DCHome.net 數碼天地論壇

 找回密碼
 註冊
搜索
開啟左側

中環.... 關於雷曼迷你債券事件

[複製鏈接]
 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 13:35:24 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 湯米 於 2008-9-24 12:44 PM 發表
好簡單,迷你債券,字面上你覺得係咩?咪入場費低d嘅債券囉,點知原來唔係…:L

淨係個名本身就係誤導啦…

引用一位係銀行界工作既網友所言...
「最大問題係點解監管機構會容許呢類結構性產品叫"債券"?"債券"一詞在投資者腦中有根深柢固的印象,以為係"債券"都屬低風險產品...咁都批?佢地真係打得少!」
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 13:36:19 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 HellFighter 於 2008-9-24 12:52 PM 發表


但新聞有講過. 法例上原來係無定義過債券的解釋的. 咁想係法庭上打佢誤導債券兩字. 應該打唔入了 :L :L

證券及期貨條例中係有的...只係個定義寬到同無無乜分別...= =+
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 13:39:33 | 顯示全部樓層
吸引o既地方因為一般平民百姓有能力買?
睇落同借上借/按上按有咩分別
原來雷曼都係放數兄弟...
:L :L
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 13:42:33 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 小東 於 2008-9-24 01:39 PM 發表
吸引o既地方因為一般平民百姓有能力買?
睇落同借上借/按上按有咩分別
原來雷曼都係放數兄弟...
:L :L


除左小甜甜,有邊個做生意唔係借上借/按上按架?:L

其實要買債券,不如買債券基金,夠晒自由幾時放都得…
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 13:48:29 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 小東 於 2008-9-24 01:39 PM 發表
吸引o既地方因為一般平民百姓有能力買?
睇落同借上借/按上按有咩分別
原來雷曼都係放數兄弟...
:L :L

正式債券入場費講緊閒閒地都要一球
一般散戶根本無能力參與
依家話有隻「迷你債券」十個八個就可以入場
對班自知唔多識野既保守投資者,你話吸引力大唔大先..
可惜佢地信錯人..

btw..商業銀行最基本既業務就係借平錢返黎再借出去
唔係做咩你放錢係銀行,唔洗怕屋企俾人老爆、火燭,佢唔收你保管費唔止,仲有利息俾你
慈善機構?  (附帶一提,最早期既銀行真係無息兼收保管費的)
你既存款係你既balance sheet上係資產,但係係銀行張balance sheet上係列係負債到的

[ 本帖最後由 hungtsz 於 2008-9-24 01:51 PM 編輯 ]
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 14:18:36 | 顯示全部樓層
弓典解唔做定期~
因為個息口好d/唔同計法?
仲有10萬個為甚麼...
XDDDDD
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 16:01:29 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 小東 於 2008-9-24 02:18 PM 發表
弓典解唔做定期~
因為個息口好d/唔同計法?
仲有10萬個為甚麼...
XDDDDD


嗰日聽電台. 有個"苦主"打上去, 佢話有啲苦主係去銀行續定期時, 啲銀行職員問佢地有冇興趣....
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 16:10:34 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 lee_yat_ming 於 2008-9-24 04:01 PM 發表


嗰日聽電台. 有個"苦主"打上去, 佢話有啲苦主係去銀行續定期時, 啲銀行職員問佢地有冇興趣....



我一星期聽十個八個呢d電話添啦. ;P
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 16:31:42 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 小東 於 2008-9-24 02:18 PM 發表
弓典解唔做定期~
因為個息口好d/唔同計法?
仲有10萬個為甚麼...
XDDDDD

http://www.dchome.net/viewthread ... p;page=1#pid6739690
大概不中亦不遠矣

又,睇報導唔少苦主都係上左年紀
請記住係佢地仲係到工作既時代,港元存款利率一度超過五厘
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 16:44:35 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 hungtsz 於 2008-9-24 04:31 PM 發表

http://www.dchome.net/viewthread ... p;page=1#pid6739690
大概不中亦不遠矣

又,睇報導唔少苦主都係上左年紀
請記住係佢地仲係到工作既時代,港元存款利率一度超過五厘


辛辛苦苦工作一輩子, 儲咗啲錢, 打算用嚟養老,
但, 放係銀行, 啲利息又越嚟越少,
出面又風高浪急, 又吾想攞出去投資
哩個時候有人話俾你知, 可收5,6厘息, 又吾係賺好多, 啱啱好保本(同通漲差吾多),
又吾會出事 ("咁多間大行backup, 點會出事呀")
你會吾會考慮?
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 17:14:27 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 lee_yat_ming 於 2008-9-24 04:44 PM 發表


辛辛苦苦工作一輩子, 儲咗啲錢, 打算用嚟養老,
但, 放係銀行, 啲利息又越嚟越少,
出面又風高浪急, 又吾想攞出去投資
哩個時候有人話俾你知, 可收5,6厘息, 又吾係賺 ...



邊有咁大隻 虫合 虫母 隨街跳丫.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 17:16:02 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 lee_yat_ming 於 2008-9-24 04:44 PM 發表


辛辛苦苦工作一輩子, 儲咗啲錢, 打算用嚟養老,
但, 放係銀行, 啲利息又越嚟越少,
出面又風高浪急, 又吾想攞出去投資
哩個時候有人話俾你知, 可收5,6厘息, 又吾係賺 ...


我覺得銀行sales有冇提雷曼摺左就會渣都冇係main point囉…
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 17:18:46 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 lee_yat_ming 於 2008-9-24 04:44 PM 發表


辛辛苦苦工作一輩子, 儲咗啲錢, 打算用嚟養老,
但, 放係銀行, 啲利息又越嚟越少,
出面又風高浪急, 又吾想攞出去投資
哩個時候有人話俾你知, 可收5,6厘息, 又吾係賺 ...

同埋禾主觀地相信,如果呢批「迷你債券」有十幾廿厘息
就算都係叫債券,佢地都應該會起戒心
但係依家得幾厘,名又咁好聽,有幾多個羊生羊太會諗起?

即係一個包裝幾乎一模一樣,價錢就平左一大截既金莎朱古力,大部份人見到都會起戒心
但係如果個價錢標到同真既一樣,仲有幾多個人會思疑係假野?
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 17:46:22 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 lee_yat_ming 於 2008-9-24 16:44 發表
辛辛苦苦工作一輩子, 儲咗啲錢, 打算用嚟養老,
但, 放係銀行, 啲利息又越嚟越少,
出面又風高浪急, 又吾想攞出去投資
哩個時候有人話俾你知, 可收5,6厘息, 又吾係賺好多, 啱啱好保本(同通漲差吾多),
又吾會出事 ("咁多間大行backup, 點會出事呀")
你會吾會考慮?

對「所有人」來講,呢的只係好悲微既諗法!
原帖由 FrederickWong 於 2008-9-24 17:14 發表



邊有咁大隻 虫合 虫母 隨街跳丫.

咁都叫大隻蛤也母?
囧!

[ 本帖最後由 Bad-PhoTalk 於 2008-9-24 05:49 PM 編輯 ]
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 18:01:41 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 Bad-PhoTalk 於 2008-9-24 05:46 PM 發表

對「所有人」來講,呢的只係好悲微既諗法!

咁都叫大隻蛤也母?
囧!

第一日聽到呢單新聞時,禾都以為又係d claim有成廿厘息既存款,暗小班苦主
後來過兩日知道原來係得o個兩厘幾到五厘回報,仲要有個美麗的名字
加之sales俾人捽起上黎會做d乜,自己都心中有數,完全改變對事件既睇法....
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 21:39:41 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 湯米 於 2008-9-24 05:16 PM 發表


我覺得銀行sales有冇提雷曼摺左就會渣都冇係main point囉…

故事情節俾原先以為的更惡劣!

賠唔賠一件事,一定要查...一定要檢討市場上有幾多呢d衍生產品
係咪應該俾呢d產品繼續咁樣係零售層面大規模銷售..

http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?p=2248535&sid=66a1e5e1d4ff57cde779add2829598ec
Minibond Series 3 have taken the retail route.

IF YOU want a front-row lesson in first-class financial obfuscation for structured products, then look no further than the way the recently collapsed Minibond Series 3 notes was packaged and marketed.

Lehman structured a synthetic derivative product to hedge its exposure to various instruments and linked it to the default likelihood of six major banks.

Up to $200 million of these notes were sold to a gullible retail public who probably thought they were buying a five-year bond issued by six leading banks that paid a 5 per cent coupon per year but were in reality, not only exposed to the US housing market but also to a complex credit default swap arrangement whose substantive party was the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.

The cover of the Pricing Document prominently stated that the issue was credit-linked to six financial institutions, namely Barclays Bank, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, UBS and UOB - these banks being defined as Reference Entities or REs.

Much was made of the fact that the viability of the notes depended on whether these six banks or REs would go bankrupt and there are repeated warnings to this effect throughout the document. Investors were given plenty of information on the credit ratings of these six REs and links to their websites while Lehman is listed only as the Arranger in small print.

The fine print at the bottom of the cover, however, states that Lehman is also Swap Counterparty, besides being the arranger. Not many retail investors would have seen this, and if they had, few would probably have understood the importance of this information. More on this later.

Investors, however, were urged to read the Base Prospectus in conjunction with the Pricing Statement. In the former's page 24, it is stated that 'the Notes are intended to provide investors with a coupon for assuming exposure to the credit risks of companies or of sovereign states, that is, the Reference Entities'.

'By acquiring the Notes, investors can gain exposure to the credit risks of the REs without directly holding debt obligations of the REs, for example, bonds issued by the REs.'

Note that the language used creates the impression that gaining exposure to the credit risks of the six REs is something desirable - and, by extension, this suggests that the notes are good investments
- when in reality, the key to the whole issue is in the words 'without directly holding debt obligations' of the REs.

In other words, the six REs are not participants in the notes, receive no money from the issue and are not issuers of the notes. Instead, the next sentence reveals all: 'This (exposure) is achieved by linking payment of the principal and/or interest on the Notes to an RE's default.'

Who provides this link? In all the documents, this is given as Minibond Ltd but this is a special purpose vehicle with only US$1,000 in capital. The substantive party behind Minibond Ltd is most likely Lehman Brothers
. Here's how it works.

Lehman most probably owned securities in the six REs. In order to hedge itself against default by any of these REs, it set up Minibond to offer notes to the public. Minibond offered these notes with attractive terms and because of clever marketing and pricing collects a certain amount of cash from retail investors.

This money is then used to buy securities - in the case of Series 3, it was collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), most probably on US mortgage instruments. Minibond then collects the cash flows from these CDOs. In order to pay investors the quarterly coupon and to ensure no problems with currency/interest rate fluctuations, it swaps these cash flows with counterparts, which is Lehman. It is stated elsewhere that if the swap deals fail in addition to a RE default, the whole issue will be terminated. Thus, since Lehman has failed, so has the issue.

The crux of the entire deal appears on page 17 under Credit Default Swap where it is stated that Minibond has an agreement with Lehman in which Lehman pays Minibond a premium for insuring Lehman against credit losses on the REs.

In effect, the money that Singapore retail investors exchanged for the notes were not for any bonds issued by the six names that appeared on the cover of the prospectus but instead, went towards insuring Lehman against losses in its portfolio.

The quarterly coupon investor received was not interest from the six REs but instead, Lehman paying an insurance premium, partly financed by cash obtained from CDOs.

In short, Lehman structured a synthetic derivative product to hedge its own exposure to various instruments and linked it to the default likelihood of six major banks.

Should the true nature of the instrument have been disclosed upfront? Yes, especially since it was marketed to retail investors - though it has to be said that many other notes and products have been sold in a similar manner and the only reason that the poor disclosure of this particular series of notes surfaced is that Lehman went bust. Had it not, or had it been rescued, the coupon payments would have continued as per normal and no one would have been the wiser.

Moreover, while it is possible to piece together the actual substance of these notes from the documents available, it is a tedious process and arguably not within the ability of the average retail investor.

There are many issues also unresolved - for one thing, how many other similar products are out there? How could the authorities allow the conflicts of interest inherent in one party from being the arranger, issuer and swap counterparty?

How is it that, if Lehman alone performed all these functions, there was virtually no disclosure of Lehman's financial position or credit rating? Instead, investors' attention was focused on the six REs - wrongly, as it turned out.

Finally, if disclosure was weak, then so was knowledge among distributors. Some brokers did not understand the true nature of the instrument and sold it as a bond. Maybe the name had something to do with it, though as investors have now found out painfully, what they had bought was not a bond but a convoluted swap-based instrument.

Thus, should such products be allowed to continue to come into the retail market?


簡單d講,好似ELN/ELI,客戶收既並唔係利息,而係期權金咁
買了迷你債券的客戶收的不是利息而是保費﹗
而且雷曼同時集多種身份於一身...
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 21:51:10 | 顯示全部樓層
阿宅好心機寫佐唔少野,遲D 移去財經版保留啦
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 22:14:48 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 湯米 於 2008-9-24 05:16 PM 發表

我覺得銀行sales有冇提雷曼摺左就會渣都冇係main point囉…


就算有講都實會加句...
「弓大間行冰會指丫~」
:faint :faint
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

發表於 2008-9-24 22:18:37 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 hungtsz 於 2008-9-24 05:18 PM 發表

同埋禾主觀地相信,如果呢批「迷你債券」有十幾廿厘息
就算都係叫債券,佢地都應該會起戒心
但係依家得幾厘,名又咁好聽,有幾多個羊生羊太會諗起?

即係一個包裝幾乎一模一樣,價錢就平左一大截既金莎朱 ...


反而呃o左班唔貪心唔想博o既人...
:faint :faint :faint
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

 樓主| 發表於 2008-9-24 22:56:40 | 顯示全部樓層
原帖由 小東 於 2008-9-24 10:18 PM 發表


反而呃o左班唔貪心唔想博o既人...
:faint :faint :faint

一心以為係做債主夾份買債券
點知原來做左保險商賣CDS
結果變左AIG....
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 註冊

本版積分規則

手機版|Archiver|DCHome

GMT+8, 2019-9-20 08:34 PM , Processed in 0.170813 second(s), 7 queries , Gzip On, Memcache On.

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表