@Ataxerces

The NIS is a board; are you satisfied with the chairman’s stewardship, or are you satisfied only because both of you played cricket together and may be supporters of the same political party?
******************
Correction I never said I played cricket with him, I said I had a passing acquaintance with him when he played cricket for Barclays.
As to your question about OSA “did he really want the money”? In a nutshell yes, why would you part with a valuable asset unless you were short of cash? In days of yore Coal miners would take canaries with them into the mines, canaries are very sensitive to methane and carbon dioxide. When those gases built up to dangerous levels the canaries would keel over and the Miners would high tail out of there. The sale of BNB was our canary and a harbinger of things to come but we were so busy living the high life and reveling in claims that Barbados was among the top developing countries in the world that we failed to pay attention.
Some of the funds were used to finance a major project which created construction and other affiliated jobs, for Gov’t it was a “win win” proposition, selling BNB did not mean abandoning Bajan jobs because the employees would still be employed and the new project would create other jobs.
The sale of BNB however had other impacts as Gov’t is now unable to use its “bully pulpit” as an owner of BNB to help soften the economic woes the country is facing but Gov’ts like many Bajans are short sighted.

@Just Asking

Non compete clauses are mainly used between employer and employees who by virtue of their employment could come into valuable information thus the employer would seek to restrain the employee from undertaking similar work at a competing company or even start his own business along the same lines.

Some of them are also among entrepreneurs who have built a small business into a multi million dollar operation and then the even bigger fish come along and buy him/her out. The purchaser may want the seller to sign a non compete clause which states that the seller can’t go into that type of business for a few years, after all you don’t want to buy a rum shop from a popular proprietor and the next day he opens a rum shop next to yours:-).

I don’t know if Gov’ts can be similarly restrained but perhaps some legal beagle could come to my rescue.

obediant

I did cussing people ’bout hey from the time of Rumpelstiltskin and de res’ … None ah dem ain’ drop down wid a affliction as far as I know .. I ain’ got nah time fah t’in skins …

I oppose Barbadains selling theirs shares in bl&p, i thought it was bad then and still do, i had also opposed the govt selling it shares in the then bartel.

@millertheanunnak

The horse has already bolted.

The share-value makes the transaction now out of reach at a time when the government is broke and has competing priorities for cash.

The manner the shares were floated it was obvious at the time the government was sourcing foreign exchange as the objective.

@ David
There is absolutely no comparison between the folly of selling the BL&P to a Canadian private company and selling BNB to Trinidadians.

Bush Tea would sell a national bank every week if some idiot could be found to buy it. Any three morons can start a bank – (even Bajans. – well except Credit Unionist LOL) There is no good reason why we could not start another bank next week – Bank of Bridgetown, and sell it to some other oaf with more dollars than sense… for Christmas….

When it comes to selling your only Power company that was owned -not by Government,, but largely by ordinary Bajans who ACTUALLY need its services – to a foreign entity whose sole interest is to maximize their Canadian bottom line, ….now you are reaching into the very depth of idiocy.

Not that it is hard to see why selfish influential individuals in high positions in the Company would want to maximize the returns on their shares in the company, but that it takes complete lack of foresight on the part of Government to sell its interest, and to allow these shareholders to dispose of their shares WITHOUT SERIOUS AND PROHIBITIVELY HIGH PENALTIES.

In the fullness of time we will no doubt come to see the idiocy of our actions….

@ David
Trying to discern a strategy by the government regarding strategic assets.
******************
Try “E-nee, Me-nee, Mi-nee, Mow…..”

@ David

What other kind of methodology could have been used to arrive at our great moderator friend being made chairman of NIS?

You certainly don’t think that is was his outstanding leadership as a banker working for capitalist masters in the mother country do you… ? no leadership needed there – just obedience.

It can not have been his ‘notable’ performance at the head of cricket – – notable for the great sigh of relief when it ended….

……had to be that his name came up when the Boss Men said “…catch a fella by he toe”

@miller

I Have invested in various instruments, need no advice from you have been investing from the time i left school at age 19.

Give your advice to your party.

Bush Tea

Why would a credit or the credit union movement want to own a bank. Anything a bank can do a credit union can do also if the Government would remove the restrictions and allow indigenous institutions to grow.

1. The Co-operative Societies Act allows credit unions to issue cheques but the Central Bank says no.
2. Credit unions can’t deal in foreign exchange because the Central Bank says no, however, I know of a travel agency that can sell foreign currency.
3. Credit unions cannot hold deposits for more than five years because the law prevents them yet still Government wants credit unions to issue mortgages.

The only thing that stops credit unions from selling the same services as a bank are regulations imposed by Government. Don’t buy a bank, ask the bankrupt politicians to take the weight off the credit unions.

The only thing to be “gained” if credit unions own a bank is that they would now have to pay corporation taxes. Government responded to the lobby from the banks and deliberately made it impossible for credit unions to compete with banks. Credit unions cannot make financial contributions to political parties or they would not be recognised by the world body as credit unions.

If I am the person that put a block in the way of credit unions owning a bank then I am proud of that achievement.

@Caswell

I was reliably informed that the petition for a meeting of the credit union has been handed in, what is the next step?

@Miller

never invested in bl&p, nor bartel so had nothing to sell, if u want to know my first choice was land and building. dont even have an insurance policy. after a while i realize they were waste of time. A few years ago i was wise enough to advise a friend a mine not to to invest in clico and whenever she and i talk clico always comes up. And we have a hearty laugh,

Here is a related topic of interest:

Pensions Wrestle With Return Rates

By MICHAEL CORKERY

Turmoil in Europe, the sluggish economy and low interest rates are intensifying pressure on public pension-fund systems to reduce the annual-performance assumptions they use to determine contributions from taxpayers and employees.

Some lawmakers and pension officials are pushing to abandon the roughly 8% annual-return assumption set by many public-employee funds, saying the rate is unrealistically high given upheaval in markets around the world and the preceding financial crisis.

“After 10 years of listening to the experts be wrong on the downside more than half the time, I would like to be more cautious,” said James Dalton, chairman of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576620951874861390.html?mod=sf2tw

@ Artaxerxes

Jesus Christ man the least that you could do is spell my handle correctly. As for superiority in intellect, it is not something that I am proud of, but something that you should try a bit harder at working on.

@ Caswell

“Credit unions cannot make financial contributions to political parties or they would not be recognised by the world body as credit unions.”

Your contras never cease to impress … I will tek dis up and run wid it. It is like an ingredient that can be used in plenty plenty recipes … What a gem…!

Millertheanunnaki

The only thing that is functioning efficiently and firing on all cylinders in this country is political interference.

You also asked,
“Given the prevailing difficult economic conditions with no ease in sight for near future do you think the credit unions could find it rather difficult to fulfill its obligations to its members?”

Normally in Barbados credit unions grew when there is a down turn in the economy by sticking to their core business and operating by the tried and tested co-operative principles. We have seen Public Workers Credit Union foolhardily acquiring the former CLICO Mortgage Finance Company, now Capita, to compete with itself. In order to make Capita look good business is being diverted away the credit union. Then again that was political interference. I am informed by a member of the NIS Board that CMCF was purchased with a loan from NIS. The initial application for the loan was rejected but political instructions to board caused the them to reverse their decision. No one on the Board had the guts to resign. That is why I believe that NIS will bail out Four Seasons after similar political directives. I still can’t understand the sale of BL&P shares even with political interference. Don’t these politicians care about this country?

I have not forgotten your question but that needed to be said. If the Financial Services Commission does not display some measure of independence, credit unions will be laid bare by directors who have political connections. I remember reporting large scale embezzlements by certain people at Public Workers to the Police and the former regulator. The investigation was halted by political and fraternal interference. In these harsh economic times credit union excesses need to be reined in, and if and only if, this is done credit unions will weather this storm and come out in fairly good condition.

Luther Jones, and honorable man …

@ Caswell

What kind of argument is this where you ask a question (Why should the Credit Unions own a Bank?) and then provide the most comprehensive answers available?
******************
1. The Co-operative Societies Act allows credit unions to issue cheques but the Central Bank says no.
2. Credit unions can’t deal in foreign exchange because the Central Bank says no, however, I know of a travel agency that can sell foreign currency.
3. Credit unions cannot hold deposits for more than five years because the law prevents them yet still Government wants credit unions to issue mortgages.
******************
These are the precise reasons Caswell. There are multiple ways of skinning a cat…..

The Credit Unions have three choices;

1 – Form the bank and attract the business of their members and of other patriotic Bajans and dominate the banking sector

2 – Take control of Government by leveraging on the numbers and organizational structures that they already have (not by donating funds…) and change the rules…

3 – Continue to bury their ‘talents’ and claim that the masters were ‘unfair’ in the talents provided – like you are arguing here.

Now do you see why the Bush man has appointed you to the Barbados supervisory committee and not to the Board? Bushie takes it that you are not yourself one of the wealthier ones among us!!?? …right? You are too conservative.
No worry, this is not your area of strength, your strength lies in integrity, strength of character and guts.

The ideal approach for the Credit Union is actually option (2). This should be achieved by the movement putting together a national list of candidates – selected to represent the co-operative principles, and then mobilizing its numbers in support of these candidates in the various constituencies.

Once elected, this new government would pursue an agenda that would have been set out by the movement up front.
A National Supervisory Committee would oversee their work in the same manner as is done in the movement – and with similar powers…..
Guess who would be a shoo-in for chairmanship of the supervisory committee…? C Franklyn.

Now THAT would provide us with FOI and Integrity!

This is the ONLY kind of government that can have any kind of viability in the future….

Interestingly, Bushman offered this suggestion long ago on BU – even before you were on here Caswell… ask David..LOL

Bush Tea

I still insist that there is no need to form or acquire a bank. All that is required is three minor amendments and credit unions can do anything that banks can do. That should not be hard since in government right now we have Maxine McClean, former president of COB; Stephen Lashley, former president of Public Workers; James Paul president of COB; Irene Sandifird-Garner, former marketing officer of Public Workers; and I am not sure but I am informed that Ronald Jones had some connection with Teachers’ Credit Union.

I suggested from the day the Government changed that credit unions should lobby their members in Government for change rather than re-invent the wheel. It would a great political move as well since the former BLP administration did everthing to destroy credit unions.

Don’t worry, be Happy!! NIS is swimming in cash. It can stop taking contributions for years and still meet all its future obligations to pensioners etc. The monies that Four Seasons, CLICO, and any other local project, such as the marina project, may want to borrow from NIS will be safe because NIS is swimming in cash. It can stop taking contributions for years and still be solvent. All so ever will can come. It has so much money there is no need for audits. Indeed anyone who suggests such is unpatriotic. After all NIS is swimming in cash. Pensioners need have no fear of their contributions being spent on unproductive or failing projects or projects that the Private Sector are wary of. If in the very unlikely event that such projects fail there is no need to worry. NIS is swimming in an inexhaustible ocean of cash.

Tell me if this scenario makes sense:

1. Government is holding money in trust for the workers of this country in what they like to call the NIS Fund, and appoints an “independent” board to administer the fund.
2. Private sector entities invest money in projects to make themselves rich, but the project fails for whatever reason.
3. These private sector investors have friends in Government.
4. The private sector investors approach the “independent” NIS Board for bail out money.
5. Government instructs the “independent” NIS Board to approve the loan which Government will guarantee.
6. The investment in the failed entity did not pay off so in order to repay the NIS Fund Government levies a tax on us to repay our money.
Does that sound right to you? It may not but that is what is likely to happen.

But Caswell, is this not the same thing you are asking for CLICO policy holders?

And with respect to credit unionist who are in Parliament…. have you considered that these may really be political opportunists who were smart enough to recognize the value of the movement in achieving their quest?

REAL co-operators at heart would have continued to espouse the principles and to promote the TRUE interest of the movement once elected.

No Caswell, we need to be more agressive and also proactive. The movement should SELECT and SEND a proper team forward, not wait to piggy back on opportunists…

….and true, we don’t need a bank. We can remain poor and complain about being unfaired and disadvantaged…

@BAFBFP
What folishness you on with now…?
What sue what?
….so that we can find ourselves tied up in court day after day fighting stupid lawsuits from the hoards of morons out there with nothing better to do?
Stupssss
You bringing the court (the only thing worse than politics and the Church) into this serious discussion…?

Bush Tea
You asked, “But Caswell, is this not the same thing you are asking for CLICO policy holders?

No it is not for one significant reason: Government was under a duty to protect CLICO policy holders through the Office of Supervisor of Insurance, the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance. Government was negligent and or reckless in the performance of that duty and as a result the policy holders and investors suffered loss. They should therefore be made to make good that loss. I believe that there is more than ample evidence to prove the case: a case could also be made out that Government not only was negligent but that it acted in bad faith.

@checkit-out

Yours engender a sympathetic view but agents operating with government cannot be separated.

What it pointed to is a weakness in the regulatory and governance system we have which the FSC, we have been told, is suppose to strengthen.

Time will tell.

David

Don’t hold out much hope for the Financial Services Commission. It was born out of the same political corruption that we complain about every day. The main focus behind the FSC was not regulation but getting jobs for the boys. The method of setting up that body stinks to high heaven. Staff have been victimized and as I write there are persons sent on special leave for no other reason than they do not have the correct political stripes or indeed any political stripes at all. NUPW will no speak up because they facilitated the mess along with Minister Darcy Boyce.

Heard on the local news Minister Sinckler confirming that a settlement will soon be made with Al Barrack. According to him (not verbatim) “in a couple of weeks a proposal, agreed by both parties, will be put before Cabinet and might involve Parliamentary approval”. Even if we interpret the time period of a couple of weeks using the Bajan vernacular to mean more than two, say, a few, then we can expect this settlement to be completed before the end of the year, preferably before the next recess of Parliament.

My question to the Minister: Where is the money to finance this settlement going to come from? Or is it by way of transfer of ownership of the building in question to Mr. Barrack. If so, what about the legal fees awarded to Mr. Barrack’s lawyers? Would he be expected to take out a loan to settle his creditors (including his lawyers), using the building as collateral with the expectation that future rents would be sufficient to repay the loan?
Or can we expect another application to be made to the NIS with the clear understanding that the Board will be cooperative on this one?

The Court for Human Rights is in town. PR and spin doctors might be at work!