Monday, October 13, 2008

Sold my calls

Sold my callable bulls on HSI and HSCEI today, just before the noon close.

I really thought they were going to be recalled.

But good thing they didn't reach the trigger point.

Anyhow, sold for 40%+ and 80%+ return.


  1. How can I contact you and explain the situation of our Lehman Brothers 苦主. You have a space in the newspaper to write any article you like. Please don't shed salt on our wounds. If you have read the brochure of the minibonds and still say we are hard rubber, I have nothing to say. What I bought is call 6-star minibond credit-linked to Citigroup, DBS, Fortis,N.V., HSBC, Standard Chartered & Hutchison Whampoa.
    Principle Redemption is 100% of the principle amount of each note shall be redeem on the Maturity Date unless a Company Credit Event occurs prior to the Maturity Date. Under the paragraph of Companies, they listed the above 6 companies, not a single word of Lehman Brothers. Under the paragraph of Companies Credit Event: A default or similar event (as defined in the Issue Prospectus) by any one of the Companies on its relevant obligations.
    See all the time, they are using Companies, denoting more than one and implying the 6 companies. Not a single word of Lehman, not to say 100% Lehman as opposed to what we think we had bought.

    I lost a lot of money in the past. I never complain because that is a decision I made. But this time, they are 掛羊頭賣狗肉. Even the content is 'Goat meat', but with a very small line saying made 100% from dog meat. How am I suppose to know such large companies will cheat. For example, I bought a can of milk powder, brand name is Nestle. The content is also Nestle milk. But there is a tiny line saying supplied by 3 deers. Now my son is dead, I ask Nestle and they said it is none of their business. Tell me to ask 3 deers. I buy the product because I trust Nestle, not 3 deers, if I know it is 3 deers, I will not buy. Now you put the blame on me. The major issue is that most of the rest of the citizens do not know what happen and say we are 輸打嬴要. What do we gain. It is a game that the Bank borrow money from us, write a paper saying that they will apy us a certain interest, that's all. Now, they loose and we will bear the burden. It is the bank 輸打嬴要, not us. Please don't step on us any more, I am over the retiring age and that is what I have. I don't have any earning power like I use to. Thank you for your attention.

  2. 我真係好好奇想知道當收到迷債的高息時,



  3. 真心又好,抽水也好,幫「苦主」出聲的議員、媒體已經夠多了吧,孫柏文不過反映他的看法,同時也是很多小市民的真實看法。


  4. Pakman is more accurate these few days ...

    Only 135 is still sinking/floating all the time

    Lucky that I sold all my puts b4 today >1000 pts rise ...

    wht's next ... ? ... interesting

  5. Pakman should have sold that in the afternoon...

    Afterall, I really think that the banks are so bad. Just like 寶藥黨, who cheated those "苦主". However, what can you guys do?????? You are holding a solid contract which lists the risk, as you mentioned,"there is a tiny line saying supplied by 3 deers". Laws are always help to execute the details on the contract. The "苦主"s must learn that from the moment they put their signature on the contract, you are bearing a risk.

    From Economics lessons in Secondary Schools, we've learned that the role of an Entrepreneur is to bear the risk. Speculators have to keep an eye on their investment from time to time. It is also his resposibility to respect, understand and strictly follow every detail of the contract. This is a very good lessons for those "苦主"s that contract is very important, also dangerous if you are indefferent to it.

    In my opinion, the "苦主"s should calm down and protest no more. What they should do is to do a self-examination. Why did they trust a "BIG" (Lahmen is large enough) company? Why did they believe that "such large companies will cheat"?

    Actually, no banks had cheated those "苦主"s as they are all written on the contract.

    All in all, why do all these happens??

    One Word explains it all


    Don't naively believe that you bear no risk while receiving 2% PA interest more than normal level. The banks won't give you such a good offer. It's like you won't buy a 羊 if it's $5 per catty because you know that "they are 掛羊頭賣狗肉" It is just the same.

    Protest no more, friends.

    Remember, there is no free lunch in the world.

  6. It is not the bank borrow your money. Bank is only an agnet, just like buying stock in Bank. Nobody would say that the bank borrow his money to buy 941,5,388...

    Doctor, it is you "o黎橫折曲"!

  7. 香港有完善既司法制度,你認為銀行有誤導有欺騙成份,有錢你可以請律師,無錢你可以伸請法援,你亦可以報警要求警方調查。

    法庭判銀行有錯,你可以取回你地應得既一份,余若薇上禮拜已經係電台講過香港之前有類似案例,如果銀行有誤導,法庭都會判受害人可以取回被誤導投資既錢。過程可能會耐 d ,But sorry 呢個係法治社會人人平等。


    請問一聲你地憑乜野去叫政府包底? 政府監管不力? 政府唔夠錢請警察,週街係賊而你又俾賊人打劫唔通你叫政府倍錢?

    我地唔係鐵石心場,d 銀行 '迫' 班阿婆阿伯去買 minibonds 係有錯,但係呢個唔係叫政府包底既理由,唔知由幾時開始香港人變左咁樣,有乜唔掂就搵政府搵阿爺打救.....

  8. Hey Doctor,

    If you have been cheated.

    I am sure you will find justice in our judicial system.

    Have faith in the judicial system, it will deliver justice.

    For justice not only needs to be done, but it has to be seen to be done. Judges know that.

    But with your demand of executive intervention, the losers will be all of us.


  9. Agree with cecilan, what had happened to HK people? Why they behave like those immature Pakestani people who damaged the exchange office when the stock market crashes?

    Why they are like the mainlanders who always ask for 阿爺's help?

    Come on, 苦主們. Use your left brain to analysis the situation. I know that you've lsot almost everything. You really gotta know the underlying cause of this incident and avoid stepping into the same trap next time.

  10. i think there are many misunderstandings. from my understanding, many of the "苦主" didn't ask for the government to 包底, but instead, 民建聯 did.

    and i don't think pakman is trying to shed salt on your wound, but just to point out that a direct intervention to force the bank to buy back all the notes will only do harm in the long run. which i argee with him here, because a contract is an obligation, whether it's mutual or not, we will have to leave it to the court to decide. although there are many evidences showing behaviours of misconduct, but before they are found guilty, the banks remains innocent. an direct intervention not only harm the market, but also the legal system.

    personally, i don't see protesting as a bad thing. if none of the "苦主" speak up, the government won't look into the "back doors" for future improvement, and the rest of the society will remain with the habit of "taking things for granted" without reading their contracts. beside, it's HK, not mainland, they all deserve the right to protest for whatever they want. as well, the anti-protestant can also bash as hard as they want.

  11. chaco講得真好,十分同意!

  12. to: a form 5 student

    to: 柏文兄

  13. Form 5 student
    If you go to see a doctor for an injection. You will trust the brand name of the drug and whatever written in the content. You will not ask for the pamplet inside the bottle because you trust the company. Now what you received is a completely different thing from the content and you are dead. So no complaint, right.
    Ask you one more question, there are 2 injections for prevention of cervical cancer. One is a new one and the other is an old one. Even the most recent issue of ONE WEEKLY has an advertisment by well know gynaecologist telling you the new one is better. I tell you the old one is better, WHY? Can you answer. No, because you don't know anything about it. We trust the banks because it is clearly written on the paper it is credit linked to 5 banks and one company, all well known. They are still working and have not go bankrupt. We cannot redeem our money unless they went done. I had asked the manager who sold me, she said if one goes down, I will get 5/6 of my money, if 2 go down, I will get4/6 etc. The final words from her is "Do you think they will go down" The rest I don't want to argue anymore because no one will believe in us.

  14. to doctor:
    如果,能證明銀行在銷售債券時,有「失實陳述」(Misrepresentations),即可動用法律程序向之追討損失。失實陳述分為三類,分別是欺詐、疏忽及無意,各有不同的法規予以對付。欺詐的失實陳述,是指陳述的一方,明知道所述為虛假或罔顧實情;疏忽的失實陳述,則是指說話人自己也沒合理理由相信所言屬實,未有謹慎地確保其準確性,卻又以之誘使別人。凡屬欺詐與疏忽兩類,在《證券及期貨條例》已訂明,任何人如此誘人參與集體投資計畫,受害者可以民事方式追討損害賠償,而欺詐的失實陳述更是刑事罪行,最高可監禁七年並罰款一百萬元。若是無意一類,譬如銀行在銷售時也不知道雷曼債券的風險,則可循法例第284章《失實陳述條例》追究。條例規定,任何人如以失實陳述與他人訂立合約,即使該陳述沒有欺詐成分,亦須承擔損害賠償的法律責任。除非,他直至立約時,仍然相信所陳述的是事實,而此舉證責任在於被告人身上。同時,因受到別人的失實陳述影響而訂立合約的話,更有權撤銷合約,不過法庭在考慮情況後,亦可下令繼續執行合約,但須以賠償來代替撤銷!那怕,合約中已加入了「毋須為任何失實陳述負責」的免責條款,法庭也會考    慮條款是否公平合理,不會就此一概讓之不用承擔責任。這些條文,相信是雷曼苦主的「逃生門」,然而他們必須認清對象,所要針對的該是銀行而非政府。與其要求用公帑包底,倒不如將始作俑者訴諸公堂!

    抄自(瑣見瑣文 翁靜晶)


  15. If the doctor really didn't tell me the injection is probably lethal (even 1 in a million), then he is against the law. If it is what the banks did to you, it would be the banks fault and you can charge the banks in the judicial system.

    If I have to get an injection or a surgery, espicially those which could lead to death, I would definetly find out the risk before making the decision and put my signature on the contract, right?

  16. 肥金,我相信果班苦主都好明白法律點樣可以幫佢地追討翻 d 錢

    佢地只不過諗住人多夠大聲,繞過法律同司法制度,用極速取回本金 (收左既利息? 梗係袋袋平安啦!!)

    又碰巧有班垃圾會議員要做場 show 黎上位,咪搞出咁多國際笑話囉

  17. 多謝哂肥金. 我唔係要撒賴,係要大家知道連出銀紙的銀行都唔可以信.但我地每日仍然用緊. 唔通每用一張都要去問過,睇晒所有鈿字先用,先肯收. 呢個世界講mutual trust. 如果連呢樣都失去.重成世界.
    你同買咗倫敦金之人講合約精神. 點解警察要拉人. 你同買咗寶藥之人講內容, 警察一樣要拉人, 現在兩樣相同之事發生,只是變了銀行(重要係大銀行) 賣一d內容同物品不同之產品,就全部係我地錯. 無話可說. 重要好似過街老鼠.

  18. 柏文兄,Doctor,celilia chan:



  19. 肥金,我實在唔想見到有雷曼苦主自焚,咁只會激發起佢地更激烈既抗爭,係宜家政府民望咁低既時候,政府可能做出一 d 白痴既行為 (例如包底....)

    Doctor,你好似重係唔明我地講乜,唔怪得你會買左 d 貨不對板既 minibonds.

    我地無話過所有責任在你地買家身上,無話過你地錯晒,我地都明白銀行極有可能有誤導要負上責任,但係呢 d 係要由法庭 (或者監管機構) 去決定既!! 我地不滿既係你地唔專重合約精神,意圖繞過司法制度去取回陪償,重諗住要政府包底.... 我話俾你聽如果你俾人老爆,屋企唔見左幾百萬現金,就算警察拉到人,係法庭判個賊入罪之前,d 現金都仍然係証物,你無可能要政府俾住錢你先既,ok?

    你連咁簡單既道理都唔明,難怪你會買左 d 垃圾 Minibonds.....

    原來你係覺得大銀行就 100% 可信? 你去匯豐提款唔數錢架? 你個保險箱唔鎖架? Mutual Trust? 人地講乜你信乜,你地 sell 乜你買乜 ?

    我覺得你真係 Simple and naive. 你到宜家都無俾保藥黨撞到,真係應該還神....

  20. to: cecelia chan

    Bingo! 全中!爽!