It can be true, but not until realization. The banks should be able
to fulfil their obligation to those fix depositers. Unless given a
mature of deposit of the same day whereby all depositers withdrew
their money, then the bank may have problem.
However, I believe the Banks had calculated the risk, get
approval from MAS and is still able to pay any fix depositer upon
their maturity.
Did banks "fulfil their obligation to those fix
depositers" ?
Certainly, the fallen angel has no clue of the events that have
transpired in Singapore in the repeat daily ritual of polluting the
Speaker's Corner with thoughtless mischief.
The issue in this thread concerns the toxic bonds which several
Singapore financial institutions misled Singaporeans to subscribe
to - is there any reference made to any other financial
instruments available for investments for Singaporeans ?
Hong Kong investors have received their compensation - what
about the interests of those Singaporeans who fell easy prey to the
high pressure misleading guidance employed by the investment
advisers from local financial institutions ?
I think this is a part of greed, nothing to do much with
democracy, a greed of capital. Under the free financial trade,
whoever you are, when you invest, you take the risk and the gain.
It is very much a personnal beholden situation. You are free to put
your money anyhwere, but with your eyes open. That goes the same
way as today communism or any other socialist or militant rules,
and worst it that some of this system are so rigid that the
distribution of wealth is totally out of the scope, everything is
being control and kept by their rulers/dictators.
Yes, one is responsible for one's actions when fall prey to a
con-man.
Should one be responsible for one's actions
when one is misled by a financial institution that has license
to provide sound financial services ?
If there is no wrong done to Singaporean investors, it is
surprising that a report surfaced on 7 July 2009
that - Singapore on Tuesday suspended 10 financial
institutions for improperly selling credit notes linked to the
collapsed US investment bank Lehmann Brothers. The bans would range
from six months to two years starting on July 1 and would only be
lifted when the central bank "is satisfied with the measures they
have put in place," the Monetary Authority ofSingapore
said
Obviously, the fallen angel missed out on this fact that the
financial institutions were penalised but the majority of
Singaporeans who have lost their hard earned monies to the
ingenious misinformation spread by these institutions.
Has it nothing to do with democracy ?
Besides missing out the facts of events that transpired, the
fallen angel has also missed out the essence of the thread - that
Hongkongers have largely got a positive response from their
financial institutions that refunded their investments -
as result of the very public and very vocal
demonstrations towards their financial institutions.
Singaporeans have largely been left with their hands empty,
while the Government worked out a cosy deal with the financial
institutions - even when these institutions have to handle a claim
of approximately 10,000 investors whom they had misled.
Was it a general run on the financial institutions due to a
general loss in confidence - as suggested by the fallen angel in
the first response - or is this about the interests of the 10,000
odd investors who were misled ?
