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

Thanks fat al

I think selling health products (see my posts in Herbalife) and selling investment products which are usually much higher value are very different things. The quantum of the latter is also much larger and well defined to be within MAS jurisdiction

Again it doesn't restrict social freedom if the test is that your company have to be registered to sell a product if u are deriving a benefit eg commission from it. I agree no regulation is able to capture 100% of the issue but like i always say, if it can deter 90% of people it is working very well. It is extremely strange for me that pyramids are illegal yet it is often marketed here, like yeokiwi pointed out. I'm not sure what is the technical issue here to have a list of registered schemes rather than a "warning list"

The only logical explanation is like what bratzz pointed out: MAS doesn't want to be liable for a scheme under its watch in the event it goes bust. Its a matter of nomenclature i think... Call it registered, conditional, shortlisted scheme rather than "approved" whatever. In fact MAS should also have a "reject" list that is open to public to further deter those who want to pull a fast one.

And again if one is selling to accredited and not retail, then this process is not needed.

(09-07-2014, 07:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: Thanks fat al

I think selling health products (see my posts in Herbalife) and selling investment products which are usually much higher value are very different things. The quantum of the latter is also much larger and well defined to be within MAS jurisdiction

Again it doesn't restrict social freedom if the test is that your company have to be registered to sell a product if u are deriving a benefit eg commission from it. I agree no regulation is able to capture 100% of the issue but like i always say, if it can deter 90% of people it is working very well. It is extremely strange for me that pyramids are illegal yet it is often marketed here, like yeokiwi pointed out. I'm not sure what is the technical issue here to have a list of registered schemes rather than a "warning list"

The only logical explanation is like what bratzz pointed out: MAS doesn't want to be liable for a scheme under its watch in the event it goes bust. Its a matter of nomenclature i think... Call it registered, conditional, shortlisted scheme rather than "approved" whatever. In fact MAS should also have a "reject" list that is open to public to further deter those who want to pull a fast one.

And again if one is selling to accredited and not retail, then this process is not needed.

Well, You may not aware that the amount effort need to "confirm" a scam, even among professionals, base on the timeline of Sunshine Empire case below

So may I conclude that it is too demanding to ask MAS to "confirm" scams and excludes them in the proposed "approve" list, rather than put those "unconfirm yet suspicious" cases into alert list?

----
In the convicted Sunshine Empire case, here were the timelines
- Sunshine Empire was a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) company, set up in 2006, based in Singapore.
- On 3 February 2009, investigation by the CAD was concluded after one year, two months and three weeks. It was found that Sunshine Empire generated a revenue of $189 million in just over a year.
- The trial begun at the Subordinate Court on 29 March 2010
- On 30 July 2010, Phang was sentenced to nine years' jail and fined $60,000; his wife, Neo Kuon Huay, was found guilty of falsifying payment vouchers, was fined $60,000; former company director, Hoo was sentenced to seven years jail

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Empire

U don't have to confirm. That is why I said MAS doesn't want that liability

Like SGX just need to reject Nagacorp listing request. Just as MAS can reject anyone who wants to have a SFA or FAA license, or in this case, anyone or company that wants to market investment products to the retail public, and derives direct or indirect benefits.

It doesn't have to be complicated. Really. And I am a detailed guy Makes more sense to protect the retail guys and MAS integrity. As for accredited they are on their own. That is the spirit behind the segregation of the 2 treatments and inline with the Acts.

(09-07-2014, 10:53 AM)specuvestor Wrote: U don't have to confirm. That is why I said MAS doesn't want that liability

Like SGX just need to reject Nagacorp listing request. Just as MAS can reject anyone who wants to have a SFA or FAA license, or in this case, anyone or company that wants to market investment products to the retail public.

It doesn't have to be complicated. Really. And I am a detailed guy Makes more sense to protect the retail guys and MAS integrity. As for accredited they are on their own. That is the spirit behind the segregation of the 2 treatments and inline with the Acts.

OK, let's debate on the regulation strategy, rather on execution. There are mainly two school of thought, one is tightly controlled, and the other is place greater reliance on market forces.

IIRC, MAS followed the former by 1998, and shifted the strategy to the latter after 1998. The shift caused a change of top management, due to major disagreement.

IMO, the strategy should come as a package. A valid question, what will Singapore finance sector would be, if the shift was not materialized in 1997/1998? I assume you should have a better answer as insider

Yea MAS changed from "if it is not stated it cannot be done" to "if it is not excluded it can be done"

But that is in the context of regulated entities.

These schemes are not regulated which is why I echo d.o.g. sentiment why regulated bodies are explicit forbidden from marketing to retail unless full licensed, while these unregualted schemes can take advantage of the uninformed. Makes no sense in the spirit of the regulations.

The anecdotal evidence is that the current system is not working and hurting the investing public. They have been tightening up from insurance to property agents. I think it is high time to have a "registered" (whatever term you like) list so that anyone should be able to check out if these schemes have been at least preliminarily vetted by MAS. Not foolproof but at least there is an orderly check. If retailers still don't bother to check up the list, rather than wait for a warning list when sh*t hits the fan, then too bad for them

If Apple can do that to their thousands of apps, and funds have to make all the proper documentations and disclosures, I don't see why not for these schemes which raises MILLIONS$.

(09-07-2014, 11:57 AM)specuvestor Wrote: Yea MAS changed from "if it is not stated it cannot be done" to "if it is not excluded it can be done"

But that is in the context of regulated entities.

These schemes are not regulated which is why I echo d.o.g. sentiment why regulated bodies are explicit forbidden from marketing to retail unless full licensed, while these unregualted schemes can take advantage of the uninformed. Makes no sense in the spirit of the regulations.

The anecdotal evidence is that the current system is not working and hurting the investing public. They have been tightening up from insurance to property agents. I think it is high time to have a "registered" (whatever term you like) list so that anyone should be able to check out if these schemes have been at least preliminarily vetted by MAS. Not foolproof but at least there is an orderly check. If retailers still don't bother to check up the list, rather than wait for a warning list when sh*t hits the fan, then too bad for them

If Apple can do that to their thousands of apps, and funds have to make all the proper documentations and disclosures, I don't see why not for these schemes which raises MILLIONS$.

Is the highlighted proposal an example of "if it is not stated it cannot be done"? Is the Alert list an example of "if it is not excluded it can be done"?

The Alert list should be a result of preliminarily vet, rather a no-brainer list when "sh*t hits the fan", right?

(09-07-2014, 07:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: … selling health products and selling investment products … are very different things. The quantum of the latter is also much larger and well defined to be within MAS jurisdiction

Difference between health and investment products – touche
Agreed that MAS can be more involved in all companies that tout investment related activities.

(09-07-2014, 11:47 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: OK, let's debate on the regulation strategy, rather on execution. There are mainly two school of thought, one is tightly controlled, and the other is place greater reliance on market forces.

my 2c worth - Relating to MAS on investing activities, as tightly regulated as possible. Any investment fund raising without MAS approval/registration should be treated as criminal in nature. CAD should be kicking down doors without the need for a complaint being filed.

(09-07-2014, 11:47 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: Sunshine Empire was a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) company, set up in 2006, based in Singapore.
- On 3 February 2009, investigation by the CAD was concluded after one year, two months and three weeks. It was found that Sunshine Empire generated a revenue of $189 million in just over a year.
- The trial begun at the Subordinate Court on 29 March 2010
- On 30 July 2010, Phang was sentenced to nine years' jail and fined $60,000; his wife, Neo Kuon Huay, was found guilty of falsifying payment vouchers, was fined $60,000; former company director, Hoo was sentenced to seven years jail

The above can be read as a well-paid career advice or business plan: 13 years to financial success.
Better late than never, sentencing for convicted white collar crimes needs to be heavier to deter newcomers.

(09-07-2014, 06:30 PM)fat al Wrote:

(09-07-2014, 11:47 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: OK, let's debate on the regulation strategy, rather on execution. There are mainly two school of thought, one is tightly controlled, and the other is place greater reliance on market forces.

my 2c worth - Relating to MAS on investing activities, as tightly regulated as possible. Any investment fund raising without MAS approval/registration should be treated as criminal in nature. CAD should be kicking down doors without the need for a complaint being filed.

The "investment fund" scams are structured as gold or property investments, rather than as straight-forward investment funds. It is not an obvious offence. It is a loophole as highlighted by buddy here.

One of the possible extreme action of MAS is to regulate all gold, and oversea property investments as tightly as investment funds. That is unfair for genuine gold and oversea property investment opportunities.

Most of these "investments" gone sour have a common traits - unrealistically high investment returns. Would it be reasonable for MAS to sieve out these; or at least mandate the promoters to put up an MAS disclaimer before their sales presentations? Much like having those ugly pictures on cigarette packaging?

(09-07-2014, 08:36 PM)egghead Wrote: Most of these "investments" gone sour have a common traits - unrealistically high investment returns. Would it be reasonable for MAS to sieve out these; or at least mandate the promoters to put up an MAS disclaimer before their sales presentations? Much like having those ugly pictures on cigarette packaging?

Analyst reports come with a disclaimer. How many "investors" really take the disclaimer seriously?