Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Reviewer 8 - Trust Responsibilities

Attached below are a series of official memoranda exchanged between PPI (which then becomes Lifetime), the Securities and Exchange Commission, and RCBC as the trustee bank. Also included is Sec X403 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks that outlines the guiding principles of the trust management business.



August 24 Letter from PPI to SEC




Oct. 14 letter from SEC to Lifetime Posted by Hello



The readers will see from the abovementioned memorandum that the SEC is concerned about prudence and fairness of the proposed segregation of the assets which are to be given to the respective plans. Notice that the SEC wants to hear about the principles and methods of segregation from the trustee banks and not from Lifetime.


Oct. 21 Letter from RCBC Trust to SEC


This is the letter response of RCBC to the request of the SEC. Several things stand out in the reply:

a) Although RCBC is the trustee, PPI still appears to be the entity responsible for determining the segregation policy and execution.

b) There is no misunderstanding at all between the SEC and RCBC that the traditional plans were to be benefitted by having liquid assets in the trust and which could easily be converted into cash (as one should reasonably expect since the product is already mature and already has periodic cash obligations).

c) The marginal notes are equally revealing in questionning the presence of Napocor bonds in the portfolio which are thinly traded (i.e. difficult to locate purchasers or buyers and suffer from wide swings in prices).


At this point, it is important to understand the guidelines which the BSP requires banks to follow in their trust activities. Sec X403 is reproduced below:


*************************************************************************************
FROM BOOK 4 OF THE BSP MANUAL OF REGULATIONS FOR BANKS
*************************************************************************************
Sec. X403 Definitions. For purposes of regulating the operations of trust and other fiduciary business and investment management activities, unless the context clearly connotes otherwise, the following shall have the meaning indicated.
a. Trust business shall refer to any activity resulting from a trustor-trustee relationship
(trusteeship) involving the appointment of a trustee by a trustor for the administration, holding, management of funds and/or properties of the trustor by the trustee
for the use, benefit or advantage of the trustor or of others called beneficiaries.
b. Other fiduciary business shall refer to any activity of a trust-licensed bank resulting from a contract or agreement whereby the bank binds itself to render services or to act in a representative capacity such as in an agency, guardianship, administratorship of wills, properties and estates, executorship, receivership, and other similar services which do not create or result in a trusteeship. It shall exclude collecting or paying agency arrangements and similar fiduciary services which are inherent in the use of the facilities of the other operating departments of said
bank. Investment management activities, which are considered as among other fiduciary business, shall be separately defined in the succeeding item to highlight its being a major source of fiduciary business.
c. Investment management activity shall refer to any activity resulting from a contract or agreement primarily for financial return whereby the bank (the investment manager) binds itself to handle or manage investible funds or any investment portfolio in a representative capacity as financial or managing agent, adviser, consultant or administrator of financial or investment management, advisory, consultancy or any similar arrangement which does not create or result in a trusteeship.
d.Trust is a relationship or an arrangement whereby a person called a trustee is appointed by a person called a trustor to administer, hold and manage funds and/or property of the trustor
for the benefit of a beneficiary.
e. Trust Agreement is an instrument in writing covering the terms and conditions of
the trust.
f.
Trustee is any person who holds legal title to the funds and/or property of a trust.
g. Trustor is any person who creates a trust.
h.
Beneficiary is any person for whose benefit a trust is created.
i. Fiduciary shall refer to any person or entity engaged in any of the other fiduciary
business as herein defined where no trust or trustee relation exists.
j. Agency shall refer to a contract whereby a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.
k. Principal shall refer to the person who grants authority to another person called an
agent, under a contract to enter into transactions in his behalf.
l. Agent shall refer to a person who acts in representation or on behalf of another with the latter’s authority.
m. Trust Department shall refer to the department, office, unit, group, division or
any aggrupation which carries out the trust and other fiduciary business of a bank.
n. Trust Officer shall refer to the designated head or officer-in-charge of the trust department.
o. Trust account shall refer to an account where transactions arising from a trusteeship are kept and recorded.
p. Common Trust Fund (CTF) shall refer to a fund maintained by a bank authorized to perform trust functions under a written and formally established plan, exclusivelyfor the collective investment and reinvestment of certain money representing participation in the plan received by it in its capacity as the trustee.
************************************************************************************************

In this instance, the trustor is PPI, the trustee is RCBC and / or ING, and the beneficiary(ies) are the planholders. As can be surmised from the above guidelines, the trustee's loyalties should always be with the beneficiaries.

Based on the foregoing, we would again likewise request the help of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to uphold investor protection due to the asserted shortfalls in the trust assets of PPI that have led to the PPI's initiative for revising the payouts for the traditional plans.

Specifically, we look to the BSP to conduct a comprehensive and transparent audit of the activities of the trust operations in order to validate compliance with X403 for the benefit of the beneficiaries.

28 Comments:

At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My, my, my..... the Yuchengco group didn't know what hit them.

Bravo to the Coalition leaders!!!

 
At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:44:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isa pa!! MANILA TIMES HEADLINE


Wednesday, May 18, 2005


Pacific Plans lied about funds–SEC

By Cai Ordinario, Researcher

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strongly believes Pacific Plans Inc. (PPI) doctored its books to make it appear that liquidity problems prevent it from paying its plan holders.

The preneed company has filed a petition for rehabilitation and the suspension of payments to plan holders with the Makati Regional Trial Court. The SEC wants the court to dismiss the petition.

In its 68-page comment on PPI’s petition for rehabilitation, the SEC said PPI’s actions were done in bad faith and that the court should dismiss the company’s plea for lack of merit.

The SEC spokesman, Gerard Lukban, told The Manila Times on Tuesday that the commission does not believe the preneed firm’s claims of liquidity problems.

He said the PPI made SEC believe from the start that it was a financially strong company.

“They took us for a ride. They made such a good job of disguising their intentions,” Lukban said.

The PPI “should comply with its contract with the plan holders,” Lukban added.

Lukban said the company even gave different figures regarding its trust fund in the audited financial statements it submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and SEC.

In its statement to the BIR the company listed its trust fund investment as P6.34 billion. It its statement to the SEC it listed the same investment as P8.31 billion.

“What are they trying to pull off? Which is which?” Lukban said.

There’s more, he said. While PPI was insisting that it was not liquid enough to pay off the plan holders’ premiums, SEC said the company even declared a 10-percent stock dividend equivalent to 1.91 shares on December 15, 1999.

“[The] P121,110,095 included in the 1999 realized gross profits was realized on educational, pension and memorial plans which have lapsed beyond two years,” SEC said.

In its audited financial statement on December 31, 2000, PPI declared a P10,505,000 cash dividend and a realized gross profit of P179,383,745 from educational, pension and memorial plans which have lapsed beyond two years.

SEC said PPI’s petition before the court was meant to “tie the hands” of SEC to prevent the commission from prosecuting PPI on its own terms.

“The hasty recourse to this court appears to be a ploy on the part of Pacific Plans to elude SEC intervention and enable it to force its swap offer to the plan holders in the guise of a rehabilitation proceeding,” SEC said.

The bottom line, Lukban said, is the SEC doesn’t believe PPI’s allegations.

Asked for comment by The Times, PPI President Sonny Garcia said the company was still formulating its response to the SEC motion before the Makati court.

 
At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 7:04:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BUKING NA NGA MGA TAGA PPI SIGE PA RIN ANG DENY!!!

 
At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 7:20:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sa mga taga PPI....

kahit anong gawin nyo eh huli na kayo!
with the seal and dedication shown by coalitions's leadership and volunteers kahit saan hindi kayo makakalusot.
sabi nga ni boo chanco sa last write up niya regarding this fiasco, this is the time for HELEN to depend their action in plaza miranda.
ngayon talaga makikita kung me PALABRA DE HONOR nga sila.

 
At Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hindi pupunta si Helen sa Plaza Miranda, kasi mainit doon. Gusto niya sa airconditioned office lang niya siya mag wala!!! HAHAHA

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:58:00 AM, Blogger Sef said...

Now, this column from Conrado Banal of Business Section of the Inquirer is obviously taking the side of Pacific Plans. He is trying to pin the blame on the "unrealistic open-ended plans" and is mocking the recent position made by the SEC. And as if "open-ended" is a bad name, he used it 18 times in his piece to stress his point.

Hmmm...

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:58:00 AM, Blogger Sef said...

Sorry, the column of Mr. Conrado Banal is at:

http://money.inq7.net/columns/view_columns.php?yyyy=2005&mon=05&dd=19&file=7

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:46:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pirating from government
NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL By Margaret Jao-Grey
The Philippine Star 05/19/2005

Poor Fe Barin. After resigning from the heavy work load of the Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman seems to be handling one ticking bomb after another.

First, there were pre-need firms, College Assurance Plans Phils., Inc. Pacific Plans, Inc. And now, there’s TPG Corp., a member of the LBC Group, whose trust fund was found to be deficient by P910 million as of November 2002.

As required by law, the corporate fund, which is used for the company’s operation, is managed by the company while the trust fund, which involves other people’s money, is managed by a third-party or independent financial institution. In this particular case, the trust fund manager was investment firm ATR-Kim Eng Capital Partners, Inc..

ATR is the acronym of chairman Ramon Arnaiz, president Manuel Tordesillas, and Lorenzo Roxas. Kim Eng is ATR’s Singaporean partner.

Based on one particular complainant, Carlos Araneta, who copy furnished Bangko Sentral Governor Rafael Buenaventura and Philippine Stock Exchange president Francis Lim, the manager of the TPG trust fund – which had since divested from TPG – was guilty of "serious breach of fiduciary duty and gross mismanagement of trust funds of TPG."

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:01:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Breaktime: Praying it safe
Posted: 1:13 AM | May 19, 2005
Conrado R. Banal III
Inquirer News Service


WITH the media uproar against companies in pre-need education plans, the Securities and Exchange Commission has no choice but to take the side of the public.

But, of course, the SEC must play it safe!

A good example is the case of Pacific Plans Inc., which was the first and is so far the only pre-need education plan company that ever admitted to a serious liquidity problem.

The company is seeking court approval for its rehabilitation plan. The company said it needs 10 years to earn enough from its investments, plus the P250 million from Alfonso Yuchengco, to cover its obligation to some 34,000 customers-and only partially.

Those 34,000 customers are the holders of the legendary "open-ended" education plans, as against the "fixed-value" plans.

The open-ended plans, as the term indicates, are the "come-what-may" plans.

In the "open-ended" plans, pre-need companies in effect promise that they will take care of the tuition of the kids of whoever would be holding the plans, say, 10 or 20 years from now, even if by then the tuition would be somewhere in the vicinity of another universe.

Of course, anyone who holds such an "open-ended" plan of Pacific Plans, must be against the rehab.

It removes the, well, "open-endedness" of their education plans. The plan holders naturally want the company to stick to its open-ended commitment.

And so the SEC told the court that, yes, indeed, Pacific Plans must pay for the plans right now, this very moment, and it must pay for the entire tuition of the plan holders' kids, wherever in the stratosphere the tuition may be.

* * *

YOU know what? The SEC cannot ever go public with its approval of any rehab plan of any pre-need company, because the SEC itself is the pre-need industry's one and only regulator.

For the SEC, going with the Pacific Plan rehab is a public admission that it failed the public in its job as regulator.

How come the company is having problems? How come the SEC did not warn the public about its financial trouble, in the first place? Where in the SEC offices were the SEC officials sleeping?

Thus, the SEC cannot side with the company it was supposed to regulate. In the Pacific Plan case, the SEC must tell the court that it does not agree with the rehab plan.

Under the law, according to the SEC, Pacific Plans has an "open-ended" obligation. Its obligation, therefore, must stay that way -- meaning, "no end."

Everybody wants Pacific Plans, and the entire pre-need education sector, to keep their promise under the "open-ended" plans.

I also want them to pay up. Every parent wants them to pay up. I am sure that even the owners and executives of the pre-need companies themselves want their companies to pay up.

The only problem is, well, where the hell will they get the money? It is a LIQUIDITY problem, right? That means the pre-need companies do not have the money now, right? Anybody home?

I mean, sure, in taking the NO MERCY position, the SEC may be playing it safe with the public. But it is not exactly a realistic position.

To follow the SEC's wish, the pre-need companies will need lots and lots of prayer, plus a huge miracle, to raise the money for all the open-ended education plans.

What's that? Praying it safe?

Either a miracle, or this cute administration steps into the crisis and provides a liquidity mechanism for the pre-needs.

This, by the way, has been done before. It is not as if this cute administration is reinventing the wheel.

* * *

ANYWAY, "open-ended" plans have become a monster. Even the SEC admitted as much, when it banned that type of pre-need education plan in 2002.

For if the "open-ended" plan was such a good thing, why would the SEC prevent pre-need companies from marketing such a hot-selling item?

I think the SEC itself recognized, although belatedly, that the "open-ended" plans were killing the pre-need companies.

Thus, in 2002, the SEC figured out-correctly-that the "open-ended" plans were not realistic at all. That's why the SEC banned them at that time.

What, I wonder, makes the SEC think that the same unrealistic "open-ended" plans only three years ago, are suddenly so realistic to the SEC today?

It is even telling the court to require Pacific Plan to cover for all those plans?

Playing it safe. What else? The parents are angry, and understandably so, and the SEC cannot go out and explain to them a reality that they do not want to hear.

* * *

BELIEVE me. Today, employees of private schools have a little sideline from brokering "open-ended" plans in the secondary market.

Not everybody who bought "open-ended" plans years ago, are actually using them. The holders also sell the plans to others.

Because the tuition has gone up to another galaxy in the past 13 years, "open-ended" plans are selling today at a handsome profit.

On the average, based on the prevailing tuition, an "open-ended" plan enjoys a return on investment (RoI) of about 1,600 percent.

If the user goes to some exclusive schools, with their tuition having gone up to somewhere near the door of heaven, the RoI can even reach 2,200 percent.

Thus, in an actual real-life case of Pacific Plan, a plan holder bought an "open-ended" plan for only P13,800 some 15 years ago.

By the time Pacific Plan was done paying "open-endedly" for the plan, it has spent a total of P310,000.

Nobody, no matter how good they are in financial investments, can earn that much. Not in this country! Not if you are doing legitimate business! Illegal numbers games like "jueteng," and drugs, sure! But not legitimate business!

Believe me, even employees of private schools cannot make that much money as brokers in the thriving secondary market for "open-ended" plans.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:38:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so i hope that you have understand very well what mr. banal have said in his column...i am also in the finance profession...let us not all be selfish...try to consider also the side of the pre-need companies...i do believe that in the next few months there will be more of them who will follow CAP and PPI...i have been reading the comments posted in this blog for the past weeks...isa lang ang nababasa ko...your letting your emotions rule over you...fall of the YGC is also the fall of the Philippine economy...haven't you thought about it? if you have studied economics even for just a bit am sure you were able to encounter the so-called multiplier effect...YGC is one of the biggest Philippine conglomerate...and whether we like it or not it helps the economy even if we will insist that i gives no good to you or even me...wag niyo nang idamay ang public...try to focus on your legal battle...am hoping that you will even get a single ace at the courtroom even if SEc now is washing its hands...i wish you all the bets.u

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:42:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As to the comment of PPI on SEC's double standard, that was based on the newsitem "MANAGEMENT TAKEOVER OF CAP PUSHED" published on April 26, 2005 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Business Section B1.

The recommendation of the committee to the CAP problem is almost the same things Pacific has done.

Clearly a case of double standard.

Saving face.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:00:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anonymous said...

so i hope that you have understand very well what mr. banal have said in his column...i am also in the finance profession...let us not all be selfish...try to consider also the side of the pre-need companies."

Jeez, can you believe this guy? I hope that you have understand very well..... etc."
FYI, Mr. Banal is not exactly the most credible of columnists. If you want a creduble one, try the other Conrad in the Inquirer. The de Quiros guy. He writes a lot better too. And he is not for sale.

As for being selfish, i think that is better addressed to the Yuchengcos who are already so filthy rich they can afford an expensive media campaign to try to whitewash this fiasco that blew up in their faces, NOT to the people who slaved for years just to ensure their kids' education.

Go back to that finance profession of yours and do your numbers again.Also, try working on your grammar. It could use a lot of improvement. Just like the Yuchengco's pathetic PR campaign.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:31:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the supposed finance guy, if you post your email, I will gladly send you the opposition paper that was filed with the Mkti Regional Trial Court and you can feast your eyes on the accounting tricks that the Yuchengcos did.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:00:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Mr. Finance man

Can I have you as my client. Why don’t you put your money in my company, then I spirit it away then inform you that it’s bankrupt. Your such a genius!!!!!!!!!

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:18:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the one who posted:

"As to the comment of PPI on SEC's double standard, that was based on the newsitem "MANAGEMENT TAKEOVER OF CAP PUSHED" published on April 26, 2005 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Business Section B1.

The recommendation of the committee to the CAP problem is almost the same things Pacific has done.

Clearly a case of double standard.

Saving face."

Did CAP create a wholly owned subsidiary, then transfer assets, its entire board of directors, all its officers and sales force, including trust funds there?

Did CAP then "sell" this wholly owned subsidiary to another related company?

Did CAP then "sell" itself to this other related company for a relative pittance?

Did CAP then run to a Regional Trial Court, saying to it, in effect, "We have obligations we don't want to honor anymore, so please issue to us a 'Stay Order' while we tell our stupid planholders that we will "rehabilitate" our company and they should wait till 2010 while we figure out other ways to screw them"?

Did CAP go through a moro-moro of "tuition support" in tranches, with the second one touted as a "personal loan" from their head honcho, one that the company may have to pay back to him?

Double standard indeed! The only standard we are looking at is based on moral and ethical business practices. So far, PPI is failing that on all counts. Very, very miserably, at that, regardless of all the PR and smoke that they are blowing at the public.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:18:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leksyon sa katalinuhan at linaw ng pag-iisip:

Pinaka-bottomline: May kontrata,tinupad ng planholders, hindi tinupad ng PPI. Di pa nasiyahan dun, nanlinlang pa at gumawa ng krimen na fraud.

Lahat ng sabihin pagkatapos niyan, balik pa rin sa bottomline.

Kesyo, hindi kakayanin dahil sa pagtaas ng tuition fee - bottomline, problema pa rin ng PPI. At kaya nilang tuparin ang kontrata kung hindi nagmismanage ng pera ng planholders. Bottomline, hindi tinupad ng PPI ang kontrata, at nag-fraud.

Kesyo, ang SEC ipinagbawal ang benta ng traditional, tapos ngayon, ipinapatupad ang kontrata ng traditional. Yun nga eh. Magkasalungat yung 2 bagay na yun. Ang pagtupad sa kontrata ay pagtupad sa kontrata - kahit ano pa ang ibinenta. It has nothing to do with the SEC protecting planholders and preventing the sale of traditional plans in 1992. Bottomline hindi tinupad ng PPI ang kontrata at nag-fraud.

Kesyo, maliit lang ang plan payment kumpara sa benefit na natanggap. Yun nga ang punto nung plano. Pero bottomline pa rin, kahit na magkano pa ang ibinayad na ng PPI sa mga previous availments, hindi pa rin tumupad sa kontrata ngayon. Again, magkasalungat ang 2 bagay na yun. Bottomline, hindi tinupad ng PPI ang kontrata at nag-fraud.

Kesyo, ang ibang pre-need, hirap din tulad ng CAP. Bottomline, walang kinalaman ang ibang pre-need. Iba't-ibang management performance at governance. Yung ibang may traditional, okay pa rin sila hanggang ngayon. Besides, whether or not maganda o pangit ang performance ng iba, eh walang kinalaman dito dahil specific na kontrata at management performance ng PPI ang pinag-uusapan. Bottomline, hindi tumupad ng kontrata ang PPI at nag-fraud.

Si Banal, na isa pa ring lightweight at walang kredibilidad na manunulat, sabi ang SEC hindi raw sumasangayon sa Rehab plan dahil contrary sa position niya as regulator. Tanga! Ang SEC is there to protect first and foremost the general public and specifically the planholders. The Rehab plan is detrimental and inflicts damage on the planholders for the very reason that it is fraudulent and has no basis. Magkasalungat uli ang 2 bagay na yun. Ang sinasabi nga ng SEC as a regulator is that all documents show that PPI was liquid and solvent PRIOR to the fraudulent move to hide behind a court order for suspension of payments followed by a petition for rehab. Pero thats not even the point. Bottomline, hindi tumupad sa kontrata ang PPI at nag-fraud.

Ngayon, sa mga inutusan na magbantay (o baka mag-isa ka lang) dito sa blog at magpost ng mga kontra sa coalition, kontra sa anti-rehab, kontra sa lahat ng tama dito sa mundo, ang lungkot no? Pa-ulit-ulit ka sa mga mabababaw na punto. Anyway, trabaho mo yun so paghusayan mo naman. Make up different characters and please use correct grammar, para naman hindi masakit sa ulo basahin. Ikaw rin, your point doesn't get across effectively. At tsaka, yun nga. Galingan mo naman and use points that use logic and can be followed-thru from beginning to end. Hindi yung pagmay bagong topic o development, halimbawa SEC, SEC naman yung babanatan na wala namang puno't dulo. Galingan mo, please so that we can be challenged as well. Tandaan mo, ang linalabas mo dito sa blog, yun na ang reflection ng pagkatao mo. So, wag mo namang i-disappoint kami na isang tanga na lang ang nakabantay sa blog na ito para kumontra. Tsaka, ang lungkot nun, di ba, kung uuwi ka sa gabi na kumpirmado mo sa sarili mo na tanga ka? Paghiga mo sa papag, di ka makatulog kasi tanga ka.

So please, para sa lahat, galingan mo (or ninyo, kung marami kayo).

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:20:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder if Alfonso Yuchengco realizes that his family now has as much credibility as Marcos did during the last few months of his rule.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:55:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yung ibang may traditional, okay pa rin sila hanggang ngayon"

Ikaw ang tanga! Magbasa ka at malaman mo rin may mga problema na rin ang TPG saka Platinum. Di lang sila umaamin parehas ng CAP kahit bistadong bistado na.

Yung sa kapitabahay ko may Platinum sya dati cash ang binabayad, ngayon for June availment, ang binigay tsekeng dated ng December 2005.

Tanga ka talaga!

Ang CAP, maraming press release na may investor silang darating. Eh ilang buwan na yan ah. Meron ba? Kahapon lang eh nagbackout na yung si Roxas.

Magtanong ka sa mga planholders ng ibang kumpanya, wag sa mga opisyal ng mga yun kasi hindi talaga magsasabi yun ng totoo.

TANGA!

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:23:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Children, children. No expletives please. We are a very civilized bunch.

(The only uncivilized people are the ones masquerading as philanthropists but commit unspeakable acts towards their paying public).

To blogmaster, pls delete all posts that contain expletives, regardless of whether they are pro or anti rehab.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:57:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...
Leksyon sa katalinuhan at linaw ng pag-iisip:"

"Si Banal, na isa pa ring lightweight at walang kredibilidad na manunulat, sabi ang SEC hindi raw sumasangayon sa Rehab plan dahil contrary sa position niya as regulator. Tanga! "

Sorry, but if you look into the postings, may naunang tumawag ng tanga samin porke pro-rehab kami.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Leksyon sa katalinuhan at linaw ng pag-iisip:"

"Si Banal, na isa pa ring lightweight at walang kredibilidad na manunulat, sabi ang SEC hindi raw sumasangayon sa Rehab plan dahil contrary sa position niya as regulator. Tanga! "

"So, wag mo namang i-disappoint kami na isang tanga na lang ang nakabantay sa blog na ito para kumontra. Tsaka, ang lungkot nun, di ba, kung uuwi ka sa gabi na kumpirmado mo sa sarili mo na tanga ka? Paghiga mo sa papag, di ka makatulog kasi tanga ka."

Sorry, but if you look into the postings, may naunang tumawag ng tanga samin porke pro-rehab kami.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daw sa mga gago ang mga naga buya-yaw dire. Na YUECHENGO gid ta tanan. Na INTO-AN kita! Imagine ang 250M kuno para i bulig, LOAN gali? And whose gonna pay that? ALL Planholders.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:07:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose the majority of those who access this blog are planholders and parents. Let us all try to respect other people's opinions even if they are opposed to our own. Let us not resort to insults and invectives. What will our children say if they read the foregoing exchanges? what are we teaching them? Just a friendly reminder.... thank you.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:08:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ANonymous said...
ka-istupiduhan. Hindi naiintindihan ang post tungkol sa profit margins. Pag-uwi mo, isipin mo "tanga ako" "tanga ako" "tanga ako". Paggising mo bukas, magpost ka ulit. tignan natin kung may improvement.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:10:23 PM "

Heto pa po. Comment din dun sa Reviewer 7 post.

I guess, isang tao lang ito.

 
At Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Philip will have an interview with DZBB (594AM radio) tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.

 
At Friday, May 20, 2005 6:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. RCBC CAPITAL underwrote these NAPOCOR bonds;

2. RCBC TRUST DEPT of RCBC bank sold these to Pacific Plans Trust Funds (a related entity);

3. Pacific Plans loaned from RCBC (a related entity) to buy ADDITIONAL Napocor Bonds to secure the Napocor Bonds initially bought.


The Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas, being the oversight body of BANKS in the Philippines, should look into the VIOLATIONS committed by these Yuchengco financial services companies. The violations include the breaking of the so-called "CHINESE WALL" (THIS IS AN INVESTMENT BANKING TERM, NOT A RASCIST, DEROGATORY REMARK), where RCBC Trust bought in behalf of the Pacific Plans Trust Fund these Napocor bonds. There should have been an "arms-length" evaluation of these transactions, and clearly, RCBC Trust took advantage of their FIDUCIARY POWERS, WHILE NEGLECTING/ABDICATING THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES.

If the Bangko Sentral will not tighten its oversight powers over these banks' trust department operations, then THE WHOLE TRUST BANKING INDUSTRY WILL COLLAPSE, DUE TO THE MISTRUST OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES (I.E. SAN MIGUEL CORP, PLDT AND OTHER TOP 1000 CORPORATIONS) TO LET THESE TRUST DEPARTMENTS HANDLE THE RETIREMENT/PENSION FUNDS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.


We are talking about billions of pesos in retirement trust funds.

The TRUST OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILS. should police their ranks for erring trust officers who have been remiss in their fiducairy responsibilities.

NO TO REHAB! JAIL THE PERPETRATORS!!

 
At Friday, May 20, 2005 6:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

from page 12 of the Pacific Plans document submitted to the SEC:

"INVESTMENT IN BONDS"

"Investment in bonds comprised mainly of investments in US dollar denominated zero coupon government guaranteed bonds issued by National Power Corporation(NPC) with face value of P15,564,080,000 or US$280,000,000 in 2003 (2002 - P14,911,120,000 or US$280,000,000) and will mature in July 2010. In 2003, the amortized cost and market value of these bonds amounted to P9,134,260,007 and P11,673,060,000 respectively (2002 -P7,807,777,556 and P9,728,972,532). The difference between the amortized cost and market valueof P2,538,799,993 in 2003 (2002 -P1,921,194,976) is shown as Reserve for fluctuation in investments in bonds under Asset valuation reserve."


from page 13:

"LOANS FROM A RELATED BANK"

"The account included US dollar denominated LOAN of P4,246,794,537 or US$76,400,434 in 2003 (2002- P4,068,628,724) PROCEEDS OF WHICH WERE USED TO ACQUIRE NPC BONDS WITH FACE VALUE OF p7,786,846,193 (us$146,220,926) IN 2002. THIS LOAN BEARS AN ANNUAL INTEREST OF 3.9% AND WILL MATURE IN NOVEMBER 2007. NPC BONDS WITH FACE VALUE OF US$279,000,000 WERE ASSIGNED TO THE RELATED BANK AS SECURITY FOR THIS LOAN."

"The account in 2002 also included loans of P447,180,938 (US$8,397,133) which were used to acquire US dollar denominated government securities. These loans WHCIH BEAR ANNUAL INTEREST RANGING FROM 4.050% TO 4.883% and with maturity date of October 2006 were settled in October 2003 upon the sale of the related securities."

"INTEREST EXPENSE ON THE ABOVE LOANS AMOUNTED TO P194,042,408,IN 2003 (2002- P16,902,492)."


QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED:

1. Pacific Plans trust funds are cash-rich, prior to these anomalous transactions. Why did the officers buy Napocor bonds in 2002, and then apply for US-dollar denominated loans in 2003?

2. Why did they have to spend P210MILLION in interest expense (2002 and 2003) to buy these JUNK BONDS?

3. Why not just an outright purchase of these Napocor Bonds? Did RCBC use these INTEREST PROFITS TO jack up their own financial statements, at the EXPENSE AND BEHEST of Pacific Plans planholders?



3. Why such a high interest on those dollar-denominated loans?

4. Why prepay these loans 3 YEARS IN ADVANCE? DID PACIFIC PLANS RECEIVE A PRE-PAYMENT DISCOUNT FROM RCBC? OR DID THEY PAY THE PRINCIPAL WITHOUT ANY DISCOUNT, CONSIDERING THE TIME VALUE OF MONEY INVOLVED, AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED?

5. Will these investments pass the PRUDENCE RULE OF TRUST FUND INVESTING? PUTTING 80% OF YOUR TRUST FUNDS IN WORTHLESS JUNK BONDS, LOSING 3.3BILLION PESOS IN MARKET VALUE (OR 22.3% LOSS)IN JUST ONE YEAR?


the officers of RCBC and pacific plans should go to jail. If bangko sentral officials will not look into these, they should also looked into by the OMBUDSMAN and be put to JAIL!

NO TO REHAB! JAIL THE PERPETRATORS!

 
At Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:22:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole hullabaloo boils down to one thing. WORD OF HONOR. Pacific Plans promised one thing and now refuses to honor its promise. Whatever reasons the Yuchengcos claim prevents it from fulfilling its promise to its clients who scrupulously kept their end of the bargain, will not wash, for one's word is one's bond.

That ,my friend, is the foundation of this whole business of pre-need, insurance and banking, KEEPING ONE'S WORD.

Destroy that, and you destroy the whole business. Sadly, the Yuchengcos have chosen to destroy the whole business by showing that WORD OF HONOR is secondary to PROFIT.

That is the saddest cut of all.

After all is said and done, going back on WORD OF HONOR, PALABRA DE HONOR, will spell doom for the Yuchengcos, no matter what they or their spin doctors say or DO. The word is out, THE YUCHENGCO'S WORD IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home