Dear Mr.Tan
Today's news reported that the regulator is curbing the loan limit to
35 years with some other restrictions in the approval process. This
action came after our MND Minister Khaw commented the 50-year loan
tenure as a 'gimmick'.
This makes me wonder whether such implementations by Financial
institutions does need any approval from the regulator? If yes, sad
to say this has short lived. What can we learn from here?
In our fast moving society and especially in Singapore, companies and
financial institutions are forced to be creative and to come up with
innovative products for consumers, be they good or 'bad'.
Our children who have just graduated with 1st class honors or under
scholarships or with MBA, may be the ones assigned to approve these
products. Due to their lack of experience and the convincing papers
put up be these financial institutions, they just approved the
products.
In the past we have the Lehman Brothers and Minibonds saga, off late
we saw the Profitable Plots, Genneve Gold and now the 35-year loan.
Singapore is well known for her very regulated financial system and
such processes has resulted in consumers being affected and now
redress need to be action by the the law or legal processes which are
costly for consumers.
What Singapore need is a pool of experts who have retired from the
industry to be in a product approval advisory board. The authorities
could tap on their views before approving their products. Like
Warren Buffett, people still sought his advise at his age. In
Singapore we have a large pool of these experts who through whatever
reasons, their views are not sought.
It is no point approving a product and sales made to consumers, than
curb the product. In some instances too many agencies involved eg
Police, CPIB, CAD etc before action can be taken.
Moving forward, what Singapore need is pro-active agencies.
David Soh
Today's news reported that the regulator is curbing the loan limit to
35 years with some other restrictions in the approval process. This
action came after our MND Minister Khaw commented the 50-year loan
tenure as a 'gimmick'.
This makes me wonder whether such implementations by Financial
institutions does need any approval from the regulator? If yes, sad
to say this has short lived. What can we learn from here?
In our fast moving society and especially in Singapore, companies and
financial institutions are forced to be creative and to come up with
innovative products for consumers, be they good or 'bad'.
Our children who have just graduated with 1st class honors or under
scholarships or with MBA, may be the ones assigned to approve these
products. Due to their lack of experience and the convincing papers
put up be these financial institutions, they just approved the
products.
In the past we have the Lehman Brothers and Minibonds saga, off late
we saw the Profitable Plots, Genneve Gold and now the 35-year loan.
Singapore is well known for her very regulated financial system and
such processes has resulted in consumers being affected and now
redress need to be action by the the law or legal processes which are
costly for consumers.
What Singapore need is a pool of experts who have retired from the
industry to be in a product approval advisory board. The authorities
could tap on their views before approving their products. Like
Warren Buffett, people still sought his advise at his age. In
Singapore we have a large pool of these experts who through whatever
reasons, their views are not sought.
It is no point approving a product and sales made to consumers, than
curb the product. In some instances too many agencies involved eg
Police, CPIB, CAD etc before action can be taken.
Moving forward, what Singapore need is pro-active agencies.
David Soh
:.
0 comments:
Post a Comment