The Editor, Sir:

I found the Sunday Gleaner article by Miss Eaton under the caption "Need, Greed or Ignorance" to be interesting and enlightening, in terms of its clarity on the roles of the regulating institutions viz, the Bank of Jamaica and the Financial Services Commission. I also found the question posed at the end of the article "Is this need, greed or ignorance?" very telling, as it is certainly a question that should be asked on several levels.

I am an individual investor, who feels that I have suffered at the hands of the so-called regulated institutions, by having placed my funds with them for years with very minimal returns. With the exposure to the discussions on these investment schemes and now being enlightened that, in fact, there was the possibility of my earning phenomenally more than the returns the 'legitimate and regulated institutions' so grudgingly gave to me, I wonder if I was not the real victim of ignorance. I cannot help but wonder if these institutions were not, as a part of their investment portfolio, actually trading in foreign exchange with the monies I placed with them and were themselves earning some of these really fantastic returns with my money and then giving me one-thousandth of their returns as the price I am paying to them for so-called safety. If that is the case, it appears that it is a really high price for security and a huge price I paid for ignorance.

It therefore begs the question as to where is the real greed? Is it with the small investor who is trying to maximise, if possible, his returns with these schemes, which accept his monies and tell him that his funds cannot be guaranteed but both parties can make big bucks?

Or, is it with these so-called regulated institutions which accept his monies under the guise and protection of being licensed and regulated and earn from his money these same returns, pocket it and give him basically nothing in return as has been my experience?

Where is the ignorance

Where is the actual ignorance when we as the individual investors are not sure (at least I am not) that the regulators ask these so-called regulated institutions whether they are using the funds placed with them to trade in foreign exchange and if they do, what are their returns on these investments and how much of those returns do they pass on to their clients?

I am asking these questions because it is my assumption that just as Olint (and others) can trade and earn big returns for themselves and their clients that it is only natural to assume that the licensed institutions are doing the same as a part of their investment portfolio. Are they using my money to trade and, if they are, why am I not sharing in the spoils? Are the regulators asking these questions for me and, if not, are they truly protecting my interest or is it that they are protecting the interest of the 'banks' and the 'non-banks' at my expense?

Are we better off without the regulations

In such a case, maybe we are better off without the regulations. Unless and until the members of the public (whom Miss Eaton implicitly refers to as being greedy) and whom the regulations purport to serve, see that the regulations actually serve them, and that they are receiving fairness and equity from the so-called regulated financial institutions and that the regulators are, indeed, looking out for their best interest, then they will look elsewhere for their 'needs' to be met. This is what the authorities and the Government should be investigating. I will tell you this, that now that I'm no longer ignorant to the existence of these schemes, I will continue to have the niggling, persistent feeling that I have all along been ripped off by the financial institutions in which I reposed confidence and with which I placed my funds until the regulators assure me otherwise. Maybe I do feel the need to get greedy. At least, it may be at more equitable returns!

I am, etc.,

MARGARET MORGAN

morgan@ruthvenlaw.com

Via Go-Jamaica