MR TAN Kin Lian organised yet another rally last Saturday, this time to assist investors to redress their injustices over the collapse of the Pinnacle Notes 9 and 10 series by Morgan Stanley. Too many people are taking advantage of the situation to get back money from what they knew was a risky investment.

Full Story

Why is the writer asking the question:

"Why did Mr Tan not tell his agents to practise more ethics then, when he was CEO?"

The writer has any story regarding NTUC agents to tell?

I've no respect for someone who once helmed one of the big insurance companies for so long, and yet at the moment he relinquished his appointment, he started his blog to playdown whole life policies and ILPs, the same products he advocated and endorsed during his term in office.
How to believe a "chameleon" who on surface supported his ex-company's products and then do a 180-degrees turnaround and stab them in the back once he left office.
Who knows what motives he might have for organising those rallies?

I have been wondering too. I remember how arrogant he was then, especially the way the motor isurance policies were handled. Why now? His actions reminds me of one madhatter.

interesting... demonising Tan Kin Lian -`chameleon', `stab in the back', `motives', `arrogant', `madhatter', `adopted the same practices which he now deems unscrupulous', `politicising', `a writer of The Online Citizen, a website which is well known to have an anti-government stance'.
In my honest opinion the bystander has the clearest vision as he watches how things unfold.

This x-ntuc chief got reliability problem (not to the extend of creditability), I am wondering his doing is for self interest more. Las round he petition for insurance unfairness - so many ppl supported him... then last min he accepted 'something' and backoff completly. What happen to the trust those ppl place in him.

I suggest to DBS/Government/any org to shut him up, just give him something. Taking this chance I suggest the suffered investors must work out an orgnisation/sucession plan, in case a 'leader' quits, there are continuity...

http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2008/...ked-notes.html

High risk of credit linked notes
When we invest in a corporate bond, we take the credit risk of one company. If the company goes bust, we lose our invested sum.

When we buy a credit-linked note, we take the risk of 6 to 8 reference entities. If any reference entity goes bust, we lose our invested sum. The risk is mutiplied 6 to 8 times.

In addition, we take the risk of 100 or 150 underlying assets. If a certain number goes bust, we lost our invested sum. This may double the risk of the reference entities.

In all, the risk of losing our invested sum can be 10 to 15 times of the risk of 1 corporate bond. What do we get for this high risk? 5.1% per annum.

Did the sales materials and propectus describe the risks transparently and fully? They did not. In fact, the sales materials were written to mislead the investor. The propectus was not intelligible to the ordinary investor.

The only statement that is readable is "You can lose some or all of your investments on a credit event". This statement applies to most types of investments. It failed to disclose that the risk is 10 to 15 times (or whatever is the correct level of the risk) of the failure of one bond.

Under the Securities & Futures Act, it is an offence to give misleading statements or to hide relevant facts when selling securities to the public. I hope that the authority will take the financial insitution to task for breach of this Act.

Please kindly do your research before commenting.
Very irresponsible assumptions by Mr Chua.

http://hnigcare.blogspot.com/2008/11...otes-work.html

http://www.askdrmoney.com/Analysis_S...k_Products.htm

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...386734/1/.html