Dear Readers,
Going forward, we will be consolidating our postings into the MIAG official web site at //WWW.MIAGSG.COM/ so please click to go to this site for the latest update.
Please note that this official web site contains information for non-MIAG members as well as a secured area (i.e. requiring a password) for MIAG members.
Thank,
MIAG
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Citibank Belgium pays Lehman Victims
Citibank Belgium to pay ‘duped’ savers 128mn for bad Lehman deal
Posted by Edward Harrison on 24 October 2009 at 7:18 pm
Digg it
Bookmark it
Stumble it
Reddit
24
Oct
This is my translation of a Dutch-language article which appeared today in Belgian daily De Tijd. Let’s see if this news is picked up in the U.S.
Citibank Belgium never should have recommended the controversial Lehman Brothers investments to its customers. So states the writ of the Brussels public prosecutor on the case.
The collapse of Lehman Brothers lost more than 4,000 Citibank customers, 128 million euros. The public prosecutor accuses Citibank of a “conflict of interest". "The bank had apparently instructed a higher-level committee to work toward the wholesale transfer of ordinary savings account money to Lehman Brothers."
According to the prosecutor, this is the reason Citibank used "misleading" advertising and many other “tricks” to systematically sway customers to exchange their savings for Lehman products, concealing the bank’s true risks, returns and capital guarantees. The court now demands that Citibank pay back the full 128 million euros, plus interest and fees.
Political reactions
MP Hans Bonte (SP.A) is very pleased that the Brussels public prosecutor also came to the conclusion that Citibank sold investments of the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers in an "unfair and irresponsible manner.” "That is what we have charged for months and years," said the Socialist opposition figure. The most important thing for him now is that all victims be identified and if possible obtain compensation.
Better would be if Citibank itself took on its responsibility and reimbursed customers who lost their savings, Bonte said in reaction to the news.
He believes that the Government should draw lessons from the case. According to Bonte, it is clear that something wrong with the supervision of the banks by the Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission (CBFA). Immediately he called for legislation on the appeals claim, so that a lawsuit could be filed in this case for the 4,000 victims.
Commerce Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne (Open VLD) called on Citibank again to choose an efficient settlement instead of letting it come to a possibly long and damaging process. The Minister also notes that the victims who have yet to take civil action be informed of the impending trial, so they also can take part in the civil action.
He recalls that he last year he ordered the Economic Inspectorate investigate the way Lehman Brothers products were advertised and sold by Citibank . This dossier was turned over to the prosecutor in December.
Although the analysis of the Economic Inspectorate showed that there are about 4,000 potential victims, there are only 1300 who have reported to the Inspectorate or the prosecutor. At the request of the Minister, the prosecutor and Economic Inspection examined how the remaining 2700 known victims can be informed about their rights before the start of legal proceedings. They have now been notified by letter.
The trial starts in December. Van Quickenborne hopes that as many people as possible can file civil claim to be compensated for their loss. He immediately repeated his "resolute" call to Citibank to not let it go so far and to choose an efficient settlement.
Source
Parket snoeihard voor Citibank – De Tijd
Posted by Edward Harrison on 24 October 2009 at 7:18 pm
Digg it
Bookmark it
Stumble it
24
Oct
This is my translation of a Dutch-language article which appeared today in Belgian daily De Tijd. Let’s see if this news is picked up in the U.S.
Citibank Belgium never should have recommended the controversial Lehman Brothers investments to its customers. So states the writ of the Brussels public prosecutor on the case.
The collapse of Lehman Brothers lost more than 4,000 Citibank customers, 128 million euros. The public prosecutor accuses Citibank of a “conflict of interest". "The bank had apparently instructed a higher-level committee to work toward the wholesale transfer of ordinary savings account money to Lehman Brothers."
According to the prosecutor, this is the reason Citibank used "misleading" advertising and many other “tricks” to systematically sway customers to exchange their savings for Lehman products, concealing the bank’s true risks, returns and capital guarantees. The court now demands that Citibank pay back the full 128 million euros, plus interest and fees.
Political reactions
MP Hans Bonte (SP.A) is very pleased that the Brussels public prosecutor also came to the conclusion that Citibank sold investments of the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers in an "unfair and irresponsible manner.” "That is what we have charged for months and years," said the Socialist opposition figure. The most important thing for him now is that all victims be identified and if possible obtain compensation.
Better would be if Citibank itself took on its responsibility and reimbursed customers who lost their savings, Bonte said in reaction to the news.
He believes that the Government should draw lessons from the case. According to Bonte, it is clear that something wrong with the supervision of the banks by the Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission (CBFA). Immediately he called for legislation on the appeals claim, so that a lawsuit could be filed in this case for the 4,000 victims.
Commerce Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne (Open VLD) called on Citibank again to choose an efficient settlement instead of letting it come to a possibly long and damaging process. The Minister also notes that the victims who have yet to take civil action be informed of the impending trial, so they also can take part in the civil action.
He recalls that he last year he ordered the Economic Inspectorate investigate the way Lehman Brothers products were advertised and sold by Citibank . This dossier was turned over to the prosecutor in December.
Although the analysis of the Economic Inspectorate showed that there are about 4,000 potential victims, there are only 1300 who have reported to the Inspectorate or the prosecutor. At the request of the Minister, the prosecutor and Economic Inspection examined how the remaining 2700 known victims can be informed about their rights before the start of legal proceedings. They have now been notified by letter.
The trial starts in December. Van Quickenborne hopes that as many people as possible can file civil claim to be compensated for their loss. He immediately repeated his "resolute" call to Citibank to not let it go so far and to choose an efficient settlement.
Source
Parket snoeihard voor Citibank – De Tijd
Thursday, October 22, 2009
LEHMAN BROTHERS SINGAPORE Firm files its defence
SOURCE: Business Section of Today
SINGAPORE — One of the three defendants in the
second class action suit related to botched structured
notes has filed its defence against allegations
of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation.
The structured notes in question are one of the
Minibond Series linked to collapsed United States
investment bank Lehman Brothers.
Lehman Brothers Singapore, which was named
as the arranger of the now-defunct Minibond
Series 2 in a suit backed by 165 investors, refuted
claims that the investors were misled by the statements
in advertisements, base prospectus and
pricing sheets of the notes.
The company is represented by Senior Counsel
Andre Yeap and Mr Danny Ong from Rajah & Tann.
The other two defendants are Minibond Ltd,
the issuer of the investment, and ABN Amro, one
of the nine distributors of the product. They are
represented by Shook Lin & Bok and Allen & Gledhill,
respectively. The latter is expected to file its
defence in about two weeks.
One point of contention in this case is the issue
of risks faced by the Minibond investors. Earlier, the
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have perpetuated
a “false and misleading” impression that the product’s
“primary risk” is with the credit standing of seven
companies known as the reference entities (REs).
The reference entities included names like
DBS Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and SingTel
and these companies form the first layer of the
credit-default swaps embedded in the product.
This means that the occurrence of default or bankruptcy
in any of these seven companies could result
in a “credit event” which can potentially cause the
Minibonds to become worthless.
However, the plaintiffs — represented by their
lawyer Conrad Campos and Company — alleged
that the seven REs are, in fact, a “ruse” to induce
investors to invest in the Minibonds. The true
risk of the product lies with the second layer of
underlying securities, made up of collateralised
debt obligations, of which there was inadequate
disclosure, they claimed.
In its 58-page defence filed on Oct 2, Lehman
Singapore maintained that the credit risks related
to the REs were indeed the “primary risks” borne
by the investors.
In fact, Lehman Singapore claimed that the default
or bankruptcy risk of the REs is “at all material
times” higher than that of the underlying securities.
If there were indeed misleading representations,
Lehman Singapore said that there are documents
which had been signed by the plaintiffs which stated
that investments were made based on their own
independent judgment and appraisal of risks.
Lehman Singapore also alleged that the plaintiffs
were negligent on their part such that they contributed
partly or wholly to any losses incurred. In
response, the plaintiffs said in their filed reply last Friday
that returns from Minibond Series 2 were derived
from the underlying securities. They also added that
this substantiates their claims that these securities
carry more risks compared to the seven REs.
As for Lehman Singapore’s point on signed
warranties, the plaintiffs countered that the prospectus
for the underlying securities was created
only after the offer period for the sale of Minibond
Series 2 had closed.
Hence, the plaintiffs said that it is “devoid of
good faith, common sense and commercial reality”
to expect Singapore retail investors to conduct
their own investigation and analysis of the underlying
securities.
SINGAPORE — One of the three defendants in the
second class action suit related to botched structured
notes has filed its defence against allegations
of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation.
The structured notes in question are one of the
Minibond Series linked to collapsed United States
investment bank Lehman Brothers.
Lehman Brothers Singapore, which was named
as the arranger of the now-defunct Minibond
Series 2 in a suit backed by 165 investors, refuted
claims that the investors were misled by the statements
in advertisements, base prospectus and
pricing sheets of the notes.
The company is represented by Senior Counsel
Andre Yeap and Mr Danny Ong from Rajah & Tann.
The other two defendants are Minibond Ltd,
the issuer of the investment, and ABN Amro, one
of the nine distributors of the product. They are
represented by Shook Lin & Bok and Allen & Gledhill,
respectively. The latter is expected to file its
defence in about two weeks.
One point of contention in this case is the issue
of risks faced by the Minibond investors. Earlier, the
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have perpetuated
a “false and misleading” impression that the product’s
“primary risk” is with the credit standing of seven
companies known as the reference entities (REs).
The reference entities included names like
DBS Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and SingTel
and these companies form the first layer of the
credit-default swaps embedded in the product.
This means that the occurrence of default or bankruptcy
in any of these seven companies could result
in a “credit event” which can potentially cause the
Minibonds to become worthless.
However, the plaintiffs — represented by their
lawyer Conrad Campos and Company — alleged
that the seven REs are, in fact, a “ruse” to induce
investors to invest in the Minibonds. The true
risk of the product lies with the second layer of
underlying securities, made up of collateralised
debt obligations, of which there was inadequate
disclosure, they claimed.
In its 58-page defence filed on Oct 2, Lehman
Singapore maintained that the credit risks related
to the REs were indeed the “primary risks” borne
by the investors.
In fact, Lehman Singapore claimed that the default
or bankruptcy risk of the REs is “at all material
times” higher than that of the underlying securities.
If there were indeed misleading representations,
Lehman Singapore said that there are documents
which had been signed by the plaintiffs which stated
that investments were made based on their own
independent judgment and appraisal of risks.
Lehman Singapore also alleged that the plaintiffs
were negligent on their part such that they contributed
partly or wholly to any losses incurred. In
response, the plaintiffs said in their filed reply last Friday
that returns from Minibond Series 2 were derived
from the underlying securities. They also added that
this substantiates their claims that these securities
carry more risks compared to the seven REs.
As for Lehman Singapore’s point on signed
warranties, the plaintiffs countered that the prospectus
for the underlying securities was created
only after the offer period for the sale of Minibond
Series 2 had closed.
Hence, the plaintiffs said that it is “devoid of
good faith, common sense and commercial reality”
to expect Singapore retail investors to conduct
their own investigation and analysis of the underlying
securities.
Proposed Pinnacle Class Action
For people who invested in the Pinnacle Series, you see the just released news on a Proposed Pinnacle Class Action in the Lion Investor web:
http://www.lioninvestor.com/proposed-pinnacle-class-action/
http://www.lioninvestor.com/proposed-pinnacle-class-action/
http://www.lioninvestor.com/proposed-pinnacle-class-action/
http://www.lioninvestor.com/proposed-pinnacle-class-action/
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
How much money coming back from the receiver?
By now, most of you probably are aware of money will be coming back through the receiver settlement process. Just in case you have not, here is the reporting:
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC091001-0000541/Minibond-noteholders-to-get-back-some-money
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC091001-0000541/Minibond-noteholders-to-get-back-some-money
So, the question is how much will people get back. We will not know the exact figures until the numbers are announced. In the meantime, here are a few factors for you to consider:
o What Series of Minibond did you purchase as valuation would be dependent on that by quite a bit. Later series like 9 and 10 probably retain more value than earlier series.
o There was another reporting on one social club sold their Lehman notes for 29% of their original investment.
o The swap termination notice was issued by the PWC around NOV 2008 in Singapore. That was 2 months after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. In comparison, the termination notice for Hong Kong was not issued until around April/May 2009, i.e. after the tsunami peak was over. Trying to get out of the insurance (now we know) we were providing at a worse time tend to get back less money.
o Most of Hong Kong investors can get back 60%+ of their investment. For SG, this amount in actually broken down into two portions: the amount you will be getting back from the receiver (which you don't have to do anything but just wait) and the amount you can get back from the Financial Institutions (FI's). The amount back from the FI's is what MIAG is trying to do for its members.
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC091001-0000541/Minibond-noteholders-to-get-back-some-money
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC091001-0000541/Minibond-noteholders-to-get-back-some-money
So, the question is how much will people get back. We will not know the exact figures until the numbers are announced. In the meantime, here are a few factors for you to consider:
o What Series of Minibond did you purchase as valuation would be dependent on that by quite a bit. Later series like 9 and 10 probably retain more value than earlier series.
o There was another reporting on one social club sold their Lehman notes for 29% of their original investment.
o The swap termination notice was issued by the PWC around NOV 2008 in Singapore. That was 2 months after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. In comparison, the termination notice for Hong Kong was not issued until around April/May 2009, i.e. after the tsunami peak was over. Trying to get out of the insurance (now we know) we were providing at a worse time tend to get back less money.
o Most of Hong Kong investors can get back 60%+ of their investment. For SG, this amount in actually broken down into two portions: the amount you will be getting back from the receiver (which you don't have to do anything but just wait) and the amount you can get back from the Financial Institutions (FI's). The amount back from the FI's is what MIAG is trying to do for its members.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Comparison between Singapore and HK investors compensation package
The author made comparison between the compensation package received by Singapore Minibond investors vs HK Minibond investors and conclude that HK come up TOP. But the figures used are not correct resulting a higher % compensated in Singapore. The correct figures should be $107m compensated for $508m invested amount - Only 20% compensation vs 70% minimum for HK Minibond investors. The lesson learned is that if you have money to invest, go to HK and have a peace of mind.
官薦雷曼事主接受和解 稱方案優於新加坡
李先知 http://blog.mingpao.com/cfm/content.cfm?OwnerID=1&CategoryID=1&TopicID=10696
在短短一個月裏，本欄先後就證監會與雷曼迷債分銷銀行的和解談判寫了4篇報道，應可反映是次談判的峰迴路轉。到了昨晚，官場終於傳來消息謂，雙方的談判已接近簽字階段，若無意外，雙方最快可在今日公布和解的詳細內容。儘管官場中人昨晚仍然拒絕透露和解協議的詳情，但知情者已力薦雷曼迷債的投資者應「收貨」了，因他們平均可以收回約七成的本金，與只能取回約32％的新加坡迷債投資者比較，已經「很好」了。
據了解，今次談判的轉捩點發生於最近的一兩個星期裏。由於證監一直強調，今次該會與迷債分銷銀行的和解談判，是該會調查銀行有否用上不良銷售手法的執法行動的一部分，所以特區政府的財金官員也不敢大力干預證監與銀行的談判，以免日後遭人反咬一口，指干預執法工作，因這是很大的罪名。正因如此，官場耳語透風謂，一眾高官一直也只能在幕後促請雙方盡力談判。
有親建制的政界中人形容，證監會和16家銀行的和解談判，之所以在近日取得突破，正是因為證監近期態度明顯軟化，包括願意和銀行商量賠償細節，再不堅持早前的「六．四方案」，即不再要求銀行先退回投資者六成本金，接覑在出售了迷債的抵押品後，再把變現所得的四成分給投資者。
知情者昨晚力陳，雷曼迷債投資者應接受今次的銀行回購方案，因為估計投資者平均可以取回約七成的本金。若再加上這些年來投資者已收取的利息，其實他們要輸的部分，可能只是一成至兩成之間。同一期間，他們若把資金投資於其他股票，一場金融海嘯可能會令他們損失更多。
此外，官場中人又指出，若與新加坡雷曼投資者所得的賠償比較，「香港投資者幸福得多了」。因為根據新加坡官方的資料，在5352個已經處理的迷債個案裏，投資者只能取回約1億多坡元，與他們原來投資了的3.2億元比較，這等同只能取回約32％本金。
官員急於向迷債投資者推薦稍後公布的和解方案，是可以理解的，因為政府真的極希望可以盡早平息事件，令社會和諧一點，亦即令他們少了一個不知何日爆發的社會矛盾。不過，立法會內的泛民成員則有不一樣的分析，他們判斷現時談判的優勢，本應在證監一方，因為證監手握覑銀行有不良銷售手法的證據，大可力逼銀行作出接近百分百的賠償，亦即有機會滿足雷曼苦主大聯盟的要求。
有泛民中人私下承認，早前他們為了確保證監有談判優勢，曾在立法會雷曼事件的研訊中，故意向證監會行政總裁韋奕禮及企業融資執行董事何賢通「放水」，所以大眾再看不到狠批金管局總裁任志剛的惡言惡相，所求者正是希望證監有足夠的彈藥與銀行談判。怎料事與願違，證監終於放棄了要銀行百分百賠償的底線。
對於泛民的上述批評，官場中人則反指有一些泛民議員一直靠雷曼迷債事件上位，他們基於自己的政治利益，根本就不想平息這宗社會事件，變相罔顧投資者早日可以得回本金的根本利益。
官薦雷曼事主接受和解 稱方案優於新加坡
李先知 http://blog.mingpao.com/cfm/content.cfm?OwnerID=1&CategoryID=1&TopicID=10696
在短短一個月裏，本欄先後就證監會與雷曼迷債分銷銀行的和解談判寫了4篇報道，應可反映是次談判的峰迴路轉。到了昨晚，官場終於傳來消息謂，雙方的談判已接近簽字階段，若無意外，雙方最快可在今日公布和解的詳細內容。儘管官場中人昨晚仍然拒絕透露和解協議的詳情，但知情者已力薦雷曼迷債的投資者應「收貨」了，因他們平均可以收回約七成的本金，與只能取回約32％的新加坡迷債投資者比較，已經「很好」了。
據了解，今次談判的轉捩點發生於最近的一兩個星期裏。由於證監一直強調，今次該會與迷債分銷銀行的和解談判，是該會調查銀行有否用上不良銷售手法的執法行動的一部分，所以特區政府的財金官員也不敢大力干預證監與銀行的談判，以免日後遭人反咬一口，指干預執法工作，因這是很大的罪名。正因如此，官場耳語透風謂，一眾高官一直也只能在幕後促請雙方盡力談判。
有親建制的政界中人形容，證監會和16家銀行的和解談判，之所以在近日取得突破，正是因為證監近期態度明顯軟化，包括願意和銀行商量賠償細節，再不堅持早前的「六．四方案」，即不再要求銀行先退回投資者六成本金，接覑在出售了迷債的抵押品後，再把變現所得的四成分給投資者。
知情者昨晚力陳，雷曼迷債投資者應接受今次的銀行回購方案，因為估計投資者平均可以取回約七成的本金。若再加上這些年來投資者已收取的利息，其實他們要輸的部分，可能只是一成至兩成之間。同一期間，他們若把資金投資於其他股票，一場金融海嘯可能會令他們損失更多。
此外，官場中人又指出，若與新加坡雷曼投資者所得的賠償比較，「香港投資者幸福得多了」。因為根據新加坡官方的資料，在5352個已經處理的迷債個案裏，投資者只能取回約1億多坡元，與他們原來投資了的3.2億元比較，這等同只能取回約32％本金。
官員急於向迷債投資者推薦稍後公布的和解方案，是可以理解的，因為政府真的極希望可以盡早平息事件，令社會和諧一點，亦即令他們少了一個不知何日爆發的社會矛盾。不過，立法會內的泛民成員則有不一樣的分析，他們判斷現時談判的優勢，本應在證監一方，因為證監手握覑銀行有不良銷售手法的證據，大可力逼銀行作出接近百分百的賠償，亦即有機會滿足雷曼苦主大聯盟的要求。
有泛民中人私下承認，早前他們為了確保證監有談判優勢，曾在立法會雷曼事件的研訊中，故意向證監會行政總裁韋奕禮及企業融資執行董事何賢通「放水」，所以大眾再看不到狠批金管局總裁任志剛的惡言惡相，所求者正是希望證監有足夠的彈藥與銀行談判。怎料事與願違，證監終於放棄了要銀行百分百賠償的底線。
對於泛民的上述批評，官場中人則反指有一些泛民議員一直靠雷曼迷債事件上位，他們基於自己的政治利益，根本就不想平息這宗社會事件，變相罔顧投資者早日可以得回本金的根本利益。
Minimum 60% compensation of invested amount for HK minibond investors
雷曼苦主六折回籠
雷曼迷債爆煲十個月後 ， 四萬多名迷債苦主終有望與銷售銀行和解離場 。 消息指證監會與大部分有
銷售雷曼迷債的銀行 ， 已於昨晚就回購的終極方案達成共識 ， 最快會在今日正式簽約作實及作出公
布 ， 預計有超過九成雷曼苦主受惠 。 投資者最少可先取回六成本金 ， 六十五歲或以上的長者更可獲
七成本金 ， 但被視為專業投資者的苦主則未能受惠 。
消息指出 ， 銀行界與證監會早前已原則上同意以六十五歲為界 ， 六十五歲以
下獲六成本金 、 六十五歲或以上獲七成的本金 ， 但對於抵押品剩餘價值的分
配比率卻一度出現嚴重的分歧 ， 銀行界指抵押品估計最高亦只剩餘五至六成
價值 ， 部分更少於一成 ， 認為投資者應只獲分配當中的一成款額 ， 證監會則
堅持投資者最少應分到四成 。
銀行售抵押品後再賠
雙方經過多輪談判 ， 最終同意中間落墨 ， 若日後出售的抵押品的剩餘價值 ，
超出回購價 ， 銀行會再向投資者賠償 ， 而原則是盡量要保障投資者的利益 。
根據有關方案 ， 假設一名六十歲的非專業投資者用了一百萬元購買雷曼迷
債 ， 他可先取得相等於本金六成 、 即六十萬元的賠償 ； 待銀行將抵押品出售
後 ， 其剩餘價值是超出回購價 ， 可再獲得銀行若干的賠償 。
專專業業投投資資者者不不獲獲回回購購
假設另一名七十歲的非專業投資者 ， 同樣用了一百萬元購買雷曼迷債 ， 他可先取得相等於本金七
成 、 即七十萬元的賠償 ； 待銀行將抵押品出售後 ， 其剩餘價值是超出回購價 ， 亦可再獲得銀行若干
的賠償 。
據了解 ， 現時十九間有銷售雷曼迷債的銀行 ， 並非所有都決定參與今次回購 ， 但不參與的銀行只涉
及很小量苦主 ， 估計最終有超過九成苦主受惠 。 此外 ， 被證監會定義為專業投資者 、 即擁有八百萬
港元或以上投資組合的苦主 ， 將不會受惠於今次回購 ， 預料有關定義亦會引起爭議 。
客戶可選擇繼續訴訟
證監會一度堅持銀行要接受更保障投資者的方案 ， 至於現時為何證監會肯接受方案 ， 有分析指出 ，
雖然有迷債系列抵押品價值高達六 、 七成 ， 但亦有系列的抵押品剩餘價值很低 ， 而這佔了苦主的大
部分 。 對抵押品價值極低的系列來說 ， 如賠本金六成 ， 已對銀行作出懲罰 。 證監會在考慮整體苦主
利益下 ， 加上又自知要銀行賠償十足根本沒可能 ， 最終與銀行達成和解 。
但值得注意是 ， 就算證監會與銀行達成和解 ， 客戶仍可以選擇不接受 ， 繼續與銀行訴訟 。
雷曼迷債爆煲十個月後 ， 四萬多名迷債苦主終有望與銷售銀行和解離場 。 消息指證監會與大部分有
銷售雷曼迷債的銀行 ， 已於昨晚就回購的終極方案達成共識 ， 最快會在今日正式簽約作實及作出公
布 ， 預計有超過九成雷曼苦主受惠 。 投資者最少可先取回六成本金 ， 六十五歲或以上的長者更可獲
七成本金 ， 但被視為專業投資者的苦主則未能受惠 。
消息指出 ， 銀行界與證監會早前已原則上同意以六十五歲為界 ， 六十五歲以
下獲六成本金 、 六十五歲或以上獲七成的本金 ， 但對於抵押品剩餘價值的分
配比率卻一度出現嚴重的分歧 ， 銀行界指抵押品估計最高亦只剩餘五至六成
價值 ， 部分更少於一成 ， 認為投資者應只獲分配當中的一成款額 ， 證監會則
堅持投資者最少應分到四成 。
銀行售抵押品後再賠
雙方經過多輪談判 ， 最終同意中間落墨 ， 若日後出售的抵押品的剩餘價值 ，
超出回購價 ， 銀行會再向投資者賠償 ， 而原則是盡量要保障投資者的利益 。
根據有關方案 ， 假設一名六十歲的非專業投資者用了一百萬元購買雷曼迷
債 ， 他可先取得相等於本金六成 、 即六十萬元的賠償 ； 待銀行將抵押品出售
後 ， 其剩餘價值是超出回購價 ， 可再獲得銀行若干的賠償 。
專專業業投投資資者者不不獲獲回回購購
假設另一名七十歲的非專業投資者 ， 同樣用了一百萬元購買雷曼迷債 ， 他可先取得相等於本金七
成 、 即七十萬元的賠償 ； 待銀行將抵押品出售後 ， 其剩餘價值是超出回購價 ， 亦可再獲得銀行若干
的賠償 。
據了解 ， 現時十九間有銷售雷曼迷債的銀行 ， 並非所有都決定參與今次回購 ， 但不參與的銀行只涉
及很小量苦主 ， 估計最終有超過九成苦主受惠 。 此外 ， 被證監會定義為專業投資者 、 即擁有八百萬
港元或以上投資組合的苦主 ， 將不會受惠於今次回購 ， 預料有關定義亦會引起爭議 。
客戶可選擇繼續訴訟
證監會一度堅持銀行要接受更保障投資者的方案 ， 至於現時為何證監會肯接受方案 ， 有分析指出 ，
雖然有迷債系列抵押品價值高達六 、 七成 ， 但亦有系列的抵押品剩餘價值很低 ， 而這佔了苦主的大
部分 。 對抵押品價值極低的系列來說 ， 如賠本金六成 ， 已對銀行作出懲罰 。 證監會在考慮整體苦主
利益下 ， 加上又自知要銀行賠償十足根本沒可能 ， 最終與銀行達成和解 。
但值得注意是 ， 就算證監會與銀行達成和解 ， 客戶仍可以選擇不接受 ， 繼續與銀行訴訟 。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
