Mr. Minister [Chris Sinckler], as individuals own less than 10% of the BNB shares, you are negotiating for all of us on this occasion. Please do not sellout the Barbadians that have small shareholdings. There is no reason why you should not seek the best price for the Government and people of Barbados. At a minimum, seek competitive bids from other entities. We look forward to your support, in what is your first major action that will impact us. Thanking you in advance – A. Freeman
The resignation of Tony Hoyos from the Board of Directors of the Barbados National Bank (BNB) should should concern Barbadians. Hoyos’ letter of resignation was posted on Peter Boyce’s Facebook Page earlier today.
A full page statement was posted in the local press today by Republic Bank (BNB’s parent company) signalling it will be making an offer to buyout the remaining shareholders in BNB. An article also appeared in the Trinidad press yesterday. Currently Republic Bank Limited (RBL) owns 65.13% of BNB, the government of Barbados 28% and individuals 7% round out the ownership.
Hoyos makes a few assertions in his letter of resignation which should make Barbadians take interest. When majority interest in BNB was sold to RBL in 2003 many Barbadians cried we were not given enough time to buy into the deal. Many years later Barbadians still become emotional at the thought of our national bank under Trinidadian ownership. The Late Prime Minister David Thompson echoed the feelings of Barbadians by making the hollow statement in 2008 that Barbados should look to to repurchase BNB from RBL.
Barbadians have a chance to make their voices heard second time around. If RBL wants to buyout the remaining 35% shares in BNB they should be made to pay a premium. No doubt the RBL offer of $5.57 is influenced by the fact the government of Barbados is currently labouring under a serious cashflow-debt burden problem. It would be a shame if Barbadians allowed RBL to grab our family treasure at a steal, again. All Barbadians need to get involved in this discussion, the 28% shares owned by the government of Barbados means we the PEOPLE are owners of a significant stake of the BNB pie. By all means sell your minority interest but it must be at a premium.
Additional to fetching a premium price for the remaining shares the use of the name Barbados in the name of the bank should be withdrawn. BNB has been able to generate healthy profits linked to the goodwill and sentiment associated with the use of the name ‘Barbados National Bank’. While there is a vested interest in the current arrangement for minority shareholders, if RBL is able to acquire 100% interest in BNB, the accommodation of the use of ‘Barbados’ should cease when the deal is consummated.
BU commends Tony Hoyos for the principled position he has taken in this matter based on the information in the public domain..
The CEO of Sagicor is on record as opposing the ability of trades of small amounts of shares of an entity, on the Barbados Stock Exchange, to influence the market price of those shares and significantly reduce the valuation of the relevant entity and the wealth of the shareholders, as such trades are normally done by “unsophisticated” individuals that are seeking quick cash. The referenced transaction is therefore puzzling, as it would have been approved by the Board of Directors of Sagicor. While the intent is clearly not to harm Sagicor, is there a case for other shareholders to join WIBISCO in legal action against the directors of Sagicor?
Maybe we have to be more critical of an ‘unsophisticated’ stock exchange system that would allow brokers to trade high/low at opening and a few trades later close high/low based on their fancy.
Loading…
A. Freeman
David, you are very likely correct – the Barbados Stock Exchange needs to improve the rules that govern the valuation of the shares that trade on the Exchange. That notwithstanding, the owner and potential buyer of a share have a right to agree to an exchange price that satisfies them. However, the directors of Sagicor are not making decisions regarding their own property, but rather that of the shareholders and, as such, have a duty of care to those shareholders. I believe the shareholders have a right to know how the directors were able to conclude on the agreed price, especially when the existing shareholders would have likely taken up an offer of additional shares at the time.
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.