One possible reason I can think of is if a client has a brokerage account open, it is sufficient proof that the client has sufficient knowledge of financial products and should take responsibility for their bad choice of investment product.

You see, it is very unlikely for an uneducated old woman to have a brokerage account.

On the same line, it is very likely for someone with a brokerage account to be educated and should have a certain degree of financial product understanding.

One final argument used by many people successfully is mis-selling. They had wanted to put fixed deposits with the bank but were persuaded to buy structured products. You don’t go to a Brokerage to put a fixed deposit.

The above is purely my opinion and guess.

Cheers,
Intheknow

Those who accepted compensation have a non-disclosure agreement.

Mr Tan conducted a short survey which drew 46 replies.

http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/02/compensation-for-credit-linked-notes.html

Please, your testimonies would surely offer some hope and encouragement to those who are still awaiting compensation from the FIs.

Could anyone explain in detail if possible.why those financial toxic victims who bought the products from the brokerage firms have got only 13% out of 535 buyers compared to those bought from the banks, having 74% refunds. Most of us did not have any fact finding, risk profiling, product breifing, order executives & any advice from the brokerage respsentatives that the products were very high risks & were meant for high net worth clients. Yet those bank buyers have enjoyed all these benefits & were highly rewarded. Where is the fairness?

Thank you

I don’t have the details from SIAS but here is the SIAS website:

http://www.sias.org.sg/index.php?option=com_feedback&view=form

You can contact them for further information.

Here is another post where someone else was asking about the CDP:

http://www.martinlee.sg/what-will-happen-to-my-lehman-minibond/#comment-9283

Not sure what is the final outcome yet.