I have posted several media articles about the process in Hong Kong involving the legislative council and the Monetary Authority.
The elected Lego members (equivalent to our Members of Parliament) have summoned the top officials of the Monetary Authority for questioning regarding their role in approving the credit linked notes for sale to the general public, and the steps that they have taken to rectify matters after these products went bust.
This is the process of holding people accountable to do the job that they are expected to do. It is very educational. It is good for society and will encourage officials to learn from mistakes. It will lead to better governance.
Tan Kin Lian
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Puzzle: Send More Money
A young man who is backpacking overseas sends his father the following telegram from Timbuktu:
The father looked at the telegram and, with a bit of logic, he figured out the exact amount of money that his son needed! How much money did the son request? Each letter in MONEY represents a different digit.
Give your answer here. The correct answer will be displayed after you submitted your entry.
Here is the explanation on how to solve this puzzle.
SEND
+ MORE
------
MONEY
The father looked at the telegram and, with a bit of logic, he figured out the exact amount of money that his son needed! How much money did the son request? Each letter in MONEY represents a different digit.
Give your answer here. The correct answer will be displayed after you submitted your entry.
Here is the explanation on how to solve this puzzle.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
China Daily:Authority feels more heat on Lehman Bros
13 June 2009
HONG KONG: The Monetary Authority was held to account again Friday for its failure to avert the Lehman Brothers mini-bond debacle.
Deputy Chief of the Authority Choi Yiu-kwan appeared before the Legislative Council (LegCo) Subcommittee examining allegations of malpractice in the sale of the mini bonds. Choi explained that during on-site investigations, the Monetary Authority inspectors "role play" with sales representatives to assess the understanding of reps about the products they sell.
Choi said representatives with records of high sales, especially sales among individuals more likely to be susceptible to manipulation, are given special scrutiny.
Lawmaker Raymond Ho Chung-tai cited the regulator's figures saying that the authority had carried out about 170 on-site inspections at banks between April 2003 and December last year. He wondered why the probes had failed to avert investors' losses on Lehman Brothers minibonds
Choi responded that during its inspections the Monetary Authority checked the materials banks used for training staff to sell investment products and found the materials satisfactory.
Legislator Kam Nai-wai asked why the authority does not reveal its inspection checklist to banks so that the banks could set guidelines for staying within the rules. Choi replied that banks should already be aware of the rules which are set out in the code of ethics and in the answers to frequently-asked questions issued by the authority.
He said his agency found 72 suspected cases of breaches of rules between April 1, 2003, and September 14 last year through its regular inspections. During the same period it had received 106 complaints from bank clients.
He declined to comment directly on whether existing measures to protect the interests of investors are sufficient. He added that the authority is doing its best.
Choi said the manner in which the authority regulates bank securities sales is similar to the Securities and Futures Commission and to overseas regulators.
He said sales personnel who sold Lehman Brothers-related products passed examinations set down by the Securities Institute concerning relevant regulations. However in matters of product knowledge, sales personnel receive their training from the banks who employ them.
Choi said it had so far received over 21,000 complaints concerning Lehman Brothers-related products and is hurrying to examine them. But he said the authority lacks the staff to proceed more quickly. He noted that the department already has about 60 professionals on loan from accounting firms to help with the investigations. He said he hopes to borrow more staff in the near future.
In the future, Choi said his agency intends to send officers posing as customers to banks so as to evaluate sales practices. He said consultation on the initiative will be launched within a time span of a few months to a year.
HONG KONG: The Monetary Authority was held to account again Friday for its failure to avert the Lehman Brothers mini-bond debacle.
Deputy Chief of the Authority Choi Yiu-kwan appeared before the Legislative Council (LegCo) Subcommittee examining allegations of malpractice in the sale of the mini bonds. Choi explained that during on-site investigations, the Monetary Authority inspectors "role play" with sales representatives to assess the understanding of reps about the products they sell.
Choi said representatives with records of high sales, especially sales among individuals more likely to be susceptible to manipulation, are given special scrutiny.
Lawmaker Raymond Ho Chung-tai cited the regulator's figures saying that the authority had carried out about 170 on-site inspections at banks between April 2003 and December last year. He wondered why the probes had failed to avert investors' losses on Lehman Brothers minibonds
Choi responded that during its inspections the Monetary Authority checked the materials banks used for training staff to sell investment products and found the materials satisfactory.
Legislator Kam Nai-wai asked why the authority does not reveal its inspection checklist to banks so that the banks could set guidelines for staying within the rules. Choi replied that banks should already be aware of the rules which are set out in the code of ethics and in the answers to frequently-asked questions issued by the authority.
He said his agency found 72 suspected cases of breaches of rules between April 1, 2003, and September 14 last year through its regular inspections. During the same period it had received 106 complaints from bank clients.
He declined to comment directly on whether existing measures to protect the interests of investors are sufficient. He added that the authority is doing its best.
Choi said the manner in which the authority regulates bank securities sales is similar to the Securities and Futures Commission and to overseas regulators.
He said sales personnel who sold Lehman Brothers-related products passed examinations set down by the Securities Institute concerning relevant regulations. However in matters of product knowledge, sales personnel receive their training from the banks who employ them.
Choi said it had so far received over 21,000 complaints concerning Lehman Brothers-related products and is hurrying to examine them. But he said the authority lacks the staff to proceed more quickly. He noted that the department already has about 60 professionals on loan from accounting firms to help with the investigations. He said he hopes to borrow more staff in the near future.
In the future, Choi said his agency intends to send officers posing as customers to banks so as to evaluate sales practices. He said consultation on the initiative will be launched within a time span of a few months to a year.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Good and bad acts
Hi Mr. Tan,
I have an article to share. If you think that it is suitable, you may publish my thoughts in your blog.
Mr. Lee
Do good or bad acts in a lifetime: The calculated risks
An interesting analysis: Should one do good or bad acts in a lifetime? Advantaging oneself at the expense of others’ would only make sense if:
1. There is 0% of a God in this world, or
2. If there is a God, he does not punish or reward accordingly to one’s good and bad behaviours.
Say if an individual lives to one hundred years old. He has been reaping benefits at the expense of others through bad behaviours in his lifetime. He might have “gained” for one hundred years, but “lost” for eternity if a judicial God exists.
Even as modern societies become more secular, based on calculated risks, it is still more worthwhile to do the right and correct acts in one’s lifetime. This is despite the possibility that there is just a small chance, say 10%, of a judicial God existing. It is because most likely than not, one’s afterlife would be for eternity. One may enjoy his ill-gotten gains for 100 years, but could possibly pay for his misdeeds for eternity.
Hence, one is better off at “investing” in good and correct acts rather than bad acts in a lifetime.
Mr Lee
I have an article to share. If you think that it is suitable, you may publish my thoughts in your blog.
Mr. Lee
Do good or bad acts in a lifetime: The calculated risks
An interesting analysis: Should one do good or bad acts in a lifetime? Advantaging oneself at the expense of others’ would only make sense if:
1. There is 0% of a God in this world, or
2. If there is a God, he does not punish or reward accordingly to one’s good and bad behaviours.
Say if an individual lives to one hundred years old. He has been reaping benefits at the expense of others through bad behaviours in his lifetime. He might have “gained” for one hundred years, but “lost” for eternity if a judicial God exists.
Even as modern societies become more secular, based on calculated risks, it is still more worthwhile to do the right and correct acts in one’s lifetime. This is despite the possibility that there is just a small chance, say 10%, of a judicial God existing. It is because most likely than not, one’s afterlife would be for eternity. One may enjoy his ill-gotten gains for 100 years, but could possibly pay for his misdeeds for eternity.
Hence, one is better off at “investing” in good and correct acts rather than bad acts in a lifetime.
Mr Lee
T Puzzle - improve your child's IQ
The T puzzle is fun and can improve your child's IQ. It trains the child or adult to see matters from a different angle, and develops flexibility of mind. Read this.
Survey: It is easy to be cheated
Do you like my articles on "It is easy to be cheated"? Please reply to this survey. You can click here to view the various articles.
Here are the survey results (based on 41 replies). There are many personal observations.
Let your insurance company handle the recovery
Dear Mr Tan,
My parked vehicle was hit by another vehicle. A eye-witness left me a letter stating the number of the vehicle involved, but did not provide any contact information. I made a police report and went to my insurance's authorized workshop to claim third party against the other vehicle.
They recommended me to claim against my own insurance. As i have "no" eye-witnesses, they say the claim is highly improbable and i will eventually have to fork out from my own pocket or claim against my own insurance if i were to wait for the third party claim.
What should I do? Employ a lawyer to pursue? Repair and claim against my own insurance policy?
I decided to claim third party first and leave the car in my car park while waiting for the result? Is it advisable?
REPLY
It is better for you to claim under your own policy and let the insurance company handle the recovery from the other party.
As the witness is not prepared to give his or her identity, it will be difficult for you to prove that the specified vehicle had caused the damage, unless you are able to get an investigator to inspect their other vehicle before it is repaired. This is, as you can see, quite a lot of hassle.
So, leave it to your insurance company to handle this matter.
My parked vehicle was hit by another vehicle. A eye-witness left me a letter stating the number of the vehicle involved, but did not provide any contact information. I made a police report and went to my insurance's authorized workshop to claim third party against the other vehicle.
They recommended me to claim against my own insurance. As i have "no" eye-witnesses, they say the claim is highly improbable and i will eventually have to fork out from my own pocket or claim against my own insurance if i were to wait for the third party claim.
What should I do? Employ a lawyer to pursue? Repair and claim against my own insurance policy?
I decided to claim third party first and leave the car in my car park while waiting for the result? Is it advisable?
REPLY
It is better for you to claim under your own policy and let the insurance company handle the recovery from the other party.
As the witness is not prepared to give his or her identity, it will be difficult for you to prove that the specified vehicle had caused the damage, unless you are able to get an investigator to inspect their other vehicle before it is repaired. This is, as you can see, quite a lot of hassle.
So, leave it to your insurance company to handle this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)