For many one of the enduring memories from the Owen Arthur Barbados Labour Party (BLP) tenure is the sale of the Barbados National Bank (BNB) to the Trinidad based Republic Bank Limited. Arthur continues to defend his decision by offering that the BNB was a loss making entity hamstrung by a high level of government bureaucracy and non performing loans. Further, he explains that local credit unions and locals spurned the opportunity to buy shares when offered.

Many will debate the pros and cons of Arthur’s decision to shed majority interest in the BNB till thy kingdom come. We live in a world where almost if not all decisions are greatly influenced by economic consideration. Such an approach does not allow the space for a people to craft a vision and identity based on symbols, traditions that include even the spiritual and other non economic factors. Through the eyes of the BU household the BNB was a symbol of the progress Barbados had made from transitioning the economy from agrarian. It represented how majority Black Barbadians were in control of a significant financial intuition on Broad Street. If one wants to be political with the argument, it exposed the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) philosophy of reordering the economic fundamentals of the economy to make Barbados competitive in a competitive global world.  The ease with which Black politicians- Owen Arthur as lead  -disposed of what BNB should give cause for Barbadians to pause. The decision by Arthur is analogous to the Stuart DLP government dismantling its philosophy to provide ‘free’ education as a pathway for future development and empower a small Black nation.

It was interesting to listen to former Prime Minister of St. Kitts Denzel Douglas explain a few of the strategies he presided over that have  led to the transformation of the St. Kitts economy. He stated that the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla National Bank was important to the strategy of restructuring the debt because the government was able to intervene in the domestic financial market to align with the national interest. Given the current economic state of Barbados the government does not have the recourse of a local bank to borrow from an important best practice that was reportedly implemented successfully in St. Kitts and Nevis.

BU supports the view that a national bank is important to any nation to shore-up the sovereignty argument. One cannot be truly liberated as a people if the gateways to important arteries in the society are controlled by foreign interest. In the case of Barbados the banking sector is 100% controlled by foreign ownership. The food sector is 90 plus percent controlled by non Barbadian interest. The supply of electricity is controlled by foreign interest. In the three examples –the financial, food importation and distribution and power, a so called independent people have no control. We acknowledge that the Fair Trading Commission and government agencies were established to regulate the market in the interest of all stakeholders including the consumer .

The lengthy preamble is meant to introduce a recent development in Canada where the banks- locally owned -have agreed to pool resources in the interest of the country.

Canada’s biggest banks and insurance companies have launched a private-sector fund of up to $1 billion to provide long-term financing to burgeoning high-growth businesses, the firms announced Thursday. The Canadian Business Growth Fund will look to invest the full amount over 10 years, with an expected initial commitment of more than $500-million.

Canada’s banks and lifecos launch fund of up to $1 billion to help businesses grow

There is no need to be prolix to emphasize the point that home drums beat first. For non Barbadian owners of business enterprises in Barbados –where is home?

93 responses to “‘Home Drum Beat First’ -The Sale of Barbados National Bank by Owen Arthur”


  1. @Pacha

    Will answer you by reposting a BU comment from 2009.

    David February 27, 2009 at 8:35 PM

    Read this article which was penned by Hilford Murrell back in 2007. In the article the BU family should take note of two points which we have highlighted.

    In the four years preceding the sale, BNB had reported pre-tax earnings ranging from $16 million to $28 million and seemed on a sustained growth path.

    A majority sale of Government’s shares therefore seemed highly unwarranted.

    Arthur’s decision to proceed with the sale was met with mounting criticism on the grounds that there was already too much Trinidadian interest in Barbados. In particular, he was charged with squandering the legacy of his mentor Tom Adams who, in establishing BNB, courageously conceptualised and brought to fruition the country’s first national commercial bank.

    Despite the censure and condemnation, the Finance Minister maintained that BNB’s future development resided in a strategic alliance with an established regional or extraregional financial institution.

    The two points in our opinion debunks the myth that the BNB was not an efficiently run government bank and it gives an insight into why the bank was sold. Bare in mind that several other international banks would have been operating in Barbados at the time.


  2. Bushie

    The credit unions could have raised Forex to finance the deal


  3. Bushie

    When the masses rise the political class will listen one way or the other and I agree with Caswell not to enter the ring at this time or ever….

    This dependency syndrome on God,BBE or a moses has to come to an end the people have to stand up for themselves.

  4. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    It’s amazing that anyone would put Arthur on a pedestal after that cockup. ..selling a national bank, who does that, when there are so many other viable options.

    And credit unions should not be letting lawyers, politicians or government ministers tell them if to invest in a bank, if Thompson really did that….well he too met his cockup…what a bunch of asses, practicing their culture influence, fueled and driven by ignorance.


  5. @Pacha

    Can you point the relevant part of the Cooperatives Act that wold have allowed it?

    Also would OSA have given the sovereign guarantee required?


  6. David

    On the Cooperatives Act – we have not read that in recent times. However, around the 1991 period the Act, we seem to recall, had limited credit unions from investing in anything other than land or government bonds unless with the permission of the Supervisor of Cooperative.

    At that time we had relied on a group of lawyers for guidance. Lawyers who were members.

    There were no issues around SGs, no need. We were talking about large international credit unions leading sister credit unions resources or forming limited partnership for acquisitions of state assets.


  7. David

    My recollection on the BNB sale was that in order for them to buy it the govt had do an amendment to the Coop. act. which was never done and I am sure that they submitted a bid.


  8. David

    And none of that could be possible unless there were changes to the Act.

    But the government was changing the law for other interests to acquire state assets.

    Why not the Cooperatives, we then agrued


  9. @Pacha

    Now that it is clear, Arthur never intended to sell a damn thing to the credit unions.


  10. David

    What is clear?

    Has the Cooperatives Act been amended since 1991 (circa)?


  11. @Pacha

    Will leave the prosecution of this matter to Bushie or Caswell who are more qualified to address than the lowly BU household, suffice to state some changes were made when the Financial Services Commission took the responsibility to regulate the credit unions instead of the Registrar of Cooperatives.

    http://www.fsc.gov.bb/index.php/credit-unions/legislation

  12. Vincent Haynes Avatar

    David

    I agree with you and Bushie,that it was a straight forward sale in order to get fx.

    The point has to be emphasised that nothing was done to retool Bim and create new avenues for fx earning…..I do not see Bim becoming a service economy as being creative.


  13. David

    Those changes seem to be around 2008; 2010/2011

    If these were the only changes there is a good possibility they came after OSA’s regime.

    And therefore show no seriousness by him

    That he maybe indeed a LIAR.

  14. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    https://www.barbadostoday.bb/2017/03/11/maloney-wants-greater-fiscal-incentives/

    Now the greedy Maloney and his backers are muscling their way to monopolize all the fiscal incentives. …because of the weak and incompetent Fruendel Stuart government.

  15. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Where is Frustrated Businessman to fight this…


  16. @David at 10:02 AM re “Clearly the thrust of the BU posit as to the importance of a NATIONAL bank eludes you even with all the options mentioned you would seek to obfuscate the discussion. One strand of that importance is priceless -the fashioning of an identity of a people.”

    These debates devolve to the emotive always . You have an entrenched position on what you accept as the right path of “an identity of a people” – as is your pejorative – and any alternative position, regardless how carefully enunciated is harangued with emotive rhetoric rather than solid argumentation.

    My fundamental query to you still remains: what benefits accrued to the Bajan economy and society from public ownership of a ‘development bank’ that was NOT accruing or would not accrue in the long term with all the other financial players in the market? (Notwithstanding BushTea’s point that the sale was premised almost exclusively on Arthur sorely wanting the US $$ forex)

    We were well past any simplistic model of the original mandate of the BNB which as I recall was born out of earlier nation building development/funding initiatives.

    Many of its basic directives were being handled as well and better by others by the date stamp date of the sale. That’s clear. And this is no attempt to validate Arthur’s decision.

    Take the emotion out of it with your rhetoric about my clouding the issue. I am looking directly into the maelstrom of the financial realities of what was a very competitive and sophisticated financial market locally and regionally.

    The BNB could NOT have remained a single commercial bank entity and expect to remain viable in today’s banking industry UNLESS expectations were that it would continue to generate its comparatively ‘small’ profits ad infinitum…in short, operational change via merger or other method was needed to buttress its balance sheet and its continued growth on ROI as the local financial services market continued to expand and change.

    To re-litigate that decision now in light of the BNTCL or the EMERA matter and others with the simplistic perspective of off-loading a ‘national treasure’ is to conflate VASTLY different important matters. That senor is obfuscating!


  17. @Dee Word

    You persist?

    How does one compare a ‘development bank’ to a commercial ban being discussed in this context?

    Have you traveled through the Caribbean and observe the many indigenous banks?

    A big part of our problem is the lack of confidence to undertake any major initiative. How do you know a well run indigenous bank is not doable? Or a well run any thing for that matter.

    What emotional argument what!


  18. @David
    Spot on about the nepotism and mismanagement within Credit Unions, I said the same thing some months back.

    On the BNB “sale”, I think it made sense from a strategic perspective; however, the “sale” agreement should have had an iron clad clause safeguarding government’s fixed shareholdership in perpetuity and a national development/SME loan portfolio. I must note though that Bajans squandered a lot of small business development loans granted to them through various government lending schemes established to replace the BDB and BNB. You would be surprise at some of the persons that received loans and failed to pay back ONE cent.

  19. Vincent Haynes Avatar

    David

    It was pointed out recently by Dennis Johnson on Brasstacks that no regional banks existed other than RBTT.that what you had was foreign investors and he cited stanford in antigua and another in st.vincent would use indigenous names and open banks in the region.

    The regions strength lies in its credit unions who will come into their when most of the extra regional banks leave.


  20. And one wonders if the sale of BNB to Republic Bank, did not work out well for Trini businesses in Barbados.
    Deposit in Barbados , withdraw in Port of Spain.


  21. @Vincent

    Check this link out. Click under all the countries and then Barbados and report you findings.

    http://www.cab-inc.com/content_manager/members/index/1


  22. Yes David I persist simply because I have traveled through the region – then, very extensively.

    Your argument is emotional because you speak of ‘development or national bank’ which in the 70’s had a very distinct and purposely intent.

    That those institutions then evolved into full-fledged ‘commercial banks’ competing in a developing (not nascent nation building ‘national/development’) stage is apparently being lost in your argument or you are inaccurately conflating the two.

    In Guyana, Jamaica, throughout the EC et al there was some bank institution with the term ‘National’ in its title. They basically all had the same original ethos of providing a financing support as the islands and their citizens came of age…to put in simply.

    Boss, that entire ethos and need changed circa 2000’s.

    If you can’t or don’t appreciate that players like NCB (Jamaica National Commercial Bank) and then moreso the T&T actors started to seek ownership stakes in SKNB (St Kitts), GNB (Grenada) and too GNCB & NBIC (Guyana) and so on, then let’s close out the debate.

    And by the way this happened all the way up to Belize and too overtures were made to the more nimble and healthier banks in the Bahamas and Bermuda too.

    And again I repeat, I make NO CASE for Arthur’s sale one way or other. Nor have I suggested at ANY point that a ‘well run indigenous bank is not doable’. How could I when they are so many throughout the region.

    I absolutely highlight however that your position should not be seen in some vacuum devoid of the oxygen of life: the entire financial market was changing dramatically in the region.

    So yes bro, I persist. Step off the emotive and nice sounding rhetoric and let’s get real.

  23. Violet Beckles CUP Plantation Deeds from 1926-2017 land tax bills and no Deeds,BLPand DLP Massive land Fruad and PONZI Avatar
    Violet Beckles CUP Plantation Deeds from 1926-2017 land tax bills and no Deeds,BLPand DLP Massive land Fruad and PONZI

    When Owen and Mia sold BNB so Sir Richard and Sir Charles run Ponzi Fraud with CLICO with Beatrice Henry Estate to Violet Beckles money from Barclays Bank/CIBC accounts and Plantation deeds.Owen and MIA sold TNT a dead Bank that could not get any new loans for Sir Cheltenham held all of the Plantation land deeds under Fraud, Mia and Owen was a Party to the crime.So the now down grade 18&19 on our way to 23 down grades.

  24. Vincent Haynes Avatar

    David

    Could you send me a link with a listing of the shareholders as I am unable to find one.

  25. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Is any of this being tsught in the schools, all the last 2 generations have learned from the ministers of bith political parties is to sell off everything when the going gets rough….to acquire foreign exchange, no country can remain consistently progressive under those self defeating practices.

    I did not even know the history of BNB.

    “Republic Bank (Barbados) Limited, formerly Barbados National Bank Inc. was established in March 1978 following an amalgamation of three government owned financial institutions, namely Barbados Savings Bank which dates back to 1852, Sugar Industry Agricultural Bank and the National Housing Corporation (Public Officers Housing Loan Fund). In April 1978, the bank acquired the assets of Bank of America in Barbados.

    Following partial privatisation of the bank in 2000, the Government of Barbados sold 57% of its shareholding to Republic Bank Limited, Trinidad & Tobago. In 2003, Republic acquired additional shares to increase its shareholding to 65.13%. In 2013, Republic Bank acquired the remaining minority shares to increase its shareholding to the full 100%.

    The bank was officially rebranded as Republic Bank (Barbados) Limited in 2012. The bank has a staff complement in excess of (500) with its headquarters located at Independence Square, Bridgetown. Republic operates (10) branches strategically positioned across the island with two branches in the island’s capital Bridgetown as well as an extensive ATM network with (23) locations island-wide. The bank has one subsidiary – Republic Finance & Trust (Barbados) Corporation. Republic Bank’s vision is “To be the Caribbean Financial Institution of choice for our staff, customers and shareholders. We set the standard of excellence in customer satisfaction, employee engagement, social responsibility and shareholder value while building successful societies.” Its mission is “To provide Personalised, Efficient and competitively priced Financial Services and to Implement Sound Policies which will redound to the benefit of our Customers, Staff, Shareholders and the Communities we serve.”

    The bank’s core values are Customer Focus, Respect for the Individual, Integrity, Professionalism and Results Orientation. Republic Bank (Barbados) Limited is one of the largest banks in Barbados and as at September2013 had an asset base of US$1.13 billion”

  26. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    BNB should never have been sold….never, Owen was just as weak as the present government, the leaders are all dressed up in these monkey suits in boiling tropical weather and have no strength of character, no survival instint…..no sense of protecting the people and future generations of the majority population….weaklings, that’s why 6 or 7 measly, greedy business people wreak havoc on the island.

    “Republic Bank (Barbados) Limited, formerly Barbados National Bank Inc. was established in March 1978 following an amalgamation of three government owned financial institutions, namely Barbados Savings Bank which dates back to 1852, Sugar Industry Agricultural Bank and the National Housing Corporation (Public Officers Housing Loan Fund). In April 1978, the bank acquired the assets of Bank of America in Barbados.”


  27. But LOLLL…Mr Blogmaster I dun wid you and this… I just did a search on Arthur and ‘Barbados Development Bank’ to see if I could get a better handle on your rhetoric and was I astounded…. Not by you tho, but by Mr. Arthur. OMG…

    So you are on very solid ground. When is the last time anyone reread Orwell!…Or read a Yogi Berra quote like : It’s deja vu all-over again! SMH.

    Taken from: Loop News, March 9, 2016———

    Former Prime Minister Owen Arthur, whose administration oversaw the dismantling of the Barbados Development Bank in the 1990s, is now calling for such an institution to be re-established.

    Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday during debate on the Barbados Investment Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, the now Independent MP said there is an urgent need for a specialised institution dealing with development financing to help build “new enterprise”.

    “I want to strongly suggest that there is a need for a new development institution; it should be properly capitalised. I believe that nobody could quarrel if the NIS was to make a substantial investment in it. I believe that the development institution should also capture the national service providers and that the private sector of Barbados should also see it as something that is critical.”
    

    Arthur said that the now defunct Barbados Development Bank was operating as a bankrupt institution and needed to be closed, but that his administration established Fund Access and the Enterprise Growth Fund as a first step.

    However, he says, it is time to move past that stage and implement a new source of development financing to help fund a new class of entrepreneurs, focusing on the people who have been made redundant in the public service and will not regain employment in that sector.

    He suggested that Government should create a database of such people and put them in contact with institutions that can give them the seed capital to become the “new entrepreneurs and industrialists of the future.”

    Is he fah real!


  28. I like to poull to the side and let stronger and faster horses run the race. But when I see something like this “the leaders are all dressed up in these monkey suits in boiling tropical weather and have no strength of character, no survival instinct…..no sense of protecting the people and future generations of the majority population” then i have to add my little bit…,

    Are you saying that the island is lead by a set of “empty suits”. Running here and there with attache cases, looking busy but without a clue? Our successes just like our failures is by chance. Shit may work out good or it may not?


  29. @Vincent

    Click this link under ‘About’. Besides Republic bank who owns/has interest in Grenada,Guyana and Suriname not sure of the others to which Dee Word referred.

    https://www.republictt.com

  30. Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences Observing Blogger

    Exactly Gazer…and the chances of things working out good to benefit the majority population, well just say the odds are never in favor of the majority population, thanks to these arrogant, empty suits.

  31. Vincent Haynes Avatar

    David

    I saw enough to suggest to me that DJ was on point,that what we see as entities describing themselves as indigenous banks when due dilligence is done on the investor base are discovered to be fronts for foreign investors.


  32. @Vincent

    You are entitled to your uninformed opinion.


  33. LOL @ David
    You are entitled to your uninformed opinion.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Boss, just cuss the man and dun wid dat! …Um is your blog.

    Ha ha ha …LOL
    Oh Shirt!!!


  34. People seem to forget that under Owen Arthur locals were able to buy shares at$1.80.Under the DLP they were forced to sell their at $5.00 a loss of 50cents a share and did the DLP Goverment did with proceeds.Sink in the Paradise project which was privately owned.


  35. Bush Tea March 11, 2017 at 8:49 PM #

    Chuckle…..so how come yuh ain beg the blog master to ban muh….

    David

    Until you can show me a link to the shareholders it is only obvious I will be uninformed…..so what is point of the statement?


  36. @Vincent

    What prevents you from clicking on the financials of the respective banks to check the information?


  37. @ Vincent
    What ban you what??!!
    …and miss out on Bushie’s daily LOL readings?
    Nothing more entertaining than listening to poor people discussing the business of banking and Credit Unions, ….and making money….

    Just trying to get the BU boss to free up and let go a few pips at yuh…. 🙂


  38. David

    I gave it a try and could not get any further,hence my request that you share the actual data.

    Bushie

    Chuckle…..yuh means tuh sez dat yuh duz needs muh tuh kep yuh honest an lambase yuh tail weneber yuh steps outta line…..um allrite…..no prob.


  39. Disadvantaged:
    there is something wrong with the maths here:
    “…People seem to forget that under Owen Arthur locals were able to buy shares at$1.80.Under the DLP they were forced to sell their at $5.00 a loss of 50cents a share and did the DLP Goverment did with proceeds.Sink in the Paradise project which was privately owned.”

    If persons BOUGHT shares at $1.80 per share, but SOLD at $5.00 per share, then they would have profited by $3.20.00 per share. Thus if someone bought a thousand shares for $1800. 00 when they sold them they would have sold them for $5,000 and profited by $3.200. That is why a lot of people have difficulty understanding why people buy and sell shares.
    Share are supposed to be bought low and sold high.


  40. You do not buy and sell shares like hot cakes. A better decision is to buy and hold. Lots of people buy and sell at the first opportunity, giving the big shareholders, institutions etc to accumulate their shareholdings.


  41. Hal,
    “…You do not buy and sell shares like hot cakes…”
    What foolishness are you propounding? Why do people sell “short”?
    Shares are bought and sold as soon as the right profit; in the eye of the purchaser is reached. Shares (stocks) are commodities bought and sold (traded) sometimes changing hands before the payment for the first purchase is made. that is one of the bad things we were brought up to believe; buying and holding. The best purchase is to buy just before the payment of dividends and selling when the dividends are paid out. What do you want to “hold” for if you are a small investor? Big companies buy and hold long term investments for specified periods, because the interest periods are specified in the debenture or treasury terms. If I buy ten thousand in shares of Banks and Amber purchase a large block and want to purchase my shares; at a higher price; especially if there is a bidding war going on, what do I want to keep those shares for? Just to say I have shares in Banks? Best to sell, make a profit, and use the profit to invest further.

Leave a Reply to Vincent HaynesCancel reply

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading