1. Omission of material fact. That is, the mini bond distributor (i.e. retail banks) and the Issue Prospectus never explained what is CDO, and what is the Synthetic CDO (many Prospectus mentioned that the collateral is actually Synthetic CDO) .
For a product like mini bond / or credit-linked notes, it has no really underly assets, other than CDO collateral. The banks (i.e. sellers) and the prospectus owe it to the investors to explain what is the CDO, what kind of underlying securities consists of CDOs. What is the Synthetic CDO, what consists of Synthetic CDO. Then need to disclose material fact about CDO or Synthetic CDO, and disclose the related risk of CDO or Synthetic CDO.
In summary, both banks (as sellers) and prospectus omitted the material fact of CDO / Synthetic CDO, and omitted the material risk of the CDO / Synthetic CDO.

2. Collateral.
Now when banks trying to buy back the Collateral, legal issues happens as per notice from HSBC USA as Trustee.
The question are:
– how can banks sell a notes that they do not have access to the notes’ collateral? have they done reasonable diligence prior to the
selling of the products?
– how much did banks know about the collateral of the notes/mini bond? they seems not awaring the fact that they don’t have access to the collateral as their wish. what happened now is the proof.

Does anyone agree with me ? It would be great if we can get someone from legal on the above view.

Please investors write in and complain. The 3 steps procedure that MAS has ask us to follow is not working. I know ppl are discouraged but please do what we can for the very minimum.