so what is CIMB Malaysia and AHAM doing ? waiting the news to spread like fire to the whole nation ?

Extract from CC FINAL TERM SHEET (ISIN: USH3698DDA93)

USD 1,500,000,000
5.250% PERPETUAL TIER 1 CONTINGENT WRITE-DOWN CAPITAL NOTES (THE “NOTES”)
FINAL TERM SHEET


Joint Lead Managers:
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
Natixis Securities Americas LLC
UniCredit Bank AG
Santander Investment Securities Inc.
Scotia Capital (USA) Inc.
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

Co-Managers:
ABN AMRO Securities (USA) LLC
CIBC World Markets Corp.
ING Financial Markets LLC
NatWest Markets Securities Inc.
Rabo Securities USA, Inc
SG Americas Securities, LLC
TD Securities (USA) LLC
Banco de Sabadell, S.A.
BMO Capital Markets Corp.
BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC
CaixaBank, S.A.
Capital One Securities, Inc.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Citizens Capital Markets, Inc.
Danske Bank A/S
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Landesbank Baden-Württemberg
Lloyds Bank Corporate Markets Wertpapierhandelsbank GmbH
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
Nordea Bank Abp
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
Standard Chartered Bank

Then you should pose the question the fund house 🤦‍♀️

CIMB will easily absolve its responsibility because they are only just fund distributor

it is the Relationship manager from CIMB that guarantees principal return upon call date of the bond.

The relationship manager from CIMB misled you 🤦‍♀️ no one can guarantee the principal other than issuers themselves 🤦‍♀️

What actions needed to be taken against this relationship manager from CIMB ? since he says the bond capital is guaranteed.

BNM telelink

There is pro and con taking your case to SIDREC. They have jurisdiction over claims not exceeding RM 250K. If your investment say is RM 1 Million and you win the case, the UTMC will only be obliged to pay you RM 250K.

SIDREC is less formal and more sympathetic to investors. Hence, if say the amount you are claiming is within the ball park of RM 250K, it may be viable to file a claim or if you are willing to take some losses, example you invested RM 300K, you will forgo the RM 50K.

A court process will definitively be the most preferred route, that is... if you have the financial clout to fight both CIMB and AHAM's lawyers. Unless it's a class action suit (i.e. all the unit holders of the fund band together and fight), its unlikely an individual will be able to sustain the momentum of the suit.

Do seek professional advice on this, each route will have its pro and con, it will require time and resources, and sheer f will and commitment to see it through.

This post has been edited by aurora97: Apr 24 2023, 07:13 PM

Unlikely to be either, it will be the trustee of the fund to initiate the suit. The trustee is the legal owner of the fund.

Not true, indeed they are merely distributing the fund, however they still have to market and sell it. If the bank had sold the product as though it was a fixed deposit, this may give rise a claim (example Singapore and HK Mini Bond incident, i think some investors got back their money because of representations made by the bank).

The problem is the quality or the evidence adduced by the complainant. In this case, the person mentioned all were communicated "verbally". Likelihood, the complainant will get his / her complaint stomped bloody by a wall of terms and conditions, which ironically includes the fact that you should read the offering documents before completing the application form and coupled with the fact that only Sophisticated investors can purchase such products. So it seems whatever argument the complainant has, it's shaky at best and ability to move the needle is negligible.

I said before to TS that he has to prove misrepresentation from the manager but so far none hence not viable to bring it up to the authorities

Yes trustee is the legal owner but they won’t sue because they would need legal instructions from the fund itself hence the trustee won’t act but the fund house itself because the power of decision and execution lies in them not the trustee 🤦‍♀️

In terms of investment but when it comes to protecting rights of unit holders the demarcation in the deed is clear. The trustee has a fiduciary duty towards the fund.

There is no misrepresentation by the fund manager because what the fund manager intends to say is embedded in the offering document. Save where there is material omission/incorrect representation and the likes in the offering document.

The fund was sold by an IUTA to its customer. Also, IUTA enjoys a nominee structure, meaning to say the fund manager has no knowledge who the end customer is. This fund would have been sold by the IUTA's own relationship managers and the customer had relied on the representation from the IUTA.

That is why the CIMB manager is misrepresenting not the fund house manager 🤦‍♀️

What fiduciary duty when it is reported that the fund house is giving instructions to the trustee to take action rather than the trustee

The trustee duty is only to hold and protect the fund but not on fund execution particularly in buying and selling assets or holdings 🤦‍♀️

The term is used loosely here, there is a distinction between CIMB's RM and the fund house manager. In which case, the fault more likely lies with the former, which is the point I am driving at.

Indeed trustee takes instruction from the fund manager and pays a fee for the services rendered because the trustee does not have fund management knowledge / expertise.

As you have mentioned, the trustee is only to "hold and to protect the fund" what constitutes the fund is obviously the assets and the unit holders that are within it.

when we want to liquidate the investment but the CIMB bank manager says to wait write up from AHAM but too late as FINMA already trigger write down. Who should bare losses ?

First and foremost, to disclaim, this isn't legal advice. It's just for discussion purpose. Please consult a professional, if needed.

All things being equal, if the contents of the Offering Document (in this case an Information Memorandum) are as disclosed and transpired, the investor to bear the losses.

Then again, this isn't your usual cup of tea, as alleged by you, there is element of misrepresentation and government intervention.

Unless there are other developments, the situation you encounter now remains as "status quo".