Thursday, November 13, 2008

Minibonds

And the minibonds saga in Hong Kong takes another twist as Legco voted to invoke special powers to investigate the Lehman Brothers minibonds saga. If you don't know what the minibonds saga is, then you can probably forgo the rest of this post. Or you could search for it on google - up to you, ya know?

Looking around at other blogs, I think this Singaporean dude sums up my view the best. I basically agree with most of what he says (isn't it great when I can point you to other people who share my view but are much more eloquent than I - saves me so much work!!). The one thing where I don't fully agree is with regard to the uncles and aunties.

On some level, I can kinda sympathise with all the uncles and aunties who bought minibonds and lost all their savings. Regardless of their own culpability, its tough to suddenly have little or no money (esp considering the current economic climate). But throughout this whole sordid affair, one question keeps popping up in my mind - how much responsibility should these uncles and aunties bear for investing in minibonds?

The papers are full of sob stories from illiterate uncles and aunties who lost their life savings. If they were illiterate, why on Earth were they investing in the first place? I mean, its not like they had any chance of really understanding what they were investing in (and heaven forbid we actually expect people to understand what they are spending their life savings on!!).

But here's the thing. Part of the reason they don't understand what they are buying is because they have no interest in understanding (in essence, I think the willful ignorance argument applies equally to them). All they are worried about is missing out on an easy opportunity to make money. A lot of HK people (and I include the uncles and aunties in this) are terrified of missing the boat. So instead of evaluating what they want and what they should do, they just assume that if someone else bought it, it must be a good thing.

"This complete stranger I met during lunch bought some minibonds. It must be a really good investment! Lets cash in as well. Wait! If we put all our life savings into minibonds then we can earn an even bigger return and be even richer. Hoorah!!"

Another cause for consolation is the fraud angle. Were the mini-bonds misrepresented by unscrupulous salesmen? I'm sure that in many cases, they were. Of course, we don't know the extent to which they were mis-sold - was it fraud or just the usual hyperbole of salesmen? Obviously, if it was fraud, then the usual legal recourse should apply.

However, the point is that, as an investor, you really need to understand what you are investing in regardless of your age and literacy. And if you don't understand the product (perfectly understandable considering the complexity of modern financial products), then you really shouldn't be investing in that product at all.

Let me repeat that - if you don't understand the product, you shouldn't be investing in that product at all.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Agree with your general comments - one thing though that needs to be considered - I've heard of some of these people going to put money into fixed deposits, then being directed to put into these instead as they earnt more interest but were "capital protected" - situations like these are where some of these people get led along the path...

Some of those aunties and uncles are definitely culpable, but some have been badly advised.

Jokemeister said...

And this counts as fraud. If they were told that the minibonds were "capital protected" - that is blatant fraud.

In this situation, the usual legal recourse should apply. That is, the investor should be able to sue and get his money back.

The problem is that the current solution seems to be that everyone who had the minibonds should get money (albeit not all of the money) back. The problem with this is that some people will get money who don't deserve any compensation at all while those people who were genuine victims of fraud will get less than they deserve. Not an ideal solution imo.

Anthony said...

Is there a level of legal liability if it is dishonesty below fraud?

I'm asking this question because I don't think the truth is as simple as "fraud or no fraud". What about overselling? What if the bank honestly thought that Lehman Brothers would never collapse (which is within the realms of believability?)

The reason I make a distinction between uncles and aunties and the rest of the people is this - an uncle/auntie who walks into a bank may not know it's every man woman and child for himself, i.e caveat emptor. They might not know that they will have no legal recourse if the investment advice sucks.

It may not be true, but I will give them the benefit of doubt.

Much more than that, I'm very unwilling to see this go away without SOME shit sticking to the banks. I've personally encountered this level of overselling, so I know what its about. If this is the norm (and most signs indicate that this is the norm) then they should be smacked around at least some.

I'm much less willing to give this benefit of doubt to other investors. They -should- know better.