Bill Gates I don't pay enough tax.mp4

To non-Lehman Octaves Notes victims

The following was my message three years ago to LBV :

"Most of victims I think will sue the banks only since all of us put our money in banks. So the government should help us to get our money back because all of them are guilty to introduce these high risk structure products to bank to sell to us so they should help us to get our money back. But only the banks are responsible in lying to us that these are bonds."

Now it is time for others non-Lehman related structure products to join together for the continue fight against bankers.\

緊急呼籲精明債券系列18及20
苦主登記
不幸的事始終發生了，但時間很不恰當，在一片歡樂的新年氣氛中，忽然傳來苦主最不願聽到的消息。近來價格的大幅下跌，也預示可能很快發生爆煲。各位苦主不要太傷心，我們都是過來人，你們可依循我們走過的路途，向老千銀行和大魔追討血汗錢。

我們先組織起來，再商討日後的行動。請你們立即行動，點繫此網站的 ” 聯絡我們” 留下你們的資料，

姓名
手機

電郵 (如有)
或致電以下任何3個電話：

每天上午 10 時至下午10時致電

陳小姐 96635311或
曾先生 91671433 或
黄先生 97419185

我們會盡快回覆你

HK SFC is covering up BOCHK in breaking SFC ord. 107

HK SECURITIES AND FUTURES ORDINANCE - SECT 107 as committed by Bank of China that sold US related CDOs, securities, bonds related to US housing markets to customers that refused to buy any US related bonds from Bank of China for I had explained to the banks that any securites, bonds and any products I wanted from their should not related to US market but only to Asia and Europe market products.

Even in Legco sessions, Directors of Bank of China told Legco members that the bank had checked with the distributors of these structure products that no US market CDOs were involved with their structure products that they were selling. But I had sent these CDOs informations to Legco members involved with these structure products with CDO's mis-selling many times before. So all Bank of China staffs should know about these CDOs involved with their structure products during their trainings especially nowadays the special independent team that investigate my case.

Since I knew in the year 2008 or later and after that Octave Notes were related to US housing market CDOs from documents sent to me by Bank of China that I got US housing market related CDOs that I did not want to buy, and after many investigations by Bank of China of these CDOs experts that should knew these products in order for them to investigate their cases never told me and hide the reason I got these CDOs in my structure products that I bought from them so they could cover up their bank crimes of misrepresentation. So all of them are now involved with fraudulent misrepresentation (Bank of China) and reckless misrepresentation (for the staff that sold me the products) for the purpose of inducing me to subscribe Octave Notes from the bank of China, at the time when it is made, is to the knowledge of its maker false, misleading and deceptive crimes as they all should know the Bank of China were committing mis-selling at that time for Bank of China never revealed to me that what I bought had US market CDOs with their relevant documents that I told the staff that I did not want even thru the bank sent me the documents that I had US related housing market CDOs in 2009 to disclose their crimes.

SFC now refuses to investige these crimes as SFC now is irresponsible to investigate structure crimes of the whole HK banking system.

Legco investigation of non-Lehman Octaves Notes

Concerning today Legco meeting on 22nd Nov. 2011, there are still mis-understanding of non-Lehman Octave Notes with Legco members that Octaves Notes are the same as ELNs that are private placement products. In fact, non-Octave Notes are the same as Minibonds that are approved by SFC to be sold in HK. So from SFC/HKMA agreement with HK banks, non-Lehman Octave Notes should get at least 60% - 70% payment from banks same as Lehman products, but in fact the banks such as Bank of China is paying nothing. So many banks such as Bank of China , Wing Hang Bank have not followed the agreement with SFC and HKMA and there should be punishment for SFC and HKMA for making such a agreement with the banks in order to cover up the banks mis-selling frauds and to harm victims of these products.

Mis-selling of Octaves Notes

We have known for more than two years that BOCHK misled its customers when it sold them so-called Octave Notes as bonds issued by Victoria Peak. But the leaflet said “Not Principal Protection Notes” . Now, according to a handful of victims during discussions and in court hearings in BOC mis-selling frauds, it turns out the firm also used its own sale managers to sell a lot of these Octave Notes saying these notes were safe but hide the facts that BOCHK rated these notes as high risk.

Since shortly after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, we have been hearing essentially the same story from thousands of customers from banks to banks. These were conservative investors, many with a long history of investing in term deposits, HK issued bonds and the like. Their bank managers came to them with a pitch for so-called Octave Notes that similar to bonds. This was a very safe proposition, they said. The customers could potentially link to seven large companies and Chinese government, and the worst that could happen was that all seven companies and for Chinese government had credit events which is impossible, then they would not get their principal back which would likely not happened. Many customers were never even told that Morgan Stanley was the issuer of the notes, let alone that the notes were just a structure products of Morgan Stanley invested into all kind of CDS, CDOs kind of derivatives.

We all know what happened next. These deceptively named notes were just synthetic bonds, and investors’ entire principal went to Morgan Stanley which bought sub-prime related CDOs and others high risk companies with bribery that rated as AAA. While BOCHK, the largest seller of all these structure products, rated the Octave Notes as high risk, pocketed tens of millions in underwriting fees on the Octave notes it helped to sale thru its bank sales managers. But these sale managers are now being sued in court for not telling their customers these notes were high risk for they got their shares of bonus for this mass mis-selling frauds.

Also BOCHK executives consistently issued training documents and CDROM to their sale managers for each products, encouraging their financial advisors to continue selling these notes to their best customers and lulling them into holding the notes even when alarm bells began to ring in the spring and summer of 2008. And let these sale managers to read the fine details themselves in English and all of them did not for BOCHK does not even hired any of their staffs with good English.

Sale managers have showed that in court that senior management told them to read the ratings agencies’ “A marks” for these linked seven companies and themselves had to reassured their customers that their due diligence were thorough in the training documents. Their bank managers did not have to check them but sale managers themselves counter-signed these risk forms for each others, these actions would pretend that the BOCHK did preformed the due diligence as required by SFC to sell the notes. Meanwhile, the higher-ups investment department of BOCHK must have tracked the market’s true measure of default risk: credit default swap spreads (in short, the price of insuring against hundred of companies default) without sale managers knew anything. Even as most major US companies’ spreads exploded, the executives apparently soft-pedaled the impact of this information, only to tell their sale managers that the Octave Notes were not linked to US sub-prime housing market in many cases and these were all lies. But to those who sold Octave Notes that had US housing market CDOs, the sale managers never remind their customers to sell off their Octave Notes.

According to these disillusioned sales mangers inside court, when they told their customers that these seven companies were A rated, the witness and the sales managers had proved that these sale manager sometimes used the BOCHK training documents photocopies that did not have disclaimer to hide the high risk nature of the Minibonds. In truth, they must have seen and worried about the parallels in court being asked by the judge how they can sell AAA rated CDOs but high risk to customers to be a secure investment. That why in many cases the Octave Notes victims of BOCHK never got the sale documents from BOCHK sales managers for these managers ticked the high risk box in the sale documents and refused to give the form to their customers. In some cases, the sales manager folded the sale form hiding the high risk ticks and put the form inside the envolope so to let the customers not to read the form when they get home.

Many BOCHK sale managers got their customers in 2008 for catastrophe while many other smaller banks stopped sales of Minibonds in 2008 and Octave Notes in 2007 due to high risk level but all these banks never warned their customers. For most, they bit on their company’s pitch hook, line and sinker. They remained in the dark until it was too late and now are being sued in courts.

About Bank of China bank frauds as conducted by Chan H F, Jeffrey / Bank of China

In his letter about mis-selling of Octave Notes, the staff records from HKMA show that the seller was not bank staff of Bank of China after 2009, so the letter as attached shows no evidence of investigation of the cases by BOC Jeffrey Chan and no proof of investigation were done by Bank of China and the bank is committing bank frauds during the so called investigations.

There were no mentioning of suggestion of subscription of Trust fund with relavant documents before sales of false bonds.

There were no evidence the bank got true documents ready for sales of these products as no real documents were mentioned in the letters but copies.

There are no explaining of what is the risk of the products even in their reply letters and where were the relevant documents secretly hidden in the banks for CCB to search these document thru court order.

There were no mentioning of risk of product being told by any bank staffs against my complaint statement in the telephone with bank which they should have recording this year under the old and new codes by HKMA.

There are no mentioning of how the investigation told me the risk of the products being explained to me (thru hands, eyes or body?)

From my knowlege with other banks customers of many banks about their investigation of mis-selling of Minibonds and other related products, Bank of China replied letters are different from all other banks and these letters contained many evidence that these investigation people are still committing banks frauds on their own letters.

摩根士丹利

不爆不爆還需爆！摩根士丹利網站在1月18日，即兔年的最後一個星期，宣布精債系列18和20已爆煲，這個當然不是一個意外的結果，而本網站也曾多次提醒苦主做好心理準備。這次爆煲，估計受波及的苦主有數百人，在債券稍後被正式贖回後，苦主只會得近乎零或甚至零，即是近乎100%本金的損失，對苦主過年將蒙上陰影。
總括來說，精債共18個系列中有一半爆煲！而全部爆煲事件都是在雙數的年份發生。系列17和19在沒有延期下以100%贖回而逃過一劫，可說是不幸中的大幸，現精債全部系列已基本上塵埃落定，繼迷債和星債的兩個烙印後，精債又成為苦主不能磨滅的烙印，悲哉！這都是拜兩個無能的監管機構所致。
兩廢柴監管機構只會浪費公帑，應做的事就完全沒有做，爆鑊就卸責並要苦主以一生的血汗錢來彌補她們的過失，還不知羞恥地說她們已為苦主爭取了不少賠償，簡直是香港之恥，實在是罪過！所謂慾知後世果，今生作者是，壞事多做必折福，切記！切記！

www.morganstanley.com/octavenotes/pdf/series19-20/Octave20_Notice_to_Distributors_180112.pdf

www.morganstanley.com/octavenotes/pdf/series19-20/Octave20_Notice_to_Distributors_180112.pdf

www.morganstanley.com/octavenotes/pdf/series17-18/Octave18_Notice_to_Distributors_180112.pdf

www.morganstanley.com/octavenotes/pdf/series17-18/Octave18_Notice_to_Distributors_180112.pdf

More on Octaves Notes related to HK banks frauds

２０１２年１日１３日唐英年評論雷曼事件

２０１２年１月１３日梁振英評論雷曼事件

２０１２年１月１３日何俊仁評論雷曼事件

Structured Products

Investment products that consist of different derivatives
are often called “Structured Products”. Equity-Linked Deposits, or Currency-Linked Deposits, are common examples of “Structured Products”. Most of these
structured products consist of a mixture of derivatives;
that is, a combination of different derivative products, some of which are “principle-protected”, and some of which are “non-principle protected”. Therefore, when you invest in “Structured Products” which are mixtures of derivatives,
a clear understanding of the detailed contract provisions is particularly important, for example, whether it is “principle-protected” or, “non-principle protected”? Of course, when trading structured products, you will always need to bear in mind the risk of significant market price fluctuations, which may result in losses.

Key Risks Associated with Derivatives

In this section, we will explain the risks involved in derivative products. These are (1) Counterparty Risk, (2) Investment Risk of the Underlying Asset, (3) Early Redemption & Potential Capital Loss Risk, (4) Liquidity Risk, (5) Interest Rate Risk, and (6) Leverage Risk.
(1) Counterparty Risk
Derivative products are issued by third parties, such as listed companies or financial institutions, which we usually refer to as “issuers”. If these organizations encounter financial problems and this leads to a decrease in their credit rating, or if they collapse because of solvency problems, the derivative products’ values will be affected and may even lose all value.
(2) Investment Risk of the Underlying Asset
The prices of derivative products’ depend on the value of their underlying assets. Normally, fluctuations in the underlying assets’ price will directly affect the prices of their derivative products.
(3) Early Redemption & Potential Capital Loss Risk
Regardless of whether the investor chooses to redeem early, or the issuer has to terminate the products because of early redemption, this action may cause the investor to lose money because they may receive an amount less than they invested. Therefore, attention should be paid to the early redemption provision, and consider if it would affect the amount you invest.
(4) Liquidity Risk
Generally speaking, this risk is related to whether or not the derivative products can be easily sold and converted into cash. Before expiry, some derivatives products may be harder to sell and subsequently converted into cash. If it is not possible to sell them, you will have to wait until the derivative products reach their expiry date before you can get your funds back. If your funds have to be ready to use at any time, please pay special attention to this risk.
(5) Interest Rate Risk
The fifth risk is the Interest Rate Risk. Any derivative
products are ultimately exchanging an “asset” and “money”, or exchanging two currencies. The fact is that “money” is necessarily linked to interest rates; therefore, interest rate changes will affect the prices of derivative products.
(6) Leverage Risk
Consider that although you may only observe small movements in the stock market (or foreign exchange market), their derivative products’ prices may exhibit more drastic changes

Tilt Shift Ep001 Part2 移軸人生 第一集 佔領中環 第2節

Tilt Shift Ep001 Part1 移軸人生 第一集 佔領中環 第一節

Occupy Wall Street's Livestream Operators Arrested - National - The Atlantic Wire

Occupy Wall Street's Livestream Operators Arrested - National - The Atlantic Wire

Occupy Wall Street is in the middle of one of its day-long marches in New York Tuesday, protesting the National Defense Authorization Act, but for those following along on the Global Revolution livestream, the real action is happening in the broadcast studio itself. That's because police have apparently just raided the Brooklyn studio of Globalrevolution.tv and taken some of the project's key volunteers into custody.

The raid Tuesday follows a notice to vacate that police delivered to the Bushwick studio on Monday night. Victoria Sobel, a Global Revolution volunteer, said Vlad Teichberg and a guy named Spike, both of whom maintain the live feed aggregator, had been taken into custody by police, along with four or five others.

In Manhattan, about 100 Occupy protesters (according to Animal New York's Twitter) marched to the offices of New York senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, where they told stories and made impassioned cases for the wrongness of the NDAA. They plan a final rally at Grand Central station at 5 p.m., which should make for some fun interactions with hurried commuters. Lots of people were watching the proceedings on live feeds operated by Globalrevolution.tv, but now that site has stopped broadcasting the New York protest and is showing footage of Occupy Maui.

If you were following along earlier today, you may have been startled at about 1:45 p.m. to see the live feed cut away from the street-level action and to the face of Vlad Teichberg, one of the main organizers of Global Revolution. The new shot showed a large, graffittied space where Teichberg and a couple of colleagues were confronting a man they identified as the landlord, who had apparently broken in their door. They put the camera on him, he threatened to call the police, they said he had no right to come into the space by force, and he eventually left.

But Sobel said that was just the start of the day's conflict. Shortly after the confrontation, the police arrived. "Within the past hour, the police came in and removed people that were inside the studio," she said. "I believe the police just began knocking on the door and saying they would kick the door down and saying they would arrest people on the spot." The Global Revolution studio is now locked, Sobel said. The live feed has finished its Hawaiian broadcast and is playing a pre-recorded video. "The message is that even if they take the space, the [broadcast] will continue to be maintained," Sobel said. But right now, it seems to be out of commission.