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

(09-07-2014, 08:25 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

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

Actually, I was suggesting all activities of investment nature, gold and property included (see classification 3 below). Why cast the net so wide? No need for separate new laws when someone touts new ventures like silver or durian plantation. In summary:
1) No product/service involved = clearly pyramid
2) Consumable products and service = either qualified MLM or conventional business
3) Nonconsumable products would be investment nature and require licensing or regulation by various bodies (eg. MAS).

I don't think it will be unfair if every investment opportunity sponsor play by the same rule. Having said that:
1) problem will not be eradicated - Madoff was regulated.
2) I am ignorant of implementation issues that MAS, MOF or other government agencies can clearly see.
3) Regulation will imply checkboxes and there will be outcry from the some enterprising folks who have an exotic background.
4) Thanks or no thanks to human ingenuity - loopholes will be found. I have previously argued that people should not rely on the government for this reason. However, if we have to settle with laws, they should be as general and wide as possible.

^^ good one. Sometimes i dont know if your response for eg breaking down doors, is being sarcastic

If I may add:

We have to recognise that there is now an uneven playing field between regulated entities and not, and it is not just a theory but one that affects the lives of people

Question is how to require these investment products to be vetted by MAS first, without stifling innovations. I think one of the principle is when u sell to retails, the products should be vetted. Property agencies should be registered so no excuse why overseas property agencies dont have to. Get them incorporated locally as well, just as foreign banking entities are now being required.

(09-07-2014, 03:53 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

(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?

Not really. The principle defines the boundary. My proposal is to make sure that they play by similar rules as fat al mentioned. You cant play basketball in a soccer field and claim innovation.

My gripe with the current alert list is that it is often too late

(10-07-2014, 12:04 AM)specuvestor Wrote: ^^ good one. Sometimes i dont know if your response for eg breaking down doors, is being sarcastic

Thank you for highlighting.

No lah, very sorry if I appear sarcastic or rude. There was no ill intent but I admit my tendency to exaggerate to drive a point across.

The following was an error:
"CAD would <delete "should"> be kicking down doors without the need for a complaint being filed."
Police and CAD work within their limits of authority and under existing legal structure, so they should not be blamed for not taking any unauthorised action.
Am suggesting that that is their ideal role and not what they should be doing now under existing framework.

I used Silver and Durian trees (overexaggerate) to illustrate that fraudster can easily tweak their product to almost anything just to bypass any product-related law - Silver being a slight variation to something totally irrelevant like Durian trees. Believe it or not, I have already received investment proposals relating to plantations, and the next "microsoft/google" relating to cloud computing network.

Just to clarify:

1) Madoff was mentioned not to suggest laws are useless but to remind that increased regulation may lower crime but not eliminate crime.

2) I admit my ignorance on other issues that civil servants and politicians need to balance against. This is not sarcasm suggesting ineffectual government. As individuals, we pay little attention to things that do not concern us. However, policy and lawmakers need to consider interests and perspectives from different quarters.

3) By "checkboxes", I mean the usual tests, exams, academic requirements which are the most usual practical forms of screening and evaluation. This unfortunately has the downside that people without the "run-of-the-mill" background will find it harder to qualify. On the other hand, use of subjective criteria may be criticised as inconsistent evaluation.

4) Thanks or no thanks to human ingenuity - loopholes will be found. One more conflict? My earlier posts encouraged skepticism. Just realised that skepticism can also lead to people ignoring all the well-intentioned warnings and government regulations.

(09-07-2014, 09:59 PM)fat al Wrote:

(09-07-2014, 08:25 PM)CityFarmer Wrote:

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

Actually, I was suggesting all activities of investment nature, gold and property included (see classification 3 below). Why cast the net so wide? No need for separate new laws when someone touts new ventures like silver or durian plantation. In summary:
1) No product/service involved = clearly pyramid
2) Consumable products and service = either qualified MLM or conventional business
3) Nonconsumable products would be investment nature and require licensing or regulation by various bodies (eg. MAS).

I don't think it will be unfair if every investment opportunity sponsor play by the same rule. Having said that:
1) problem will not be eradicated - Madoff was regulated.
2) I am ignorant of implementation issues that MAS, MOF or other government agencies can clearly see.
3) Regulation will imply checkboxes and there will be outcry from the some enterprising folks who have an exotic background.
4) Thanks or no thanks to human ingenuity - loopholes will be found. I have previously argued that people should not rely on the government for this reason. However, if we have to settle with laws, they should be as general and wide as possible.

I understand the point, and seems a fair proposal. One concern is unnecessary compliance cost for the investment opportunities. Next concern is, are there execution issues? Last concern is, will the same principle of regulation eventually applies to other investments e.g. antiques and collectibles, down to deals between two individuals.

(10-07-2014, 12:04 AM)specuvestor Wrote:

Quote: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?

Not really. The principle defines the boundary. My proposal is to make sure that they play by similar rules as fat al mentioned. You cant play basketball in a soccer field and claim innovation.

My gripe with the current alert list is that it is often too late

Now we back to execution, I assume we do agree on the principle that "if it is not excluded it can be done".

I assume oversea property agents are complying the same rule as local property agent. The discussion here is, on top of that, the oversea property agent should comply with same rule as investment fund managers. We can't apply all basketball game rule to soccer game, right?

Alert list is proper, but it doesn't mean no further improvement to protect local investors. More should be done, but not as an expense of penalizing the innocence.

(10-07-2014, 09:51 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: I understand the point, and seems a fair proposal. One concern is unnecessary compliance cost for the investment opportunities. Next concern is, are there execution issues? Last concern is, will the same principle of regulation eventually applies to other investments e.g. antiques and collectibles, down to deals between two individuals.

Like I said if there is no commission of any kind involved in the transaction then no regulation is needed. It can be transaction between 2 friends or internet for an INVESTMENT PRODUCT. So if it is wine or antique or durian farms it has to fall within this scope as long it 1) involves commission 2) marketed to mass public. The limits are very clear. it does not need to be complicated

Do you think that it then makes sense for regulated entities to be more regulated and non regulated entities to have free rein, over the same pool of unsophisticated retail investors?

(10-07-2014, 10:12 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: Now we back to execution, I assume we do agree on the principle that "if it is not excluded it can be done".

I assume oversea property agents are complying the same rule as local property agent. The discussion here is, on top of that, the oversea property agent should comply with same rule as investment fund managers. We can't apply all basketball game rule to soccer game, right?

Alert list is proper, but it doesn't mean no further improvement to protect local investors. More should be done, but not as an expense of penalizing the innocence.

As long as you play basketball only in a basket ball court, yes the principle is right

I think we need to confirm if these overseas property agents are complying with same rules. I don't think the agents for Landbanking for example have a property license. But yes they should have same level playing field. It is a mistake to segregate foreign investments as not under MAS supervision when it affects local mass market. Again if accredited then its not MAS problem.

I've heard of innocent investors, never innocent fund raisers If you are raising million$ I suspect you need to be accountable somehow rather than the investors

(08-07-2014, 07:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: I've heard of innocent investors, never innocent fund raisers If you are raising million$ I suspect you need to be accountable somehow rather than the investors

Monetary Authority of Singapore heard you....

http://www.todayonline.com/business/mas-...-investors

I hope penalties will be stricter as a deterrent.

Wow u are a minute faster than me the coincidence is a bit unsettling... Does MAS read this site

http://www.mas.gov.sg/news-and-publicati...stors.aspx

valuebuddies is quite famous on google!

Of cos MAS read this site!!

When Singaporean chooses to invest in alternative investment overseas, you cannot expect the government to be the superman to save you every time and any time. You have to apply your own justification before invest. You are looking for 100% return within a year or two, accept the risk. Cry to your father not to the government if you loss money. Investment world belong to mature adult with own justification.

By the way, someone just offered me 100% return few mins ago in the investment fair, but I am not smart enough to make this money. If you are smart enough, take it with your own. Both profit and loss are your own credit.

Singaporean on one hand complains no freedom in Singapore, on the other hand, when facing problem always ask government to control. How to have a world with freedom but the government control all bad things