Friday, June 24, 2005

Picking Up the Pieces

Dear readers,

Some of you may be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Very roughly, the law states that any initiative creates consequences that nobody could even imagine when the initiative was started.

That Law has been at work.

As this coalition gathered its strength and purpose, it has literally assembled an impressive array of talent and experience (e.g. expert lawyers, bankers, marketers, salespeople, media, etc.) as evidenced by the thoughtful comments in this blog over the summer just past.

As a virtual organism, these combined talents unearthed truly amazing amounts of information, secret memoranda as impressive as any other piece of investigative journalism. At the same time, we've been treated to detailed analysis and commentaries on the state of our government agencies, justice systems, banking practices, legal duties and responsibilities, and ethical concerns.

The unintended consequence is that the thoroughness of the work cannot help but leave an empty and sickening feeling at the pit of one's stomach...

Why? It's because we have come to the realization that we had a very close call. Had it not been for our militant and boisterous activism, we were actually being abused by:

a) guarantors of our children's education that were looking for slick ways to renege;
b) bank trust departments that couldn't be trusted;
c) supposedly crusading journalists who were only interested in spreading lies and aided and abetted by their publishers;
d) regulators who were routinely deceived;
e) lawyers and law firms who didn't believe that justice is blind;
f) justices who may not be just;
g) rich and educated business elite that behaved like the neighborhood thug.

And yet, we still have to deal with our pressing issues of planning our futures. Bank time deposits offer a depressing 2% return, inflation is running at 8%, and we still have to find out how to make our hard-earned savings work for us.

While we may all secretly wish we could go back to the way we were, there is, unfortunately, no magician out there that can wave a magic wand to make things right again.

We think we may have finally had enough of the sweet talking salespeople, their glossy brochures, and newspaper and TV ads that have ultimately betrayed us.

Lest this blog be accused of being negative and less than constructive, it may be a good time for the combined talents of the blog to put their thinking caps on and start coming up with concrete ideas and suggestions on how to start rebuilding the trust and confidence. We desperately need ideas so that truly reliable and trustworthy investments can be put in front of all the hard working Filipino families both here and abroad.

Have a good weekend and only concrete suggestions please!

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Reviewer 11 - Court and Regulator Interaction

Philstar 22 June 2005 Posted by Hello

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

The Lost Summer of 2005

Dear Readers,

The summer of 2005 has passed and our children off to school, making do with their "tuition support". It is a good time to recap what we have seen and what we can expect.

a) A contract is a contract. We started off this campaign with this immutable, unchanging fact. Regardless of any excuse or justification proferred, this was always the ground issue that YGC could not escape. We all collectively wondered as to what was going on in the minds of the YGC owners and seniors as they attempted to pull off the great heist of 2005. At the very start, we believe that the majority of planholders were prepared to accept that the filing for rehabilitation was at worst a poorly thought out implementation with no malice aforethought. We felt that it would be voluntarily rescinded and life would go on.

b) As YGC hardened its position, we were forced to delve into issues and topics that would not otherwise be topics for conversation over dinner in many homes across this country. We also found that we were being made the enemy by their publicists. We were alternately accused of being elitists, or selfish and uncaring, or just plain dumb. What an ironic and unfortunate choice of strategy for communicating with your customers considering that we never invented preneed plans in the first place, nor did we coerce YGC into getting into the business. Before this summer, we were wooed and called dear and valued customers. We will all remember this the next time we are enticed to buy a product or a service from a YGC company.

c) We learned about what proper corporate governance should be and what constitutes bad faith and fraudulent behavior. The SEC made itself exceedingly clear on these issues when it issued the revocation order.

YGC should not flatter itself that the SEC was zeroing in on PPI with that report.

SEC had to worry about the broad implications of allowing and sanctioning companies to willfully renege on contracts. The Philippines would be a leper in the international community had they not affirmed this principle. And for all of the other PPI planholders who are resentful of the coalition's efforts, they are mindless of the fact that if PPI or any other company is allowed to renege on a single contract, then that serves as legal precedent and all other contracts be damned!

d) We learned about the workings of our mass media and how difficult it was to make our issues heard. Fortunately, we were able to devise other means and we now realize that concerned individuals can band together effectively to fight for a good cause.

e) We found about that companies always consult lawyers before taking drastic decisions. In our case, we found out that ACCRA had already given sufficient knowledge of the issues to YGC regarding the weakness of YGC's position. Unfortunately, we also learned that YGC ignored the good advice and decided to work with another law firm.

f) We found about judicial ethics and what we should properly expect from our judges in terms of how they should inhibit themselves in order to uphold the principle of preserving the public's expectation of unbiased court proceedings;

g) We found about the fiduciary responsibility and the proper behavior that we should expect from our financial institutions. We also found out that our trust manager has a very loose and seriously inadequate understanding of what constitutes cash or very liquid instruments as basis for the investment portfolio.

h) We found out about the cash dividends and the excessive sales commissions being granted (all during the period that PPI knew that it was headed for trouble).

i) We found out that it is not that difficult to create a decent portfolio to match the growth in tuition. However, if one insists on bloated expenses and questionnable investment decisions, then PPI can always claim it fell short of expectations. These are PPI's business decisions that it is solely accountable for.

j) We also found out that YGC has a murky understanding of liabilities and the division between equity holders and creditors. During the good times, generous bonuses and commissions were distributed to the senior managment and owners. Now that YGC has seen that the traditional educational plan product line is making PPI less profitable than it otherwise could be, they attempted to have the planholders rather than the owners absorb the losses brought about by bad business decisions.

h) We also found out that the minority shareholders are penalized as was evident in the maneuvers to create a corporate shell game. Values are stripped from profitable companies and cash dividends are declared out of supposedly troubled ventures.

Yes we have learned many things, the painful way but we hope that we are all better prepared and more vigilant going forward.

At the same time, we now know that YGC has also learned many things as well. They have learned that trust and integrity is the only true coin that they can use for conducting business. That coin is what allowed them to be part of the lives and aspirations of Filipino families over these many decades.

Unfortunately, in the lost summer of 2005, these same families learned many bitter lessons and insights into the values and ethics of YGC and in the process, YGC has lost their trust and debased their coin in the process.

Trust is an intangible asset that is a multiplier and has allowed YGC to enter into many businesses built on trust. The loss of trust over the summer of 2005 is now acting as the divisor and now penalizing these same businesses.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Welcome New Chapters

Any group effort is certainly more meaningful compared to the work done by a handful. PEP Coalition knows that it cannot do it alone and thrives on the passion and commitment of a multitude of concerned parents.

The networking team has been busy in terms of coordination and we are welcoming the new members. While we are at it, we thought we'd link photographs depicting the tourist attractions of each chapter...



BACOLOD CHAPTER : CRISPIN CHUA



DAVAO CHAPTER : BEN BALDOZA

Important Housekeeping Matters

CORRECTION....

"Membership Fee Php 200 and minimum voluntary
contribution Php 100 per plan Bank Account: c/o PEP
Coalition, Inc. BPI (Broadway Branch) C/A 0401-0084-03
Kindly fax deposit slip to 824-8144 or text the above
numbers for monitoring"

The bank account name should be Parents Enabling
Parents Coalition, Inc. (not PEP Coalition, Inc.) and
checks should be made payable to the complete name.

********************************************************
membership form Posted by Hello

***********************************************************************************
Special Power of Atty 1 Posted by Hello


Special Power of Atty 2 Posted by Hello

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Judge Barza - Hello, we've not forgotten you!

SC: PERC survey on judiciary does not show entire picture
By Jose Rodel Clapano
The Philippine Star 06/07/2005
A recent survey of expatriate businessmen who ranked the Philippines judicial system as among the worst in Asia did not reflect the actual situation in the country’s judiciary, the Supreme Court said yesterday.

In a statement, SC assistant Court Administrator and chief public information officer Ismael Khan Jr. said he was "surprised" by the findings of the survey conducted by the Singapore-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

"I am surprised at the results of this survey which do not seem to reflect the actual situation on the ground. It is obvious that whoever evaluated the survey results does not have a clear understanding of how the Philippine legal system works and how independent the Philippine judiciary is," Khan said.

Khan said that PERC’s assessment "flies in the face of the latest Social Weather Stations survey which show a very high approval rating for the Supreme Court."

"The recognition extended by many countries of the First World which have more than a nodding acquaintance with the progress that the Supreme Court’s judicial reform program has received is a much more reliable indicator of their regard for our legal system which puts a premium on due process and the rule of law," he said.

Khan said that this fact has been acknowledged by the World Bank, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Asian Development Bank, USAID, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, the European Union, Asia Foundation and many others that have supported the Philippines in this effort.

"In fact, an international conference to be hosted by the Supreme Court in November this year, with the support of the World Bank, will showcase its successful judicial reform programs," Khan said.

The PERC earlier ranked the Philippine judicial system ninth in a survey of expatriate business executives who rated the judicial systems in the region.

"Few foreign investors feel very confident working within the legal system in the Philippines where laws are not built so much on precedents as on quicksand," the PERC concluded.

The Philippines’ rating fell sharply to 8.10 from 7.71 in 2004, ahead of only China, Vietnam and Indonesia among Asian countries.

The same survey ranked Hong Kong and Singapore as having the best judicial systems in Asia. Hong Kong overtook Singapore for the top post, toppling the rival city-state from its pole position in 2004. Japan came in third.

In ranking the countries and cities, the business executives gave weight to how legal systems are used to enforce contracts, resolve disputes, fight intellectual piracy and enforce securities and exchange regulations.

In the PERC rankings, countries and cities were graded on a scale from zero to 10, with zero being the best grade possible and 10 the worst. Respondents were asked to rate quality of the court system and the police force, and the results were averaged to obtain overall scores.

Khan said that the High Tribunal, which celebrated its 104th anniversary yesterday, planned to highlight its celebration by holding a mini-motorcade.

"A mini-motorcade highlighting the SC anniversary celebration, the Justice on Wheels project and other judicial reform activities will pass through the main thoroughfares of Metro Manila," Khan said.


************************************************************************************

This article was in today's Philippine Star. Foreigners do not feel that their contracts will be protected as soon as they put their money in because of their lack of confidence in our court system.

What say you, members, friends and foes of the PEP Coalition, is this a malicious and unfounded attack on our country? Or are you aware of incidents where people choose to run away from their obligations and attempt to muscle their way through the courts of law and public opinion?

What say you, members of the FIRM and Judge Barza? Is it fair to say that this report of this meddlesome foreign group is an indictment of your profession?

As we said, l'affaire PPI is a microcosm of everything that is good and detestable in our fair and native land. How we all conduct ourselves in this crisis will have repercussions way into the future.

Monday, June 06, 2005

The Contagion of Creeping Loss of Confidence

Excerpted from the Sun Star Cebu May 25 2005

Public told: Life insurance plans different from pre-need plans

LIFE insurance plans are different from pre-need plans.

This is the message life insurance companies want to get across to the public, as the problems of the pre-need industry begin to affect the campaign of life insurance companies to increase awareness on the importance of life insurance.

"Pre-need is different," said Generali Pilipinas executive vice president for sales and marketing Joe Ferreria. "We want the people to realize that investing in life insurance plans is an (alternative) to investing in pre-need plans,"

The Life Underwriters Association of the Philippines has been conducting an educational campaign to make the public realize the importance of insuring lives. But the liquidity problems of pre-need companies like the College Assurance Plan (CAP) and the Yuchengco-owned Pacific Plans are now affecting this campaign.

While CAP is still assuring its planholders that it can pay its liabilities, Pacific Plans has admitted that it can pay only in 2010. It has filed in court a petition for rehabilitation, with Pacific proposing to return the money of its planholders, plus a return of seven percent per annum from the date of full payment up to July 2010.

Pre-need company Cocoplans Inc. president Caesar Michelena earlier said the selling of open-ended contracts, especially for education plans, is one of the reasons why some pre-need companies are now in financial trouble.

In an open-ended contract, pre-need firms must pay the amount of the tuition, whatever it might be, regardless of the premium paid by the plan holder. But tuition has increased significantly for many years.

Pre-need plans include educational, memorial and pension plans.

Not open

Generali Pilipinas' Ferreria said life insurance companies do not sell open-ended contracts. "The open-ended contracts are products of the pre-need industry. Life insurance companies have defined benefits."

*************************************************************************************************************************************

This article above is one of many examples of the insurance industry reacting to the demoralization of the investing public with respect to preneed plans. With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, we sympathize with these insurance companies' position.

The preneed companies not owned by insurance companies have had great success pouring buckets of money into lobbying for the supervision of the industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission rather than the Insurance Commission (who is responsible for safeguarding the insurance industry).

During the good times, the lobbyists argued aggressively that the preneed industry could be more creative and deliver value to prospective planholders. And of course, the insurance companies were painted as sour grapes in warning about speculative excesses that the preneed companies could get into simply because prudential guidelines were and still are being formulated by the SEC (who are much less experienced than their Central Bank or Insurance Commission counterparts).

And therefore in a frustrating case of "I told you so", we now have the CAPs and PPIs of the world pleading with their insurance company brethren to come out with a united stand in saying that tuition inflation was beyond anyone's control. On top of that, the insurance companies are being dragged down and stigmatized with the failings of these two companies as they are now finding it hard to sell their offerings.

Make no mistake, thanks to PPI, there is now a crisis of confidence that is shaking the entire industry due to the lack of transparency and integrity of these erring firms.

May we suggest that the more appropriate stand is the one that Mr. Cuisia has advocated stating that there must be "accountability for results". Rather than stay silent, the correct thing for the insurance companies to do is to call a spade a spade and come out with an industry position paper stating that they support the SEC's scathing evaluation of PPI's miscarriage of fiduciary responsibility at these erring firms.




Saturday, June 04, 2005

Comments on Cat Danny's Investment Strategy

Some commentators in the previous post had problems with Cat Danny's seemingly simple minded investment strategy. For example:

************************************************************************************
Anonymous said:

It Seems that Danny the Cat(and Coalition) doesn't know his numbers:

Using your example:

Principle:$100
End Principle: $176

Increase before taxes: 76%

End Principle after Tax(20% tax on yield): 160.8
Effective percent increase in capital: 60.8%
(Coalition forgot TAXES!!!!!)


Begininng Tuition Fee: P17000 or $708.33 (@24PHP:1USD)
End Tuition Fee: P69,000 or $1254(@55PHP:1USD)
Increase: 77%

Increase in Money (60.8%) can't cope with Tuition Fee Increase (77%)

This doesn't include trust fees,administrative fees, and the like.

By your own example, you killed your own logic that you can find an investment that can match tuition fee hikes.

Coalition should try and try again until you can create something that seems logical.

************************************************************************************************
We thought it best to bring back Cat Danny and have him respond to the rebuttal of above commentator...


Cat Danny Explains Posted by Hello



"Dear readers,

Oh dear, I probably should stick to opening real piles of garbage rather than the PPI garbage heap. But it's good for the kids who may be reading the blog to pick up a few lessons in discussing the comment above:

a) For those who have ever been members of a debating club, Ms. Reyes' article in Philstar is not debatable because people interested in coming up with a counter argument do not have the free access to information that she has had. At best, we can say that it is a paid notice since the claims are hard to verify independently.

b) For debate, I used publicly available information. As you can see from the commentator above, he or she can now look at information I've presented and try to draw different conclusions. Now, that is what I call fair and transparent;

c) Using the commentator's own counter-argument, he has calculated a gap of 16% (77% increase in tuition less 61% increase in portfolio). Let's stay with this for the moment.

Readers should recall the original claim of PPI. They said that due to the runaway inflation in tuition, they were constrained to cut back on their payments. When PPI issued its initial stop payment order, my masters only got 50% as tuition support instead of the PhP69,000 that they were expecting (which is what I used in my example by the way).

As I said, I'm a cat with the small brain of a cat. Not even my simple-minded investment strategy could manage to create a hole of 50%. I believe that is exactly the point of asking for a full and transparent audit of the activities of the trust management professionals.

d) If you want to use my simple-minded investment strategy, I work cheap. A can of tuna every other day is sufficient for me as investment management fees. Now, you have to considerthe fact that the experts in investment management, who get paid very well, now only need to play devise just something slightly smarter and they can already make up for the 16% gap.

As Mr. Jose Cuisia said in Dong Puno's show the other month, "there has to be accountability for results".

e) On the question of taxes, aren't there are many tax free alternatives that could have been used?
1. FCDU time deposits (taxed at 7.5% withholding only recently);
2. Foreign Currency Investment Management Accounts that could have been used to invest in these Tbills;
3. Special Series Treasury Bills and Notes;
4. 5 years + 1 day bank time deposits that paid out coupons without withholding, etc. etc.

The point here is that there are similar investments that can be substituted in my analysis that would not be subject to taxes either and are already readily available in the Philippines.

It is up to the investment manager now to figure out the best way to figure out the best legal vehicle to purchase these assets for the planholders. Again, they're well paid to do that...I'm just a cat with a small brain.

f) Finally, the correct term is principal not principle. Don't want the kids going around with bad spelling (sorry...I'm being catty, it's a bad hair day!!!)

g) I hope that my original strategy and this explanation are logical.

Thanks for listening,

Danny
************************************************************************************

We trust that the above response will continue to fuel questions in all our minds regarding the competence and ethics of the trust management professionals who had the fiduciary responsibility over the planholders' assets.

Obviously, this week, we have pounded hard on the performance of the trust managers and will continue to do so because this is one of the keys to solving this deepening mystery. A mystery which can only be answered and have trust and confidence restored to this battered industry by way of a no holds barred audit of the trust operations.

We try to strike a balance in this blog in the interests of stoking debate such as the one mentioned here. This blog is still a research and information site. As the readers have noticed by now, the items posted do not have a uniform tone and this is done deliberately in order to get points across and to elicit comments such as the one above in order to have a further discussion.



Wednesday, June 01, 2005

The PPI case
HIDDEN AGENDA By Mary Ann Ll. Reyes
The Philippine Star 06/01/2005

Pacific Plans Inc. (PPI), a member of the Yuchengco Group of Companies which is exclusively handling about 34,000 open-ended educational plans, is certainly facing funding problems with its open-ended planholders.

This is because the deregulation of tuition fees in 1994 has caused a tremendous rise in the cost of education which, in turn, put enormous pressure on open-ended plans and their corresponding trust funds considering that pre-need companies selling open-ended plans, such as PPI, could not pass on the additional cost to their planholders. It has to be emphasized that the problem is not peculiar to PPI but is, in fact, an industry-wide problem.

Since the 1990s, tuition fees of exclusive private education institutions have increased by an average of 16 percent every year to as much as 28 percent per year.

In contrast, the return on investment on the trust funds created specifically to discharge their obligations under the open-ended plans ranged only from 11 to 14 percent. In other words, PPI’s actuarial assumptions for its open-ended plans were compromised by deregulated increases in tuition and standard fees.

Consequently, pre-need companies began experiencing trust fund deficiencies, 80 percent of which were reported to have been caused by availments on the traditional educational plans.

Because of this, PPI mid-last year was forced to transfer its fixed value plans, pension, memorial and educational fixed plans to another Yuchengco company, Lifetime Plans Inc. (LPI). This was made to protect the more than 400,000 fixed planholders from the huge financial requirements of the open-ended plans or those plans without any cap on educational benefits.

This transaction was intended to improve the efficiency and enable PPI to focus on open-ended target market segments.

At the opening of classes this school year, out of the 34,000 open-ended planholders, there are exactly 15,954 planholders of PPI who are availing of the plan’s benefits or are sending students to school.

This availing group of planholders had paid or contributed a combined total of P557,136,180 in premiums from the time they acquired the plan, with some having started paying back in 1986. That was the year PPI introduced the open-ended plan to the market, which they closed in 1992.

What ails PPI now is the fact that 22.5 percent of those currently availing planholders or only 3,590 are eating up more than 36 percent of the total benefits. These are planholders who are sending their students to exclusive schools. This small group is supposed to get P753.5 million of the total benefit packages.

This group contributed only P132 million to the plan. With 570-percent return on their investment, these minority planholders are the privileged group compared to the non-exclusive school set of planholders.

On one hand, the bulk of the open-ended planholders who are using non-exclusive schools numbering 8,347 or 52 percent of the availing planholders and who had paid over P172 million are getting only 29 percent or a total of P605.8 million.

And consider this: Some of these individual planholders contributed a total of only P29,200 each from 1987 in premium payments and collected up to as much as P558,000 in benefits representing 1,900 percent in their return on investment.

Now, a further review of PPI records and statistics of planholders who had fully availed of the plan’s benefits would attest to the inequity of the distribution from among those whose students are sent to exclusive schools and non-exclusive institutions.

This, thanks to the unabated increases in tuition fees since its full deregulation in 1994 that saw private schools scampering to determine their respective levels of tuition adjustments every year. This government policy prompted PPI to stop selling the open-ended plan two years ahead of full deregulation.

A total of 38,730 planholders had fully availed of the plan’s benefits, meaning, the beneficiaries had gone to school up to graduation under the plan.

And, as in the case of those still availing the plan, those who benefited much constitute 12,063 planholders representing 31 percent whose students were sent to exclusive schools, with total benefits amounting to P2.17 billion or 48 percent of the P4.6 billion that accrued all those who had availed of the plan. While they contributed some P397 million to the plan, they had a 549-percent return on investment.

The majority 21,825 planholders or about 56 percent of those who had fully availed earned total benefits amounting to P1.6 billion, or only 36 percent of total accrued benefits. They had a 500-percent return from their P326.7 million total contribution.

Under the prevailing average rate of return, which on specific cases had reached to as much as 2,232 percent on a total premium of P13,800, and which is abetted by unparalleled yearly increases in tuition fees, the planholders who still have to avail of the plan – numbering 18,510 – will be left with no more benefits to enjoy.

The P557-million contributions of those availing planholders are not even enough to earn for them P2 billion in benefits until 2010 without a rehabilitation program. More so, those who still have to avail will be deprived of the benefits since their own contribution will be wiped out when the benefits of those currently availing are fully enjoyed.

Just the same, PPI has opened a tuition fee assistance window amounting to P591 million for this school year to planholders who are sending their children to school. Of this, P341 million came from PPI while P250 million came from the head of the Yuchengco group of companies, Alfonso T. Yuchengco.

However, this window has been closed after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last May 25 revoked the registration of LPI.

With the SEC decision, the fate of the 400,000-plus fixed planholders under LPI is in limbo, not to mention the 14,400 sales force and employees of the company.


************************************************************************************************

The editorial staff of this weblog is always under pressure to try and anticipate the various initiatives that YGC is attempting at any point. Fortunately, many doors have been closed to them:

a) The SEC has definitively called their entire scheme as fraudulent and steeped in bad faith;
b) Their attempt to spin off Lifetime and siphon away the profitable pieces has been aborted by the revocation.

The article above is now a belated attempt on their part to sway public opinion that the entire industry is the victim of runaway tuition inflation. YGC is also aware that Mrs. Helen Dee boastfully remarked to Boo Chanco that she could defend the investment decisions made at Plaza Miranda.

In what Ms. Reyes is passing off as her own research (tsk, tsk, another CM Recto job if we ever saw one...), PPIwould have us now accept that they have opened PPI's and the trust departments' records to her so that she herself can do her own exhaustive analysis. The implicit agenda in this article is to show that despite their valiant efforts to play catch up, they (ie. PPI) and the rest of the industry were simply overwhelmed by the tuition increases.

************************************************************************************

We unfortunately have to shut down another YGC line of defense because it is devastatingly easy to disprove the abovementioned article. We will discuss a simple investment strategy that our pet cat, Danny, can do in his sleep.


Danny- The Investment Manager

The strategy calls for investing money in US one year treasury bills at the start of the year and rolling the money over (principal and interest). In that way, we can take advantage of compounding.

The strategy assumes a starting point of 1992 and an end point of 2005 with a starting investment of US$100. We also look at what the tuition payout for a so-called elite school in peso terms for 1992 and 2005. We then convert the tuition into the US $ equivalent to see if our investment strategy has kept up.

Unlike Ms. Reyes figures which concocts numbers based on data that none of us can verify, we simply had to retrieve data from the website of the Federal Reserve Board of St. Louis for the US 1 yr. treasury bill for constructing the table and simulation below:

No Brainer Investment Strategy Posted by Hello


As one can easily verify from the table, our pet cat Danny's investment strategy has been able to keep up with the alleged runaway inflation in tuition.

************************************************************************************

Therefore, we come back and pose the following comments:

a) We have noticed that whenever we post documents or facts, the apologists of YGC never join in on the exchange of comments. We challenge the apologists now to explain away our pet cat's investment strategy;

b) The investment managers were paid 1/2 of 1% per year for their so-called investment expertise. What they have managed to do is to create a tremendously underperforming portfolio with horrible assets. CALLING THE BSP ONCE AGAIN.... We want our money back, with investment managers like that, we were much better off doing the job ourselves.

c) Since PPI and the trust managers have decided to waive confidentiality and bank secrecy to Ms. Reyes for her research, then we have to CALL THE BSP ONCE AGAIN to give planholders equal access and transparency.

d) We are now beginning to think that there really is more than meets the eye with respect to those Napocor Bonds. We want everyone to come clean. Commentators on this blog have hinted that RCBC Capital made money underwriting it, sold it to Treasury, and then stuffed it into the PPI portfolio (ie. made money 3X)? CALLING THE BSP, PLEASE...

WE'RE AS MAD AS HELL AND WE WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE.

************************************************************************************

Now that we have shown the no-brainer investment strategy, Mrs. Helen Dee will have to really cram for Plaza Miranda and explain why she and the rest of the gang should not be hauled off to jail for gross negligence on top of the other transgression that the SEC has factually documented.

By the way, we could not help but notice how the apologists were arguing that it would be hard to prove gross negligence (shame on you, looking into the e-group emails...).

Now that you have seen what our pet cat Danny can do, you may want to sing a different tune (we still welcome stool pigeons to help us out)