i compare scams - Gold Coins Vs Bitcoins

Scammer - Scam - Another Gold Buyback Firm SG Gold Collapses

Yet another gold buyback firm has collapsed. Channel 8 news reported on the 09th April 2013 that around 400 clients of SG Gold are affected after the firm closed down last month. SG Gold cited the slump in gold prices as the reason for closing down.
SG Gold unsuccessfully tried to find a buyer for the gold buyback business in December last year.
The gold buyback firm attracted clients from another gold buyback firm Genneva last year. Genneva is currently under investigation by CAD.
SG Gold the offered to pay former Genneva customers 2% a month for 6 months before buying over the gold. The catch is that the customer must pay $1,800 per 100 gram of gold upfront.
The police declined to comment if SG Gold is currently under investigation.

i compare scam - Gold Rush Scams

The Gold Guarantee’s Lee Song Teck Uncontactable Since Jan 8


The Straits Times reported on the 22nd January 2013 (Gold trading firm’s founder ‘uncontactable’) no one has been able to contact the The Gold Guarantee (TGG) founder Lee Song Teck since 8th January after he sent out an e-letter detailing the plans for the company’s future.
According to the report, the letter concerns the merger of TGG and Asia Pacific Bullion, another metals trading company owned by Lee Song Teck.
The Straits Times reported that some agents had managed to track down Lee Song Teck in Malaysia on 12th January and he has asked for time to settle things.
A customer was reported to have invested $189,000 in a 2 kg gold last month and does not have possession of the gold. Based on a currency conversion rate of SGD1.22 to US$1 and a spot gold price of US$1,680/ounce, the purchase price is almost 31% higher than spot price. She mentioned that her agent has not been answering her calls too.
Another client in his 50s was quoted as saying that he will visit Lee Song Teck’s home in Hougang everyday until he gets an answer.

i compare scam brothers - Trust no brothers - Trust yourself - Scammer Maker

How Lehman-linked Minibond, High Note, Jubilee Structured Note work

Many investors and non-investors alike, including me, have been baffled by the complexity of the Lehman-linked structured notes. I will attempt to shed some light on the inner workings based on what I managed to figure out. Most of the information found here are from the Lehman Minibond Base Prospectus and Minibond Series 2 Pricing Statement. The following are my own understanding and is for information only and not an exhaustive and official explanation. Some of the affected structured products may work in a different way.
Parties Involved
  1. Note-holders -  The investor. Yes, that’s you
  2. Issuer – A company set up by the Arranger (a subsidiary of the financial institution) to issue the note
  3. Swap Counterparty – A subsidiary of the financial institution that goes into a Swap Agreement on promises to fulfill some obligations agreed according to the Swap Agreement
  4. Reference Entities - A list of reputable companies whose credit risk the note-holders are exposed to
  5. Underlying Securities – A basket of securities to back the Reference Entities. Some of the Structured Notes utilise credit-linked notes or synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) as the Underlying Securities. Note-holders are also exposed to the credit risk of the Underlying Securities

How The Notes Work

At Issuance of Note

 
What is a Credit Event?
Credit Event is the ‘Bankruptcy’‘Failing to pay’ or ‘Restructing’ of the Reference Entities. As there is a ‘First-To-Default’ clause, as long as any 1 of the Reference Entity  were to fulfill any of the above criteria. A Credit Event is said to have occurred.
Other than being exposed to the credit risk of the Reference Entities, the note-holder is also exposed to the credit risk of the Underlying Securities. The Underlying Securities has similar credit event definitions to the Reference Entities. If a Underlying Security credit event happens, the Structured Note will be redeemed early.
Why were DBS High Note 5 and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 redeemed while Lehman Minibonds was not?
Lehman Brothers was a Reference Entity in High Note 5 and Jubilee Series 3. Thus, Lehman’s bankruptcy is considered as a Credit Event.
In Lehman’s Minibond case, Lehman is the Swap Counterparty and not a Reference Entity. Therefore there was no Credit Event. The trustee, HSBC Institutional Trust has the option to look for a substitute Swap Counterparty in the interest of the Note-holders.
Are the affected Structured Notes Principal Protected?Some of the Notes state that they are Principal Protected while others don’t. However, Principal Protected does not mean that the investor WILL get back the Principal at maturity. It just means that the issuer will attempt to protect the principal.
In the case of a Principal Guaranteed note, the principal is guaranteed by the issuer or a third party. In the event that issuer/third party faces bankruptcy, the investor may still lose his principal.
Read the blog entry Capital Protected is NOT Capital Guaranteed under the related post below for other examples.

i compare minibond scam - mini bond scam

Scams Minibond, High Note, Pinnacle Note, Jubilee Note Protest 


Yesterday, I was at the Speaker’s Corner at Hong Lim Park for the protest against having been mislead into buying of structured products like Minibond, High Note, Pinnacle Note and Jubilee Note.  An estimated 700 people was there. I had not bought any of such products but was there to understand the kind of impact in the local context. Maybe you can call me a ‘kay-poh’.
As only hand held mobile amplifier were allowed at Speaker’s Corner, many of the attendents were not able to hear what the speakers were saying even as the 2 gentlemmen were trying their best to address the crowd. From what I could make out of their speach, this is what they said (note: I could have miss out much of the speach or mis-understood it due to the poor sound quality and large ambient noise):
Mr Leong spoke about
  • Briefly what the notes were
  • Under the Financial Adviser Act, advisers have to do a fact find and recommend products on a resonable basis
  • The importance of diversification
Mr Tan spoke about
  • The inferior nature of the products in the way that in a bull market, the upside is limited. But in a bear market, you could lose everything. This is worse than stocks whereby you can earn alot in a bull market and lost alot in a bear.
  • Getting the authorities involved as they hold the power to intervene.
  • Getting the MPs involved as well.
  • Getting an affidavit from a lawyer which cost around $120
Many in the crowd are senior citizens and retirees. A large portion of them were also Mandarin speaking and could not understand English. Some of them requested the speakers to speak in Mandarin.

During the break halfway through the talk, people gather into smaller groups according to the products they got. There was much outpouring of anger and grief as the attendees shared on how they were mis-sold the products. Many badly needed a listening ear…
I felt sad when reading through the various reports on papers and blogs and seeing videos of protesters in Hong Kong. But to see the kind of emotions first-hand in Singapore… They look just like any average uncle and auntie you find in any heartland. Anyone could be your relative, your dad and mom.
It makes me wonder how are these people going to seek redress when they couldn’t even understand the simplified message the speaker were trying to convey. Lodge a complaint with the financial institution? File the complaint with FIDREC? i don’t think it would be easy for them to do it.
Really hope the authorities can do something constructive about this issue. People’s life savings and retirement funds are at stake.

i compare land scam - land scams - land bank scams

Landbanking Firm’s High Return?



Landbanking is not regulated anyway. Same As Bitcoins

A landbanking firm placed a half page advertisement on the 25th July 2010 edition of The Sunday Times. In the advert, a 28.24%  average rate of return was reported. The figure was even reported to be audited by a large audit firm.
Average rate of return is not the standard way investment return is reported. Normally, investment return is reported using Compounded Annual Return (Compounded Annual Growth Rate, CAGR) or a.k.a Geometrical Return. The average rate of return is the Simple Average of the returns.
I check out the report on their website and the Compounded Annual Return is 14.82%, only half of the reported 28.24% average rate of return.
A Geometrical Return will never be higher than the Simple Average. A simple example -  An investment gave a 100% return in year 1 and drop 50% in year 2. What is the Simple Average Return and Geometrical Return? Ans:
Simple Average Return – 25% p.a.
Geometrical Return – 0% p.a.
I find it misleading to report the Simple Average return while the Geometrical Return is available. Even the report state that the “compound rate of return is more commonly used in Canada“.  But hey, landbanking is not regulated anyway. So we should not be surprised at the non-standard way of reporting investment return.

i compare scam karma - scams karma - Scammer

Directors of Profitable Plots Officially Charged Over Boron CLS Bond


The 3 directors of landbanking firm Profitable Plots were charged in court yesterday over investments related to an industrial lubricant called Boron. Each director was charged with 86 counts of cheating US$2.4m (The Straits Times -  Profitable Plots directors charged with cheating). Only US$3,625 have been recovered.
There was however, no charges related to the landbanking investmentsProfitable Plots were originally involved in.
The director were remanded at Singapore Changi Remand Prison as they were unable to post bail of $400,000 each. The Deputy Public Prosecutor said that they were flight risks and wanted a $600,000 bail each originally.
The directors will remain at the remand prison pending a criminal case disclosure conference on April 20th.

i compare scam - scams - scammer - scammers - scam behaviours - scam chracteristics - Discover scam behaviour in company

"Selling Land of Dream" - Profitable Plots Back In Court


The trial of the 3 directors of landbanking firm Profitable Plots began yesterday, reported the 23th April 2013 edition of The Straits Times(Sham investment plot motivated by directors’ greed: DPP).
Deputy Public Prosecutor Luke Tan said that Profitable Plots’ directors were motivated by greed in coming up with the alleged  fraudulent schemes, cheating 86 clients of US$8m. Each of the directors were faces 86 charges of allegedly conspiring with each other to cheat clients.
The DPP alleged that the trio came up with the Boron scheme (Boron CLS Bond), which involves the financing the sale of a lubricant to major corporation, to ease cash-flow problems at the group’s main business of selling land in the UK when it suffered losses due to the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008. The Boron CLS Bond came with returns as high as 12.5% in 6 months.
One of the witnesses, Mr Lim Kok Meng from the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), told the Court that the 3 directors paid themselves huge salaries, bonuses and dividends.

Bitcoin scams - World Largest Currency Scam Bubble - Bitcoins Scam Bubble

When will Bitcoin Bubble Scam Burst?

Bitcoin rises above $1000

The virtual currency bitcoin Wednesday broke above $1,000 per unit, quintupling in a month, according to Mt. Gox, which manages trading in bitcoin.

Launched in 2009 as the invention of a mysterious computer guru who goes by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, bitcoins can be exchanged online for real money or used to buy goods and services on the Internet. The currency is not regulated by any government.
Bitcoin reached $1,073 at 1640 GMT. At 1746 GMT, the currency was trading at $1,055, according to Mt. Gox.
The currency traded at just $205 on October 28 and is known for its volatility.

Still, bitcoin has gotten momentum in recent weeks after US regulators, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, took a more positive view of the currency than many analysts had expected at a congressional hearing earlier this month.
Regulators have also discussed stepping up oversight in light of concerns that it could be used for money laundering and other illicit purposes.
Bitcoins recently made headlines when the US Federal Bureau of Investigation closed the Silk Road website where illegal drugs, forged documents, hacker tools and even the services of hitmen were hawked. The FBI seized 26,000 bitcoins worth $3.6 million at the time


The other side of the bitcoin: Virtual currency’s reach is still very limited



Advocates claim the fast-rising digital currency has the potential to liberate the global economy. In the week it topped $1,000 on one exchange, Ben Chu examines whether the bitcoin really has the clout to shape our financial future


Brick Lane on a Saturday night normally echoes to the shouts of revellers as they stumble in and out of the scores of Bangladeshi curry houses and hipster bars that line the street.
But on Saturday the din on the east London thoroughfare will be punctured by hosannas from believers in a future of digital and financial liberation.
Investors, academics, political radicals and, of course, internet geeks will gather in Shoreditch for a “bitcoin expo”. The audience will hear from a host of speakers how the digital medium of exchange is growing in scale and scope. Some will even present the bitcoin as the future of finance, pointing out that it is quicker and more “independent” than other, conventional, forms of  payment.
The timing is good. On Wednesday the value of a bitcoin breached $1,000 on an exchange in Japan. The cyber money, created five years ago by a mysterious programmer (or programmers) using the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto” has been on quite a run. Earlier this month each “coin” (in reality they are a stream of digital data held on an individual’s computer hard drive) was worth just $215. Bitcoin aficionados have the bit, so to speak, clamped tightly in their teeth and they are driving up the value of their favourite money.
The authorities are beginning to notice. At a Washington Senate Committee hearing earlier this month the FBI conceded that online, stateless currencies such as the bitcoin are a “legitimate financial service”. The outgoing chief American central banker, Ben Bernanke, has said that such forms of cyber payment “may hold long-term promise”.
But can this internet money truly become a new global currency, as some of its more zealous supporters claim? Is the bitcoin really the shape of our financial future?
It helps to go back to the economics textbooks. They describe three traditional defining features of a viable currency. First, it has to be a practical unit of account. Second, it must be a reliable medium of exchange. Finally, it must be able to serve as a store of value. So how does a bitcoin measure up?
Assets and services can certainly be priced in Bitcoins. But it’s not simple since the value of a bitcoin varies from exchange to exchange. This is because it is still difficult to swap the currency for ordinary cash. The process involves using banks in different countries, which charge varying fees.
Is the bitcoin a medium of exchange? Up to a point. They are accepted by a growing number of internet vendors. They are encroaching on the offline world too. One can pay for pizza in the Netherlands with them. In America, hundreds of vendors joined a “bitcoin Friday” yesterday, selling items from plane tickets to Christmas trees in exchange for the cyber cash. A bitcoin cash machine was installed in Vancouver, Canada, last month. Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic says it will accept them as payment from people booking its forthcoming space flights.
But, as of yet, one cannot pay for a copy of The Independent in Bitcoins. You can’t pay your taxes in Bitcoins, or use them to buy groceries. For now, at least, the currency’s reach is still very limited.
Finally, is the bitcoin a store of value? This is the biggest, and perhaps insurmountable, barrier. Devotees of the currency, particularly those on the libertarian right, cherish the fact that there is (or rather will be) a fixed stock of Bitcoins in circulation. The total number is set to top out at around 21 million, thanks to the Nakamoto algorithm that created them. This, we are told, means the bitcoin cannot be “debased” by corrupted central banks or greedy governments intent on creating ever more cash to finance their own excessive spending. But the currency has, nevertheless, been subject to large fluctuations. In April the value plummeted from $260 to $130 in a matter of hours. This raises the question of how many people will be happy to store their wealth in a currency that can lose half its worth so rapidly.
The fixed supply of Bitcoins is also likely to make them unattractive to mainstream finance. What most investors crave is liquidity. Governments and central banks provide that liquidity in times of financial-sector stress. The fact that there is no central bank for the Bitcoin, capable of being a “lender of last resort”, is likely to put a ceiling on its growth possibilities.
Another threat is the dubiousness of some bitcoin users. The traceless cyber currency is, understandably, popular with people who want to evade oversight from the authorities. Bitcoins were used on the Silk Road website, which acted as an anonymous clearing house for guns and drugs, until it was shut down by the authorities.
The currency is also said to be popular on the so-called “dark net”, which, among other things, facilitates the trade of child-abuse imagery.
Bitcoin users sometimes claim they are self-sufficient and have bypassed the need for governments. But that self-sufficiency is an exaggeration.
The physical computer servers and the telecoms infrastructure that makes the online currency system possible could be relatively easily targeted by states if they were ever to perceive the bitcoin as a facilitator of large-scale money laundering or other crime. That’s another reason to be wary about tying up your wealth in them.
The irreversibility of transactions is another danger. Once a bitcoin is spent it cannot be retrieved, even if it has been stolen. A British man who accidentally sent his hard drive to the landfill site lost £4m worth of Bitcoins. People who fail to back up their computers sometimes discover they have lost their money for good. There’s no way of getting it back, no monetary authority to which to appeal. All of that, arguably, makes the bitcoin a rather precarious store of value.

Throughout history, economists noticed that when new coins were introduced whose face value was higher than the value of the metal from which they were made, the public tended to stash away the older, more valuable money and to use the new coins for exchange. The bad money tended to drive out the good. This became known as Gresham’s Law, after the Tudor financier Sir Thomas Gresham. But in the case of the Bitcoin, Gresham’s axiom could be reversed. The “bad” elements of this money might end up confining it to the margins. Don’t expect that to dampen the enthusiasm on Brick Lane though.