Pssst! How would you like a 250 times return on your investment??? Can’t verify most of the numbers but the trend is clear. Now if I was advising the sovereign wealth funds, I would say screw the financial markets, client data CDs is where the money’s at.
In 2008, the German government used about €5 million to buy the infamous LGT CD. That stolen client data was used to gross about €200 million in back taxes and fines. So a ROI of 40 times!!!! http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,675723,00.html
Now I can’t keep track of all the CDs on the market and all the “over-the-counter” CD transactions, but consider the Julius Baer German Tax settlement. The return was a whopping €50m!!!! Was the purchase price of this CD only €180000??? Perhaps a little disappointing since there were estimates of recovering some €75-100m in taxes…but 50 cents on the dollar isn’t bad.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-09/germany-buys-cd-containing-data-on-20-000-swiss-bank-accounts.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6890fb9e-11a7-11df-bceb-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Jpn7U2Yg
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d55bb1d2-665c-11e0-ac4d-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Jpn7U2Yg
The economics of law: no crime was charged, the bank wasn’t admitting guilt, yet we have a huge “extraordinary charge” on the books. Just another cost of doing business fee?
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Biz U
In a world where formal "training" is a rarity, kudos to UBS for opening another Business University, this time in Hong Kong in addition to their other Asian U in Singapore: http://www.ubs.com/1/e/media_overview/media_asiapacific/releases.html?newsId=190759
Obviously it will be geared toward the financial side of things but from what I've gleaned there are usually some succession/estate/trust offerings.
Unfortunately, formal training on a scale like this is often a waste of time and money despite all the great intentions. Much more so for the trust industry than the banking sector. Usually the biggest complaint is that often the people who plan the curriculum and deliver the courses aren't the people from the actual business. The topics are disjointed, the information isn't practical or business-specific enough, etc.
One trust company Managing Director professed to me, in all his years, he and his people were never asked to help with his company's Training Campus. Everything was handled by the Learning directors and presented by "good people" but just not people from the trust industry. Many of us will have attended some session where the lack of practical experience or knowledge of "in house procedures" ruins the creditability of the presenter in a matter of seconds. Those who can, do...those who can't, teach.
And part of the fault also lies with the participants too. You pretty much got to force-feed people to learn. They all want the "abridged" version. When they do turn up (and actually turn off the Blackberry/smartphone) they want real life examples, practical answers, free advice, user friendly apps. Save your breath and just give me the answer. Look dude, I don't want to know about Londonderry, just tell me is the LOW a trust document or not? Delivering a session on theory or statute is more painful than root canal....for both.
Obviously it will be geared toward the financial side of things but from what I've gleaned there are usually some succession/estate/trust offerings.
Unfortunately, formal training on a scale like this is often a waste of time and money despite all the great intentions. Much more so for the trust industry than the banking sector. Usually the biggest complaint is that often the people who plan the curriculum and deliver the courses aren't the people from the actual business. The topics are disjointed, the information isn't practical or business-specific enough, etc.
One trust company Managing Director professed to me, in all his years, he and his people were never asked to help with his company's Training Campus. Everything was handled by the Learning directors and presented by "good people" but just not people from the trust industry. Many of us will have attended some session where the lack of practical experience or knowledge of "in house procedures" ruins the creditability of the presenter in a matter of seconds. Those who can, do...those who can't, teach.
And part of the fault also lies with the participants too. You pretty much got to force-feed people to learn. They all want the "abridged" version. When they do turn up (and actually turn off the Blackberry/smartphone) they want real life examples, practical answers, free advice, user friendly apps. Save your breath and just give me the answer. Look dude, I don't want to know about Londonderry, just tell me is the LOW a trust document or not? Delivering a session on theory or statute is more painful than root canal....for both.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
NRIs
NRI used to stand for “Non-resident Indians” but now, it seems like “Nowhere to Run Indians”. If you have dodgy Indian clients then this is turning into a very “interesting” year.
The homeland quest for information is getting some traction (first discussed here: http://trustprofessioninasia.blogspot.com/2011/01/clash-of-titans.html) http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-07/news/29392727_1_fishing-expeditions-dtaa-information-without-domestic-interest
So sometime early next year, a bunch of Swiss bank accounts will be released.
On the overseas side, those Indians with HSBC-USA connections may be subject to a “John Doe” summons somewhat akin to what the US used against UBS a couple of years ago: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/04/07/business-financials-us-hsbc-tax-probe_8397088.html
If the court grants such a summons, then anyone who banked with HSBC-USA will have an IRS filed open for "special" scrutiny. Apparently HSBC closed down that NRI service earlier so the money is now somewhere else. Wherever the money trail leads to, that institution may very well be next on the hit list. Didn’t happen to take a transfer from HSBC-USA did you? Throw all those amounts into your “At Risk” ledger and wait for your "John Doe" summons.
The homeland quest for information is getting some traction (first discussed here: http://trustprofessioninasia.blogspot.com/2011/01/clash-of-titans.html) http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-07/news/29392727_1_fishing-expeditions-dtaa-information-without-domestic-interest
So sometime early next year, a bunch of Swiss bank accounts will be released.
On the overseas side, those Indians with HSBC-USA connections may be subject to a “John Doe” summons somewhat akin to what the US used against UBS a couple of years ago: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/04/07/business-financials-us-hsbc-tax-probe_8397088.html
If the court grants such a summons, then anyone who banked with HSBC-USA will have an IRS filed open for "special" scrutiny. Apparently HSBC closed down that NRI service earlier so the money is now somewhere else. Wherever the money trail leads to, that institution may very well be next on the hit list. Didn’t happen to take a transfer from HSBC-USA did you? Throw all those amounts into your “At Risk” ledger and wait for your "John Doe" summons.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Teach Our Children Well…
I love reading/hearing the academia view on our industry. Akin to politics, there is a right wing, a left wing and a slew of moderates. Academics are usually skewed to one side when it comes to the trust industry. They tend to over rely on the effectiveness or enforcement of laws, regulations and place much emphasis on selected statistics then draw inferences and conclusions there from. As a practitioner, I’m probably skewed towards the other end of the spectrum. I see things they don’t and vice-versa.
For all you law students attending the lecture below, challenge the speaker, challenge me. Never take what is said for more than face value. The greatest skill you can get from university is the ability to read between the lines, debate and see the other side(s). It’s like most people will tell you that (cow’s) milk is a great source of nutrition and everyone should have a glass of milk regularly. Have you given thought to the deforestation needed to have grazing pastures for dairy cattle? The methane gas emissions? The means used to keep cows pregnant and lactating?
Is Singapore a major trust jurisdiction? Where does the 50 odd licensed trust companies compare to others centers like Jersey or Bermuda of Hong Kong? How many trusts are there? The MAS has statistics. There is much grumbling about the lack of qualified bankers and other financial service providers in Singapore, so what about qualified trust people? Are they employing Singaporeans or are they importing labour? How many of the licensed trust companies have clean MAS audits? Quantity does not mean quality. What are the audit findings or deficiencies if any? The MAS knows, but does Dr Tang? How many cases of breach of trust have been brought before the courts?
Is the trust industry and trust laws a driver of the wealth management industry growth or is trust a by-product of the wealth management growth? Given the amount of paper the used, I could argue that the recycling industry is driving the growth of the wealth management industry. What is the penetration rate of trusts into banking or financial services consumers? What percentage of Singapore trust assets are actually in Singapore that would require managing (and job/business opportunities for Singapore)? Consider that a typical structure is a Singapore trust holding an offshore company which in turn holds assets ranging from real estate, operating companies and bank accounts. How much of that real estate or operating companies or bank accounts are actually in Singapore? Has the “one-dragon” business model been realized? Or is there really double or over-counting of assets under management? What about the tax discrimination against Singaporeans using Singaporean trust services? Why is the government driving its own people to other trust jurisdictions? What about the money Singapore is attracting? How much of that "hot" money?
Isn’t it interesting the talk will include the “asset protection” aspects of a Singapore trust? People that seek out creditor/divorce or heirship protection trusts are usually people that have (or expect to have problems). In other words “high risk” customers. It’s like saying we have a sports team that won’t do drug testing. Every doper will want to join your team. Does Dr Tang have statistics on how many times the High Court has allowed enquiries into Singapore trusts? How many convictions under the “data protection/secrecy” rules? (Just one or is the AG using “improper use of computers” to prosecute instead?). High risk usually means litigation or arbitration opportunities, so pay close attention, it may be the defining moment for you to change career paths.
The Dot is Hot: The Rise of Singapore as a Major Trust Jurisdiction
posted by Faculty of Law for HKU and Public
Event Type: Seminar/Workshop/Lecture/Talk/Conference
Event Nature: Law and Politics
Event Details
Dr Tang Hang-Wu
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore
* * * * *
This presentation will track the various developments in Singapore trust law which has led Singapore to be a major wealth management centre in Asia. In particular, the speaker will consider the ability of the Singapore trust to withstand external attacks from creditors, divorcing spouses and disgruntled heirs. The speaker will also consider in outline the Singapore Business Trust Act and its recent applications.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER: Dr Tang Hang-Wu is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches and writes on land law, equity, trusts and restitution. Hang-Wu has published widely and his publications have been relied on by law reform committees (Singapore, New Zealand, Scotland and Ireland), leading textbooks and law journals in the Commonwealth. His work has also been cited by the Caribbean Court of Appeal and all levels of the Singapore courts. He has given expert evidence on fiduciary law and advised members of Singapore's legal profession and relevant government ministries on complex legal issues pertaining to restitution, land, trusts and charities.
For all you law students attending the lecture below, challenge the speaker, challenge me. Never take what is said for more than face value. The greatest skill you can get from university is the ability to read between the lines, debate and see the other side(s). It’s like most people will tell you that (cow’s) milk is a great source of nutrition and everyone should have a glass of milk regularly. Have you given thought to the deforestation needed to have grazing pastures for dairy cattle? The methane gas emissions? The means used to keep cows pregnant and lactating?
Is Singapore a major trust jurisdiction? Where does the 50 odd licensed trust companies compare to others centers like Jersey or Bermuda of Hong Kong? How many trusts are there? The MAS has statistics. There is much grumbling about the lack of qualified bankers and other financial service providers in Singapore, so what about qualified trust people? Are they employing Singaporeans or are they importing labour? How many of the licensed trust companies have clean MAS audits? Quantity does not mean quality. What are the audit findings or deficiencies if any? The MAS knows, but does Dr Tang? How many cases of breach of trust have been brought before the courts?
Is the trust industry and trust laws a driver of the wealth management industry growth or is trust a by-product of the wealth management growth? Given the amount of paper the used, I could argue that the recycling industry is driving the growth of the wealth management industry. What is the penetration rate of trusts into banking or financial services consumers? What percentage of Singapore trust assets are actually in Singapore that would require managing (and job/business opportunities for Singapore)? Consider that a typical structure is a Singapore trust holding an offshore company which in turn holds assets ranging from real estate, operating companies and bank accounts. How much of that real estate or operating companies or bank accounts are actually in Singapore? Has the “one-dragon” business model been realized? Or is there really double or over-counting of assets under management? What about the tax discrimination against Singaporeans using Singaporean trust services? Why is the government driving its own people to other trust jurisdictions? What about the money Singapore is attracting? How much of that "hot" money?
Isn’t it interesting the talk will include the “asset protection” aspects of a Singapore trust? People that seek out creditor/divorce or heirship protection trusts are usually people that have (or expect to have problems). In other words “high risk” customers. It’s like saying we have a sports team that won’t do drug testing. Every doper will want to join your team. Does Dr Tang have statistics on how many times the High Court has allowed enquiries into Singapore trusts? How many convictions under the “data protection/secrecy” rules? (Just one or is the AG using “improper use of computers” to prosecute instead?). High risk usually means litigation or arbitration opportunities, so pay close attention, it may be the defining moment for you to change career paths.
The Dot is Hot: The Rise of Singapore as a Major Trust Jurisdiction
posted by Faculty of Law for HKU and Public
Event Type: Seminar/Workshop/Lecture/Talk/Conference
Event Nature: Law and Politics
Event Details
Dr Tang Hang-Wu
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore
* * * * *
This presentation will track the various developments in Singapore trust law which has led Singapore to be a major wealth management centre in Asia. In particular, the speaker will consider the ability of the Singapore trust to withstand external attacks from creditors, divorcing spouses and disgruntled heirs. The speaker will also consider in outline the Singapore Business Trust Act and its recent applications.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER: Dr Tang Hang-Wu is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches and writes on land law, equity, trusts and restitution. Hang-Wu has published widely and his publications have been relied on by law reform committees (Singapore, New Zealand, Scotland and Ireland), leading textbooks and law journals in the Commonwealth. His work has also been cited by the Caribbean Court of Appeal and all levels of the Singapore courts. He has given expert evidence on fiduciary law and advised members of Singapore's legal profession and relevant government ministries on complex legal issues pertaining to restitution, land, trusts and charities.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Da Vinci Code
Instead of writing long emails which may be used against you in court of law, I suggest that our industry adopt the following code words:
Instead of "Breach of Trust" let’s use "cracked egg" [example- We have might have a cracked egg on that last distribution. Or, Are you asking me to crack an egg?]
Instead of "if you don’t do it, we lose the client/account to a competitor", let use "Dante" as in Dante Alighieri’s writings [example- Bob is saying that if the transaction isn’t done by 3pm, the deal will Dante. The settlor will Dante if you don’t issue that POA.]
Instead of saying the tax lawyer is proposing some tax evasion or something illegal, we’ll use "thickness", as in the difference between tax avoidance and evasion has been famously described as the thickness of a prison wall. [example- I think that this transaction has some thickness to it. Or, there is much thickness to the client's Indonesian tax position]
Instead of saying the client or banker has no idea what a trust is, let’s say "half-full" [example- the client is half-full on the idea of a trust]
Instead of telling people to back-date documents, we’ll use "McFly" as in Marty McFly, Back to the Future [example- McFly that Trustee’s resolution to 2004]
Instead of saying your in-house trust expert is a moron, we’ll use "deep-rooted" [example – don’t let him near the client, he’s too deep-rooted. Or His assessment was deep-rooted.]
Instead of saying sham, let’s use "pumpkin" as in Cinderella’s pumpkin [example – this trust could pumpkin on us. Or, This is a pumpkin trust]
Instead of saying "nominee", let’s use "BFF" [example – Ramish the settlor is Santosh’s BFF. Or, can we have a BFF director?]
Instead of saying "who?" as in I have no idea who they are, let’s use "Horton" from Horton Hears a Who! [example – Hey Barclays just hired a Horton. Or, there is a class of beneficiaries that are Horton.]
Instead of saying "we’re caving in to the settlor’s demands", let’s use "amicable". [example- the price reduction is amicable. Or, we are amicable to the transaction proposed.
Happy April Fools
Instead of "Breach of Trust" let’s use "cracked egg" [example- We have might have a cracked egg on that last distribution. Or, Are you asking me to crack an egg?]
Instead of "if you don’t do it, we lose the client/account to a competitor", let use "Dante" as in Dante Alighieri’s writings [example- Bob is saying that if the transaction isn’t done by 3pm, the deal will Dante. The settlor will Dante if you don’t issue that POA.]
Instead of saying the tax lawyer is proposing some tax evasion or something illegal, we’ll use "thickness", as in the difference between tax avoidance and evasion has been famously described as the thickness of a prison wall. [example- I think that this transaction has some thickness to it. Or, there is much thickness to the client's Indonesian tax position]
Instead of saying the client or banker has no idea what a trust is, let’s say "half-full" [example- the client is half-full on the idea of a trust]
Instead of telling people to back-date documents, we’ll use "McFly" as in Marty McFly, Back to the Future [example- McFly that Trustee’s resolution to 2004]
Instead of saying your in-house trust expert is a moron, we’ll use "deep-rooted" [example – don’t let him near the client, he’s too deep-rooted. Or His assessment was deep-rooted.]
Instead of saying sham, let’s use "pumpkin" as in Cinderella’s pumpkin [example – this trust could pumpkin on us. Or, This is a pumpkin trust]
Instead of saying "nominee", let’s use "BFF" [example – Ramish the settlor is Santosh’s BFF. Or, can we have a BFF director?]
Instead of saying "who?" as in I have no idea who they are, let’s use "Horton" from Horton Hears a Who! [example – Hey Barclays just hired a Horton. Or, there is a class of beneficiaries that are Horton.]
Instead of saying "we’re caving in to the settlor’s demands", let’s use "amicable". [example- the price reduction is amicable. Or, we are amicable to the transaction proposed.
Happy April Fools
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)