SFC, HKMA and 16 banks reach agreement on Minibond
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:13 pm
I believe that the reimbursement of 60% and/ or more to investors from the captioned act is a good deed no matter some academics saying that the subject banks are not punished.
The justifications are as follows:
1. The repayment of fund
From the time when Lehman Brothers collapsed up to the present moment, the most ultimate controversial point is the request of repayment of fund. The investigations currently in process in Legislative Council as well as the demonstrations and other violent actions done by investors are the means to facilitate the repayment of fund. By other words, who commits legligence, either, HKMA, SFC or the Distributing Banks, should bear the costs of refund. This is straightly obvious.
2. Suspension of majority of past legal proceedings
From the suspension of past legal proceedings launched originally at Small Claim Tribunal which then has them transferred to District Court, investors seem not to be financially sound enough to further proceed the legal proceedings against the responsible bank(s).
3. Concrete evidence against Banks' legligence
It is difficult to present concrete evidence as investors are not the persons who on purpose set up traps to take advantage of their banks.
4. Banks suffer less due to the up-growing the global stock markets
The Government of HKSAR should ensure efficient reimbursement to investors as soon as possible. On the other hand, banks are advised to lock-in the current position by entering some hedges as no one knows how the market would go. If it were unfortunately to drop dramaticially when the liquidation proceeding finished, the banks might suffer at a maximum of 60% - 2/3 % commission earned for selling the Lehman Brothers instruments.
Peronally, I do not agree with some academics of saying of adopting the measures adopted by Singapore. In doing so, the parties inv0lved would become the victims with a great suffer.
Rectification should have an objective to minimise the losses that Hong Kong has suffered. The current one, though not a perfect one, is an acceptable approach in that sense.
Thanks.
The justifications are as follows:
1. The repayment of fund
From the time when Lehman Brothers collapsed up to the present moment, the most ultimate controversial point is the request of repayment of fund. The investigations currently in process in Legislative Council as well as the demonstrations and other violent actions done by investors are the means to facilitate the repayment of fund. By other words, who commits legligence, either, HKMA, SFC or the Distributing Banks, should bear the costs of refund. This is straightly obvious.
2. Suspension of majority of past legal proceedings
From the suspension of past legal proceedings launched originally at Small Claim Tribunal which then has them transferred to District Court, investors seem not to be financially sound enough to further proceed the legal proceedings against the responsible bank(s).
3. Concrete evidence against Banks' legligence
It is difficult to present concrete evidence as investors are not the persons who on purpose set up traps to take advantage of their banks.
4. Banks suffer less due to the up-growing the global stock markets
The Government of HKSAR should ensure efficient reimbursement to investors as soon as possible. On the other hand, banks are advised to lock-in the current position by entering some hedges as no one knows how the market would go. If it were unfortunately to drop dramaticially when the liquidation proceeding finished, the banks might suffer at a maximum of 60% - 2/3 % commission earned for selling the Lehman Brothers instruments.
Peronally, I do not agree with some academics of saying of adopting the measures adopted by Singapore. In doing so, the parties inv0lved would become the victims with a great suffer.
Rectification should have an objective to minimise the losses that Hong Kong has suffered. The current one, though not a perfect one, is an acceptable approach in that sense.
Thanks.
