Referring to the item in bold, how do you derive this values?

FINMA has indicated that the bond value for AT1 is write down to ZERO. Did FINMA say that the AT1 holders will get something??

https://www.ft.com/content/3f405e6d-d4a3-46...ba-3ec9cf4f7054

Press statement, do you have a link? Their communique didn't mention anything about that.

I am skeptical about what you mention, paper loss, as it seems its a total loss based on most major financial media reportings.

In any case, its academic now, will see how it plays out.

Not everyone has visibility but its not wrong to ask and take it the wrong way.

The factsheet at at 28 Feb 23 for both series 2 and 4 states 95.6%(AT1)/4.4%(Cash) and 95.7%(AT1)/4.3%(cash) respectively. ... Also, what about the FX forward intended for hedging, the bank would have pulled the credit line and unwind FX forward.

Still highly doubtful that AT1 investors will get anything (even though paper value suggest otherwise), if it is open and shut, folks like Lazard, Pimco, Artemis won't be launching a suit over the shotgun marriage made by FINMA and UBS.

Definitely, exciting times.

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.

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.

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.

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".

Put it this way, if I don't see money in the bank, as the adage goes "money talks, bullshit walks".

Good luck in your recovery or claim, I will be watching this closely.

Based on annual report FYE 31 Jan 2023 for both single bond fund 2 and 4, they were about 93%+/- invested remaining probably in FX forward/swap or deposits.

Typically, the liabilities of the fund includes accrued management fee, trustee/custodian fee, bank charges, derivatives (FX forward/Swap), fees due to distributors, auditor etc... The fund may have defaulted but the fees/charges etc... still need to be paid unless waived by counterparty.

I presume when you meant by "advancing funds", the fund manager is coughing out some money to bring the fund back to Zero NAV. I think this would be the right thing to do because a negative NAV may imply that the unit holders owe monies to the fund, whereas the deed has made clear that the liabilities of the unit holder is up until the amount invested.