@ anthony
Those numbers are mass confusion. Do they account for employees at statutory boards as well?

@ Balance

A party is its MEMBERS, NOT NAME, and its success dependent on the quality and objectives of that membership. So the same type of people in another party or parties will bring the same results. I maintain that for both the BLP and DLP to improve, people need to join and stop treating political parties as lepers. The change you seek MUST come from within not through venting on BU.

No doubt Neal & Massey have carried-out their own examination of Almond, and although private companies don’t make it public, I am sure that there are some parallels between that company and CLICO. Let’s go back to when that hotel was built. The cost was so high that no small hoteliers would take on the rent, so it was leased as a complete entity at a HUGE loss to the taxpayers, before the eventual takeover by BS&T and the forming of Almond. Now the NIS is being asked to cough up again to rescue this boondoggle that has been mismanaged for the last 15 years, with a loss in shareholder value, though some of the more senior management have done very nicely, thankyou. Neal & Massey should have done due diligence when they took over BS&T, so let them stew in their own juice.

@ David

I agree, but 45 Davids in Parliament is better than 45 commenting on BU.

@ millertheanunnaki

I hear you loud and clear. I think you are being cheeky in referring to it as a three card trick, the more apt description is probably something more sinister.

I refuse to accept that Barbados and Barbadians have sank so low that it is common day practice to spend $40 million to “redesign” something already designed and paid for by the Barbados Tourism Investment Inc.

If I was the 4 directors who resigned from the board, I would be contacting OSA to give him a secret copy of the Peer Review which found absolutely NOTHING wring with the original design of the marina.

@ Cup Cake

Of course, I was being a bit ‘tongue-in-the-cheek’ with reference to the 3 card game. More like a major swindle to me!

A commission of enquiry under this Administration? It’s like expecting LP (aka Greenverbs) to be investigated by the Inland Revenue for under-reporting his earnings over the years?

What is beginning to bother me is that Owen Arthur and others seem opposed to every project. The Marina, the Cruise Terminal, Four seasons, these were the very types of projects we were told could take the country forward, now these projects are all bad. I am too old to take that seriously.

I hazard a bet that if owen wins all three projects will go ahead. Owen and the BLP’s beef seems to be with whom is getting the contracts, I guess they want their cronies to get the contracts instead.

If I were them I would jump on the transparency band wagon too. Will not fool old, experienced people like me.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aseqbfk-363sdDdPUWdvMjFWdjltZEhlbG1lUDZSOUE&hl=en_US

I put the figures in google docs to make them easier to understand.

@obediant

they are there just confused in the whole post check the google document

@enuff

They are bss figure for government you have to ask them if they account for the statutory boards. The transfer and subsidies have been included in the document which show the rise over the years

What is next for these fellows, lying in wait at the post office for old people to cash their pension cheques and tripping them up on the steps to get their money?

@ BAFBFP

Yuh know…the culprits will be deemed to have acted unethically but not unlawfully.

@ OLD SCHOOL
Because the projects can take the country forward does not justify ignorance!! Was Dodds necessary to take us forward and did your kind not criticise the cost, contractor etc?

Hants how much did you remit ..?

enuf

Commissions of Inquiry are therefore unethical …

BAFBFP | October 4, 2011 at 6:00 PM |Hants how much did you remit ..?

More than I should.

BOLTransfer

“If you had done proper research, you would have known that the BLP was the first party to present integrity legislation before parliament, and the then DLP opposition opposed the idea.”
The above statement is erroneous, and I must apologise for misleading the members of this blog’s family, as well as not living up to the expectations I placed on obedient, and not checking the facts before placing my comment.
Actually, both parties were toying around with the idea for a long time now, with the BLP promising, in their 1976 manifesto, to introduce integrity legislation.
In 1975, the then, Leader of the Opposition, Hon. J.M.G.M. Adams, tabled a resolution in Parliament calling upon the Government to introduce legislation to compel members of Parliament to disclose their assets. Adams subsequently made charges that members of the Government were corrupt, and when he became Prime Minister in a Barbados Labour Party administration towards the end of 1976 he instituted a commission of enquiry into the financial activities of the previous Democratic Labour Party government during the period 1961 to 1976. The report of that commission which was undertaken by the Hon. Justice Duffus, a former Chief Justice of Jamaica, concluded that there was no evidence of loopholes in the constitution, and procedures for the proper administration and control of the public finances in Barbados.

Again, I offer my apologises for presenting misleading information.

WHY is Stuart still Prime minister and not Sinckler ?
WHY dont Stuart do like Bruce Golding and hand over to Chris ?
Doesn’t he know that Everybody Loves Chris ?
WHY should my questions bother some people on this Blog who I inten to IGNORE ?
HOW can a question be analytical ???
ISNT a question a question to be answerd and information and analysis take place IN THE ANSWER ?

@ JUST ASKING

Both you and the man you seek to be Prime Minister are novices. Do you really think that Chris Sinckler is PM material, after all he hardly inspires confidence with the non-sense which comes out of his mouth.

With all this money passing hands thru ansa & iabd with no government guarantee what is the collateral being put up for that loan? What collateral will be left when it nis turn to get piece after injecting it capital?

@Old School

You make a good point about the political tenor of the narrative which is only possible because of the lack of transparency of how the NIS fund is being managed.

No audited financials since god knows when? Unacceptable!

You know what, it might be systemic, there maybe blockers but for too long successive governments have been adding to the problem or so it seems. We want to see more disclosure and transparency about the fund. It is not the guvment’s money, It belongs to the people.

In an economy different projects or investments carry different types of risks. In more developed economies a range of financial institutions with different risk appetites exist. You have from regular commercial banks to venture capitalists, so a variety of projects with varying risk profiles have access to funding.

In barbados the financial landscape is almost exclusively dominated by commercial banks. Commercial banks typically have a relatively small appetite for risk, hence they can be expected to shun certain types of projects, and typically want collateral. For a variety of reasons Barbados got rid of the barbados development bank, and we now have no sizeable financial institution to look at the more risky type projects, that have a greater potential to fail, but also the potential to be transformative and developmental.

It seems to me that the NIS fund, with its large pool of capital and a long term perspective has been playing that role in the economy for the last decade or so. The NIS fund has been a major investor in BNB, barbados Light and power, Enterprise Growth fund, Fund access and the hilton to name some.

Barbadians may now want to have a debate on whether or not they want the fund to play this role. What I would say is if it does not play such a role the funds will either sit on the bank and be lent to projects that fit the risk profile of the banks, or be exported overseas to fund developmental projects in other countries.

One of the tough realities for this administration is that when a lot of projects were undertaken and investments made in the past, there was no forum like BU to debate issues, and in a growing economy people tend to ask fewer questions.

They must now feel like everything they try to do is put through a ringer, like never before.

I mean has the NIS ever seen a return or is likely to see a return on the funds invested in Fund Access and Enterprise growth. What has been the success rate of the these two entities? To use financial jargon, while the Financial rate of return to the NIS might not be great, has the economic rate of return to the country justified such investments?

If the fund is playing a venture capitalist role by default or taking high risk or developmental projects then the NIS Board and the government owes it to Barbadians to ensure the investment strategy is well defined and known and relevant analytics to measure and evaluate performance is established.

Anthony, I hope you would accept that its only your view on the viability of these investments. I am always intrigued how some can pronounce on a project in the absence of detailed knowledge of business plans.

As far as I am aware the NIS’ investment guidelines are public information. But I think a public debate is worthwhile.

I am not sure “high risk” is accurate, I think it would be more accurate to say investments that may not fit the risk profile of the commercial banks.

@ Trained Ecnomist

Yes their other view and I would accept them.

Unlike most i think if the government really want to push four season leave nis out and do it thru the fx reserves. The reason the villa owners stopped is they want the amenities that where promised in the hotel. By taking over the whole project all excess profit goes to straight back into the fx reserves thru the villa sales. The reason why four season is now high risk is because each investor is worried the other might pull out again and it back to a standstill. Government complete takeover avoid this.

Might you provide a link to the NIS investment guidelines ?

@ Old School:

“What wrongdoing has been proven against Bannister in relation to the prison”!

None so far! At least, none that can be proven in a local court of law. Neither can the myriad wrongdoings and corrupt practices allegedly purported by the former administration. This current administration went across the length and breath of Barbados (including Parliament) accusing the Arthur administration of corruption and nefarious activities. Remember the ABC Highway Extension project? Based on the public accusations of corruption and competence which person has been prosecuted or fired to date? Remember Hardwood and the forensic audit? What is the outcome? Malicious charges that sullied the integrity and political aspirations of a young Barbadian who has the interest of the country at heart. But the instigator of these Machiavellian strategies received his ‘just desserts’ in a most timely fashion.

Everything about the prison was criticised by this administration, both in opposition and in government. From the cost and financing arrangement (Build/Operate/Lease/Transfer ) to the alleged kickbacks organized by the same players involved in the so-called marina project.

What applies to the BLP should also apply to the DLP, as far as integrity and honesty in public administration. “What is good for the goose is also good for the gander”.

The re-design of the marina is not a real project in itself. What we want to see is information on the foreign investors who will be executing the BOLT contract. We want to know the expected start date and the credentials of the contractors involved in the actual building of the marina. All Bannister and his inside man DB will do is to superficially adjust the existing design and resubmit with a massive bill attached to rob taxpayers.

No right-thinking person would be against “black people becoming successful”. Of course intelligent and fair –minded Bajans are all for greater economic enfranchisement of black Bajans. But this economic and financial success should be earned through hard work, sacrifice, integrity in business dealings and respect for the law. Not underhand dealings, bribing bureaucrats and arranging kickbacks to influential and bent politicians and total disrespect for the law; with CLICO being the epitome of this vile culture that perpetuate the notion that defrauding honest, hardworking people and taxpayers is the quickest way to get rich.

And don’t come with the argument that whites and other non-black ethnic groups do it, so it is OK for blacks to do it. Please do not follow this line of thinking that only reinforces the image of blacks (albeit false) as monkeys aping other people’s actions.

Is the current chairman of the National Insurance Board in a position to tell BARBADOS the facts relating to the NIS exposure to Paradise Project?
What is the NIS exposure to CLICO?
Kindly express in BARBADOS DOLLARS please.
Do not allow us to imagine that what is 250M BARBADOS DOLLARS IS 790M BARBADOS DOLLARS.