poems, ke and uob got cash up front account
http://www.edhec-risk.com/events/ot...ments/Till_PRMIA_Webinar_MF_Global_071812.pdf
presentation on MF global, for customer side they thought their accounts were safe since by US law the assets are segregated
however during liquidatation they realised the client's asset were less than what was suppose to be, as MF global trading department used the clients assets for trading
same for SCB... they lend out your shares to make extra income etc
during mega crisis, if SCB borrowing counter party goes down under and are unable to return the borrowed shares... SCB will eat into their equity.. but if their equity cannot tank.. then client bears the loss.. GG
Just something to add on, I think the main reason why author targeted SCB is because this bank not in good shape compared to other banks.
Refer to page 94 Part E article 11.2
https://www.sc.com/sg/personal-banking/tnc/en/_pdf/cb_investments-tnc.pdf
But then, I think all the custodian account have this clause. To be fair, for foreign stocks, there is no escaping this counter party risk.
Let me answer one by one, I type on hp 4-5times type until du lan also cannot post, dunno why.
Anyway, KE cash upfront I think is called trade prefunded.
Poems is Phillip Cash Prepaid Account
UOB someone else say got liao... next time do your homework first can? I thought Sinkie anyhow bomb that picture I ask you all to refer to.
2ndly, felixleong maybe right, banks overseas has been known to do things without others knowing, including money laundering, read
HSBC Judge Approves $1.9B Drug-Money Laundering Accord - Bloomberg
But having said that, Singapore does it's own checks, and banks in SG have to abide by SG laws, even if they are foreign companies, not US laws. The question here becomes, do you trust the ones auditing the accounts in SG?
Or put in another way, any bank is capable of doing whatever you think 'scb' is doing. What is stopping them? No banks can't do what other banks of equivalent size can do. Also, if one bank breaks the law to earn profit, how did it manage to be in financial trouble? duh.
What I'm trying to say is, all banks are equally possible to be doing what you think another bank can do. Also, GIC is invested in the SCB themselves, do you think they will anyhow let SCB runs itself without checks?
3rdly, yyhwin is right in saying the author target scb because it's finance is in trouble. The question is, why didn't it compare to other custodians account when using scb's case? custodian is not unique to scb. It's common all over the world. CDP is unique to sg. Other banks may/may not have finanical issues, but the author obviously leads many to think scb is the only custodian account as can be seen by some of the replies here. Overall, it's just a poor, headline grabbing article.
4th, the accountant, that's the way to do reporting, include more facts, leave out sensationalist personal opinions that exaggerate things...
Also, search for shiny things' reply on this matter in scb's thread, he knows even more.
And last but not least, I'm just saying what I know, if it's wrong, correct me with facts, thanks.