Investors in DBS High Notes 5 finally got the news they have been dreading for weeks: Their investments are officially worthless.
DBS said on its website yesterday that the redemption value of the notes has been calculated to be zero, so nothing will be paid out. Letters are going out to investors notifying them of the valuation.
About 10,000 retail investors bought more than $500 million worth of structured products linked to now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, with about 1,400 of them pumping $103 million into DBS High Notes 5.
Some investors of this product received late-night phone calls on Sept 16 from DBS relationship managers warning them that their entire stake may be wiped out.
High Notes 5 was offered to better-off DBS customers last year with a promised annual return of about 5 per cent.
An investor who did not want to be named said yesterday’s zero calculation was inevitable.
‘Guess that was the message the bank had prepared us for, so now we’ll just have to wait for the forum on Thursday,’ said the 52-year-old man who invested $50,000 in the product and will be attending a dialogue with bank officials tomorrow.
A DBS spokesman told The Straits Times: ‘Unfortunately the worst-case scenario has materialised and the majority of High Notes 5 investors will not be receiving anything back.’
When the bank distributed the structured notes last year, the likelihood of Lehman filing for bankruptcy was extremely remote, she said.
But she added that in cases where DBS’ standards were not met when the notes were sold, the bank will take responsibility and ‘investors will be compensated accordingly’.
The bank has estimated that it will pay compensation of about $70 million to $80 million in Singapore and Hong Kong, where it sold a similar Constellation Series of notes.
In Hong Kong, there are 3,300 investors who invested about $257 million in the notes.
The payout will go to people such as retirees who the bank feels were mis-sold the risky product.
On DBS’ part, it does not profit from the unwinding of these notes.
While yesterday’s zero valuation was expected, questions have been raised over how the figure was arrived at.
Lawyer Siraj Omar, from Premier Law LLC, combed through the High Notes 5 pricing statement and told The Straits Times that it contains four different formulas for calculating what is called the credit event redemption amount.
A credit event is triggered when one of the entities linked to the notes defaults.
Two formulas are absolute calculations while the other two are percentage calculations.
‘DBS has now given its calculation of the credit event redemption amount based on just one of the four formulas. The question is whether there is any justification for selecting this particular formula over the other three,’ said Mr. Siraj.
‘If there is no justification based on the terms and conditions, the question arises whether the notes should be considered void from their inception.’
A DBS spokesman said that three of the various formulas are ‘consistent with each other and mathematically the same’ while one has a ‘typo error’.
Lawyer Raymond Lye, from Pacific Law Corporation, said the credit event redemption amount ‘appears to be described in several different ways’. But he cautioned that bank contracts usually contain clauses that protect the bank in the event of ambiguity.
1 comment:
DBS High Notes 5 worthless
By Francis Chan & Selina Lum
29 October 2008
Investors in DBS High Notes 5 finally got the news they have been dreading for weeks: Their investments are officially worthless.
DBS said on its website yesterday that the redemption value of the notes has been calculated to be zero, so nothing will be paid out. Letters are going out to investors notifying them of the valuation.
About 10,000 retail investors bought more than $500 million worth of structured products linked to now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, with about 1,400 of them pumping $103 million into DBS High Notes 5.
Some investors of this product received late-night phone calls on Sept 16 from DBS relationship managers warning them that their entire stake may be wiped out.
High Notes 5 was offered to better-off DBS customers last year with a promised annual return of about 5 per cent.
An investor who did not want to be named said yesterday’s zero calculation was inevitable.
‘Guess that was the message the bank had prepared us for, so now we’ll just have to wait for the forum on Thursday,’ said the 52-year-old man who invested $50,000 in the product and will be attending a dialogue with bank officials tomorrow.
A DBS spokesman told The Straits Times: ‘Unfortunately the worst-case scenario has materialised and the majority of High Notes 5 investors will not be receiving anything back.’
When the bank distributed the structured notes last year, the likelihood of Lehman filing for bankruptcy was extremely remote, she said.
But she added that in cases where DBS’ standards were not met when the notes were sold, the bank will take responsibility and ‘investors will be compensated accordingly’.
The bank has estimated that it will pay compensation of about $70 million to $80 million in Singapore and Hong Kong, where it sold a similar Constellation Series of notes.
In Hong Kong, there are 3,300 investors who invested about $257 million in the notes.
The payout will go to people such as retirees who the bank feels were mis-sold the risky product.
On DBS’ part, it does not profit from the unwinding of these notes.
While yesterday’s zero valuation was expected, questions have been raised over how the figure was arrived at.
Lawyer Siraj Omar, from Premier Law LLC, combed through the High Notes 5 pricing statement and told The Straits Times that it contains four different formulas for calculating what is called the credit event redemption amount.
A credit event is triggered when one of the entities linked to the notes defaults.
Two formulas are absolute calculations while the other two are percentage calculations.
‘DBS has now given its calculation of the credit event redemption amount based on just one of the four formulas. The question is whether there is any justification for selecting this particular formula over the other three,’ said Mr. Siraj.
‘If there is no justification based on the terms and conditions, the question arises whether the notes should be considered void from their inception.’
A DBS spokesman said that three of the various formulas are ‘consistent with each other and mathematically the same’ while one has a ‘typo error’.
Lawyer Raymond Lye, from Pacific Law Corporation, said the credit event redemption amount ‘appears to be described in several different ways’. But he cautioned that bank contracts usually contain clauses that protect the bank in the event of ambiguity.
Post a Comment