DBS continues to surprise me. This morning, one of its officers called to inform me that I could not use my property as evidence of my risk-free status so that I could qualify for an increase in credit limit for my credit card.
The reason? It does not consider a property worth more than $2 million an asset despite the fact that the Monetary Authority of Singapore has told me in an email (see posting below) that it is one of the criteria which the bank can use.
I do not know the rationale for the bank taking this position but I told the officer that I would like to get to the bottom of this. I have written to the MAS -- again -- to seek clarification .
But I think I should also write to the bank officially to find out .
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Monday, March 10, 2014
MAS reply shows DBS was not transparent
After posting about my unhappiness over DBS's treatment of retirees regarding credit card limit (headlined "Inflexible DBS over a simple matter), I wrote to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) to ask whether it was responsible for making such a ridiculous ruling.
Last week, the MAS responded. I am happy to report that it is in fact the bank that has not been totally open and transparent with me.
To recap, I had asked for a permanent increase to my credit limit but was rejected even though I had more than enough funds in the bank to cover my spendings.
However, DBS said I would only be allowed to do so if I could fill up an employment income form. If not, I had to provide a secured deposit.
I told them that it was ridiculous since I was a retiree. It never even bothered to ask whether I had other forms of income or assets. How's that for risk management???
As for the secured deposit option, I said it was an inconvenience, and I wasn't interested in a pittance that it pays in interest.
From the MAS response, it is apparent that the DBS officers who spoke to me were either not aware or did not bother to ask whether I had other forms of income or had assets worth more than $2 million.
This morning, I spoke to a DBS officer and told her about what the MAS had said. I said I was re-applying for a permanent credit limit increase.
Now I wait anxiously for enlightenment.
Lastly, I would like to apologise to the MAS for assuming that it had made an unfair ruling.
Below, my email to the MAS and its reply...
"Dear regulator,
I have been trying to get my bank to increase my permanent credit card limit so that it would be more convenient for me to pay for goods and services that require a substantial sum of money.
So far, I have been unsuccessful because I am told that a recent MAS ruling requires retirees like me to submit evidence of employment income even though such people may have more than enough funds in the bank to cover their spendings.
I find this MAS ruling so ridiculous. Why do you have a rule that cuts across the whole spectrum of retirees without thinking of the consequences? Don't you think that there is a possibility that some retirees might have more money than others? And surely they deserve the right to spend a little more on themselves in their twilight years.
This rule also shows that MAS does not trust our bankers to be able to do the right thing. If not, why are you not allowing them some leeway when it comes to granting credit limits to those retirees who do not pose any credit risk.
Please confirm that this rule is iron-cast and that our banks are not allowed to show any flexibility whatsoever when it comes to increasing the credit limits for retirees.
At a time when there is so much talk about caring for the elderly, it is sad to know that MAS could come up with a rule that is clearly and totally discriminatory."
THE MAS REPLY
"We refer to your email dated 25 February 2014.
We understand your frustration in this matter, and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to clarify our credit card rules. Under MAS’ credit card rules, a bank is not required to obtain proof of its cardholder’s income before granting him a credit limit increase where the increase is fully secured by deposits placed with the bank.
Where the credit limit increase is not fully secured, the bank is generally required to verify the cardholder’s income before granting the credit limit increase. This is to ensure that the new credit limit granted accords with the regulatory limit of 4 months’ income (for those earning at least $30,000 a year) and 2 months’ income (for those earning less than $30,000 a year). However, banks are allowed to grant credit limits above the regulatory limits to a cardholder who has total net personal assets exceeding $2 million or annual income of at least $120,000. In verifying the cardholder’s annual income, the bank is not limited to considering employment income. The bank is also permitted to take into account non-salaried income such as rental, dividend and interest income.
We hope the above has been of assistance. Please feel free to let us know if you require any further information.
Thank you.
Regards,
Xiu Si
Corporate Communications Officer
Monetary Authority of Singapore"
Last week, the MAS responded. I am happy to report that it is in fact the bank that has not been totally open and transparent with me.
To recap, I had asked for a permanent increase to my credit limit but was rejected even though I had more than enough funds in the bank to cover my spendings.
However, DBS said I would only be allowed to do so if I could fill up an employment income form. If not, I had to provide a secured deposit.
I told them that it was ridiculous since I was a retiree. It never even bothered to ask whether I had other forms of income or assets. How's that for risk management???
As for the secured deposit option, I said it was an inconvenience, and I wasn't interested in a pittance that it pays in interest.
From the MAS response, it is apparent that the DBS officers who spoke to me were either not aware or did not bother to ask whether I had other forms of income or had assets worth more than $2 million.
This morning, I spoke to a DBS officer and told her about what the MAS had said. I said I was re-applying for a permanent credit limit increase.
Now I wait anxiously for enlightenment.
Lastly, I would like to apologise to the MAS for assuming that it had made an unfair ruling.
Below, my email to the MAS and its reply...
"Dear regulator,
I have been trying to get my bank to increase my permanent credit card limit so that it would be more convenient for me to pay for goods and services that require a substantial sum of money.
So far, I have been unsuccessful because I am told that a recent MAS ruling requires retirees like me to submit evidence of employment income even though such people may have more than enough funds in the bank to cover their spendings.
I find this MAS ruling so ridiculous. Why do you have a rule that cuts across the whole spectrum of retirees without thinking of the consequences? Don't you think that there is a possibility that some retirees might have more money than others? And surely they deserve the right to spend a little more on themselves in their twilight years.
This rule also shows that MAS does not trust our bankers to be able to do the right thing. If not, why are you not allowing them some leeway when it comes to granting credit limits to those retirees who do not pose any credit risk.
Please confirm that this rule is iron-cast and that our banks are not allowed to show any flexibility whatsoever when it comes to increasing the credit limits for retirees.
At a time when there is so much talk about caring for the elderly, it is sad to know that MAS could come up with a rule that is clearly and totally discriminatory."
THE MAS REPLY
"We refer to your email dated 25 February 2014.
We understand your frustration in this matter, and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to clarify our credit card rules. Under MAS’ credit card rules, a bank is not required to obtain proof of its cardholder’s income before granting him a credit limit increase where the increase is fully secured by deposits placed with the bank.
Where the credit limit increase is not fully secured, the bank is generally required to verify the cardholder’s income before granting the credit limit increase. This is to ensure that the new credit limit granted accords with the regulatory limit of 4 months’ income (for those earning at least $30,000 a year) and 2 months’ income (for those earning less than $30,000 a year). However, banks are allowed to grant credit limits above the regulatory limits to a cardholder who has total net personal assets exceeding $2 million or annual income of at least $120,000. In verifying the cardholder’s annual income, the bank is not limited to considering employment income. The bank is also permitted to take into account non-salaried income such as rental, dividend and interest income.
We hope the above has been of assistance. Please feel free to let us know if you require any further information.
Thank you.
Regards,
Xiu Si
Corporate Communications Officer
Monetary Authority of Singapore"
Friday, February 21, 2014
HSBC teller sends Miel on a spin
Soon after I posted my gripe about DBS today, I read this Facebook posting below by my friend and ex-colleague Dengcoy, popularly known by his cartoon byline Miel....
"Dear HSBC, your service sucks! it's called Inconvenient Banking.
WHY? went to the Claymore branch this morning to make a transaction only to be told by the teller to call an 1800-number. But I told her that I am here and now ready to make that transaction. She insisted that I still have to call the 1800-number. Okay, fine. So, I called said number from the office only to be told by some call-center chap from Mordor that I have to go back to the bank to do my business! WT...! "
I was really incensed after I read the post as I know Miel to be a mild-mannered and obliging guy and can easily be taken advantaged of by many people. I am sure he was in this case because he obeyed what the teller told him to do!!!
Many of his friends have reacted to what had happened to him. One said he should have thumped the table and demanded service. Another thought a better line of action would have been to curse the teller in the Hokkien dialect.
Maybe Miel should do what he does best --- draw a cartoon to show up the bank for its mindless service and post it on social media. After all, he is a world-class cartoonist. And a so-called global bank like HSBC surely does not deserve anything less..
Inflexible DBS over a simple matter
The joy of getting a new credit card from DBS was short-lived for me.
Almost two months after I had the DBS Altitude card (see the last posting below), I discovered that the credit limit set for me was much too low to make any substantial payment. In this instance, I didn't have enough "credits" to pay for a cruise that our travel group has planned.
I also realised that being a Treasures member does not make things easy -- even for simple things. Worse still, if you are a retiree with no employment income and income tax returns to back you up.
But what about all my hard-earned money that I have deposited with the bank over the years, earning pittance in terms of interest????
Apparently, that is not good enough for me to obtain a higher credit limit.
So I called my relationship manager (RM) Leonard yesterday to protest. He promised to ask the higher-ups for approval.
One day later, there was no word from him. His mobile was not answered. I left an SMS for him to call me back urgently. Nothing happened.
Meanwhile, I decided to call the Treasures hotline and gave a sweet-sounding girl named Susie a earful (well, in a pleasant way). She tried to fob me off with her usual line -- "I will ask the RM to call you back".
I wasn't in the mood to be taken in by a voice, sweet though it may be. I asked to speak to the manager. She said the manager was not available. So I asked for the CEO.
When she realised that I meant business, she said she would put up my request for a credit limit increase. I told her it was urgent. She said she would get back to me in an hour.
And she did! But, alas, it was only a temporary increase and there was a time limit, i.e. I had to use it by a certain date.
I asked why it was not a permanent one. For that, she said, I had to fill a form to apply.
And the form would require me, a retiree, to fill in my employment income or submit my income tax returns. Sigh! Back to square one!
This whole saga clearly shows up the inflexibility of the bank. Why is it treating all retirees the same way, even those who are Treasures members?
The message I get is this: "Yes, deposit all your cash with us, but don't expect us to be reasonable with you."
I would equate this inflexibility to pure laziness and a total lack of initiative. Surely a quick check of a retiree's history with the bank and his background will instantly allow any manager worth his salt to make a fairly accurate assessment of the risk factor.
All of which makes me wonder: If a bank that makes its living from being able to assess risks, and it is obviously unable to do so for a simple credit card case, what are the chances of it making it big in Asia???
I hope I am not being unfair in coming to this conclusion, but this is how I feel at the moment.
Almost two months after I had the DBS Altitude card (see the last posting below), I discovered that the credit limit set for me was much too low to make any substantial payment. In this instance, I didn't have enough "credits" to pay for a cruise that our travel group has planned.
I also realised that being a Treasures member does not make things easy -- even for simple things. Worse still, if you are a retiree with no employment income and income tax returns to back you up.
But what about all my hard-earned money that I have deposited with the bank over the years, earning pittance in terms of interest????
Apparently, that is not good enough for me to obtain a higher credit limit.
So I called my relationship manager (RM) Leonard yesterday to protest. He promised to ask the higher-ups for approval.
One day later, there was no word from him. His mobile was not answered. I left an SMS for him to call me back urgently. Nothing happened.
Meanwhile, I decided to call the Treasures hotline and gave a sweet-sounding girl named Susie a earful (well, in a pleasant way). She tried to fob me off with her usual line -- "I will ask the RM to call you back".
I wasn't in the mood to be taken in by a voice, sweet though it may be. I asked to speak to the manager. She said the manager was not available. So I asked for the CEO.
When she realised that I meant business, she said she would put up my request for a credit limit increase. I told her it was urgent. She said she would get back to me in an hour.
And she did! But, alas, it was only a temporary increase and there was a time limit, i.e. I had to use it by a certain date.
I asked why it was not a permanent one. For that, she said, I had to fill a form to apply.
And the form would require me, a retiree, to fill in my employment income or submit my income tax returns. Sigh! Back to square one!
This whole saga clearly shows up the inflexibility of the bank. Why is it treating all retirees the same way, even those who are Treasures members?
The message I get is this: "Yes, deposit all your cash with us, but don't expect us to be reasonable with you."
I would equate this inflexibility to pure laziness and a total lack of initiative. Surely a quick check of a retiree's history with the bank and his background will instantly allow any manager worth his salt to make a fairly accurate assessment of the risk factor.
All of which makes me wonder: If a bank that makes its living from being able to assess risks, and it is obviously unable to do so for a simple credit card case, what are the chances of it making it big in Asia???
I hope I am not being unfair in coming to this conclusion, but this is how I feel at the moment.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Shara of DBS -- sent from above!
Ms Shara of DBS Bank made my day today.
She surfaced like a breath of fresh air just as I was getting increasingly irritated by the unavailability of my relationship manager (RM) and a telephone voice that kept telling me to hold on as "all our officers are busy".
When it seemed like all my efforts were ending up futile, I decided to call the bank's 24-hour service hotline. Right move --- an angel in the form of Shara came to my rescue.
The moment I heard her voice, I knew somehow that she was going to be the person who was able to help me.
I told her about the difficulty I encountered in getting hold of the RM and what I wanted from the bank -- a credit card that would reward air miles against my spendings.
"Not a problem," she chimed, before showing me an easier way of doing it without even having to fill in any document as I was already a card holder.
All it took was less than 10 minutes for me to log on into my account, indicate the card that I wanted and the request was approved.
Before I rang off, I thanked and complimented Shara on her cheerful attitude, patience and EQ.
She certainly deserves a bouquet for displaying that special personal touch!
She surfaced like a breath of fresh air just as I was getting increasingly irritated by the unavailability of my relationship manager (RM) and a telephone voice that kept telling me to hold on as "all our officers are busy".
When it seemed like all my efforts were ending up futile, I decided to call the bank's 24-hour service hotline. Right move --- an angel in the form of Shara came to my rescue.
The moment I heard her voice, I knew somehow that she was going to be the person who was able to help me.
I told her about the difficulty I encountered in getting hold of the RM and what I wanted from the bank -- a credit card that would reward air miles against my spendings.
"Not a problem," she chimed, before showing me an easier way of doing it without even having to fill in any document as I was already a card holder.
All it took was less than 10 minutes for me to log on into my account, indicate the card that I wanted and the request was approved.
Before I rang off, I thanked and complimented Shara on her cheerful attitude, patience and EQ.
She certainly deserves a bouquet for displaying that special personal touch!
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Miniinthebox: A warning
I was bitten by the online shopping bug after I was given a HD plasma TV and needed two HDMI cables so that I would be able to enjoy its full benefits.
I thought of going to Sim Lim Towers to get them but decided against it as it was too much of a hassle at this time of the year.
Then, while surfing the Net, I saw an unsolicited online shopping email from an outfit called Qoo10. My search for HDMI cables at the website threw up a whole range.
As I wasn't sure about the reliability of the products, I went for a brand name (Sony, but made in China) as I wanted to be careful.
The cables, which cost me less than $20, arrived three days later, all carefully packed. I was so pleased with the purchase as everything worked out well.
The following days saw me scouring various online sites randomly looking for things that interest me.
One caught my eye -- a car camera that had good reviews and cost less than $50. With my confidence boosted by my TV cable experience, I decided that I would make another purchase, this time from another website, Miniinthebox.
The car camera was delivered promptly. Setting it up the camera (see picture below) itself was not difficult although the instructions left a lot to be desired.
The nightmare only started when I tried to get the camera to work. Nothing I did was successful. After countless attempts, the screen finally went blank. Nothing I did could revive it!!!
I decided that I should write a review to warn people who were contemplating on making the same purchase. After sending it in, I did not see it in the Reviews section. So I guessed it had to be moderated.
A day or two later, when I logged on to check on the status of my review, this was what I saw...
A creative way indeed to keep out the unhappy customers. But why was I kept out of the website when all I wanted to do was to check whether my review had been published?? One can only speculate on the reason for the lockout.
Did I try to contact the website to inform them about my complaint? You bet, but it would take the patience of a saint to learn how to do it. I failed.
One thing's for sure. I will never purchase anything from this Miniinthebox website. By the way, it is also known as Lightinthebox.
Happy Christmas shopping but please keep away from this product, if not the website.
Did I try to contact the website to inform them about my complaint? You bet, but it would take the patience of a saint to learn how to do it. I failed.
One thing's for sure. I will never purchase anything from this Miniinthebox website. By the way, it is also known as Lightinthebox.
Happy Christmas shopping but please keep away from this product, if not the website.
Friday, May 17, 2013
LTA's mind-boggling rule
The Land Transport Authority makes a distinction between the Singapore identity card and Singapore passport when the two are used to establish someone's identity to effect a transfer of vehicle ownership.
I realised this when I went to LTA's office in Sin Min last week to transfer the ownership of my wife's car to the buyer. She had misplaced her IC and despite searching for it, was not been able to find it.
As the IC was needed to effect the transfer, I was in a dilemma over what to do next. I decided that her passport should be a good substitute as it was just a matter of confirming her identity.
So off I went to LTA with her passport and the signed transfer form, confident that I would not encounter any problem. But I was wrong.
The LTA officer who attended to me said my wife had to be present if I was using the passport for the transfer, but her presence was not required with the IC.
I asked her why the IC was given more credibility. Her short reply: it was the rule and clearly stated in the transfer form. As expected, she was not able to give me the rationale.
That ended our conversion. And the end result? My wife, still in her exercise outfit, was summoned to LTA to show her face.
Mind-boggling!!!
I realised this when I went to LTA's office in Sin Min last week to transfer the ownership of my wife's car to the buyer. She had misplaced her IC and despite searching for it, was not been able to find it.
As the IC was needed to effect the transfer, I was in a dilemma over what to do next. I decided that her passport should be a good substitute as it was just a matter of confirming her identity.
So off I went to LTA with her passport and the signed transfer form, confident that I would not encounter any problem. But I was wrong.
The LTA officer who attended to me said my wife had to be present if I was using the passport for the transfer, but her presence was not required with the IC.
I asked her why the IC was given more credibility. Her short reply: it was the rule and clearly stated in the transfer form. As expected, she was not able to give me the rationale.
That ended our conversion. And the end result? My wife, still in her exercise outfit, was summoned to LTA to show her face.
Mind-boggling!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)