从另一个角度关注雷曼事件

主题: 从另一个角度关注雷曼事件 29/12/2008, 10:07 pm

原文：

八年的老人领域工作经验，说长不常，说短不短，却也让我接触了不少来自各个阶层的老人家，当中有受过高等教育的专业人士，也有完全不认识字的文盲老者。他们虽然贫富悬殊，但是，都有一个共同点，那就是，脑力已不如从前那么灵敏，他们需要我们给于更多的包容与关注，在一些重要的决策上，甚至需要我们花更多时间给于解释。

我所接触过的大多数老人家，都很善良，对人很信任。我也发现，很多乐龄中心里的职员和义工，和老人家的关系都很好，老人家也很愿意敞开胸怀和他们聊心里话。还有更重要的一点，就是这些老人家一旦信任你，连带你所介绍给他们的活动或是理财建议，他们都会觉得是可靠的、是好的、是没有问题的。不为什么，只因为他们信任你，只因为这些东西是你介绍给他们的。

由于本身也体验过不少这样的经验，所以，在我当乐龄中心主管的那几年里，我严厉要求自己和工作团队，在面对不知名的外人要求到老人中心来搞活动时，务必要提高警惕，严加把关，以便给老人家多一层额外的保护。

我拒绝过保健讲座，拒绝过投资理财讲座，因为，当时我自己都搞不清楚那是什么产品？我实在不愿意看到老人家因为看在我份上，因为相信我，认为我所介绍给他们的东西就一定没问题，而贸贸然下决定买下。我觉得我有责任为这些老人家严把第一关，以减少老人被骗的风险。
这次的雷曼事件，有人说是老人被骗了。其实，从上而下，从把关到完成购买产品，各方都有责任。而金融机构采用不当的销售手法已成事实，一些经理也被处分了。接下来，我更关注的是，如何安抚那些老人家？如何让他们继续过着心灵健康的生活？

我虽不是苦主，但却为之牵动情绪，看到那么多苦主都是老人家，每个人都有自己的苦处，真是一个比一个苦，看了真叫人心痛。一些文盲的老者，在面对外来压力和贪念的指责时，我相信，他们的内心是苦上加苦的。是的，不被理解是叫人难受和失望的。

钱没了，怎么办？绝望了，怎么办？心情跌落谷底了，怎么办？老人家如何自强自立，再坚强地站起来？这些，都是值得大家关注的。从事老人工作的辅导员、社工和义工们，此刻，也许需要做一些必要的跟进工作，给于这些长者们最大的心理扶持。

寄语受这次事件影响的老人家，现在开始做最坏的打算，即使所有的钱都没了，你还是会好好的活下去，会把这次事件，当成是上了一堂昂贵的理财课程，让你看清楚了很多以前所没有看到的事，以后，你将更能够为自己的事情做决定。

这个时候，上面那些温情牌的文字，对苦主们有帮助吗？现在，大多数的苦主，想要听到的，应该是一些专家的意见，以及如何帮助他们拿回那些钱的最有效方法。

最近，海峡时报详细说明了什么是结构性产品？但，到底有多少读者看懂了这一篇报导？

我向一位朋友咨询，他说：“我必须坦白告诉你，虽然我修读过法律、MBA、会计和投资管理，但是，那篇文章我看了三遍，都不能说我看懂了到底什么是结构性金融产品？”

这位朋友，也提供了以下的看法：

（1）结构性金融产品根本是一种高风险的投资。
（2）这种高风险投资对于这些要保本的老人家来说根本是不合适的。
（3）原来这些老人家只是要去存定存，却被银行的财务经理（relationship manager）的花言巧语，被误导成这些投资是利息比较高的定存。
（4）误导性的言语包括：
（a）这些产品类似定存
（b）保本
（c）风险和银行定存相比一样或者更低－要所有8间银行都倒闭才会出事。（事实是：只要一家银行倒闭这个产品就血本无归。）
（d）低风险
（e）适合老人家的退休金－可以保本，还可以赚取比较高的利息。
（f）英文的说明并没有一条一条的说明里头的内容－包括风险等等。

以上各点，只要有任何一个（a）到（f) 的说法成立，就可以确定银行误导了苦主。

所以苦主们应该做的是去做一个法律证明文件（affidavit)，和配合银行的调查，来说明在购买这些产品的时候，他们的确是被误导的。他们必须确保的是：

（1）就算银行愿意赔一部分，他们不放弃索偿的权利
（2）保留法律索赔的选项
（3）继续和律师保持联系

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

被早报修改后才刊登的文章：

关注雷曼事件中的老人们

（2008-11-05） ● 林宝珠

　　我在乐龄中心工作了8年，接触了不少来自各个阶层的老人家，当中有受过高等教育的专业人士，也有完全不认识字的文盲老者。他们虽然贫富悬殊，但是，都有一个共同点，那就是，脑力已不如从前那么灵敏，他们需要我们给予更多的包容与关注，在一些重要的决策上，甚至需要我们花更多时间给予解释。

　　这次的雷曼事件，有人说是老人被骗了。其实，从上而下，从把关到完成购买产品，各方都有责任。我以前也曾有银行要求我和他们联办投资讲座，说服老人们把卖公寓的钱投资于金融产品，我因为自己也不懂这类产品，担心老人们会因为信任我而投资，当下就拒绝了。同理，老人信任投资顾问的心理不应被滥用。

　　不过，亡羊补牢，多家相关的银行和金融机构也提出了，让62岁老人、只受小学教育而且证实受到误导的弱势投资群体，获得全额赔偿。接下来，我更关注的是，如何让应可获得赔偿的老人知情，并协助他们索偿，此外，不管是否获得赔偿，也需要安抚这些老人家，让他们继续过着心灵健康的生活。

　　我虽不是苦主，但却为不少老人苦主牵动情绪，现在虽然有些老人苦主的问题会获得全面解决，但仍有一些会蒙受损失。这些蒙受巨大损失的老人家如何自强自立，再坚强地站起来？这也是值得大家关注的。

　　从事老人工作的辅导员、社工和义工们，此刻，也许需要做一些必要的跟进工作，给予这些长者们最大的心理扶持。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

我欣赏这一篇文章：

早报网：知情同意权（2008-11-03） ● 幼吾

　　不少老人家和退休人士因受到金融风暴的冲击，投在银行的一生储蓄，遭到意想不到的巨额亏损，血本无归。本以为这老本，能让他们安度晚年，没料到会付诸东流，值得同情。

　　可是痛心之余，偏偏还有人责备他们贪心，没有做好功课，不假思索，就信任和依赖银行的投资顾问，贸贸然签下交易合约，把钱交给银行投资去。故投资者本身也应负起责任。

　　批评者也许尚年轻，还没活到把一生积蓄拿去“投资”的年龄而幸免于祸，没有切肤之痛，才会”事后孔明”!

　　和一些退休人士谈起此事，我了解他们的一般思维。他们平时克勤克俭，生活检点，不赌博，不奢侈，花钱量入为出，懂得积蓄，知道大富由天，小富由俭的道理。

　　既然有一笔老本，心想只要抓紧这笔是他们命根的老本不放，就有安全感，晚年也就无忧无虑了。他们以为，不管老本怎样处理，定期存款也好，投资回报也好，只要银行保证，那笔老本是不会亏损掉的。

　　何况银行职员那么好心，主动要帮他们赚得比定期存款更多的利润，既然老本可以增值,补贴生活费，亦无需单靠孩子每月的给零用钱来度日，活得也有尊严。说他们贪心，是说不过去的。

　　我以为，如果职员有事先告诫他们这种投资的利弊，除了多点回报外，还会有亏掉老本的风险，他们肯定三思而行，咨询家人，甚至望而却步！

　　当然事情发生后，互相指责是无补于事。究竟这些职员是否有详细向顾客解释，还是连本身也不完全透彻认识细节；只是把美好的一面告诉顾客，达到上头所指定的推销产品定额的目标，保住自己的饭碗，也可以赚佣金。

　　在现代医学，我们讲的是病人的知情同意权（informed consent）。凡是要为病人进行的医疗，包括大小手术，放射造影，穿刺或侵入性操作步骤的利弊，都得向病人一一解释清楚，如成功率，各种并发可能等等后才签名。一方面让病人知道究竟，二来避免日后医患诉讼。

我不知道投资顾问有没有像医生这样专业做法，对顾客采用这知情同意手段。顾客签了名并不代表知情同意，日后还是会有纷争和诉讼的。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

一个老人家告诉我说她很感动，因为她听到丽的呼声的主持人马大哥在空中这么说（大意）：“雷曼事件，如果人人都像林宝珠那样有爱心，懂得保护老人家，在前线拒绝金融机构人员向老人家售卖雷曼产品，那么就不会有那么多老人受骗了。”

很意外，我的早报交流版的文章被马大哥拿来讨论。再一次证明文字的力量。

很可惜，早报没有刊登全文。

其实文章在刊登之前，早报记者有来电告诉我说他需要编辑我的文章，因为太长了，但是会保留后面那些关于我的朋友所提供的专业意见。我说好的，我尊重编辑的决定。

岂料，第二天文章被刊登了，后面那个重要部分全部被删掉了。

第一次，文章在48小时内刊登；第一次，文章被删了那么多；第一次，我如此冷静没有致电报馆提出抗议，因为，上传了长达12页的意见，总理于20分钟内吩咐其秘书回函致谢并告知我说已经收到那些回馈了。

雷曼事件的结局如何？也许旁人都无法掌控，但是，在这件事情上，至少我努力过。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

老李说的话－从早报的引述

“他（李。。）认为解决方案必须公平。如果严格地从法律的角度来看，银行并没有错。银行是为了维护声誉及挽留顾客，而答应赔偿被误导的投资者。”
=====================================================

老李说这句话是大有问题的。纯粹从法律的角度来看，到底银行有没有错，必须由法庭来决定。他作为一个政府的高级领导人对于这样的法律问题先定下了立场，可以说已经在影响司法，妨碍司法的独立了。

也就是说，如果说这句话的人是一个普通人，那自然影响不到法庭。如果说这句话的人是一个律师，那只是因为他有可能会代表当事人所要表明的立场。（也就是说－代表银行的律师一定说银行没错，代表苦主的当事人一定说银行有错）。如果是法律系的教授，那只是一个学术的讨论。

但是，没有一个法官可以现在就说－银行没有错。这样的话，法官就失去了公平的立场，也就失去了判案的资格。因为当法官自己都已经有偏见了，还能期望他公平的判案吗？进而，，如果法官本身持有相关银行的股票，或者有亲属任职于相关的银行，都会因为利益冲突而失去审判这个案件的资格。

所以，法官一定不能对任何还没有经过终审（final trial ) 的法律案件发表谈话，说那一方有没有错。就算这个法官自己不是承审的法官，对任何案件发表谈话都有可能会造成不管是因为他和其他法官的私人关系，或引起社会舆论，而起到影响司法的效果。

所以大家会发现，从来不会有法官针对任何案件发表任何谈话。

同样的，作为政府领导人，尤其是像LKY这样的领导人，他的一言一行都可以影响到法官的判断。就算他心里认为银行在法律上没有错，这样公开的发表他的立场，可以说客观上，或者外表上，已经影响了司法，妨碍了司法的独立。

比较一下，台湾总统马英九在陈水扁的***案里头从头到尾没有说过陈水扁有没有***的话。原因就是，他自己要以身作则，谨守分际，不让政治影响司法。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

我想做到这一步大概能做的我们都做了。下来就看受害者自己要怎么做了？我估计有的人会鼻子摸摸自认倒霉。有的人会等待银行的结果。有的会期望政府把自己归类为vulnerable investor 然后得到一些赔偿。比较怕事的搞不好会觉得如果继续会得罪政府。

当然还有的会去打官司。我是觉得，如果有更多人打官司，而且通过集体诉讼，他们将会比较有机会得到赔偿。没有这个诉讼的压力在，估计银行给予他们的交待也是敷衍而已。

另外要注意的是香港那边的发展。我觉得这是很关键的，指标性的发展。如果DBS赔偿给香港人而不赔偿给新加坡人，或者说香港人集体诉讼成功了而新加坡人失败了，都会造成影响。

所以另外一个advice，就是看着香港那边的局势来作为参考。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

法律途径：

苦主们自动自发的组织起来去寻找律师来做集体诉讼，后续的动作就应该要依照律师的指示来做，包括如何跟银行交涉？提供什么资料？签署什么文件等。

没有律师的指点下自己去和银行交涉，搞不好一个不小心就签下什么放弃索赔的同意书，或者再一次确认了自己没有受到误导等法律证明文件。那就谁也救不了。

总归一句，这件事如果要得到解决必须要走法律途径，而走法律途径就需要专业的律师咨，几件事要做：

（1）affidavit －像陈钦亮做的那样，建议苦主们作出法律证明来说明当初自己是怎么被银行误导的？包括RM口头上的保证，银行的宣传，文件签署时候并没有把内容一条一条的说明，风险的问题也没有说明等等。尤其要说明当初签文件的时候被告知只是一个formality, 其实RM从来没有对里头的内容说清楚。基本上第一帖里的（a）to （f）的内容。

（2）组织苦主－把这些法律证明收集起来，就可以看得出当初银行的误导不是个别的RM的行为，而是系统性的。

（3）寻找律师进行集体诉讼（class action ) 也就是说－受害人不是个别的案例，而是一个群体。现在政府和银行想做的就是分化苦主，说有的人是无知，有的人是被个别的RM误导，但银行没有系统性的误导客户。这样子政府即保护了银行的利益（不必全体赔偿），也同时保护了政府的名誉（当初是有监管，只是个别的RM做坏）。所以苦主们一定要了解到这个时候就不能相信政府和银行的一面之词。

现在的关键就是－有没有律师敢接。接了以后有没有法庭敢判苦主胜诉。本来我觉得未必没有机会，但自老李表态了以后法庭上要赢大概就比较难。不过别忘了香港也有同样的官司。如果香港的苦主赢了而本地的苦主反而输了，那对新加坡的名誉也是损害，政府也不能不考虑这点。

所以官司还是要打－第一，有香港的前例，未必就一定输。第二，就算不能全胜，有官司的压力也会促使银行更好的考虑赔偿的问题。第三，就算最后还是法庭见，还是可以通过仲裁得到一些赔偿，未必什么都得不到。

还是那句话，打官司还有机会。不打什么都没有。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

香港金管局做了这么多，在媒体上都被大骂一顿。MAS再不积极一点，一对比就会造成政治问题。

For an investor in a first to default note, the relevant probability of default is the probability that any one of the referenced firms will default before the maturity of the note. Unlike a typical portfolio where having a larger number of issuers will lower the impact of a given issuer's default on the investor's return, having a greater number of issuers in a first to default credit-linked note increases the likelihood of default. 这段说明越多银行在这些结构性的产品后面风险越高

However, a general description of the structure of the notes and the risks of the underlying securities was found only on much more detailed reading. These products would indeed be difficult for the average investor to understand. 这段说明这些结构性产品对一般的投资者而言根本是无法理解的－所以银行根本是系统性的误导，而不是个别的rm。尤其要提到的是－这个和是否懂英文没关系。这些风险不管有没有大学学位，懂不懂英文，一般人都不会了解。对于老人家来说，如果RM连翻译那些英文的文字都没有，就更可以确认误导。

A key consideration in deciding whether such structured products should be marketed to retail investors should be whether the risks involved can be readily understood. Some structured products, whose risks are very difficult to understand, may never be suitable for retail investors. 这段说明这些投资产品由于风险高，又难以理解，根本不适合一般的小投资者，更别说是老人家的保本了。

Having a regulatory framework that mandates clear and transparent disclosure of risks would prevent a recurrence of what we are witnessing, while at the same time allow the market for structured products to develop in a sustainable manner. 这段说明了政府之前的失责，也要求政府加强这方面的管理。

作者－ By Oliver Chen & Anand Srinivasan。 Dr Chen is Director of the Master of Science in Financial Engineering programme at the NUS Risk Management Institute. Dr Srinivasan is an Associate Professor of Finance at the NUS Business School. 两位都是学术界在这方面的专家，他们的意见很好的说明了结构性金融产品的问题。。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

各方的法律责任：

这明明是一个很纯粹的法律问题－就是合同里头的 “误导”。
银行要负的是法律责任。
政府的责任就是一个监管不力的问题。政府要负的是政治责任，可是政府没有责任赔偿。赔偿是法律责任。
如果用毒奶粉来比喻。原来中国政府里头的检测是没有检验三聚氢胺的。所以都放行。现在发现厂商在里头加了三聚氢胺，虽然政府之前不知道，但能够说没有监管不力的责任吗？

政府不会拿钱赔偿给买三鹿奶粉的家庭。但中国政府的官员因此而丢官，就是一种政治责任。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

连DBS自己都承认误导性的销售发生了, 而且也正在承担法律责任作出赔偿。内部也惩处了作出误导性销售的RM。
值得注意的是－ DBS并不是在 “不承认错误的前提”下作出赔偿。而是承认了错误－ inappropriate sales, 而作出了赔偿。
还有－被赔偿的投资者并不是因为他们是那种“不懂英文，教育程度不高”的弱势投资者（vulnerable investors), 而是纯粹是因为银行作出了误导性的销售。

旁观者还要说是苦主咎由自取吗？

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

法律上，个别职员的mis representation 就是银行的mis representation.

职员的错就是企业的错。在法律上企业是不能逃避责任的。就好比巴士公司的司机因为疏忽撞死了人，巴士公司不能说那不关我的事。
当然，个别职员的mis representation 就意味着每一个投诉都必须个案处理，一个一个来调查。如果是系统性的mis representation, “宣传手法不妥, 印刷材料不实, 理财顾问没接受正确训练”，那就不必个别处理，全部都要赔了。

所以，虽然个别职员被纪律处分，赔偿的是银行。

但问题是谁来调查银行的责任呢？
我觉得是次风波发生前涉及误销的银行责任最大，但事发后的处理应该由金融局承担较大的责任，特别是更直接参与个案的调查，而不只是监督银行的调查。

如果都由银行自己来调查，那就是一种“球员兼裁判”。能够让犯错的银行自己调查自己吗？这样的调查结果不必想也知道一定是对银行比较有利。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

金管局就算现在再出手，也已经晚了。
一向来政府都以Nanny自居，要求人民给予他们充足的信任，同样的对价，就是人民不去支持反对党，或者默许他们打压反对党。

这次雷曼事件让人民发现原来这个NANNY也有照顾不周的时候。如果这次lehman的事件政府能够尽早出面解决，而不是像现在一样拖拖拉拉，还有苦主需要到芳林公园去自救吗？

这搞不好是第一张骨牌，从此以后民众会发现与其什么都来等待政府来出面，大家要自己组织起来自救也好（如lehman事件），或者争取自己的权益（如serangoon garden ).

在这样的心理要求下，还需要这个NANNY吗？还能够让这个NANNY像以前那样搞吗？

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

政府的失责，负的是政治责任，不是法律责任。也就是说－政府再失责，也没有赔偿的义务。要负责赔偿的是银行。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

雷曼事件，是一个法律问题。政府的政治责任是未来要支付的，我现在关心的是误导了投资者的银行不能就这么愚弄投资者。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

我想雷曼是毒药这种说法是无法证明的。虽然事实证明这些结构性的金融产品不应该提供给个人投资者（retail investor ) ，但如果直接说是毒药那肯定就把政府陷于那种－既然明知是毒药你怎么不监管的困境。

所以政治上和法律上比较可行的就变成误导性销售。现在只能够争取的是这个误导性是系统性的（systemic ), 也就是说－银行从头到尾不管在对RM的培训上，在对外的沟通上，在行销的手法上，都具有误导性，而不是RM的个别行为。

只要能够建立这个误导性是系统性的，那就不必一个一个的案例来打官司，就可以集体诉讼。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

雷曼是AAA评级和系统性的误导没关系。

误导是没有说清楚背后的风险。或者说－第一帖之前举的（a）到（f）的话。就算雷曼是AAA，还是误导。因为minibond 不等同于定存。就算雷曼是AAA也没关系。

现在就看当事人怎么去操作了。我担心的是他们现在被报纸误导，以为打官司是行不通的。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

大家一起来分析海峡时报的这一篇文章：

其实这个编辑说得没错，打官司当然是耗时耗利的事。但其中他的论点说－新加坡的银行都已经雇佣了最好的律师行来帮助他们。那言下之意，是第一流的律师都被银行雇佣了，所以投资者要告银行很难，又是否可以这样解读：

（1）只能找次等的律师。

（2）第一流的律师都没有原则，都帮有钱的银行服务

（3）以后凡是个人和公司打官司，既然都找不到好的律师，那干脆别想。

那如果是这样的话，就太可怕了。依此推论，那以后穷人就算被有钱人欺负了，被公司欺骗了，也别想讨回公道了？因为好的律师都被有钱有地位的人或者公司请去了。能代表穷人的或者一般人的都只能是次等的了。

看官们，是不是这样解读呢？

Suing banks not that easy

It's a complicated legal path if investors choose to go to court

By Lee Su Shyan, Assistant Money Editor 26-11-08

WHEN investors lose money after buying ill-fated investment products, they often contemplate taking the bank or perhaps a financial adviser to court.

They want redress; they want justice; most of all, they want their money back.

They may be inspired by popular television courtroom shows which often depict the victory of the small man over the big guns.

Sadly, real life is a bit different. It is more complicated, costs a lot and takes a heck of a lot more time to get a result.

Since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, reports have emerged that investors overseas are gearing up to sue the banks which sold Lehman-linked products.

So far, these cases have yet to go to court in the United States so the likelihood of success is hard to assess.

In Singapore, it is not known if any disgruntled investor has actually filed a lawsuit yet. Unhappy customers have been *** a beeline for lawyer Leonard Loo, who has been holding sessions to advise investors on their legal options.

He told The Straits Times that with 'unity in numbers', legal costs are shared, and that it may be possible to identify a certain pattern of selling behaviour among the banks.

Such a lawsuit requires only a 'bit more effort' than a normal civil action taken out by one individual, he says.

But other lawyers are less sanguine. If investors think proving they were misled and getting their money back will be a walk in the park, think again, they say.

In Singapore, there is no legal procedure to conduct a so-called 'class action' lawsuit, as is the case in the US.

However, it is possible that one or several litigants may proceed as a test case.

This was seen in the Raffles Town Club saga where some 5,000 members banded together, after discovering that the 'exclusive' club they had joined had a whopping 19,000 members.

But in their case, their circumstances were roughly similar, which made it easier to take out a combined lawsuit. They had received the same marketing material touting the privilege of belonging to an exclusive club.

With Lehman Minibonds and other structured products, the selling process varies from investor to investor rather than being a standard selling pitch via a pamphlet.

One relationship manager could have said: 'Don't worry. It is capital-guaranteed.' Another might have warned: 'It's safe, but of course it depends on how much confidence you have in xyz company.'

Equally, the investor's circumstances range from the elderly widow who is illiterate, to the sophisticated investor who is familiar with other structured products.

Each investor would be willing to live with different degrees of risk.

So, clubbing together to sue is going to be complicated. On the other hand, going it alone entails substantial costs.

The opposition is stiff. The banks in Singapore all employ the top legal eagles to advise them.

If these top legal firms are excluded from the equation, how far will the litigant get, with the help, for example, of the one-man firm Tan Ah Kow who has only limited resources?

Aside from these practicalities, supposing the lone investor is determined to take on the bank, are the legal merits in his favour?

Since such investments are based on a written contract, the investor could try to set aside the contract by claiming misrepresentation or something known as non est factum, which simply put means 'I did not understand what I was signing or 'what I signed is radically different from what I believed it was'.

Alleging misrepresentation could mean, for example, that the relationship manager promised it was a capital-guaranteed product when in fact it was not.

Or it could be that the investor thought for some other reason that it was a capital-guaranteed product - when it wasn't - and signed the contract.

Many of these contracts contain reams of fine print. The investor is asked to acknowledge that he has read and understood the terms and conditions. This is likely to exclude any oral representations made - verbal claims made by the relationship manager, for example - once the written contract is signed.

To succeed in these circumstances, it is likely that only the elderly folk and the illiterate will be able to argue that they did not understand what they were buying and were misled.

The prospects look poor for sophisticated investors, say lawyers.

Another legal hurdle to cross is that much of the evidence is likely to be oral, whereas written evidence would produce a much stronger case.

But not many investors would be able to produce written or taped evidence of conversations with their relationship manager. Such legal hurdles are the reason that the authorities are recommending investors try to settle with the banks rather than resorting to the courts.

If investors cannot resolve their differences with the bank, the next step for them is to head for the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec) for another go at resolving the case out of court.

At Fidrec, the bank is bound by the findings of the dispute resolution body but investors are not.

This three-step dispute resolution process has been put in place by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to handle complaints over mis-selling. Only if all these routes fail should investors go to the courts, MAS advises.

But look at the Raffles Town Club legal saga which spanned some four years.

One would think it was hardly worth the effort. But one of those club members involved said: 'I would do it all again. We persevered and we got justice.'

So don't bet on investors taking their losses lying down. Even though the chances of winning may be low, and even though a legal battle is draining both emotionally and financially, many investors may still sue, just to make their point.

It won't always be reason and good sense that wins, when it comes to irate investors determined for their day in court.

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

这个编辑说对的部分：

They may be inspired by popular television courtroom shows which often depict the victory of the small man over the big guns.

Sadly, real life is a bit different. It is more complicated, costs a lot and takes a heck of a lot more time to get a result. （打官司要花钱花时间，这些都对）

还有这部分：

Many of these contracts contain reams of fine print. The investor is asked to acknowledge that he has read and understood the terms and conditions. This is likely to exclude any oral representations made - verbal claims made by the relationship manager, for example - once the written contract is signed.

To succeed in these circumstances, it is likely that only the elderly folk and the illiterate will be able to argue that they did not understand what they were buying and were misled.

The prospects look poor for sophisticated investors, say lawyers.（但要注意的是，除了illiterate 文盲和 sophisticated investors，还有第三种类型，就是受过教育的人但不懂投资的人）

Another legal hurdle to cross is that much of the evidence is likely to be oral, whereas written evidence would produce a much stronger case.

But not many investors would be able to produce written or taped evidence of conversations with their relationship manager. Such legal hurdles are the reason that the authorities are recommending investors try to settle with the banks rather than resorting to the courts.

可是问题不在看那些fine prints, 而在于苦主们在当时的情况下是否可以合理的认为，苦主们是相信了
RM的说法而不去看这些fine prints. 所以从纯粹的法律角度来说当然不会容易，但法庭可以从合理化的角度来判定苦主们是被误导。

所谓 “合理”reasonableness, 在法律上可以成立的。就是一般情况下，在苦主相信银行的情况下，在苦主们历来和银行打交道的情况下，都不会去看这些fine prints.

本来打官司本来就没有“包赢”的事。海峡时报的编辑至少说得比早报的客观，最后这一段话：

So don't bet on investors taking their losses lying down. Even though the chances of winning may be low, and even though a legal battle is draining both emotionally and financially, many investors may still sue, just to make their point.

It won't always be reason and good sense that wins, when it comes to irate investors determined for their day in court.

还算有点良心。。。

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

The opposition is stiff. The banks in Singapore all employ the top legal eagles to advise them.

If these top legal firms are excluded from the equation, how far will the litigant get, with the help, for example, of the one-man firm Tan Ah Kow who has only limited resources?

(所以个人和银行打官司就没机会了？因为好的律师都被这些银行雇佣了，只有次等的律师才能帮个人打官司？）

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

Since such investments are based on a written contract, the investor could try to set aside the contract by claiming misrepresentation or something known as non est factum, which simply put means 'I did not understand what I was signing or 'what I signed is radically different from what I believed it was'.

Alleging misrepresentation could mean, for example, that the relationship manager promised it was a capital-guaranteed product when in fact it was not.

Or it could be that the investor thought for some other reason that it was a capital-guaranteed product - when it wasn't - and signed the contract.

（这就是苦主们有case 的地方。如果能够证明银行这么做，那就是“误导性”销售）

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

Many of these contracts contain reams of fine print. The investor is asked to acknowledge that he has read and understood the terms and conditions. This is likely to exclude any oral representations made - verbal claims made by the relationship manager, for example - once the written contract is signed.

（这时就需要法庭来决定，在合理的情况下是不是该相信苦主们的说法，也就是，口头上他们是被误导了，而且由于他们相信口头的承诺，所以他们没有，也看不懂，那些文字的合同）

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

To succeed in these circumstances, it is likely that only the elderly folk and the illiterate will be able to argue that they did not understand what they were buying and were misled.

The prospects look poor for sophisticated investors, say lawyers.

（如果不是文盲，又不是那种资深的投资家，该怎么办？这些人才是大多数吧。到底sophisticated investors该怎么定义？念过书就算？还是要有大学文凭，还是需要MBA，还是说是那种有好几百万身价的？）

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

我很疑惑，为什么第一流的律师都被银行雇佣去了？而让另一方一开始就处于劣势，我们是否要质疑律师这个行业的规则？

律师公会是受律政部（ministry of law) 管理的，是否可以从政治上要求这个部做得更好？

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

（新加坡）新明日报 (2008-12-13)

银行不赔钱女子怒自杀

　　（综合电）老公烧炭自杀，遗下500万港币（近100万新元）却买了雷曼迷债，银行拒赔，香港女子3料自杀！

　　女子幸被救活，儿子也鼓励母亲要生存下去。

　　雷曼苦主林炎玉（45岁）逼到自杀、爆血管……前晚在香港牛头角汽车内图以死控银行的寡妇，她留下的九页遗书中，透露变成"雷曼废纸"的500多万元，是丈夫自杀留下的"安家费"，原本用来给独生子供书教学，没料一夜化灰。

　　昨晚其就读中六的儿子以亲切字句鼓励母亲："妈，您的生命绝不只数百万，请留下来抱孙…"

　　丈夫自尽留保险金 '糊里糊涂　全买雷曼'

　　林妇在遗书中透露，她不敢轻易动用亡夫自尽留下的保险金，平日节衣缩食，她"希望守着丈夫留下的金钱"，把该笔65万美元保险金做长时间的定期，希望用高息维持生活。

　　06年，银行职员通知她到银行办理。林在遗书内称，职员以"如何如何稳健……"，去游说购买与定期"差不多"的雷曼迷债。她对投资毫无经验，就糊里糊涂签下文件。

　　车内三料自杀

　　至雷曼事件爆发，林曾向银行投诉销售手法，可是，她于上月28日收到银行书面回覆，指"银行职员并无不当行为"理由，拒绝退款要求。前晚11时许，她独自到住所楼下停车场，在亡夫的汽车内仰药、割脉及烧炭三料自杀，还在车头内外张贴九页遗书。

　　香港千名苦主昨日也发动历来规模最大、历时5个半小时的抗争行动，怒轰政府和银行，游行队伍更一度冲击银行

阿珍 年龄 : —— 注册日期 : 08-12-26 帖子数 : 382 地点 :

转自陈钦亮网站(自杀、理解、开解、扶持。。。。)

Friday, December 12, 2008
SCMP:Troubled minibond investor attempts suicide

13 Dec 2008Clifford Lo A widow who invested more than HK$5 million in Lehman-related investment products was rescued from a smoke-filled car in which she had cut a wrist and ignited charcoal, police said.

She had left a note on the windscreen of the vehicle, in a Ngau Tau Kok car park, saying: "Murder for money."

Last night, the woman, 45, was recovering at United Christian Hospital, where she was listed as stable.

Her apparent attempted suicide was discovered at 11.37pm on Thursday when an attendant at the car park, in Chun Wah Road, saw the vehicle and called police.

She was found unconscious, bleeding from her right wrist, according to police. Charcoal burning on a tray was also found.

The housewife reportedly said in a seven-page letter that the money had been left to her by her husband, who had died in 2005, and it had originally been invested in a Bank of China fixed deposit to support her and her son. But she said she had been persuaded to invest in Lehman Brothers-backed investment products. A letter dated November 28 from the Bank of China, indicating that the sale of investment products to her had not been deemed to involve anything inappropriate and that the bank would not buy back her investment product, was also found.
Saying in her letter that "she feels desperate" and "I am now extremely terrified", the woman signed off with "I have given up".

She also said in the letter that she had been suffering from depression and needed to take sleeping pills every night since her husband passed away, and the Lehman Brothers failure had made her life even more painful.

Posted by Tan Kin Lian

8 comments:

Wayangnologist said...
this is very sad news i'd have to admit

theres still a world of difference between Life and Material Wealth

not all can see thru that in midst of anguish and confusion and especially desperation which i have been trying to warn against

11:32 PM

Anonymous said...

I have thought of suicide as well. The way MAS and government have acted in not helping me, I feel really depressed. Each time I see the words UOB Kay Hian I have much resentment and depression that I have lost the family's life savings. If it goes on this way and I do not get back the money, I can't face the family and subject them to difficult life ahead. Worst, I have no regular job now. It only takes me some courage to kill the children and end my life with my wife. Never felt so miserable in my life. Now I understand what depressing life a 40+ has when there's no job and money but full of life stress.
If we end our life, I will make it clear we will return to haunt UOB Kay Hian and those responsible for minibond.

9:18 AM

Anonymous said...
9.18 am

Don't commit suicide. It needs more courage to face death than to face life. Use that courage to face life, unless it is not within your control anymore.

8:14 PM

Anonymous said...
9.18 AM

I can feel how you are feeling now, as I am also in the same situation. However,if you are gone now, the FIs won't feel bad. You must transform your anguish into energy to fight. Not only for yourself and your family, but against your enemy who had put you in this agony.

8:05 PM

Anonymous said...
9.18am
Don't do anything rash to harm yourself or family as this is just *** it too easy for all the guilty parties responsibile. Hang in there and we will see justice. God will trumple over the force of darkness, just give him time.

10:33 PM

tkh said...
9.18am & 8.05PM
Pls be strong and if you are unable to handle pls seek medical help if you are having problem coping with the stress and having problem sleeping at night. Some have done so. Some have to “force” themselves to sleep by taking the medication from their doctor, so that they can handle the routines in the day.

This is a list of useful phone numbers that I have found from the web :

Samaritans of Singapore (SOS. 24 hrs) 1800-221-4444
Singapore Association for Mental Health Helpline 1800-283-7019
Care Corner 800 Hotline (in Mandarin, 10am-10pm daily) 1800-353-5800
Touchline Mon-Sat (10am-10pm)(for 13 to 25 year olds) 1800-377-2252
BABES (For teenage girls facing pregnancy crisis) 1800-833-6666
Pregnancy Crisis Service Mon-Fri (9am-5pm), Sat (9am-1pm) 6339-9770
Association of Women for Action and Research Helpline (AWARE) Mon-Fri (4pm-10pm) 1800-774-5935
National Family Service Centre (FSC) Helpline 1800-2255-372
SENIORS helpline (for older persons and their care-givers) 1800-555-5555
TOUCH Caregivers Centre 1800-352-1622
SAGE helpline Mon-Fri (9am-5pm), Sat (9am-1pm) 1800-3538633
Alcoholics Anonymous 6475-0890
Eating Disorders Helpline - Tel: 6345-3435 (10:00am - 4:00pm Phone Mail Mon-Fri

Pls take care.

11:11 PM

Anonymous said...
You should not give up your life and make your love ones suffer even more! You should use your anguish and anger and turn it into righteous action and anger against those who have brought about your present situation. Giving up like this will only benefit those who have caused all these unto you. They can then say case closed and lets move on and more golden years etc.

12:12 AM

Anonymous said...
Dear 9.18am,

I understand that you must be very pain now as those money are your hard earn money. When all the money gone, it make us feel angry,hopless and depress.
I belive there are many people here share the same feeling as you.

Thus, share everyone feeling together.You are not alone here. There are TKL and many investors here stand together with you. To support you and to share your pain together.

Pls remember that you are not alone. We all are here with you.