Complaint to OMD

期: 2009 1 14 星期三 上午 2:46


Since Legco will start equiry of Lehman Brother case involving HKMA , so I include my copy of complaints to Ombudsman on HKMA for your information. I had U. of Minnesota alumnus with Ph.D. that used to work for HKMA and later quit to work for 信報 as editor. These people had inside information about HKMA and most news from these newspapers should be true :

1st copy:2008年12月18日 星期四 上午9:14
The following was my complaint against HKMA you received on 12/12/08"

1. From the start, HK Monetary Authority is only giving details about Lehman Brother related Minibonds which is different from what I heard from the banks. So HKMA is trying to mislead HK people about all Minibonds products that they belong to Lehman Brothers as bonds which may face totally loss in Lehman bankrupt case.So from the internet in discuss.com.hk, there are many confusing about Lehman Brother bonds and PIFL minibonds until some people and I point out that minibonds are PIFL products and never do HK Monetary Authority mentions about PIFL products in the news. There is also no charge and investigation of PIFL, Constellation and Octave companies that their Minibonds are sold as bonds in HK banks up to now.

2. There is also no mention of HSBC as trustee of Minibonds until I give the information on discuss.com.hk on the night of 20th and only do HKMA has a few hints about trustee after 21st demonstration by holders of Minibonds. There are no actions against HSBC which allows Lehman Brothers to switch their securities one months before Lehman Brothers went to bankrupt protection in US but only to investigate HK distributors - i.e. banks that sells these structured products. So HKMA actions seem only to put the blames to these HK banks that only act as distributor but not to trustee that supposing protect HK people savings as Minibonds are sold in HK.

3. There are also many discussions in the radio since SARS and HK government were promoting bonds to HK citizens about Minibonds and bonds from HK finance institute and HK gov. and HK Monetary Authority never warned against the minibonds are not bonds and also allow banks to sell them. And I read in the internet there are recordings found in Radio HK about the selling of Minibonds products as bonds and later on proved to be from directors of PIFL. And also from Legistrators after they received my complaint letters about HKMA, I heard that HKMA had promised Legistrators years ago during issueing of HK government related bonds (similar to structured products as these bonds can be later sold in stock market) in the Legistrators meetings that HKMA was very careful to look after these products sold in banks. And also during Legistrators meeting HKMA has told the legistrators that they did actually warned against the banks about Minibonds (includingConstellation series sold by DBS) that they include CDOs which are very high risks products that could not be sold to HK investors but only to institutional investment such as private bankings and goverments such as most Constellation series do include these CDOs. I also read about these CDOs in Yahoo.com in last two years these are very high risks products. But no warning of these products are given to me by banks and HKMA that they have missold me very high risk products. So there is a possible of COVER UP involved by HKMA and HK banks and these are a series crime.

4. For DBS Constellation series, these are poison milk sent to us by Singapore government and banking in last two years to rip off HK people for DBS use their worthless CDO lost to US banks. They just use notes to get all our money back to Singapore and I believe none of money still stay in HK. During the buyback of Constellation series by DBS bank, the Lehman Brothers went bankrupt protection but is still functioning. Also SCB manager of my bank has doubt about the calculating method of DBS and he thinks a large part of the money remaining in the CDO lost to depreciation of the collateral and costs and expenses are huge and unbelievable. Though these accounting method was also approved by HKMA, HKMA never investigates about these cases as Constellation series are all high risk products that cannot be sold in HK banks. But HKMA do cover these facts up from HK citizens as we are never warned as HKMA only asks HK people be careful in theirinvestments. Everybody knows that buying bonds is still the safest way to invest. This is a great fault of HKMA to allow Singapore bank owned partly by Singapore government to sell these high risk products in HK. HKMA is responsible to protect HK monetary system and they are experts in bonds market. This is a very great fault of HKMA to allow Singapore bank to steal money from HK people.

5. All Asia governments Taiwan, and Singapore came up to save the bonds as I read in news that Lehman Brothers was selling all it business including Asia bonds at cheap price and US court only allows sold of Lehman Brothers US assets until now because of asia problems and nothing seems done by HK government. Even after HK government asks HK banks to buy back the PIFL products, the HK government with advise from HKMA still lied to HK people that PIFL products are Lehman bonds that covered by US laws and allow HK banks to stop buy back of these Minibonds and allow international financial institutions to steal our money away from us held by HSBC .

6. During investigating of HKMA relating to HK banks selling of these products, HKMA mainly start with Minibonds holders age over 65 while the other age group will be started later. And this break the rules that the banks have to answer the HKMA in 60 days of the complaints. Under present conditions, the work in process of HKMA will take 20 years to complete in relationship to their requirement of 60 days. This is a delaying tactics of HKMA to help HK banks to steal money from us. And with HKMA examples, the HK banks only start to repay 20-30% of the loss to 65 years or older victims of Minibonds for under British common laws, selling of products to age 65 years or old are crimes for old people are too old to understand these products, same hold true for uneducated HK citizens. And most banks will not repay to all others Minibonds victims with their internal investigations with the help of HKMA delaying tactics, we are unable to locate evidences frombanks for legal actions. and your actions to investigate HKMA delaying actions is urgently required. However, new informations are found about PIFL in the news:

21st Century Business Herald 16 亞洲市場 By 譚璐 2008-12-18
擬在美集體起訴匯豐香港雷曼迷你債投資者"一致行動" 12月17日，CoughlinS t o i a G e l l e r R u d m a n& R o b b i n s L L P 的代表律師PatrickW.Daniels在香港接受記者採訪時表示，起訴美國匯豐的理據，是因為在香港負責雷曼迷你債券發行的公司 P a c i f i c I n t e r n a t i o n a l F i n a n c e L t d ，是由美國匯豐1 0 0 % 控股的公司。本報記者譚璐香港報道在香港擾攘多時的雷曼迷你債券回購事件仍然呈現膠著狀態，對駁公堂是否成為最後的解決之道?美國律師事務所CoughlinStoiaGellerRudman&RobbinsLLP早在11月底已經向香港雷曼苦主大聯盟提出建議，可以安排香港的迷債持有人在美國進行集體訴訟，要求美國匯豐賠償損失。12月17日，CoughlinStoiaGellerRudman&RobbinsLLP的代表律師PatrickW.Daniels在香港接受記者採訪時表示，起訴美國匯豐(HSBCBankUSA)的理據，是因為在香港負責雷曼迷你債券發行的公司PacificInternationalFinanceLtd，是由美國匯豐100%控股的公司。"香港的投資者不是從雷曼兄弟那裡買到這些債券的，是PacificInternationalFinanceLtd發行的，這個公司是獨立于雷曼兄弟運作的。"PatrickW.Daniels說，關於PacificInternationalFinanceLtd這個公司的資料可以從香港證監會那裡找得到。按照PatrickW.Daniels的說法，美國匯豐控制的公司發行了雷曼迷你債券，這些債券由雷曼兄弟負責擔保，同時匯豐又是這些迷你債券的信托人，負責保護抵押品。因此，PatrickW.Daniels認為，"匯豐不是受害者，實質上是雷曼迷你債的擁有者、發行者。

"Here are some further misdeed of HKMA that need further investigations:For complaint No. 1, HKMA should know that PIFL is 100% owned by HSBC since HKMA monitors all banks and financial institute in HK. Will there be any cover up of these facts by HKMA that need investigate.For complaint No. 2, HKMA should know that HSBC issues the Minibonds, and why should HKMA not to investigate about the issuer but only the distributors.For complaint No. 3, after I put complaint letter to the discussion board, somebody is saying HKMA only warn the investment banks about the CDO that are bad milk and these CDO should not be sold to low risk investors. But no investment banks and private banks in HK sell Minibonds, only public banks sell Minibonds in HK. And this means all public banks in HK may not know they are selling high risk products such as Minibonds because HKMA never warn them. And all these banks that bought Minibonds become victim themselves and HKMA is responsible.For complaint No. 5, even all HK banks involved in the buyback of Minibonds are hiring lawyers to protect the bonds hold by HSBC as trustee, but there are no actions from HK government and HKMA.

Regards,

"2nd copy
2008年12月19日 星期五 下午4:11
complaints@omb.gov.
The following was my complaint against HKMA you received on> 12/12/08>
3. There are also many discussions in the radio since SARS
and HK government were promoting bonds to HK citizens about
Minibonds and bonds from HK finance institute and HK gov.
and HK Monetary Authority never warned against the minibonds
are not bonds and also allow banks to sell them. And I read
in the internet there are recordings found in Radio HK about
the selling of Minibonds products as bonds and later on
proved to be from directors of PIFL. And also from
Legistrators after they received my complaint letters about
HKMA, I heard that HKMA had promised Legistrators years ago
during issueing of HK government related bonds (similar to
structured products as these bonds can be later sold in
stock market) in the Legistrators meetings that HKMA was
very careful to look after these products sold in banks.
And also during Legistrators meeting HKMA has told the
legistrators that they did actually warned against the banks
about Minibonds (including
Constellation series sold by DBS) that they include CDOs
which are very high risks products that could not be sold to
HK investors but only to institutional investment such as
private bankings and goverments such as most Constellation
series do include these CDOs. I also read about these CDOs
in Yahoo.com in last two years these are very high risks
products. But no warning of these products are given to me
by banks and HKMA that they have missold me very high risk
products. So there is a possible of COVER UP involved by
HKMA and HK banks and these are a series crime.
Pls see the following in the news:"

16 Dec 2008 [香港經濟日報]港星金融爭霸 種迷債禍根

雷曼兄弟爆煲剛好三個月，財政司司長曾俊華要求證監會及金管局，三個月內提交檢討報告的限制亦將於下周屆滿，據知兩監管機構最快於本周稍後提交報告。在檢討報告揭示制度缺失，並提改善建議前，本報綜合市場各界剖析，重組構成雷曼迷債風暴的來龍去脈。
　　
「有沒有想過，為何香港及新加坡，是全球少數面對大量雷曼迷債零售個案的市場？」有資深市場人士在分析雷曼迷債風暴的來龍去脈時，提出這項發人深省的反問。 　　

市場上確有不少分析認為，要準確了解包括雷曼迷債在內的總值835億元（證監會統計）零售結構產品，如何得以通過重重監管關卡，在過去數年向數以萬計的散戶傾銷的局面，不得不由2002、2003年間，香港與新加坡的「雙城故事」開始。

董施政報告 定調便利產品開發 　
　
當時，港府極力探索在金融風暴及科網泡沫爆破後，帶領本港經濟走出谷底的路向，並定調大力促進金融業為首的四大支柱行業，作為本港經濟的出路；適逢當時新加坡政府亦大力推動當地作為亞洲金融中心，迫使星、港兩地在金融領域上「短兵相接」。
　　
港府推動金融發展的決心，可見於前特首董建華在2003年1月發表的施政報告中，有關金融的部分一改往年加強監管、改善市場質素的主調，除提出推動債券市場發展外，更特別提及「讓金融新產品特別是衍生產品，可以較方便開發」（見附表）。 監管轉寬鬆 產品蜂擁而出
　　「
在我（2002年年間）上任初期時，傳媒每次見面都追問新加坡都推甚麼措施，吸引到多少對�藁�金開業……但最近已沒有多少記者提這方面問題。」一名前任財金官員，2006年間私下對記者說，本港當時在與新加坡競逐金融中心上已「跑出」，反映2002、2003年正處於「雙城」競逐的關鍵時刻。
　　
在這種國際競爭的大氣候下，證監會於2003年2月發表指引，為非上市零售債券及結構產品推售大開方便之門。據新指引，零售債券及結構產品發行商只須在同一系列首隻產品時印備長達數百頁的詳盡基礎文件後，每次印製長約數十頁的簡化版銷售文件。
　　
雷曼迷你債券正如在簡化措施的基礎上，於2003年3月推出首隻信貸掛�沟拿詡�產品後，在其後的5年半（截至2008年9月），不斷推出迷債新系列至共36個，平均每年推出6至7個系列。 撤利率協議 銀行急闢新財路 　
　
監管關卡闖過後，市場人士分析指出，雷曼迷債等推陳出新的投資產品，正好為急欲開拓新財源的銀行提供出路。自2001年撤銷利率協議後，銀行之間的競爭大增，一向是銀行主要盈利來源的按揭業務，其利率由1998年的最優惠利率加2厘，降至去年低點的最優惠利率減3厘，嚴重蠶食銀行的利息收入。
　　
傳統貸存業務轉差，非利息業務乘時而起，成為了過去幾年銀行主力發展的業務，配合�舢敃r監管機構的推動，加上利息持續低企，在2003、2004年香港更出現「零利率」，一眾存戶紛紛找尋其他的投資工具，各項理財產品愈來愈普及。但結果在這個百年一遇的金融風暴中，面對血本無歸的苦果。

"Pls check if HKMA is responsible for their negligent in controlling the Minibonds issuing and their cover up of their responsibility in the controlling of HK banking system.

Regards