Just last year, DBS attributed the mis-sale of H5 note to 'clerical mistake'. The customers were expected to spot it.
http://mycroeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/09/dbs-apparent-mistake.html
Today, DBS CEO apologized 7 days after a 7-hour failure in the bank IT system, attributed it to a 'procedural error'. IBM is probably expected to spot it.
http://www.dbs.com/sg/pages/announcement.aspx
Even though the CEO said the bank takes full responsibility of the event, I see no mention of DBS IT. The message keeps mentioning IBM, but where exactly is DBS IT?
The way the bank handles errors may be an error itself.
Showing posts with label DBS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DBS. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
DBS - Apparent Mistake
First of all, let's be clear, I am neither pro nor anti DBS. In fact, I think investors should bear some risks and responsibility in making any investment decision.
However, the way the lawyer representing DBS defended the case amused me a lot. In essence, the lawyer argued that, as there was such an apparent error in the document, anyone who read it carefully would detect it, and therefore 'turn on its head'.
My first intuitive questions are:
1) If the error is so apparent, shouldn't DBS employees, who sold the products, detected it when they went through the document with the investors?
2) And if they detected it, why didn't they inform DBS to correct it?
3) Or did they go through the document with the customers at all? If they didn't, isn't this the best evidence of mis-selling?
There is mistake, but it is not so apparent to me who made the mistake.
** Partial quote **
An obvious clerical error, says DBS of "credit event" calculation
By Cheow Xin Yi, TODAY | Posted: 01 September 2009 0633 hrs
SINGAPORE: There was an error in the formula that investors were told would be used to calculate any remaining value in their investments should there be a "credit event".
But, DBS Bank is arguing, this was such "an obvious clerical mistake", that it would be apparent to any investor who had read his or her documents thoroughly.
The bank responded on Thursday to a suit by more than 200 investors who had bought into the now-worthless Lehman-linked DBS High Notes 5 (HN5).
More on
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1002036/1/.html
However, the way the lawyer representing DBS defended the case amused me a lot. In essence, the lawyer argued that, as there was such an apparent error in the document, anyone who read it carefully would detect it, and therefore 'turn on its head'.
My first intuitive questions are:
1) If the error is so apparent, shouldn't DBS employees, who sold the products, detected it when they went through the document with the investors?
2) And if they detected it, why didn't they inform DBS to correct it?
3) Or did they go through the document with the customers at all? If they didn't, isn't this the best evidence of mis-selling?
There is mistake, but it is not so apparent to me who made the mistake.
** Partial quote **
An obvious clerical error, says DBS of "credit event" calculation
By Cheow Xin Yi, TODAY | Posted: 01 September 2009 0633 hrs
SINGAPORE: There was an error in the formula that investors were told would be used to calculate any remaining value in their investments should there be a "credit event".
But, DBS Bank is arguing, this was such "an obvious clerical mistake", that it would be apparent to any investor who had read his or her documents thoroughly.
The bank responded on Thursday to a suit by more than 200 investors who had bought into the now-worthless Lehman-linked DBS High Notes 5 (HN5).
More on
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/1002036/1/.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)