Life Savings Gone
In the case, DBS had failed to adequately explain and clarify to retiree investors the risks they were exposing themselves to prior to their purchase of the Lehman Minibonds and High Notes 5 bonds. Thereby, we sought to examine and evaluate the ethical implications on the various stakeholders and the ethicality of DBS’ actions. Theoretical Perspectives
Ethical egoism In line with this theory, we can observe that personal wealth and gain is the goal which motivates some relationship managers, even if it meant providing a false sense of security or incomplete information to secure deals. This resulted in the larger number of retirees who did not have a clear understanding of the risks involved. Apart from relationship managers, some investors who were not misled into investing in the minibonds but did so based on their personal judgment, may have made claims for their losses to fulfill their self-interest of minimizing losses, albeit unethically. This could have been accomplished as many investors were filing claims at the point of Lehman Brothers' collapse, thus making it difficult to ascertain who the real victims were. Deontology In the case of compensatory justice, relationship managers who gave misleading sales pitches ought to compensate their clients who lost their investments to a certain extent to deter similar incidents from occurring. DBS should bear the bulk of the responsibility since the bank already knew that retirees were being sought out first but yet did not step in to ensure that they were fully informed of the risks involved. In relation to procedural justice, procedures by which the relationship managers followed were also questionable. They were coached informally to seek out retirees when they could have focused on other consumer segments which would be less vulnerable to the risks involved. Lastly, for clients who were subjected to misleading sales pitches, the cost of lost investments should be partially...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document