for more updates.

Goh Meng Seng

Afternote:

Petition Form for Elected Presidency

If you wish to help to collect 100,000 signatures, please print this form and get 20 signatures. Please scan the completed form (with 20 signatures) and send to the e-mail address shown, i.e. epsingapore1@gmail.com.

www.tankinlian.com/forms/epsingapore1.pdf

Goh Meng Seng

Tan Kin Lian's Reponse to Character Assassination

Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Reply to Chua Sheng Yang
18 November 2008

The Editor
Forum Page
Straits Times

I refer to the letter entitled “Questions on investment products rally” by Chua Sheng Yang (Straits Times, 18 Nov 2008).

I organize the fifth rally on 15 November for the purpose of updating the investors on the status of the three petitions that were sent to the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The text of my speech can be found in my blog, www.tankinlian.blogspot.com.

I did not organize the rally for the purpose of promoting The Online Citizen, as suggested by Mr. Chua.

I do wish to acknowledge the coverage given by The Online Citizen and other online blogs. They help to bring my messages to the investors who were not able to attend the events at Speaker’s Corner.

The first petition, signed by 983 investors and submitted on 9 October 2008, asked the Government to carry out an independent investigation to find out if there were any wrong doings by the financial institutions that created and marketed these credit linked securities and, if there were, to take appropriate action under the law. Specifically, the investigation should look at possible breaches under section 199 of the Securities and Futures Act and section 27 of the Financial Adviser’s Act.

Mr. Chua asked me to state if the people, who are neither elderly nor uneducated, should be entitled to their money back. In my view, all investors who have been misled into these securities through mis-representation and mis-selling (if proven by the findings) should be fairly compensated, regardless of their age and educational level.

I do not expect the Government to reimburse the investors for the financial loss. I only urge the Government to help the investors to get fair compensation for their loss from the financial institutions. I do not expect the compensation to be in full, as the investors have to bear some responsibility.

Several articles, written by journalists and university professors, have been printed in the newspapers explaining the high risk of these securities and how the investors could have been misled. I wonder why people like Mr. Chua choose to ignore them. I can only recall the saying, “None are so blind as those who will not see the truth”.

Mr. Chua made a personal attack on my character in the last three paragraphs of his letter. I am surprised that your newspaper found it fit to print these unsubstantiated remarks, as they are not relevant to the main issue. I shall not respond to them.

Tan Kin Lian
Reply With Quote

Government Must Do What is Right

TOC has recorded my speech at Hong Lim on Saturday. You could view it here.



Andrew Loh / Deputy Editor

Mr Goh Meng Seng, who translated Mr Tan Kin Lian’s speech to Chinese at Speakers’ Corner, later shared his views on the structured products saga. He compared Singapore with Hong Kong, where he spends some of his time.

“We’ve sent in the petitions but so far there have been no response,” he said in Chinese, referring to the three petitions which have been sent to the authorities by Mr Tan so far. Saying that the Hong Kong government has been more pro-active in dealing with similar complaints there, the Singapore government, on the other hand, has been slow to take action on the issue, especially in investigating potential wrong-doings by the financial institutions.

Referring to Hong Kong, Mr Goh said, “The first [thing that the Hong Kong government did] was to set up an independent place for people to complain. They don’t push you to the banks or the financial institutions.”

As to why the Singapore government has not done the same, he said that it is because there are no opposition members to provide a check and balance on the government. “If the government does not want to do it, the Parliament will not say anything,” he told the crowd.

Switching between Chinese and English, Mr Goh urged the affected investors not to give up. If they did, he said, “one social injustice will be done in this instance.” He said that, in his view, there can be only two things which investors can do to get some resolution: one, investors should see their Members of Parliament (MP) and make their complaints known to them. “Go to their Meet the People Sessions,” he said. “Go every week because they have their MPS every week, whether they are MPs from the opposition or the ruling party!”

The second option, he said, is to take the legal route and go to the courts. However, he said that would not be the preferred course of action. “Once this issue reaches the courts, it will not only affect the financial institutions but also Singapore’s reputation as a financial hub.” He advised that legal action must be the last resort as it also can be very costly.

Mr Goh added, “At this moment, we do not have any alternatives. We have exhausted all our alternatives, even those [given] by the government and MAS.” He asked if investors still have confidence in the authorities. “A lot of people have come to me and said they do not have confidence in them.”

Getting to the bottom of the issue is in Singapore’s interest, he explained. “[It] helps us to be stronger as a financial hub in future,” he said in English. “You cannot base [being] a financial hub merely on money, you cannot base [being] a financial hub which only takes care of the financial institutions because the confidence is not merely from them. It’s also from the investors.”

“You want to be financial hub of this region, you have to keep the confidence of not only the financial institutions but also investors like all of you,” he told the audience.

“So you have to pressure the government to do what is right,” he said. “A full investigation into the issue.

Videos of Mr Goh’s speech:

Part One:




Part Two:



———

OPEN YOUR EYES!--Vote for a truly Caring MP

Yes, this is my main message to those who gathered at Hong Lim park this evening, in response to MM Lee's remarks about investors investing "with their eyes open".

I have been to Hong Kong for a couple of times for the past two months and I have the opportunity to observe first hand on how the Hong Kong government manages this Minibomb crisis.

Both Hong Kong and Singapore Monetary Authorities, in the fight to be THE Financial HUB of Asia, have both foolishly gone into "financial deregulation" mode at the beginning of this century. This is why both Hong Kong and Singapore Monetary Authorities allowed such complex and high risk products to be sold by banks to fixed depositors and retail investors openly.

However, if we observe carefully, the two governments have very different attitudes and approach to the same whole issue. It is really ironic sometimes. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is not popularly elected in the way of universal suffrage but yet, the approach by his government is PEOPLE FIRST principle. PAP government is "popularly" (well some may dispute this) elected in a General Elections but yet, so far, what we have seen is that this government has sided with the Financial Institutions without even making the effort of conducting a transparent, thorough investigation into the whole thing!

The first thing Hong Kong government done was to set up an independent body to receive complains of mis-selling from aggrieved investors. They did not push them to the financial institutions neither do they just collect complains and do nothing about it. They just collect all complains, vet through and send those whom they think suffered serious misleading selling tactic to be referred for legal suit. The Hong Kong government even went a step further to put money into thier consumer rights association ready for massive legal suits to help aggrieved investors to fight against those financial intuitions!

Although Hong Kong did not have an organization like Fidrec like Singapore, but they are quick to respond in setting up one when they see the need to. Further pressure were applied by Hong Kong government in sending ultimatums to FIs to buy back those financial products. Every moves made by the Hong Kong government were aimed to address justice to aggrieved investors, helping them in all possible ways.

In huge contrast, Singapore government just sit on the issue. MAS just issues statements to push investors to the FIs to lodge their complains. The consumer rights CASE just kept very quiet until people were making comparisons with Hong Kong Consumer Rights group. It seems to me that the whole government machinery is not interested to help aggrieved investors to seek justice. Apart from making the TOKEN call for FIs to pay in full to those "vulnerable group" which consists less than 5% (maybe only 2% to 3%) of the total number of investors, nothing is done to address the needs for the other 95% of investors!

Hong Kong Legislative Council (Legco) has just passed a motion to setup a committee with privilege powers to investigate into the whole issue, right from the Government's role as regulator to whether there are systematic problems in those FIs that sold the products. Ironically, it was in Singapore that Mr. Tan Kin Lian first petitioned MAS to conduct such investigation more than a month ago but up till now, MAS did not act on it.

Not that Hong Kong government likes to have such investigation and the fact is that it does not want such investigation citing negative impact on international business community perceptions. But the truth is, the government does not want itself to be implicated in the lapses as a regulator.

The most important question is whether such investigation would tarnish Hong Kong or Singapore's reputation as Financial Hub of Asia? Actually deep down their minds, both Hong Kong and Singapore governments, they feels that they should not step on the toes of big foreign financial institutions else they might just pack up and leave.

But the truth is, in order to build a real world class financial hub, you will need to provide a FAIR and JUST platform for EVERYONE, including investors and financial institutions. Simply siding or shielding financial institutions from punishment for their wrong doings will not bring about a world class financial hub.

You may have all the big foreign financial institutions from the whole world on your shores but ultimately when investors feel that this government isn't going to protect investors' right and interests in the event like this one, who in his right mind would want to invest their money in the financial institutions on Singapore shores?

They claim that investors were "greedy" in wanting higher returns and thus will have to suffer the losses due to the higher risks. However, its the financial institutions that were the MOST greedy ones, taking 3% to 5% RISK FREE commissions by selling these products to investors who take the same return WITH GREAT RISKS! What fair play or justice could we get from such system?

Thus in my view, if Singapore government is not going to act fairly and just, refusing to call for a full investigation into the whole issue, it will do more harm than good in preserving our nation's reputation as a financial hub. We must get to the bottom of this issue in order for our financial system to readjust itself to become more balance in its approach in attracting the right kind of responsible foreign financial institutes to come to our shores.

Of course making these financial institutions to SHARE the damages suffered by investors may create some hefty losses for them. This is especially for our very own local banks but money lost could be earned back but the lost of a Nation's financial reputation is something that money cannot buy back.

In my view, there will only be two viable solutions to this issue. One, apply greater political pressures on the government to act and investigate the FIs on any wrong doings and gives appropriate punishment and compensation to investors if they are found guilty of any systematic wrong doings. Two, class action lawsuit. Class action lawsuit should be the last resort as it may have many other implications beside being expensive, time consuming and uncertain. Such a lawsuit may do more harm to our Nation's reputation as World Financial Hub. But if the government is still present itself as bias against investors and siding FIs unreasonably, then I think investors would have no other choice but to go for a full blown class action lawsuit. I still hope this could be avoided when government setup a truly independent investigating committee to look into the whole matter.

Hong Kong Legco does have its own difficulty in getting the motion to setup such committee empowered with privileged powers to pass initially due to the resistance of the pro-government parties. It took many protests and concerted efforts by the investors united behind one simple course, to apply great pressure on the main pro-government party to get their Legco members to vote for the motion. They would even go to the party's HQ to kneel down and beg the party leadership to vote for the motion. This is possible if and only if there is a balance of power within the political system. Legco is more or less split into half by the Democratic movement Legco members and the pro-government Legco members. It is the balance of power that exert pressure unto the other party to act according to voters' will.

In contrast, Singapore's political landscape is totally dominated by the ruling party, with just 3 opposition MPs against 82 PAP MPs. There is no political pressure on the ruling party to make decisions that is to take care of people's interests first rather than siding with big corporations blindly. It is an ironic paradox that a "popularly" voted government with "overwhelming majority" which turns out to be lacking in the will to take care of its citizens' welfare vs the interests of big corporations. I would suggest to investors to continue to put political pressure on the government by going to your MPs' meet the people's sessions to register your frustration with the government inaction. Most importantly, they should continue to support our bi-weekly gathering at Hong Lim Park.

In Singapore, there is always social injustice and unfairness existing within the system. eg like a hefty increase in electricity tariff while actual oil price is dropping, petrol and diesel prices are always fast in increases when oil price surge but will take a long time to adjust to the reasonable level when the oil price drops. Diesel price used to be 95 cents per litre when oil price is US$60 to a barrel. But now oil price is US$55 per barrel and yet, diesel price is still stuck at $1.30 per litre. Singaporeans are very mild people that would just take all these injustice as it is, just pay up more without making noise. This minibond issue just happens to awaken us to the fact that social injustice could happen to many people in a severe way.

And the key lies in a more balanced political system that allows the monopoly of power to just do whatever they like. But I hope with this minibond issue, investors cum voters should start to realize the importance of their participation in the social-political context to stand up against social injustice every now and then.

Most importantly we must try to vote in more opposition members into parliament so to maintain the balance of power within the political system. We must vote in people who really care about the people's interests and rights to social justice, be it opposition or ruling parties MPs. As MM Lee has mentioned, investors have bought these toxic products "with eyes open", I strongly urge these voters to vote "with eyes wide open" next time round.

Voting in more opposition MPs is just a means to maintain the necessary balance of power politically so that the ruling party cannot just brush aside injustice and ignore the voters totally on such important issue.

Again, my reminder here, VOTE WITH YOUR EYES WIDE OPEN!

Goh Meng Seng

二零零八年十一月十五日演说者角落陈钦亮演讲词

二零零八年十一月十五日演说者角落
陈钦亮演讲词
1．金管局请愿书

我想给各位提供关于我们给金融管理局三封请愿书的最新进展报告。

第一封拥有983位信贷关联产品投资者的签名的请愿书是在
二零零八年十月九日呈交给金融管理局。这封请愿书要求政府针对那一些制作和销售这一些金融产品给投资者的金融机构做出调查。

如果这调查显示这一些金融机构触犯了现有的法令，尤其是金融顾问法，这请愿书恳请政府采取适当的行动对付这一些金融机构而为苦主追讨合理的赔偿。

在十月九日，我把这封写给金管局主席吴作栋先生的请愿书交给了安德鲁博士和他的同事。我向安德鲁博士和他的同事诉说了金融机构可能触犯了那一些现有的法律条文。

至今我并没有接到金管局对这请愿书的任何回应。我已向吴作栋先生和安德鲁博士做出了两个会面的请求，但也并没有得到正面的回应。

第二份请愿书是在十月十七日送到金管局的。这封请愿书是由277投资者签署的。我们要求金管局针对这一些金融机构对此金融产品的行售训练课程和销售过程做出调查。尤其是针对行销人员对他们所销售的金融产品的认识是否足够从而能给于投资者正确的投资讯息。

金管局已经确认收到这份请愿书但我们并不知道金管局是否会根据请愿书的要求展开调查。

第三封请愿书是在十月31日呈交给金管局的。这份请愿书拥有1017位的投资者的签名。我们要求金管局重新检讨金融机构处理投诉的机制。我们要求金管局设立一个独立的单位来接收和处理各项投诉并且鼓励各个金融机构采取集体的解决方案来提出合理的赔偿给于那一些被误销这一些金融产品的投资者。

我已要求与金管局的官员召开一个正式的会议讨论我们所呈上的所有的3封请愿书但是他们拒绝了我的要求。

我提醒金管局我目前是代表大约1000名投资者，他们不应该拒绝我的会面请求或者把我当成单独的投资者看待。就算是任何单独的投资者的声音也应该得道应有的尊重和看待。如果1000名投资者的心声都不够大声，我在想到底要怎么样才能使我们的官员认真听取我们的声音？

我会继续努力的。
我想跟大家分享一位读者SB的来信。这是刊载在我的部落格上的一封电邮。这投资者愿意为他错误投资在这一些信贷金融产品负上一定的责任但是他对我们政府领导人所做出的谈话感到非常不高兴。我现在就为你们读这来信：

亲爱的陈先生，

我在此为您所给于上千的苦主的帮助、关怀、指引和你那大无畏的精神给于赞赏和肯定。我本身并没有投资在这一些金融产品但很不幸的是我的妻子购买了这一些票据。老实说，我们并不属于他们所规定为“弱势”组别的投资者，但我们也并非是高风险的投资者，除了股票和房地产外，从来没有投资在任何其他金融产品。

我们愿意为我们的疏忽和没法真正去了解这金融产品的高风险、毒素和它那不成正比的回报率负责。我们也因为对这类似官方运作，如中央证券局作为股票投资的监护人，感到放心而卸下心防。

很遗憾的是，我们并没有在签署购买协议书之前要求分销商重新估计产品的风险或向他们领取产品说明书。至此，我们对这产品里头最具风险的条文都一无所知。如果他们把这一些产品的各项风险都告诉我们的话，我相信我将无法接受这不对称的风险回报率。

由于我不能不正视自己应负的责任，至今我都还没向金融机构提上投诉。但与此同时，我也密切的通过您的网站关注您的动向。

我相信有许多苦主是跟我一样的情形。在收取苦主们各样的意见和回馈后，金管局和高层部长（包括李资政的言论）都以我们是在“顾客留心”条款下自愿签署购买协议书的理由驳斥我们的申诉。对于我们的部长来说，这事件就到此为止。

在这种情况之下，金管局和政府当局是在没有收集足够证据前就偏袒金融机构的。这对一个公选出来，因而受托于照顾广大民众的利益的政府是没法接受。

其实，这种官僚态度促使我决定别放弃，继续斗争下去。为什么呢？我并不期望政府为此事件对我们的损失做出补偿或只是因为我们是公民而袒护我们。如果我们自个儿做了一个坏的投资决定，我们将承担后果。但是这并不表示金融机构就能为他们自己所犯下的失误开脱责任。最起码我们应该要求政府成立独立的调查小组来针对金融机构是否犯错而做出全面的审查。

我们投资者本身是没有这一些技术性和金融知识能力和权威来单独针对金融机构做出这种逐一审查的。

有关调查应该至少包括以下几点：

1）这一些产品的设计，结构，定价和佣金

2）产品的制造商是否有刻意或蓄意的隐瞒这一些产品是与次贷产品有关联而制造商是在知道这产品会在销售后短期内面对信贷危机的情况下继续推销给投资者。

3）分销商是否不分伯仲的把这一些复杂又含有高风险的成品推售给投资者，并且还雇佣不合格和没受过基本金融训练的行销员采取大量以传单轰炸式来行销。我们应该测试推销员对产品风险程度和复杂结构的认知。

4）审查行销传单是否含有误导性的方针，以“不问不答”的隐藏方式来促销。而这一些传单是否过于专注于产品的回报率和那一些指标公司的信誉而避免提到产品真正的风险毒素。

如果调查结果真是提出了对金融机构不利的举证，那么它们应该受到应有的惩罚，罚款和被迫给于投资者应有的赔偿，就有如其他地区的做法一样。就有如您所说的，与投资者共同承担（二不是自个儿承担全部责任）责任和痛楚将会是大多数苦主所能接受的结果。

SB

我已经回复SB说我们的第一封请愿书的方向其实跟他的看法吻合。但是到目前为止，我们还没接到金管局有意设立独立调查庭的意向。

3．集体诉讼事宜

我的小组已经和几位律师商讨过采取集体法律诉讼的事宜。

我们的政府领袖们和金管局曾经劝勉我们避免采取集体法律诉讼而应该从他们所建议的方法着手讨回公道。

有很多苦主已经对他们的建议失去信心。

我的小组将会帮助苦主准备集体法律诉讼但我们还是坚持法律途径应该是最后选项。

我还是希望金管局会答应我的会面要求以便讨论如何以公正和避免昂贵法律途径的方法解决此事。

我们还是有诚意的为苦主在这事件上寻求合理的解决方案，与此同时保护新加坡作为世界金融中心，能保障普通投资者利益的信誉。

陈钦亮

十一月十五日芳林公园演讲集会

在此提醒所有被有毒金融产品毒害的苦主，明天十一月十五日我们将会在芳林公园演讲集会。你们的参与对我们的申诉行动是至关重要的。

我刚从香港回到新加坡，香港雷曼事件的发展神速，其中一个很重要的原因是投资者们都很有组织，很团结。他们都不屈不挠的继续给于银行、政府甚至政党压力。香港在这星期三通过了运用立法会特权调查委员会去对各个银行、政府机构和官员对整个雷曼和类似有关金融产品的监管和销售体制实行全面调查的议案，是所有香港苦主的一大重要胜利。因为只有运用这种方法才能还原整件金融事件的真面目。也只有团结的苦主才能行使巨大的政治压力迫使政府或国会（香港立法会）为真相、社会正义和道义做出最大努力。

其实这整个金融事件最主要的关键是（以下有一些观点是参考今天香港经济日报由何永谦所著作的论文）：

1）政府的金融管理局在监管上到底出了什么纰漏。金融管理局怎么会让不是债券的金融产品以让人误信是低风险债券的“迷你债券”为名，再而允许银行把这类高风险的金融产品推销给普通保守的客户。

2）银行滥用了他们对客户所拥有的资料来进行针对性的行销策略。很多客户是因为银行知道他们拥有大笔定期存款后，才采取行动向他们促销这类产品。银行滥用了客户的绝密资料，侵犯了他们的隐私权，更滥用了客户对他们的信任，把这些高风险的金融产品推销给他们。

3）负责推销的职员很多未达到专业水平，连产品的性质都说不清楚，甚至是在推销时说了很多误导性的话。他们在银行给他们所定的销售目标的压力下，歇力推销，最后连目不识丁的老人也变成他们的销售对象。这样的情景是否违反了专业守则？

4）银行从制定产品销售、销售客户对象、职员的专业培训、内部监管到专业操守等等，是否过于注重自身的利益而导致整个制度上的偏差呢？

5）许多人都说投资在“迷你债券”和其他相似的投资者都是贪那5%的回报率，所以不值得同情，但是以我看来，最贪的是银行和那一些金融机构，因为他们从这一些金融产品所得到的利益也是3%至5%，但那是“全无风险”的回报率！比起许许多多在被误导下投资的苦主，他们才是真正的贪婪者。

这种种问题的关键，对于一个一心想成为亚洲金融中心的新加坡是非常重要的。我们必须弄清楚到底我们想建立的金融中心应该是以人为本还是钱为本。我们如果不把这一些问题搞清楚，我们将无法建立起一个有公信力和稳健的金融中心。

这事件如果真正追究起来也许会让许多金融公司蒙受巨额的损失，但是比起一个国家的信誉和公信力，这代价是不算什么的。人非圣贤，知错能改，善莫大焉！

也许我们都认为苦主们都只是为他们自己的投资失败而斗争，其实这是争取社会公议、完善体制和促进社会道义的具体行动。其实很多时候，社会上是有很多不公的现象存在的，只是多数人在多数时候都不会去关心，因为我们对社会道义已经冷漠了。但这件金融事件刚好给于我们一个机会突出了社会上这种不平等，不公道的现象，再度唤起我们对社会公议的注重，而不是一味只是以钱和功利主义来衡量一切。

对我而言，我不只是为苦主们讨回公道出一点绵力，更重要的是唤醒人们对社会公议的认知。我恳切的希望那一些原以为这只是苦主的事的人，认真的坐下来想一想，我们是否应该为这国家打造出怎么样的一个社会来，要我们的子孙继承什么样的国家。

我希望能在下午5点在芳林公园见到你们。

吴明盛

善用特权法查迷债真相 银行界应视立会为伙伴

善用特权法查迷债真相 银行界应视立会为伙伴
2008年11月13日

【明报专讯】立法会经过冗长辩论后，通过立会成立的小组委员会，可以引用《立法会(权力及特权)条例》调查雷曼迷债事件，这是一个正面积极进展，只要议员善用特权法，相信可以找出事件真相，而且有助于完善金融监管制度，重建本地和外地投资者的信心。银行界极力阻截立会引用特权法的努力失败，事态发展说明银行界与社会公泷互动，未能与时并进，银行界应该积极配合调查，从中汲取教训，增加透明度，才可以重建公泷对银行的信心。

证监会金管局疏失 立法会调查较恰当

雷曼迷债事件关键之处，在于个中是否存在陋弊。迷债是一种高风险金融衍生工具，虽然源自美国，不过在美国，迷债不会在零售层面卖给小投资者，却可以在香港透过银行向普罗大泷推销，令不少人以毕生积蓄购买迷债，使他们血本无归。证监会死抱以“披露为本”原则，无视迷债在零售层面可能构成祸害；金管局负责监管银行和其销售手法，但是未能有效预防问题出现，使大批全无投资经验的小市民受害。因此，证监会和金管局的疏失，可以确定。

银行界方面，参与销售迷债银行多达19家，但是个别银行负责人在政府施压之后，竟然表示对迷债所知不多。银行销售迷债，银行不清楚风险所在，却指令前线银行职员向客户销售，这是不负责任的做法；部分银行职员在销售迷债时，涉及不当手法，背离了银行极其重要的诚信原则。

因此关于迷债事件，监管当局和银行界既然存在陋弊，就应该让公泷知道问题所在。政府已经要求证监会和金管局调查迷债事件，但是这两个机构分头调查，实际上架胁叠屋，他们查了超过一个月，却连一宗银行不当销售手法的个案也未能确定，使市民对他们会否彻查事件抱有疑虑；事实上，导致迷债害人，证监会和金管局都有责任，由他们来调查，是“自己查自己”，所得出结果会缺乏公信力。以本港现行体制，既然政府不考虑成立独立调查委员会去调查事件，则由有广泛民意代表的立法会调查，是适当选择，而立法会可以引用特权法开展调查，会有更大机会找出个中真相。

银行界以埋首处理回购为由，表示立会若引用特权法调查，银行要分拨人手应付，会妨碍回购进度；更有银行界以要胁口?，表示可能会有银行退出回购计划云云。

银行是否积极处理迷债事件，见仁见智。事件在9月中爆发，银行要到下月才实质处理回购事宜，相对于也有迷债受害人的新加坡，早已订出对65岁以上迷债事主赔偿，本港银行则是采取见步行步对应而已。例如民主党已收到3000多宗雷曼个案，银行愿意和解的个案不到10宗，而且和解的都是事主要入禀控告了，银行才不情不愿的补救。因此，银行只在维护声誉情下，才愿意与事主和解，这样的取态，给公众的印象是有欠积极。

银行必须重塑形象 诚信稳重童叟无欺

本周一，售卖雷曼迷债的19家银行在报章刊登全版广告，除了陈述他们做了大量工作以外，还说到“在尽快减轻雷曼相关产品投资客户面对困难的同时，我们时刻谨记平衡客户、股东及员工的利益，维护香港作为国际金融中心的重要基石的重要精神及市场经济运作”，然而，投资者最关注的，乃国际金融中心的结构、运作、监管等环节是否完善、健全。雷曼迷债暴露本港在这3方面都有问题，因此最根本维护本港作为国际金融中心的令誉，是找出原因、汲取教训、亡羊补牢，而不是回避真相和责任。

这次金融海啸，华尔街金融大亨的贪婪无度，酿成大祸，其形象已经大打折扣，雷曼兄弟的行政总裁在健身室更被人推打，是最好例子。在本港，这种氛围藉覑雷曼迷债事件体现出来。近期有本地银行界人士慨叹，因为雷曼迷债事件，许多市民视他们为“骗子”。情说明银行界中人并不麻木，也有确切掌握社会和市民脉动的银行家。

我们希望银行界切勿因为立会引用特权法调查，就放缓回购进度，反而应该更积极主动与雷曼事主和解，争取市民认同。另外，经过此事之后，银行界过去埋首界别利益，不理会社会观瞻的取态，应该要有根本转变，增加透明度，强化与社会公泷互动，多尽社会企业责任，而不是唯利是图，这样才可以重建银行在公泷心目中诚信稳重、童叟无欺的形象。

先查监管机构责任 避免影响回购和解

至于立法会雷曼事件小组委员会，必须掌握好这次机会，善用权力，让市民知道立法会为全港利益行使特权法所赋予权力，不要让银行界认为立法会在对付他们，要使银行界认同和接受立法会是重塑银行形象的合作伙伴。

另外，为免影响银行回购迷债工作，委员会展开工作之初，宜应先处理证监会和金管局的责任问题；在索取和处理文件方面，委员会应该保持警惕，慎防泄漏银行作业的机密，以免冲击银行体系和打击外间对本港银行的信心。有必要时，一些范畴以闭门方式聆讯，相信公泷也会接受，但是相关发现和结果都要公之于世。

过去立法会引用特权法调查过的事件，都是涉及政府的行为，这次是首次用以调查私人企业，性质稍有不同，但是证诸过去立法会都能较好地完成工作，一些涉及机密的内容迄今从未泄漏过。因此，我们有信心，立法会这次也会顺利完成调查，达至完善本港金融制度的目的。

香港證監調查90宗雷曼投訴個案

證監調查90宗雷曼投訴個案
(星島)11月11日 星期二 12:24

有政黨代表與證監會會面，商討調查雷曼迷你債券事件的調查進度。民主黨立法會議員何俊仁表示，目前證監會正積極調查由金管局轉介的約90宗迷債個案，但證監會未能表示調查報告何時會完成。

何俊仁表示，若調查報告證實銀行涉及系統性失誤，銀行或需為所有有關雷曼產品的客戶作出賠償，而非就以個別個案為單位，屆時賠償客戶人數將會大幅提升。

何俊仁表引述證監會表示，若銀行曾與客戶進行私人和解，一旦被裁定為系統性失誤，則可作為減輕罰則的因素。

有政黨人員補充，系統性失誤包括銀行對前線銷售人員培訓不足，以致員工未能向客戶清楚解釋複雜金融產品的潛在風險。

另外，對於立法會銀行界議員李國寶 昨日去信請求議員不要投票通過特權法一事，何俊仁指出，明白李國寶代表銀行業界，於該事件承受頗大壓力，但對李國寶的觀點並不同意，亦認為負責任的議員明日應出席立法會投票。

Las Vegas Sands to detail plans next week

The following article by Associate Press has revealed an interesting point: It seems that Singapore government has agreed to allow Sands to increase the number of gaming tables from 600 to 1000!

This may be just a "SMALL" information to other people around the world but to me, THIS IS A BIG DEAL! PAP government has persuaded Singaporeans to accept the building of the two Casino resorts by assuring us that the presence of these two casino resorts will not have great social impact on Singapore. Two of the key points are the limitation of the size of the Casinos within the whole resort and the implementation of the $100 entrance fee for Singapore citizens.

Now it seems to me that PAP government has agreed to increase the size of the casino in Marina Sands after having that talk with LV Sands! I think it is only right for us to demand the PAP government to come clean with it: WHAT HAS THE PAP GOVERNMENT AGREED TO COMPROMISE TO SANDS in that talk just a couple of weeks ago? A whopping 66% increase in the number of gaming tables could not be possibly squeezed into the original size of the planned casino (fixed at 3% of the whole Casino project)! This must be accommodated by the increase in the size of the casino itself!

Besides, increasing the number of gaming tables isn't going to help if the global economic situation does not have the ability to provide the number of global visitors needed to fill up the casino in there. So what's next? To waive that $100 entrance fees by Singaporeans?

What is this all about? To get the Casino Resort built AT ALL COST? ALL COST that includes SOCIAL COST?

Goh Meng Seng

Person: Las Vegas Sands to detail plans next week

By RYAN NAKASHIMA
AP Business Writer
Advertisement

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Casino giant Las Vegas Sands Corp. will detail its plans to handle its debt crisis early next week, according to a person close to the company, a development that may ease bankruptcy worries and could include another capital infusion by billionaire founder Sheldon Adelson.

The person did not elaborate and requested anonymity because the plan had not been finalized.

The company told the Securities and Exchange Commission in a filing Thursday that it may violate promises it made to lenders and default on $3.8 billion in debt Dec. 31 if its operating earnings this calendar year don't equal at least 13 percent of net debt, which subtracts cash on hand. The debt at issue is a credit facility secured by the company's Palazzo and Venetian casinos in Las Vegas and an attached mall and convention building.

A default could set off the company's collapse.

Las Vegas Sands said it has four options: It could boost earnings in Las Vegas, which likely would require big cost cuts and might result in layoffs. Or the parent company could cut spending on development around the world, raise financing to reduce the debt of the Las Vegas operations or contribute up to $50 million in capital to the Vegas operations, or a combination of all four.

As of December 2007, the company had $9.21 billion in long-term debt.

The company has an ace in the hole in the form of deep-pocketed founder and chief executive Adelson, 75, who with his wife Miriam Adelson, controls 67 percent of the company's shares.

In March 2006, Adelson raised $2.18 billion in cash by selling 180.8 million shares at $49.14 each. The Adelsons personally loaned the company $475 million this fall to avoid a funding crunch, and it is unclear how much cash the couple has left.

In an October interview with The Associated Press, Adelson said Las Vegas Sands was looking to raise $2 billion in debt financing from Asian banks to finish work on some Macau expansion projects.

The company also said last month that the Adelsons intend to participate in a capital raising program, along with an unnamed investment bank, but didn't reveal details.

In related developments, Las Vegas Sands said Friday it hired a new chief financial officer, CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. CFO Kenneth Kay, to start Dec. 1.

It also said officials from the Singapore government and senior executives from the resort developer met to discuss the completion of the proposed $1.4 billion Marina Bay Sands resort in Singapore amid continued concern about tightness in the credit markets.

Las Vegas Sands said those discussions included construction and marketing efforts to bring more conventions and exhibitions to Singapore.

"In light of recent turmoil in the global markets, I felt the need to personally reaffirm our commitment to the success of Marina Bay Sands," Adelson said in a statement Friday.

The Singapore government's support of the project "remains strong," he said, and he noted the casino could expand the number of table games to up to 1,000, from the original 600 planned.

The chief executive of Southeast Asia's biggest bank, DBS, on Friday told Reuters that Las Vegas Sands Corp. hadn't given signs of financing problems at its project in Singapore.

"There's been no default, no indication of default. The project is still going along," CEO Richard Stanley said. "I do expect there will be an integrated resort in Marina Bay in Singapore in 2010."

Morgan Stanley analyst Celeste Brown said Las Vegas Sands had never been in danger of defaulting on its loans in Singapore but that the increase in tables could make it easier to raise finances with the promise of higher returns.

"In terms of the Singapore default, we were never concerned with the Singapore credit facility, Las Vegas Sands' covenant issues are associated with its U.S. loans," she wrote in a note.

Shares in Las Vegas Sands fell 82 cents, or 10.5 percent, to close at $7.03 on Friday. On Thursday, the stock fell $3.81, or 33 percent, to $7.85 - more than 93 percent below the top end of its 52-week range, $122.96, which it hit Dec. 10 last year.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Las Vegas Sands: The Clock Is Ticking

I am really puzzled why the PAP government keeps reassuring us about the situation of LV Sands while all news and indicators have pointed to BAD conditions!

The only way to save LV Sands is to inject new fresh capital into it and this is unless SOMEONE BIG enough comes to the rescue! In times of this great financial turmoil, who in his sound mind would commit billions of dollars to bail LV Sands out? Singapore government's investment arm GIC or Temasek Holdings? Or could it be Singapore Government or its GLCs buying over the company Sands has which is tasked to develop the casino resort in Singapore?

Whichever way it is, IF, a very BIG IF (seems that it is quite possible actually!) LV Sands is to go down, would it be wise for PAP government to mobilize our country's GIC or any other GLCs to bail Sands Singapore out? It seems that it is inevitable that Sands will get into insolvency if no fresh capital or "WHITE KNIGHT" comes to rescue it.

Would it be foolish for a small nation like ours to increase our stake on this casino resort when the future is full of uncertainty? I do not see how we could get out of this mess right now unless the PAP government has more credible information to support their optimism in Sands completing the Marina casino resort ON ITS OWN!

Goh Meng Seng

Las Vegas Sands: The Clock Is Ticking

Sheldon Adelson’s baby, the Las Vegas Sands (LVS) (of which he’s a 64% owner) issued an 8K filing and auditor’s report in which it reminded us that if the company can’t obtain substantial capital by December 31, it would break several debt covenants. Should it break them, then we’d be in all-out equity destruction territory or whatever your definition of “raise a substantial doubt over the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” is….

Covenant Details

As I discussed in an earlier post, LVS must maintain at least a 20% ratio of either equity or rolling 12 months of operating income. The operating income side is providing break-even results at best, and all the anecdotal accounts from Las Vegas point to low traffic. Meanwhile, capital has been drained over the exhaustive (and utterly expensive) expansion of multiple resorts in the Cotai Strip in Macau, and the Marina Bay Resort in Singapore.

We got word last week that Singapore would work with Las Vegas Sands to get the funding needed to finish up the Marina Bay resort, but I estimate that between $2.5 and $3 billion is needed to both ensure consistent work on the construction in Macau and restore enough capital to meet 4th quarter covenants.

It’s not about whether Adelson can get a good rate on whatever capital is available out there. It’ll be a horrible rate with horrible terms, and he will likely have to give up more convertibles or dilutive equity rights. However, even when I throw in large margins of safety around cost of capital and operating earnings, I still see underlying property and asset values well above the current enterprise value of $12.3 billion.

Like Sands through the Hourglass…

The clock is definitely on, not just for the 4th quarter but also for all of 2009. Adelson absolutely must keep going full bore with construction on the Cotai Strip, or else he faces a possible loss of all land and in-process construction. It’s a script with all the drama of Vegas itself.

Disclosure: The author does not hold a position in LVS.

Translated from HK MingPao-US Les Vegas Sands in Financial Trouble

US Les Vegas Sands in Financial Trouble, Macao may be dragged
Debt at HK$70.2 Billion Development projects may be delayed.
7 Nov 2008

(Ming Pao) American listed Las Vegas Sands, the largest gaming and entertainment conglomerate in the world, has gotten into a financial crisis. According to a document submitted to US regulatory institution, its auditor has claimed that the company might have breached revenue-debt ratio limit set by the contracts' with its debtors. If the company is unable to get fresh capitals, it may trigger a chain of breaches on its debt obligations which may result in its debtors recalling back its loans. This raises substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. Sands has declared that it may have to put a few of its big development projects on hold, including those in Macao, for the time being. Sands stock price has dropped 22% to US$9.15 yesterday night. It has experienced a drop of 94% from its peak for the past one year.

Sands Macao business as usual

Sands Macao spokesman has made a statement late last night, indicating that it has not received any information of its parent company's financial woes and Sands Macao would continue business as usual. Macao Labor Union chief Mr. He Xin Guo has also indicated that they have not received any news about Sands' financial woes. However, there are already some rumors on Sands' financial woes in Macao's internet discussion forum but they did not provide any concrete evidence.

According to the document submitted by Sands to US regulatory body, by the end of 2007, Sands has accumulated up to US$9billion (about HK$70.2 billion). Some of Sands' debtors has set a limit on its revenue-debt ratio as a condition for their loans but its auditor has pointed out that Sands may not fulfill that requirement by the end of the fourth quarter of this year. This would result in Sands breaching the contracts and these debtors would have their legal rights in demanding early repayment of their loans. On the other hand, Sands may be forced to stop its development projects and this raises substantial doubts about the company's ability to continue as a going concern.

Looking into new capital injection

Sands has stated that it is working closely with its financial advisors to look into new capital injection plan. The company has also indicated that in the event that it fails to get new capital injection, it will seek to amend the loan contracts and appeal to its debtors to be temporarily exempted from that clause in the contracts.

Sands is the most aggressive gaming company in the world with numerous BIG developments of gaming projects in United States, Macao and Singapore. According to Bloomberg's estimates, the total investment in these developing projects amount to a total of HK$132.6 billions. According to sources, there is still a shortfall of HK$39billions in Macao's development. However, under the present circumstances of global liquidity crunch caused by the financial tsunami, Sands will definitely have difficulties in getting huge amount of loans from the banks. On the other hand, due to the tightening of travel permits for mainlanders to visit Macao's casinos by the central government, business in Macao's casinos has already been greatly affected.

Due to the difficulty in raising new capital, the biggest shareholder billionaire Sheldon Adelson has come up with HK$3.7 billions of new injection of capital into Sands last month. Other than this, there were reports of talks between Sands and Citigroup in seeking for HK$40.82 billion of fresh syndicate loans to finance loans repayment and the development of Macao's Sul Bright Way project. Moody's has downgraded Sands' long term loan by 3 grades while Standards and Poor has downgraded Sands by 1 grade to B+.

Earlier on, Sands has announced the sales of some of its properties, including part of Macao's Four Seasons Hotel ownership in a bid to solve its financial woes.

特权法查迷债并不可怕 可完善金融基建增信心

特权法查迷债并不可怕 可完善金融基建增信心
2008年11月8日

【明报专讯】立法会成立小组调查雷曼迷债事件，政府与银行公会近日积极游说议员勿引用《立法会(权力及特权)条例》(下称特权条例)。不过，我们认为，迷债事件所暴露的银行营运和监管漏洞，必须好好总结经验教训，而且透过立会小组引用特权条例调查此事，既有公信力，亦可弄清问题之所在，然后对症下药，完善香港的金融基建。这样一来，应不会削弱本港的金融中心地位，反而可以增加投资者及存户对银行与监管机构的信心。更重要的是，只有如此，才能彰显公义，令蒙受了损失的客户得回一个公道。

立会据特权法调查乃法治最高体现

政府和银行公会不想立会小组引用特权条例的理据，主要有下列两点。首先是妨碍银行处理雷曼事主的回购、赔偿事宜；其次，他们担忧传召银行家到立会接受质询，是开了坏先例，外国银行会质疑香港是否仍以法治为依据，甚至可能要重新评估香港的政治风险，不利本港作为国际金融中心的地位。

这两点其实理据薄弱。银行知道销售手法有问题，于理不合，甚至于法也有值得斟酌之处，银行才愿意回购，并与一些迷债事主和解，因此现在银行的做法，很大程度在保护一己名声，说立会调查会妨碍进程，只是推搪之词。另外，立会引用特权条例调查迷债真相，是本港法治的最高体现，目的在于建立一个更公平、公正和健康的营商环境，我们认为只会增强外间对本港法治的信心和信赖，有利于巩固本港作为国际金融中心的地位。至于银行家被传召到国会作供，并非没有先例，雷曼兄弟爆煲之后，其行政总裁富尔德(Richard Fuld)就被传召到美国国会一个委员会作供。

证监会金管局查自己无公信力

虽然政府强调证监会和金管局，已经分别就迷债事件展开调查，我们认为这两个机构的调查并不足够。首先，证诸过往经验，这两个机构的调查发现和结果，不会全部公开，显然未能满足社会对增加透明度的要求。其次，今次调查势必要涉及这两个机构在事件中是否有过失的问题。由他们“自己查自己”，明显存在利益冲突，他日公布的所谓调查结果，也难有公信力。

第三，当年的“一业两管”设计，被认为是导致迷债充斥的原因之一。事实上，现在证监会和金管局的调查，仍然是各自为政。例如关于银行是否以不当手法销售迷债，现在是先由金管局查明，认为成案之后，转交证监会处理，证监会收到个案之后，要“从上而下”重查一遍。这种架胁叠屋的调查法，说明证监会和金管局都是以一己角度处事，漠视整体大局。

因此，我们认为，立法会是调查迷债事件的最理想机构，因为立法会在事件中属第三者，最没有利益冲突，应可相对地客观去审视有关的证据，也最能得到公泷的信任。

雷曼所发行迷债系列，源自美国，但是这些所谓创新金融产品，在欧美国家，只会卖给机构投资者，不会卖给小投资者。在亚洲，新加坡和本港的小投资者最受影响。雷曼透过传统银行卖迷债给存款客户，已经长达5年，就算在雷曼出事之前的今年中，迷债系列仍有在本港发行，总共吸去了约170亿元资金，其中新加坡只有约 2000名受害者，本港则有数以万计的人受害。

雷曼迷债从包装、销售到监管等环节，其间起码牵涉雷曼与评级机构的关系、雷曼与分销银行的关系、银行如何要求员工推销迷债给全无投资经验的客户、监管机构为何视若无睹等，我们同意其间会涉及一些交易和商业秘密。正因为这样，就需要立会小组引用特权条例，传召相关人等和取得所需文件，才有可能查出真相，否则有关机构根本不会披露。

揭开错综复杂关系无特权法难成事

例如，据专家指出，迷债销售文件中表示以AAA 评级的证券抵押，而给予投资者的指引称AAA评级代表3年内破产机会为0.09%，然而，信贷风险方面的权威Dareel Duffie早已指出，若相关证券为CDO (债务抵押证券)，风险最少高出10 倍以上，反映该类产品不应以一般评级准则看待，即使看了销售文件的风险披露也不一定明白真正的风险。既然风险如此高，迷债为何会得到AAA评级？死抱以“ 披露为主”原则进行监察的证监会，为何没有察觉？立会小组若可以引用特权条例的权力，知道真相的机会肯定会大很多。

至于销售雷曼迷债的 19家银行，为何会卖高风险金融产品给一些跟了他们数十年的老客户，致使他们可能损失毕生积蓄，陷他们于“临老过唔到世”的彷徨险境，一直使人无法理解。如果银行不知道风险所在，卖迷债给客户，银行也是受害者，则银行就无必要阻止立会小组引用特权条例来调查。因此，究竟是什么巨大诱因，催动银行要求职员哄骗无辜的老客户？是丰厚诱人的佣金？还是有其他更大利益，相信只有借助特权条例，才有机会知道真相。

至于银行员工接到怎样的指令去销售迷债？他们遭到怎样的压力？金管局为何对银行的不当销售手法未及时制止？这些问题，都需要答案。

立会小组纵使可以引用特权条例，证诸过去的表现，相信立法会议员在运用有关权力时，会小心而负责任，另外他们使用权力方面，会受到公泷和社会整体监督，因此，担心所谓商业秘密会“扬到通街都系”，纯属臆测，毫无根据。

还事主社会一个公道制度自我完善良机

至于政府，近期一再宣扬10年前亚洲金融风暴之后，本港在金融基建方面做了大量工作，使本港在应对这次金融海啸更有把握。这些努力值得肯定。迷债毒害了大批投资者，整体社会承受了结果，真相大白不但还迷债事主一个公道，也是还整体社会一个公道。另外，这次事件已经引起国际关注本港金融和银行体制的监察是否完善，把事件摊在阳光下，然后谋求改善之法，可以增加外间对本港金融和银行体制的信心。

因此，让雷曼迷债真相大白，是本港金融基建自我完善的良机，处理得大公无私、光明磊落，同时从中汲取教训，切实改善，会赢得外间的肯定和尊重。容许立法会运用特权法例查迷债事件，是构建和巩固本港国际金融中心地位的机遇，而非家丑外扬。

Sands in touble, 美金沙告急

The following article is from Hong Kong Mingpao News. LV Sands seems to hit rock recently when its auditor "raises substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern".

I do not know whether this is being reported in Singapore as I am now currently in Hong Kong. But this is a very important news, not only to Macau, but also to Singapore.

The gist of this news is that the gearing of Sands is too high, so high that it has breaches the conditions set for some of its borrowings. This may trigger a domino recall of loans from various lenders.

Goh Meng Seng


美金沙告急 澳门受累
负债702亿 路琑发展项目恐暂缓
2008年11月7日

【明报专讯】全球最大的博彩及娱乐集团、美国上市公司拉斯维加斯金沙(金沙)陷入财困，该公司在提交给美国监管机构的文件中透露，核数师估计由于公司负债过高，以致违反了某些债务合约定下有关负债比率上限的规定，若未能成功集资，会触发该公司大量债务连环违约，可被债权人催缴还款，令人“怀疑公司能否持续经营”。金沙表示，可能要暂缓包括澳门在内的多项庞大发展项目。金沙昨晚在美国的股价一开市便急挫22％，跌至每股9.15美元，过去一年其股价已较最高峰暴跌了94％。

澳门金沙没收消息 照常营业

澳门金沙赌场发言人昨晚深夜表示，未收到任何涉及母公司财困的消息，澳门金沙赌场仍然照常营业。澳门职工联盟理事长何兴国亦表示，未收到金沙赌场出现财困的消息。不过，在澳门网上讨论区，已有一些网民流传对金沙财政表示忧虑的消息，但留言并无提供具体证据。

按照昨日金沙向美国证监机构提交的文件，截至2007年底，金沙的负债高达90亿美元(约702亿港元)。由于一些债项金沙与债权人定下了借贷条款，要求净负债对收入比率不能过高，但金沙核数师昨日指出，金沙预料到了今年第四季年结时，将无法符合有关规定，将导致公司违约，届时债权人有权要求公司提早还款。另外，公司亦可能被迫停止旗下的发展项目，以致令人“怀疑公司能否持续经营”(raises substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern)。

研新融资计划

金沙表示，正与财务顾问研究，希望可以有新的融资计划，公司又表示，如果未能成功筹集资金，将寻求与债权人修订贷款条款，申请豁免暂缓遵守。

金沙是全球发展赌博业最进取的博彩公司，该公司在美国、澳门、新加坡都有庞大的新赌场在发展中。“彭博资讯”估计，发展中项目的总投资额约1326亿元。有资料显示，澳门方面的投资还要投下390亿元。然而，在金融海啸下，全球信贷收紧，金沙势难取得银行大额融资。此外，近月随覑中央收紧内地人到赌场旅游的规定，澳门赌场的生意早已一落千丈。

由于难以集资，金沙大股东艾德森上月要自己斥资37亿元，向金沙注资。另外，有报道指出，金沙正与花旗集团等银行洽商，以寻求409.2亿元银团贷款，用作偿还债务，以及作为澳门路琑金光大道项目的发展资金。评级机构穆迪投资上月曾把金沙的长期债务评级降低3级，标普则把其评级降低1级至B+。

为了解决财困，金沙早前曾公布会出售部分物业套现，包括考虑出售澳门四季酒店的部分业权。

奥巴马获胜演讲全文

主题:奥巴马获胜演讲全文
作者:南海游侠 1:03pm 06/11/2008

奥巴马获胜芝加哥演讲全文
　 2008年11月05日

如果还有人对美国是否凡事都有可能存疑，还有人怀疑美国奠基者的梦想在我们所处的时代是否依然鲜活，还有人质疑我们的民主制度的力量，那么今晚，这些问题都有了答案。


这是设在学校和教堂的投票站前排起的前所未见的长队给出的答案；是等了三四个小时的选民所给出的答案，其中许多人都是有生以来第一次投票，因为他们认定这一次肯定会不一样，认为自己的声音会是这次大选有别于以往之所在。


这是所有美国人民共同给出的答案－－无论老少贫富，无论是民主党还是共和党，无论是黑人、白人、拉美裔、亚裔、原住民，是同性恋者还是异性恋者、残疾人还是健全人－－我们从来不是“红州”和“蓝州”的对立阵营，我们是美利坚合众国这个整体，永远都是。


长久以来，很多人一再受到告诫，要对我们所能取得的成绩极尽讽刺、担忧和怀疑之能事，但这个答案让这些人伸出手来把握历史，再次让它朝向美好明天的希望延伸。


已经过去了这么长时间，但今晚，由于我们在今天、在这场大选中、在这个具有决定性的时刻所做的，美国已经迎来了变革。


我刚刚接到了麦凯恩参议员极具风度的致电。他在这场大选中经过了长时间的努力奋斗，而他为自己所深爱的这个国家奋斗的时间更长、过程更艰辛。他为美国做出了我们大多数人难以想像的牺牲，我们的生活也因这位勇敢无私的领袖所做出的贡献而变得更美好。我向他和佩林州长所取得的成绩表示祝贺，我也期待着与他们一起在未来的岁月中为复兴这个国家的希望而共同努力。


我要感谢我在这次旅程中的伙伴－－已当选美国副总统的拜登。他全心参与竞选活动，为普通民众代言，他们是他在斯克兰顿从小到大的伙伴，也是在他回特拉华的火车上遇到的男男女女。


如果没有一个人的坚决支持，我今晚就不会站在这里，她是我过去16年来最好的朋友、是我们一家人的中坚和我一生的挚爱，更是我们国家的下一位第一夫人：米歇尔•奥巴马(Michelle Obama)。萨莎(Sasha)和玛丽亚(Malia)，我太爱你们两个了，你们已经得到了一条新的小狗，它将与我们一起入驻白宫。虽然我的外祖母已经不在了，但我知道她与我的亲人肯定都在看着我，因为他们，我才能拥有今天的成就。今晚，我想念他们，我知道自己欠他们的无可计量。


我的竞选经理大卫•普劳夫(David Plouffe)、首席策略师大卫•艾克斯罗德(David Axelrod)以及政治史上最好的竞选团队－－是你们成就了今天，我永远感激你们为实现今天的成就所做出的牺牲。


但最重要的是，我永远不会忘记这场胜利真正的归属－－它属于你们。


我从来不是最有希望的候选人。一开始，我们没有太多资金，也没有得到太多人的支持。我们的竞选活动并非诞生于华盛顿的高门华第之内，而是始于得梅因、康科德、查尔斯顿这些地方的普通民众家中。


我们的竞选活动能有今天的规模，是因为辛勤工作的人们从自己的微薄积蓄中拿出钱来，捐出一笔又一笔5美元、10美元、20美元。而竞选活动的声势越来越大则是源自那些年轻人，他们拒绝接受认为他们这代人冷漠的荒诞说法；他们离开家、离开亲人，从事报酬微薄、极其辛苦的工作；同时也源自那些已经不算年轻的人们，他们冒着严寒酷暑，敲开陌生人的家门进行竞选宣传；更源自数百万的美国民众，他们自动自发地组织起来，证明了在两百多年以后，民有、民治、民享的政府并未从地球上消失。这是你们的胜利。


我知道你们的所做所为并不只是为了赢得大选，我也知道你们做这一切并不是为了我。你们这样做是因为你们明白摆在面前的任务有多艰巨。因为即便我们今晚欢呼庆祝，我们也知道明天将面临我们一生之中最为艰巨的挑战－－两场战争、一个面临危险的星球，还有百年来最严重的金融危机。今晚站在此地，我们知道伊拉克的沙漠里和阿富汗的群山中还有勇敢的美国士兵醒来，甘冒生命危险保护着我们。会有在孩子熟睡后仍难以入眠的父母，担心如何偿还按揭月供、付医药费或是存够钱送孩子上大学。我们亟待开发新能源、创造新的工作机会；我们需要修建新学校，还要应对众多威胁、修复与许多国家的关系。


前方的道路会十分漫长艰辛。我们可能无法在一年甚至一届任期之内实现上述目标，但我从未像今晚这样满怀希望，相信我们会实现。我向你们承诺－－我们作为一个整体将会达成目标。


我们会遭遇挫折和不成功的开端。对于我作为总统所做的每项决定和政策，会有许多人持有异议，我们也知道政府并不能解决所有问题。但我会向你们坦陈我们所面临的挑战。我会聆听你们的意见，尤其是在我们意见相左之时。最重要的是，我会请求你们参与重建这个国家，以美国221年来从未改变的唯一方式－－一砖一瓦、胼手胝足。


21个月前那个寒冬所开始的一切不应该在今天这个秋夜结束。今天的选举胜利并不是我们所寻求的改变－－这只是我们进行改变的机会。而且如果我们仍然按照旧有方式行事，我们所寻求的改变不可能出现。没有你们，也不可能有这种改变。


因此，让我们发扬新的爱国精神，树立新的服务意识和责任感，让我们每个人下定决心全情投入、更加努力地工作，并彼此关爱。让我们铭记这场金融危机带来的教训：我们不可能在金融以外的领域备受煎熬的同时拥有繁荣兴旺的华尔街－－在这个国家，我们患难与共。


让我们抵制重走老路的诱惑，避免重新回到令美国政治长期深受毒害的党派纷争和由此引发的遗憾和不成熟表现。让我们牢记，正是伊利诺伊州的一名男子首次将共和党的大旗扛到了白宫。共和党是建立在自强自立、个人自由以及全民团结的价值观上，这也是我们所有人都珍视的价值。虽然民主党今天晚上赢得了巨大的胜利，但我们是以谦卑的态度和弥合阻碍我们进步的分歧的决心赢得这场胜利的。林肯在向远比我们眼下分歧更大的国家发表讲话时说，我们不是敌人，而是朋友……虽然激情可能褪去，但是这不会割断我们感情上的联系。对于那些现在并不支持我的美国人，我想说，或许我没有赢得你们的选票，但是我听到了你们的声音，我需要你们的帮助，而且我也将是你们的总统。


那些彻夜关注美国大选的海外人士，从国会到皇宫，以及在这个世界被遗忘的角落里挤在收音机旁的人们，我们的经历虽然各有不同，但是我们的命运是相通的，新的美国领袖诞生了。那些想要颠覆这个世界的人们，我们必将击败你们。那些追求和平和安全的人们，我们支持你们。那些所有怀疑美国能否继续照亮世界发展前景的人们，今天晚上我们再次证明，我们国家真正的力量并非来自我们武器的威力或财富的规模，而是来自我们理想的持久力量：民主、自由、机会和不屈的希望。


这才是美国真正的精华－－美国能够改变。我们的联邦会日臻完善。我们取得的成就为我们将来能够取得的以及必须取得的成就增添了希望。


这次大选创造了多项“第一”，也诞生了很多将世代流传的故事。但是今天晚上令我难忘的却是在亚特兰大投票的一名妇女：安•尼克松•库波尔(Ann Nixon Cooper)。她和其他数百万排队等待投票的选民没有什么差别，除了一点：她已是106岁的高龄。


她出生的那个时代奴隶制度刚刚结束；那时路上没有汽车，天上也没有飞机；当时像她这样的人由于两个原因不能投票－－一是她是女性，另一个原因是她的肤色。


今天晚上，我想到了她在美国过去一百年间所经历的种种：心痛和希望；挣扎和进步；那些我们被告知我们办不到的世代，以及那些坚信美国信条──是的，我们能做到──的人们。


曾几何时，妇女没有发言权，她们的希望化作泡影，但是安•尼克松•库波尔活了下来，看到妇女们站了起来，看到她们大声发表自己的见解，看到她们去参加大选投票。是的，我们能做到。


当30年代的沙尘暴和大萧条引发人们的绝望之情时，她看到一个国家用罗斯福新政、新就业机会以及对新目标的共同追求战胜恐慌。是的，我们能做到。


当炸弹袭击了我们的海港、独裁专制威胁到全世界，她见证了美国一代人的伟大崛起，见证了一个民主国家被拯救。是的，我们能做到。


她看到蒙哥马利通了公共汽车、伯明翰接上了水管、塞尔马建了桥，一位来自亚特兰大的传教士告诉人们：我们能成功。是的，我们能做到。


人类登上月球、柏林墙倒下，世界因我们的科学和想像被连接在一起。今年，就在这次选举中，她用手指触碰屏幕投下自己的选票，因为在美国生活了106年之后，经历了最好的时光和最黑暗的时刻之后，她知道美国如何能够发生变革。是的，我们能做到。


美国，我们已经走过漫漫长路。我们已经历了很多。但是我们仍有很多事情要做。因此今夜，让我们自问－－如果我们的孩子能够活到下个世纪；如果我们的女儿有幸活得和安一样长，他们将会看到怎样的改变？我们将会取得怎样的进步？


现在是我们回答这个问题的机会。这是我们的时刻。这是我们的时代－－让我们的人民重新就业，为我们的后代敞开机会的大门；恢复繁荣发展，推进和平事业；让“ 美国梦”重新焕发光芒，再次证明这样一个基本的真理：我们是一家人；一息尚存，我们就有希望；当我们遇到嘲讽和怀疑，当有人说我们办不到的时候，我们要以这个永恒的信条来回应他们：


是的，我们能做到。感谢你们。上帝保佑你们。愿上帝保佑美利坚合众国。


Barack Obama

The New Dawn of Young Era of CHANGE

I was just quietly confident that Obama would win the Presidency ever since I viewed his inspiring speeches when he fought Hillary Clinton for the Democrat's nomination of candidacy to the Presidential race.

With simple words and plain inspiring convictions he delivered his speeches. Its not about his race or color of his skin. Its just a plain passion in believing that the "Old Order" of the Republican's politics needs to be changed. He is simply a very convincing guy when he speaks on the rally stage. Even his victory speech was that simple and yet touching to the hearts of any human beings.

If we take a closer look at the Exit Poll results by CNN, we would notice that there is a clear trend in his support level. He has inspired the younger voters for the need of CHANGE so much that he won 66% of them to vote for him. And it seems to me that as the age of voters increased, the support for President Elect Obama tend to diminish.

It would mean that Obama walked into the White House mainly due to the stronger support of the younger generations. And it is indeed the Young that yearn for a REAL CHANGE, not only in America, but also in the World order.

It is the dawn of the New Era, not only the Obama Era but the new Era of the Young movement. Back in Singapore, I do also feel that there is a strong yearn for CHANGE in our younger generations. They are no longer feeling beholden to the past success of PAP back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They yearn for a REAL CHANGE in the political playing field. A TOTAL CHANGE from the paternalistic approach of the PAP government. A DRASTIC CHANGE from the Monopoly of Power within the political system. And the DREAM of CHANGE in having a REAL OPEN society where REAL ISSUES could be publicly debated in a truly independent media. If the traditional media like Newspaper or TV programs cannot provide that platform, the NEW MEDIA will take over the traditional media as the NEW PLATFORM OF CHANGE.

I can only PRAY FOR CHANGE for my beloved country, a change for a better system to our future generations. And I believe, just like America, our young citizens could be the REAL FORCE to effect this CHANGE for our country.

Goh Meng Seng

华联银行公开论坛

启事

我们邀请所有向华联银行或华联证券购买结构性的金融产品（不管是雷曼迷你债券摩根士丹利品尼高票据或美林银喜票据）的投资者踊跃参与华联银行的公开论坛。

无论你是否已经与华联银行面谈过，我们都邀请你出席这公开论坛。我们将要求金管局对华联银行所指派的独立专员Mr. Hwang Soo Jin 先生出席这公开论坛以便让他更了解和监督整个投诉过程。

我们已经为论坛设定了议程并且积极的邀请更多投资者参与此论坛。我们相信如果我们能有更多投资者参与这论坛，华联银行就不能对我们的要求置之不理并且会更审慎的对待所有投资者的申诉。

请把你的名字，向华联银行投资的相关结构性金融产品的资料，电邮和联络号码在2008年十一月七日之前电邮给WM小姐，电邮址：OSPLmailbox@gmail.com

由于我们必须和华联银行敲定所有细节，所以我们还没把论坛的日期订下来。一旦我们把所有细节都安排好了，我们将尽快通知你。

梅尔文启
Melvin
谨代表
华联银行/华联证券 投资者组别

芳林公园反结构金融产品集会改为每两个星期一次

由于考虑到每个星期集会会对大家和我们的义工们身心造成很大的耗损，所以陈钦亮先生觉得为了能保存实力做长期抗争，我们必须做出适当的调整。

从这星期起，我们将把芳林公园的集会改成每两个星期一次。这来临的星期六将没有集会，芳林公园的集会将由十一月十五日继续而接下来的集会将如下：

十一月十五日，星期六，五点到七点
十一月二十九日，星期六，五点到七点
十二月十三日，星期六，五点到七点
十二月二十七日，星期六，五点到七点

除了对误销金融结构产品的金融机构集会抗议以外，我们也将让其他演讲者利用这些集会来谈论其他对新加坡社会有关的议题。

敬请留意更多的布告。

香港信报选读：三A CDO为何会一文不值？

三A CDO为何会一文不值？ -- 迷宗

读张宗永前辈〈雷曼产品的魑魅〉，笔者获益良多。也想从企业／商业银行家的角度，用最浅白的方式详谈什么是CDO。

CDO 最普遍的译名是“合成抵押债务证券”。债务如何合成？这样的译名其实并没有说明它究竟是什么。还有，雷曼和星展都跟小投资者说它们只会投资于三条A的 CDO，小投资者骤听起来，它应该像超合金机械人或高达那般威猛吧？为何今天全变得一文不值？笔者在下面分享一个多年前的本地个案，是CDO的基本步，希望有助大家明白。

话说某集团录得巨额亏损，银行Call Loan，危在旦夕。投行想出经变身的 Mortgage Securitization 好桥，助该集团举新债还旧债，还有余钱落袋！不过，集团实际上只有几件二三级写字楼和商场，本已尽当予多间钱庄，租金现金流不够还债。这条合成桥好在哪里？
CDO基本步

首先，把物业转到一间表面独立的空壳公司（对，又是空壳公司），作价就由新造的一单一按揭票据贷款来支付，并偿还那几间旧有银行的债务。集团就此脱身，不再受债务纠缠。

之后，这批物业如何招徕新银行和投资者呢？先把草拟的贷款分为多个独立部分（Tranche A, B, C, D, E），各占不同比例的按揭成数和还款优先次序。比方说，物业估值100亿元，Tranche A 只是20亿元，有事要变卖物业时，得款要先还给A。换言之，按揭率是超低的20%，一旦有事，收楼变卖都不会亏本，之后找来评级机构来评一下，三条A唾手可得。这样既吸引新银行，又可降低借贷利率。

至于Tranche B可能是30亿元，有事的话排第二分钱，可得AA级。Tranche C 可是20亿元，排第三，BB级吧！之后是Tranche D、Tranche E等，如此类推，低至垃圾级。最后有所谓 Mezzanine Tranche ，跟股东资金差不多，不占抵押品，分钱排最后，没评级，但息率回报最高！世上就有很多财务机构，因内部和监管机构规定，一见评级就“落塌”；也有好息之徒，偏好垃圾或阁楼贷款来小赌怡情。

这样，本来快被旧债主充公的物业，忽然变为有评级的优质按揭资产。CDO的原理也一样，但它是由多个这样的借款人和相应的抵押品组成，即多个类似上述的产品打包在一起。抵押品也不一定是物业，可以是大家现在非常熟悉的次按（就跟我们本港这个案例差不多）、信用卡贷款组合、汽车贷款组合等。若要做三A的 CDO，就只买Tranche A的债务票据。不过，为何三A抵押品现在要变卖都变得不值钱？请看这个本地个案的结果。
三Ａ评级闭门造车

数字上，三A Tranche的按揭率是20%，二A者是37.5%（30/80），二B都只是40%。数是这样计，但不要忘记，那几个物业出租率就是不理想，收入不够，不然集团老早有钱还，何须找投行？任你财技如何，就算投行佬“晓飞”，只要集团的实质经营手法不改善，就改不了这些商场的命运；加上物业座落地点不佳，就算神仙难变。一句到底，三A评级是那些蛋头自欺欺人闭门造车之作，垃圾物业就是垃圾物业，无钱就是无钱！

在最初还息期，还没有问题，勉强过关。但一年多后，很多约定表现指标如出租率、现金盈余全部落空！即已是技术上违约（technical in default），要向债权人乞求 Waiver。到要开始还本时，当然就不够钱！Tranche A银行本想充公物业，受制于复杂的合约条款，不可单一行动；至于其他债主可不同意，只因他们收钱是排在A后面。你有三A又如何！于是，接着又是没完没了的债权人会议。最惨是很多债权人是海外基金，要够 Quorum开会，要达成协定真是难如登天！A银行不想再纠缠下去，心想不如变卖债权予别人离场。只是那没完没了的重组问题，令定价更加困难。还有那些“ 金融兀鹰”（distressed assets traders），他们四处飞，专收烂账图利，一见腐尸或奄奄一息的无助者，就俯冲而下，真是趁你病、攞你命！三A债都可压价至一毛两毛，是常见之事。这个案到最后，只因得助于沙士后本港经济复苏，有老外基金高价买下物业，大家才避过一劫。
合成的合成债

一个这样的借款人已经如此麻烦，CDO里面就有N个这样的借款人，有事起来就更烦人。CDO也是由一间独立空壳公司发行的票据，此公司不只投资于一单一债务资产那么简单，而是买了一大堆（一篮子，a portfolio of）类似上面所说的 Securitization资产。但又如何？投资者只是CDO持有者，而非直接持有那些抵押品，这些 Securitization资产可以是没有实物支持的，例如上述的信用卡贷款，或是任何有现金流的无形资产。最先进者，莫过于另一种CDO，即那些 CDO2。这合成的合成债，N次方后就真是厕所香，迷惑人于无形！更不要提那些投资于CDS的CDO，这种CDO不是持有实体债务，而是提供信贷保险，即收保费，承保例如雷曼之不倒，倒了就收一宗坏了的雷曼债务，CDO自己再去告雷曼收数。总之，千变万化，数之不尽，愈说只会愈乱！

现在次按“爆煲”，经济下滑，就算CDO本身投资的债务没事，按时还款，但价值已跌，你要卖给人都要被压价。就如借贷人即使继续供楼，但楼价已跌，可能已是负资产。如那CDO有雷曼成分，例如其中有由雷曼发行的债务或提供对冲，就更不堪想像了！