What a CLICO MESS!

The following extracted from the Barbados Investors & Policyholders Facebook page – David, Barbados Underground

Barbados Investors & Policyholders Alliance

5 hrsBIPA is aware of the cessation of premium payments to ResLife with immediate effect and understands that as the Government of Barbados is pushing ahead with its mandate to dissolve the ResLife operations, then this first step in the process is a necessary one.However, BIPA continues to be in communication with the Boards of ResLife and NLICO to make sure that BIPA is kept informed of developments as we wish to avoid any more unpleasant surprises causing shock and awe to policyholders, especially our most vulnerable policyholders; the elderly. Their lives have already been disrupted and devastated by this injustice and they simply cannot take any more grief.

BIPA has submitted over 60 questions anticipating those which are likely to be asked by policyholders and will keep its members informed as responses to those questions and other details come to hand.
Image may contain: text

31 comments

  • I have no problem with government aiding those with ordinary life insurance policies. I have a problem with government aiding those who had the flexible deposit paper. The latter was an investment. The investors knew the risks. If things had panned out, these greedy persons would not be offering to share their bounty with the tax payers. They ought to have known that the rate of return on their investment was too good to be true, Random checking of the normal rate of return at the time ought to have alerted these greedy people. I have a problem with government taking up tax payers money and aiding this particular group.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Robert Lucas

    Bear in mind the authorities failed to enforce the stop sell on sale of the EFPs. To what extent did government contribute to adding to the risk?

    Like

  • I say again, government needs to launch a judicial review with the power to subpoena evidence and witnesses. Not with the intention to prosecute people, but to learn lessons.
    But we have been here before. Remember the scandal surrounding AIG, when its boss, Greenberg, told the US authorities he had opened a subsidiary in Barbados explicitly to launder money. The Barbados insurance regulator at the time made a statement that Barbados had the best insurance regulation in the world. How silly.
    It makes you wonder if this fog of ignorance is deliberate or simply obfuscation. You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
    Clico was regulatory failure. Sagicor is waiting in the queue.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Clico was regulatory failure. Sagicor is waiting in the queue.

    HAL ASSTIN’S BRAIN HAS SUCCESSFULLY UNDERGONE DYSPLASIA FROM NEURAL TO MUSCLE FIBERS

    Like

  • @ Georgie Porgie,

    I know a good alcohol counsellor. You need treatment. Plse remind me again the year you won your Barbados Scholarship?

    Like

  • I know a good alcohol counsellor. GOOD! KEEP GOING TO HIM. DONT STOP
    I DRINK WATER FLAVOURED WITH LEMON JUICE
    I HAVE ONLY EVER USED ETHANOL FOR DERMATOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS
    I HAVE NEVER, HOWEVER, USED IT FOR GASTRIC LAVAGE.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Georgie Porgie
    Stop behaving like a sow in heat

    Like

  • @ Georgie Porgie,

    Plse say that in Patwa. Do you have a Barbados passport?

    Like

  • Do you have a Barbados passport?
    YES EVER SINCE I WAS 16!
    say that in Patwa
    NEVER LEARNED PATOIS– ONLY LATIN FRENCH & SPANISH

    Liked by 1 person

  • Here we go again! Steupse!

    Like

  • This is bare rass hole. Clico Trinidad, Duprey and Parris sholud have to forfeit assets. This is so much a scam. Many private individuals are lining up to buy the plantation lands. BLP and DLP have bulled bajans without vaseline in full view of others,

    Like

  • This shite going only stop if a decision is made an example. Why, BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE LOST EVERYTHING THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO LOOSE

    Like

  • Piece Uh De Rock Yeah Right

    @ Hog Mouth

    You said and I quote

    “…This shite going only stop if a decision is made an example…”

    I would advise you to be careful with your mouth because IN MUGABE LAND what you are saying is sedition and destabilization talk and it is an Act of Treason

    Punishable by death by hanging.

    Just hope nobody doan get kill soon or you through de edoes.

    It will take the act of a committed bajan to do what needs to be done.

    Just one act with about 3 of them assembled one place AND ALL DAT SHY$E DONE

    Like

  • Does all the talk in the ‘important notice’ means that i can stop paying premiums. Can i close my life policy?

    Like

  • Sake of plantation will and cannot work. A more viable alternate was the selling of New policies that’s how insurance works. Not sure if the board nor heads at Reslife knew that as new product offerings was the order of the day and realignment in order to build capacity . This ia assure thinking, take a hair cut,sell Newco at a loss,pay the people and let a PHI or better yet a PLI take over, sanitize the various portfolios and I am sure with SMEs will make good of what’s of this company. I was willing to do just that as I was willing to do just that. Leave the comforts of a job overseas ,take a severe cut in salary just to help my people as poor people sent me to school ,but some people lacks vision.

    Like

  • Sale of plantation. Sorry.

    Like

  • WARU, Crazy & Unstable, Hogging the Blog

    This is the type of evil shit both governments practicd against their own people…they knew Maharley was sick for years, instead of speeding up the process, they made sure she died without her severance…and yall want to keep these stink savage demons in the parliament…..really..

    this government had 10 months to fix this, what the hell else does Leslie Haynes got to do…wuh he still got CGIs personal injury cases all backlogged and tied up in the supreme court so why could he not have straightened this out…..what is Mia taking taxpayer’s money and paying this parasite to do….what.

    “One of the seven workers who were brave enough to legally challenge their forced retirement from the Barbados Industrial Development Corporation (BIDC) has died mere weeks before Government is expected to finalise a payment after a four-year legal battle.

    Sick and penniless after spending more than $40 000 of her own money in an attempt to stay alive, 64-year-old Maharley Babb was waiting for the pay out, but unfortunately lost her battle with cancer on March 22 before a cent could be paid.

    Government is on the verge of paying the six surviving workers, as Queen’s Counsel Leslie Haynes and BIDC officials are set to look over a final proposal which has been sent their way by the former workers’ attorney Gregory Nicholls to determine the final payout amounts.Nicholls noted that though the current administration had worked with alacrity to settle the financials on behalf of the workers, Babb’s death had struck a serious blow to all involved.”

    Like

  • Let’s put a face to it! Here she is. Look upon her face!

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/239205/-worker-misses

    Like

  • We have been here before. If people are being made redundant, their final pay cheque should include any redundancy pay. What are the trade unions doing? This is incompetence.

    Like

  • NorthernObserver

    Just getting around to reading recent news items…..On the financial reporting of SOE’s, Minister Straughn said

    ““This is a clear contravention of the directives from the Director of Finance and Economic Affairs which stipulated that SOEs were to report their quarterly financial information by the 5th of the month following the end of the quarter as well as submit restated financials at December 31, 2018 in respect of the write-off of inter- governmental arrears,” said Straughn.

    Is this Director referred to, the same former most senior operating manager at the NIS where they still have not produced an annual report in 13+ years? Is this now a case of do as I say not as I have done?

    Like

  • What am I missing?
    Wouldn’t the lady had ‘heir/beneficiaries be entitled to whatever is due to her?
    What if they had pooled their money and paid a lawyer?
    Above my pay grade, but I think others are also getting it wrong.

    Like

  • What if the seven had pooled their money and paid a lawyer?

    Like

  • Clico was a private sector company and people behaving like it was government owned. When it collapsed, the talk was ‘the policy owners should be helped’. Then when things were put in motion to help them, the talk was ‘was is my tax dollars going to help bail out these people’.

    With regards to BIDC when those workers nearing retirement age were forced to go on early retirement, the unions, opposition and many others said it was wrong. Now under the restructuring with ‘last in first out’, many who opposed the early retirement are now saying that the older people should go home, and give the younger ones a chance.

    People change their tune, depending on which party in power.

    Like

  • @Kevin

    The debate has always been about last in first out.

    Like

  • David you cant deny people were saying the older folks should go home and make room for the younger workforce. The debate was about both however government along with the unions chose the latter.

    Like

  • @Kevin

    Those are the two stakeholders that matter.

    Like

  • I believe you have a point. The previous 2014 retrenchment of public sector employees’ program was done in accordance with the requirements of both the Employment Right Act 2012 (ERA 2012) and Protocol 6……. including “last in, first out.”

    Let’s use the Transport Board as an example.

    The following was a notice published by TB relative to the retrenchment of employees in 2014.
    Separation of Employees from the Transport Board (01-Mar-14 Update)

    Over the past few months, the Government of Barbados through the Minister of Finance, the Hon Christopher Sinckler M.P., has indicated that a financial crisis exists in Barbados. He has further advised that some institutions, including the Transport Board, will be forced to re-examine their processes and determine a method of reducing its expenditure, including but not limited to, separation of some employees.

    At a meeting held today, February 28, 2014 with the Barbados Workers Union (BWU), the joint BWU/Transport Board meeting continued the consultation process. This meeting was the fourth meeting over a period of weeks to address this matter.

    Unfortunately, we did not conclude the meeting in agreement, but due to the ongoing financial crisis at the Transport Board, management was forced to make a decision to continue on the path as determined by the Government of Barbados and as such the process of the separation of employees commenced Friday February 28, 2014.

    The Transport Board believes that it has met all of the requirements of both the Employment Right Act 2012 (ERA 2012) and Protocol 6. The details of our process are as follows:

    (1) The Ministry of Finance announced that separations needed to be made, as the financial situation in the country was critical;

    (2) On January 17, 2014 the Transport Board submitted to the Ministry of Transport and Works a listing of employees proposed for separation;

    (3) A letter dated January 30, 2014 and received on January 31, 2014 from the Ministry of Civil Service was received by the Transport Board. This letter indicated that employees needed to be retrenched by January 31, 2014;

    (4) The Transport Board replied on January 31, 2014 to the Ministry of Civil Service indicating that the timeline would not meet the requirements of the ERA 2013.

    (5) The Transport Board met with the BWU on January 31, 2014 and agreed to a process for addressing the separation of employees from the Board. This agreement was as follows:-

    (a)First, invite employees who are interested in voluntary redundancy to submit their names to the Human Resources Manager. It was clearly articulated that the submission of names does not guarantee acceptance by management;

    (b) Second, after this initial process the management will consider persons who qualify for early retirement;
    Followed by persons with poor attendance records;

    (c) Employees whose performance has been less than satisfactory over the years; then

    (d) Finally, the process of Last In First Out would have been the next step.

    (6) The management of the Transport Board held a series of staff meetings at all locations i.e. Weymouth, Fairchild Street, Princess Alice, Speightstown and Mangrove on February 4 and 5, 2014 to place this position to them and invited persons to volunteer for separation. A deadline for this process was given and a number of employees signed the forms indicating that they would be willing to take this option. It was clearly stated at those meetings that employees needed to make this decision knowing that the Board could only commit to meeting the emoluments identified within the Severance Payment Act.

    (7) A meeting was again held with the BWU on February 7, 2014 to continue the consultation process. The BWU again asked that we explore additional options i.e. enhanced separation packages.

    (8) On February 10, 2014 the Transport Board sent a letter to the Ministry of Transport and Works and copied this letter to the Ministry of the Civil Service and the Ministry of Finance. This letter included a proposal for enhancement to any emoluments that could be received by separated employees.

    (9) On February 11, 2014 the Transport Board also sent a breakdown of the proposed payment referenced in the letter sent to the Ministry of the Civil Service and the Ministry of Finance on February 10, 2014.

    (10) On February 12, 2014 a Memorandum was sent from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Works to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of the Civil Service to discuss the abovementioned proposal.

    (11) Also on February 12, 2014 the Transport Board sent a letter to the BWU advising that the concerns raised at the meeting held on February 7, 2014 were shared with the Ministry of Transport and Works, and that we were awaiting a response. This correspondence to the BWU was copied to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Works and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Transport Board;

    (12) On February 17, 2014 a response was received from the Ministry of Transport and Works indicating that the Government of Barbados could not agree to any enhanced packages at this time;

    (13) A meeting was held on February 27, 2014 between the BWU and the Transport Board. During the various discussions the General Secretary of the BWU asked that consideration be given to different categories of workers e.g. the chronically ill and employees who, by their work performance, might be separated at a later time; thereby given them a method of exiting the system on better terms. He again asked that some level of enhancement for separation packages be considered. The management of the Transport Board reiterated that the financial situation at the Transport Board would not allow for this to be considered.

    After this was repeated several times, the General Secretary indicated that at a previous meeting attended by the representatives of the Ministry of Finance and representatives of the BWU, mention was made of a fund which would be used to provide the payment for employees separated from the various departments and sections of the public service. He would therefore not proceed any further until this had been addressed. This matter was referred to our parent ministry, the Ministry of the Transport and Works; and the Ministry of the Civil Service and again the instruction to proceed with the separations was reiterated.

    Financially, the Transport Board is not in a position to continue with the employment of its entire existing complement of employees. It must be noted that the Government of Barbados has subsidized the operations of the Transport Board over the years. However, due to the ongoing economic situation, and in an effort to gain efficiencies, the daily functions of the Board can no longer be allowed to continue as has happened in the past. The result of these changes is an unfortunate situation. To reduce expenditure, some separation of employees must occur; it must be noted that we have sought to meet all of the requirements as detailed and as such we have no alternative but to proceed with the separation of employees.

    This information has been shared with the BWU at a meeting held February 28, 2014.

    In the separation process, the management of the Transport Board sought to minimize the effect on the employees. As such the National Employment Bureau was invited to speak to employees on retooling and re-engineering to strengthen any skills. The Board also ensured that the following information was included in the separation letter given to employees:-

    (i) The Transport Board will ensure that employees receive the relevant severance payment in accordance with the Severance Payment Act;

    (ii) A cheque for an amount representing pay in lieu of notice and holiday (vacation) pay;

    (iii) Additionally, by March 6 2014 a further cheque will be issued to any affected staff for any outstanding wages or salaries; and

    (iv) Finally, to further mitigate any effects of this separation, the Board is providing emotional and financial counselling and other advice. This is being arranged through the Human Resources Department.

    Although the Board will be separating employees, it must be clearly stated that a complete operational plan has been designed which will allow the Transport Board to continue to service its customers. This new operating structure should see the Transport Board operating in a more efficient manner and will form part of the ongoing re-structuring of the organization to bring about further efficiencies. It is intended that this should result in a reduced financial strain on the tax payers of Barbados.

    Like

  • And what about BAICO?

    Like

  • This is what a competent financial regulator does….

        The UK’s financial regulator is using special powers to ban the marketing to retail investors of unregulated mini bonds, which lay behind a scandal where 11,600 customers face losing their savings.The Financial Conduct Authority said in a statement on Tuesday it was intervening to ban the products’ promotion from January after an explosion of mass marketing of mini bonds, which are typically not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if things go wrong. While the products are unregulated, the advertising of them is overseen by the watchdog.The ban will last for a year while the Treasury and FCA develop permanent rules, the regulator added. In addition to the £236m collapse of London Capital & Finance, which pushed mini bonds on 11,600 pensioners and first-time investors, the FCA has seen over 200 cases where financial promotions did not appear to be in line with FCA rules, the regulator said in a statement on Tuesday.The LCF scandal underscored the confusing protection rules for consumers. The company also claimed the mini bonds — some offering returns of as high as 8 per cent — were fixed-rate ISAs and that the group was authorised by the Treasury as an ISA manager.“We remain concerned at the scope for promotion of mini bonds to retail investors who do not have the experience to assess and manage the risks involved. This risk is heightened by the arrival of the ISA season at the end of the tax year, since it is quite common for mini bonds to have ISA status, or to claim such even though they do not have the status,” said Andrew Bailey, the FCA’s chief executive.The LCF fiasco has prompted criminal and regulatory probes, and a statutory investigation into the FCA’s own actions after it faced calls by bondholders and politicians that it was too slow to respond to red flags.Mini bonds fund loans to small companies and can be listed or unlisted; the FCA’s decree will only apply to unlisted mini bonds and to retail investors. Companies will still be able to target sophisticated investors or high-net worth individuals.Businesses ranging from burrito bars to housebuilders have used mini bonds to raise debt, tempting investors with coupons of 7 per cent or more as savers seek returns in a low-interest environment and in the wake of pension liberalisations encouraging retirees to take control of their life savings. But, despite the growth of the sector, there have long been fears that investors are not fully aware of the risks, notably the lack of investor protection and few regulatory requirements for the issuer. Investors’ capital is at risk and unlike listed retail bonds, unlisted mini bonds cannot be transferred or traded.The FCA said it was launching a consumer awareness campaign, and also wanted internet companies, particularly Google, to take more action to take down misleading online promotions.(Quote)
    

    Like

  • The UK’s financial regulator is using special powers to ban the marketing to retail investors of unregulated mini bonds, which lay behind a scandal where 11,600 customers face losing their savings.The Financial Conduct Authority said in a statement on Tuesday it was intervening to ban the products’ promotion from January after an explosion of mass marketing of mini bonds, which are typically not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme if things go wrong. While the products are unregulated, the advertising of them is overseen by the watchdog.The ban will last for a year while the Treasury and FCA develop permanent rules, the regulator added. In addition to the £236m collapse of London Capital & Finance, which pushed mini bonds on 11,600 pensioners and first-time investors, the FCA has seen over 200 cases where financial promotions did not appear to be in line with FCA rules, the regulator said in a statement on Tuesday.The LCF scandal underscored the confusing protection rules for consumers. The company also claimed the mini bonds — some offering returns of as high as 8 per cent — were fixed-rate ISAs and that the group was authorised by the Treasury as an ISA manager.“We remain concerned at the scope for promotion of mini bonds to retail investors who do not have the experience to assess and manage the risks involved. This risk is heightened by the arrival of the ISA season at the end of the tax year, since it is quite common for mini bonds to have ISA status, or to claim such even though they do not have the status,” said Andrew Bailey, the FCA’s chief executive.The LCF fiasco has prompted criminal and regulatory probes, and a statutory investigation into the FCA’s own actions after it faced calls by bondholders and politicians that it was too slow to respond to red flags.Mini bonds fund loans to small companies and can be listed or unlisted; the FCA’s decree will only apply to unlisted mini bonds and to retail investors. Companies will still be able to target sophisticated investors or high-net worth individuals.Businesses ranging from burrito bars to housebuilders have used mini bonds to raise debt, tempting investors with coupons of 7 per cent or more as savers seek returns in a low-interest environment and in the wake of pension liberalisations encouraging retirees to take control of their life savings. But, despite the growth of the sector, there have long been fears that investors are not fully aware of the risks, notably the lack of investor protection and few regulatory requirements for the issuer. Investors’ capital is at risk and unlike listed retail bonds, unlisted mini bonds cannot be transferred or traded.The FCA said it was launching a consumer awareness campaign, and also wanted internet companies, particularly Google, to take more action to take down misleading online promotions. (Quote)

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s