Singapore securities firms -small print disclaimers

[Adrienne505]

I have to say that I am completely shocked by the small print disclaimers I read for Singapore security firms and even CDP. It is like they are not liable for absolutely anything, no matter how much they screw up. They disclaim THEIR errors, omissions, fraud, inaccuracies, defects in their softare or systems--nothing should ever be their fault. Some even say that they can do with the money that sits idle in your account whatever they wish and they don't take responsbility for their actions. They can mortgage it or loan it for derivatives. They can assign the money in your account to third parties and they disclaim any responsiblity for 3rd party actions.

How do you guys live with that? I want to participate in Singapore's financial system, but these statements scare me to death. Isn't anyone complaining, or you trust you money no matter what? Or you try not to invest in Singapore?

I have never seen these kinds of disclaimers in Europe, USA or Hong Kong.

[simply DON'T]

don't place any money or valuables with them! we can't be made to bear the loss caused by somebody else's mistakes!

of cause it is obviously an unfair contract terms  , but the common folks here are easy to 'bully', you see?

[and]

& please don't be surprised/ or shocked when you see similar unfair contract terms at those banks' agreeements. under the common law, all these unfair terms are void/unenforceable, but not so sure how does the judiciary system here view this

[Kubes.SG]

OP, what you will soon come to understand is that consumer rights and protection have not place in Singapore.  The Govt policies and laws, essentially support the practice of businesses making as much profit as possible, as fast as possible, without any consequence of consumer protection or consumer rights.   It is kind of funny they even put those disclaimers in their fine print - they really don't need to bother.

[To be fair]

Although there are small print disclaimers, they are often drafted by internal and/or external legal counsel. Its meant to disclaim all liabilities but in reality, the securities and/or banks and/or all financial institution are not able to disclaim all such liabilities. Remember, all FIs are supervised by MAS, and even though the disclaimers in the contracts clearly states that the buyer bear all risks (especially during the purchase of the mini-bonds saga), many FIs received bans, and they were told (by you know who) to make compensations to vulnerable clients, and sometimes, not so vulnerable clients too.

I have heard of a case whereby a partner (who is the head of banking & finance) of a major law firm in Singapore, claiming compensation against X company, because she claims she do not understand the mini bond product. Its quite laughable considering she is heading the banking & finance division of a major law firm. But when the (you know who) say to settle, you have to settle.

[Kubes.SG]

To be fair:

I don't think you are being fair to the actually situation.  In the Mimi-Bond saga, the banks, many Govt-linked, mis-sold the mini-bond products.  "Mis-sold" is a term I had never heard before but turns out it means "fraudulently lied" about the products level of risk.  In normal countries, with normal laws that protect consumers against cheating and fraud, (like HK), the banks would have been forced to compensate those cheated and lied too.  In countries that take fraud seriously a few of the senior bankers would have gone to jail.

I find it appalling that MAS, only after massive public outcry (by SG standards) told the culpable banks that they needed to refund those who could not speak English and were over 65 years of age (ie: vulnerable).  By doing that MAS confirmed the banks had cheated people, ALL people, yet MAS let them keep most of their profit from the scam.

I am stunned that in your example, you think it is wrong that someone who has been cheated and defrauded of their money should not have the right to recover it.  Don't understand or accept the rule of law?  Opps - there is no law to protect consumers here.   Let me rephrase:  Don't to understand or accept the concepts of fairness and honesty?   

[and so]

I have heard of a case whereby a partner (who is the head of banking & finance) of a major law firm in Singapore, claiming compensation against X company, because she claims she do not understand the mini bond product. Its quite laughable considering she is heading the banking & finance division of a major law firm. But when the (you know who) say to settle, you have to settle.

I don't find it laughable, and I'm also stunned as you appear to believe or encourage the idea that an average person/consumer intend or must be prepared to lose all their monies whenever they sign on the line and hand over their hard earned money. 

[Unfortunately Loser]

All investments bear risks, including bonds. When anyone buy anything, he/she should know there is risks involved. You guys all know very well that even big banks have failed and gone into deep debts. Even deposits can be deemed risky when a big organization go under or not.

If you are unwilling to take any risk or risk your hard earned money, keep it in a tin box under your bed.

At the end of the day, humans are just humans. When they earn money, they are happy and they shut up. When they lose money, they start claiming that they are not informed, or facts were not explained to them. Be it the mini-bond or any form of investments.

[Joke consumer protection]

I don't want this to degenerate into another Singapore bashing post but the rip off of the consumer is routine and consistent. 

I recently purchased a car and was offered finance at an interest rate of 2.1 percent which seemed good value.  Little did I realise that 2.1 percent is applied to the initial amount of the loan THROUGHOUT the life of the loan, without making allowances for the fact that you have been paying off the loan.  (e.g. if you borrow $100,000 at 2.1% and pay over two years, they will charge you a total of 2,100 x 2 = 4,200 interest in total.)  That would amount to interest in excess of 5 percent and at no point was I informed of this. 

Now, I understand that this method of charging interest is standard practice here.  In the UK, it would be highly illegal to create such an impression and the lender has to provide the true interest rate, even taking account of upfront fees.

[you will find out later]

Joke consumer protection:

I bet you are going to get another shock when you redeem the loan early, becos the finance house will apply 'Rule 78', which we ALL know is creditor friendly, to calculate the sum of interest rebate for you. AND they do this openly and proudly! this method is not acceptable legally in the US, and many countries have already put in consumer credit protection to rid such abusive,unfair practices engaged by unethical lenders!

[Joke consumer protection]

To PP...you are correct.  I also forgot to add that the dealer and the finance company are both highly reputable companies in Singapore.