Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 46

Thread: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

  1. #21

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by weiconghon View Post
    I said in a fit of anger. My statement seem sweeping. But I just can't stand those bankers who behave in this way. Retirees are losing their hard earned money and yet....

    Maybe there are really kind angelic bankers who help people to invest their money diligently, go through all the risks in the prospectus and willing to take a small commissions for their good effort.
    what evidence do you have regarding immoral bankers?

    what the heck do you care about retirees losing money anyway?Are you a retiree?

  2. #22

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Kinda sweeping generalisation, isn't it? Not all bankers profited from old folks.

  3. #23

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    That assumes they conned people.

    Do you have proof?

    Did the people who bought high-risk investments read the fine print? If not, who can they blame? If they did, it would mean they knowingly accepted the risks, so can they blame the banks for selling them the risky products?

    I find the whole petition over the Lehman high notes saga rather sad on many fronts. Of course, it's sad for the people who lost money. But also sad that they don't want to take individual responsibility, that they believe MAS or the banks (who were just distributors for Lehman) should compensate them for their losses on a product they bought willingly.

    It's sad they still act like they live in a nanny state, which of course reinforces the notion that this should always be nanny state.

    That the investors claimed to be ignorant of the risks will not likely hold water in a court of law. It's always caveat emptor. And so the claim that they were conned or duped is very difficult to sustain without any written evidence to the effect.

    Frankly, I think "conning", even if it occurred, would be the responsibility of the financial institutions and not the specific individuals.



    Quote Originally Posted by weiconghon View Post
    http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_286194.html

    Unbelievable! After conning people of their money, these bankers are still worried about maintaining their rich lifestyle.

    To them I say, be happy with what you have for what you have is a result of what others have lost.

    Extracts:
    But now that she has a hefty mortgage on a new apartment in District 10, she is thinking of selling a few sparklers so that she can comfortably sustain her monthly loan payments, as well as her 'expensive addiction to Gucci and Prada'.

    He has ditched plans to buy a BMW 7 to replace his Audi. He will also buy 'only second-hand watches' and 'not indulge in thousand-dollar wines now'. Hundred-dollar wines will do, he mused.
    Last edited by waileong; 6th October 2008 at 11:37 AM.

  4. #24

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    he assumed that every single banker in the article cons people.

    based on his demographic, that's everyone in the article. as a representation sample of the population, is that not ALL the bankers?

    Nope, that's not my intention.


    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    or is he a personal friend of all of them that he knows that he cons people?
    Nope, I don't have a personal banker friend.

  5. #25

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    what evidence do you have regarding immoral bankers?
    Nope,I don't have evidence. But looking at the current situation now, don't you think it tell something? If there is no issue on this, why the sudden article?

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    what the heck do you care about retirees losing money anyway?Are you a retiree?
    Nope, I'm not a retiree. Just feel unjust.

  6. #26

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by swampthing View Post
    Kinda sweeping generalisation, isn't it? Not all bankers profited from old folks.
    Yes, its a sweeping statement. I apologize.

    Yes, not all profit from old folks. Some profit on non old folks.

  7. #27

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by eosdigital View Post
    Is this sour grapes at upper class singapore?
    Nope, no sour grapes.

    I believe one should live his or her live with certain core values no matter if you are rich or poor.

  8. #28

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    That assumes they conned people.

    Do you have proof?

    Did the people who bought high-risk investments read the fine print? If not, who can they blame? If they did, it would mean they knowingly accepted the risks, so can they blame the banks for selling them the risky products?

    I find the whole petition over the Lehman high notes saga rather sad on many fronts. Of course, it's sad for the people who lost money. But also sad that they don't want to take individual responsibility, that they believe MAS or the banks (who were just distributors for Lehman) should compensate them for their losses on a product they bought willingly.

    It's sad they still act like they live in a nanny state, which of course reinforces the notion that this should always be nanny state.

    That the investors claimed to be ignorant of the risks will not likely hold water in a court of law. It's always caveat emptor. And so the claim that they were conned or duped is very difficult to sustain without any written evidence to the effect.

    Frankly, I think "conning", even if it occurred, would be the responsibility of the financial institutions and not the specific individuals.
    Agree to a certain extent to what you have said especially the nanny state portion.

    But to be fair, for those relationship bankers, they have a quota to meet and these banks have a very high turnover rate. Under this kind of pressure cooker system, I think most of them will tend to highlight the good points and not the bad points buried in a 100+pg prospectus with technical jargon.

    People can sue for misrepresentation.

  9. #29

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    why do you begrudge people for being rich?

    and not all bankers con people per se.
    Nope, I don't begrudge people for being rich.

    Yes, there may exist good bankers who earnestly help people with their finances and don't mind earning lower than their peers.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SGee
    Posts
    1,572

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by weiconghon View Post
    Nope,I don't have evidence. But looking at the current situation now, don't you think it tell something? If there is no issue on this, why the sudden article?
    to highlight their "plight"?

  11. #31

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    You can sue for anything. Whether you can win is a separate matter.

    If you want to allege misrepresentation, you'd better have enough evidence to win, if not make sure you have enough to pay costs for both sides.

    Ps It would have been more heartening if those affected had rallied together to bring a class action suit (as in RTC) rather than petitioning mas for such a commercial dispute.

    Quote Originally Posted by weiconghon View Post
    Agree to a certain extent to what you have said especially the nanny state portion.

    But to be fair, for those relationship bankers, they have a quota to meet and these banks have a very high turnover rate. Under this kind of pressure cooker system, I think most of them will tend to highlight the good points and not the bad points buried in a 100+pg prospectus with technical jargon.

    People can sue for misrepresentation.
    Last edited by waileong; 6th October 2008 at 02:46 PM.

  12. #32

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sORe-EyEz View Post
    to highlight their "plight"?
    Maybe, everybody is subjected to their own opinion.

  13. #33

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    You can sue for anything. Whether you can win is a separate matter.

    If you want to allege misrepresentation, you'd better have enough evidence to win, if not make sure you have enough to pay costs for both sides.

    Ps It would have been more heartening if those affected had rallied together to bring a class action suit (as in RTC) rather than petitioning mas for such a commercial dispute.
    Yup, agree.

    Its all about evidence in court.

    Maybe they will slowly move in the right direction if the mass petition comes to no avail.

  14. #34

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by synapseman View Post
    Life is like that. A once people are used to a certain kind of lifestyle, very hard for them to change. I also know of someone who always complain no money, but still must drive BMW and eat dinner at Tung Luk Restaurant.

    But yeah, your statement is unfair lah. People are rich or poor depending on the cicumstances they are in. Not all the rich people get their money through immoral ways, so just because other people are poor, they shouldn't take it out on rich people. Which seems to be the case from the way you're writing.
    Well put.

    OT a bit, why Tung Luk? Because there is Super Chef Sam Leong?

  15. #35

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by leejay View Post
    Well put.

    OT a bit, why Tung Luk? Because there is Super Chef Sam Leong?
    Just to re-emphasize. I'm not bias against rich people who got rich thru moral ways.

    Also I'm against poor taking out on rich. No point to it. Rich poor divide will always be there.

    Poor has to take action to improve themselves financially. Taking out on the rich is futile.

    Maybe my wordings too strong, let people have the wrong impression.

  16. #36

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Hey, bro, I was not aiming at your view. =) The OT was just a casual joke. The Lehman news has indeed created a stir amongst the old folks, including my dad and mum - this is a fact. They are now more aware of such situations and more careful nowadays.

    I have worked in three banks (two in Singapore and one in Europe) before. There are always black sheep around, like in all industries. But generally the work ethics in foreign banks are better. Their policies are clear-cut and transparent and the staff will not try to hide things. I don't see them pushing credit card forms and insurance forms at MRT stations, at least.

  17. #37

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by leejay View Post
    Hey, bro, I was not aiming at your view. =) The OT was just a casual joke. The Lehman news has indeed created a stir amongst the old folks, including my dad and mum - this is a fact. They are now more aware of such situations and more careful nowadays.

    I have worked in three banks (two in Singapore and one in Europe) before. There are always black sheep around, like in all industries. But generally the work ethics in foreign banks are better. Their policies are clear-cut and transparent and the staff will not try to hide things. I don't see them pushing credit card forms and insurance forms at MRT stations, at least.
    Thanks for clarifying.

    I believe that by not hiding things, it will built good trust between both parties and would be beneficial in the long run. Problem is black sheep tends to look at the money lying in front of them.

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Central West
    Posts
    1,952

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    That assumes they conned people.

    Do you have proof?

    Did the people who bought high-risk investments read the fine print? If not, who can they blame? If they did, it would mean they knowingly accepted the risks, so can they blame the banks for selling them the risky products?

    I find the whole petition over the Lehman high notes saga rather sad on many fronts. Of course, it's sad for the people who lost money. But also sad that they don't want to take individual responsibility, that they believe MAS or the banks (who were just distributors for Lehman) should compensate them for their losses on a product they bought willingly.

    It's sad they still act like they live in a nanny state, which of course reinforces the notion that this should always be nanny state.

    That the investors claimed to be ignorant of the risks will not likely hold water in a court of law. It's always caveat emptor. And so the claim that they were conned or duped is very difficult to sustain without any written evidence to the effect.

    Frankly, I think "conning", even if it occurred, would be the responsibility of the financial institutions and not the specific individuals.

    While I certainly agree with the notion of buyer beware and personal responsibility, there are stories coming out of the way these products were sold that do merit some sort of investigation (something which the HK Money Authority is doing, while the MAS in contrast is taking a hands off approach at the moment and asking the banks to appoint their own independent observers to oversee the complaints from customers).

    For example, there was a story about a lady in her 60's who went into a DBS branch to renew her fixed deposit, but she was convinced to instead purchase into this product even though her english is not very good. If this story is true, I would think this is something worth investigating in terms of the selling practises involved as these types of products would seem unsuitable for that type of client. I'd think that she wouldn't have understood fully how the product works (actually I wouldn't be at all suprised that the bank officers who are selling these products themselves don't understand how the products work).

    These structured products can be fairly complex products and some of them are basically designed to gamble on the price movements of different securities (stocks, bonds, currencies etc). One example of a structured product is one designed around credit linked notes - even though they may have bonds in their name - your money isn't used to purchase bonds, but your money is used as insurance for the bond holders in case the bond issuers default on payment in return for the premium that is payed by the bond holder for the insurance (after all the commissions taken out by the ones designing the product and arranging the deal (eg. an investment bank) and the marketers and sellers of the products (eg your local retail bank) of course).

    You'd think that a 60 year old woman wanting to renew her fixed deposit would not want to be an insurer for a bond holder for a measly 5% return when there is a risk that she'd lose the whole amount (and not just some of it). Sure the risk was considered small (even the experts didn't know that Lehman would go under 12 months ago), but the risk was still there.

    Something to learn from all this is that for people to remember - don't invest into something that you don't understand !

  19. #39
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by weiconghon View Post
    Just to re-emphasize. I'm not bias against rich people who got rich thru moral ways.

    Also I'm against poor taking out on rich. No point to it. Rich poor divide will always be there.

    Poor has to take action to improve themselves financially. Taking out on the rich is futile.

    Maybe my wordings too strong, let people have the wrong impression.
    the TS has stated his views and must have made a mistake in the wordings of the 1st post and title of this thread.

    I believe that any other discussion from now on should not dwell on these subjects.

  20. #40

    Default Re: After conning people, they are still worried about Prada and Gucci!!!

    Any old lady who feels the banker owes her a duty of care and was negligent should sue.

    Non est factum is very hard to prove.

    Quote Originally Posted by gooseberry View Post
    While I certainly agree with the notion of buyer beware and personal responsibility, there are stories coming out of the way these products were sold that do merit some sort of investigation (something which the HK Money Authority is doing, while the MAS in contrast is taking a hands off approach at the moment and asking the banks to appoint their own independent observers to oversee the complaints from customers).

    For example, there was a story about a lady in her 60's who went into a DBS branch to renew her fixed deposit, but she was convinced to instead purchase into this product even though her english is not very good. If this story is true, I would think this is something worth investigating in terms of the selling practises involved as these types of products would seem unsuitable for that type of client. I'd think that she wouldn't have understood fully how the product works (actually I wouldn't be at all suprised that the bank officers who are selling these products themselves don't understand how the products work).

    These structured products can be fairly complex products and some of them are basically designed to gamble on the price movements of different securities (stocks, bonds, currencies etc). One example of a structured product is one designed around credit linked notes - even though they may have bonds in their name - your money isn't used to purchase bonds, but your money is used as insurance for the bond holders in case the bond issuers default on payment in return for the premium that is payed by the bond holder for the insurance (after all the commissions taken out by the ones designing the product and arranging the deal (eg. an investment bank) and the marketers and sellers of the products (eg your local retail bank) of course).

    You'd think that a 60 year old woman wanting to renew her fixed deposit would not want to be an insurer for a bond holder for a measly 5% return when there is a risk that she'd lose the whole amount (and not just some of it). Sure the risk was considered small (even the experts didn't know that Lehman would go under 12 months ago), but the risk was still there.

    Something to learn from all this is that for people to remember - don't invest into something that you don't understand !

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •