Direct investment in oil and gas wells...sounds good!

[fat al]

Having said so, MAS should has a better solution than just a Alert List...

It is a catch 22 situation. There will only be a potential case of investment scam if money is actually lost ie when it is too late. Even if money is lost, the sponsor can always argue that there will be a turnaround. To have the authorities act before hand reminds me of the Tom Cruise movie "Minority Report" where the controversy was to allow authorities to arrest and convict even before the crime is committed.

Also, if MAS or other authorities (CAD, police) take more pre-emptive measures, investors themselves will be making hue and cry, blaming the project's failure on government's interference.

Perhaps more punitive sentencing can help to mitigate - 7 years before discount is a joke for these sociopaths. No, I am not paranoid, check out what happened to Albania in 1997 and you may think that Madoff got off lightly with only 150 years.

[fat al]

Anybody interested in property investment in the following cities?

Kaliningrad, Kazan, Krasnodar, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Rostov-on-Don, Saint Petersburg, Samara, Saransk, Sochi, Volgograd, Yaroslavl, and Yekaterinburg

The above cities will be hosting 2018 World Cup in Russia.
Free AK47 for each property purchased.

Buy now before the price goes up in 2018.

This advertisement is definitely unregulated, not licensed and not authorised by MAS.

Thank you for the opportunity. I will be keen to invest after I settle this US oil and gas well investment first. Looks like my NS trenchdigging experience and ET will finally come to good use. I do hope someone will recommend a good and affordable dowsing rod.

BTW, for these Russki properties, my important questions are:
- are they cheaper than Singapore properties on price psf? If yes, count me in.
- any free trip for investors to view the site with free tour and caviar lunch (some vodka will be a plus as one gets dehydrated after a long flight)
- any website for me to browse so can complete my detailed legal and financial due diligence quickly? alternatively a short powerpoint of less than 5 slides will be nice (anything more will not retain my attention span).
- got free tickets for world cup?
- how soon can I receive the ak47. any chance of upgrade to akm or better? how many years warranty? original russian-made? don't want to be caught dead carrying a foreign copy.

[specuvestor]

Same old story. The bona fide investment firms trying to manage money properly here are being saddled with extra regulations and costs, while dodgy firms from overseas are free to operate with Ponzi-type schemes targeted at retail investors. By the time these things make it onto the MAS Investor Alert List, it is usually too late for any recovery of the money.

IMHO it would not be too difficult for MAS to require all investment schemes sold in Singapore to appoint a responsible individual who would be liable if there was fraud etc. That would force offshore promoters to appoint a local person who would risk fines and jail. This would screen out many of the Ponzi schemes out there. Why MAS does not do so, only MAS knows.

Disclaimer: I am biased since I run a fund management business in Singapore under MAS regulations.

Hi d.o.g.

I thought maybe we ought to employ these sales people to market for the fund management houses since they seemed to be capable of raising millions easily

Jokes aside what i don't understand is how come they can openly market a CIS without a FAA license? Where is the loophole? Instead of having a "legit until proven otherwise" watch list, isn't it better if MAS maintain a list that shows all the approved CIS to sell to retailers in Singapore and hence also avoid the Gold quest kind of thing, and also avoid the "minority report" scenario by fat al?

[opmi]

^^ SAF rule - can do anything but don't get caught. Hahah.

Authorities don't do anything unless someone complained. That's how enforcement works in SG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yeokiwi]

Same old story. The bona fide investment firms trying to manage money properly here are being saddled with extra regulations and costs, while dodgy firms from overseas are free to operate with Ponzi-type schemes targeted at retail investors. By the time these things make it onto the MAS Investor Alert List, it is usually too late for any recovery of the money.

IMHO it would not be too difficult for MAS to require all investment schemes sold in Singapore to appoint a responsible individual who would be liable if there was fraud etc. That would force offshore promoters to appoint a local person who would risk fines and jail. This would screen out many of the Ponzi schemes out there. Why MAS does not do so, only MAS knows.

Disclaimer: I am biased since I run a fund management business in Singapore under MAS regulations.

Hi d.o.g.

I thought maybe we ought to employ these sales people to market for the fund management houses since they seemed to be capable of raising millions easily

Jokes aside what i don't understand is how come they can openly market a CIS without a FAA license? Where is the loophole? Instead of having a "legit until proven otherwise" watch list, isn't it better if MAS maintain a list that shows all the approved CIS to sell to retailers in Singapore and hence also avoid the Gold quest kind of thing, and also avoid the "minority report" scenario by fat al?

You do not need a FAA license to market properties and many of the alternative investments were dealing with properties.

In a way, MAS has to be more proactive in dishing out warnings and not wait until things had turned awry before it does something(like putting it on alert list??).
It does not take much time to scan through the newspaper, magazines, internet, emails everyday to know which company is organising investment talks. And, it is not as if there are thousands of companies raising funds via retail channels every day.

Basically, they can call up the company to ask for details and put up a short notice in their website denoting the risks of investment like...
XXX company property investment scheme
-> high risk
-> unregulated
-> overseas investment, no recourse in Singapore to get back money
-> no land deed. if u want it back, go to the specific country to fight.
-> ...

I know there are plenty of dumb investors but doing something after the investment goes bad is simply insane. Might as well don't do.

[brattzz]

MAS does not want to justify why/how/when/who the scams will fail...
so just wait till the scams fail lah..

[fat al]

...The bona fide investment firms trying to manage money properly here are being saddled with extra regulations and costs, ...

(1) Easy for someone else to twist this around to say:
"my fund is avoiding all unnecessary regulatory costs so that all savings is passed to you, the INVESTOR. What does MAS, auditors and the government know about investing? We want to share this windfall with a selected special few like you and do not want privileged information leaked to auditors and regulators."

... isn't it better if MAS maintain a list that shows all the approved CIS to sell to retailers in Singapore ...

(2) I think MAS is already doing this with licensing. Actually MAS' warning list is already an extra step to warn people that certain investments are not regulated by them. Problem is:
(2.1) some people do not bother to check the licensing and
(2.2) even they if they are told their investments are in the warning list, they will give the lame justification as described in (1) above.

Should the government be more proactive, verifying every single proposal out there? Consider the following analogy:

MOH/SMC regulates the medical profession. The onus is on the individual doctor to incur cost and time to qualify to meet their criteria. If I seek medical attention, I can visit a licensed Doctor. I also have absolute right to seek medical advice from anyone including my personal financial planner, my company IT support technician, internet chat forum. If things do not turn out satisfactory, should I complain that MOH/SMC is not doing their job by not listing out all the people that are not qualified to give medical advice in Singapore.
Emphasis: All the people do not mean the 5+m residents but all 7+bn people on this planet.

[pianist]

the thing about absolute right I feel is...each individual on the planet or on this island has/thought he has different degree of skillsets, knowledge and intelligence.

some thought they are smarter, maybe with ill-intention are out there to exploit the weakness in other..or the more vulnerable one
it will pain me to hear a low IQ/ignorant/retarded person to say he has an absolute right to light a fire on his hardearned dollar notes & if no one care, this planet will become a harsher environment, no different from a beast

that where authority/real leader has/ought to have a proactive duty to protect the well being and interests of its people.

Einstein's theory of relativity still applies even in financial scams...

[specuvestor]

...The bona fide investment firms trying to manage money properly here are being saddled with extra regulations and costs, ...

(1) Easy for someone else to twist this around to say:
"my fund is avoiding all unnecessary regulatory costs so that all savings is passed to you, the INVESTOR. What does MAS, auditors and the government know about investing? We want to share this windfall with a selected special few like you and do not want privileged information leaked to auditors and regulators."

... isn't it better if MAS maintain a list that shows all the approved CIS to sell to retailers in Singapore ...

(2) I think MAS is already doing this with licensing. Actually MAS' warning list is already an extra step to warn people that certain investments are not regulated by them. Problem is:
(2.1) some people do not bother to check the licensing and
(2.2) even they if they are told their investments are in the warning list, they will give the lame justification as described in (1) above.

Should the government be more proactive, verifying every single proposal out there? Consider the following analogy:

MOH/SMC regulates the medical profession. The onus is on the individual doctor to incur cost and time to qualify to meet their criteria. If I seek medical attention, I can visit a licensed Doctor. I also have absolute right to seek medical advice from anyone including my personal financial planner, my company IT support technician, internet chat forum. If things do not turn out satisfactory, should I complain that MOH/SMC is not doing their job by not listing out all the people that are not qualified to give medical advice in Singapore.
Emphasis: All the people do not mean the 5+m residents but all 7+bn people on this planet.

My point is: if they are selling CIS to retail Singaporeans ACTIVELY, it's not about warning list, it's about illegality

In your analogy, if u choose to get internet medical advice it is your prerogative. But if someone conducts a seminar claiming to cure cancer thats another thing altogether if u choose to hold such seminar you probably should have MOH certification or approval.

Point noted on yeokiwi that selling property is not considered CIS. Since property agents are now self-regulated, maybe time for them to be regulated under FAA as well?

In any case Gold quests and bucket shops and pyramids are all getting money from retail. I've always wondered why it is not considered illegal when even tontine is regulated. I think probably definition of CIS should be broadened.

If they get money from accredited then caveat emptor. Sounds more right and consistent

[fat al]

Hi Specuvestor and Pianist,

I see your points but I am a realist and believe the laws will always be running behind the criminals.

My point is: if they are selling CIS to retail Singaporeans ACTIVELY, it's not about warning list, it's about illegality ...

In any case Gold quests and bucket shops and pyramids are all getting money from retail. I've always wondered why it is not considered illegal when even tontine is regulated. I think probably definition of CIS should be broadened.

Pyramid schemes are outright illegal in Singapore, Malaysia, U.S., and China (and likely many other countries). When MLM first proliferates, there are accusations that MLMs (some, if not all) are pyramids in disguise. The test used by the authorities is whether there is a real valuable product being transacted. If yes, it will not be considered a pyramid scheme and the authorities will not intervene. Herbalife is a great example showcasing the difficulty of establishing whether an operation is illegal (pyramid) or not (MLM distributed selling):
- 2 reknowned hedge fund managers publicly taking very strong opposite views with money at stake (even experienced Business leaders are at odds)
- U.S. (FBI included) and Chinese authorities starting investigations in 2014 when Herbalife has been around for years (even regulators find it difficult as it is not obviously black or white).

In your analogy, if u choose to get internet medical advice it is your prerogative. But if someone conducts a seminar claiming to cure cancer thats another thing altogether if u choose to hold such seminar you probably should have MOH certification or approval.

Actually I was trying to encourage investing consumers to show the same skeptism (eg. choosing accredited licensed funds over some uncredited private project) as that when choosing a source of medical advice (eg. choosing licensed doctors).

I suppose by "should" you mean laws/rules be instituted in detail limiting ability to make healthcare claims. Unfortunately or fortunately in the business world, there is little restriction on new enterprise and ideas. Even in this medical analogy, a restrictive law banning healthcare advice or claims by non-doctors will have other consequences on social freedoms (eg. severe limitations on religious activities; one may be technically committing a crime by encouraging a colleague with a headache to take a panadol).

it will pain me to hear a low IQ/ignorant/retarded person to say he has an absolute right to light a fire on his hardearned dollar notes & if no one care, this planet will become a harsher environment, no different from a beast

Not that I dismiss the need for new preventive laws (eg. commodity bucket shops became illegal in Singapore only after 2001. Let's face it - it was a problem for years before that). I am a realist and accept that there will never be adequate up-to-date preventive laws and measures as people will always find ways to circumvent or come out with new creative scams. That is why I encourage people to be more skeptical. To pursue the idea that the government should have prevented it breeds the mindset that everything that is not currently banned by the authorities has been Okayed by the authorities ("this investment ok one lah or else mata already clamp down long ago").

Therefore, I do not believe such crimes can ever be prevented.