This is an interview on Hard Talk with Tony Rackhal-Fraser to discuss the CL Financial bailout with myself and Peter Permell of the Clico Policyholders Group. Audio courtesy Power 102.1 FM.
Programme Date: 12 July 2017 Programme Length: 00:58:34
In today’s world of ‘Alternative Facts’ we have to be alert to the special dangers posed by ‘False Equivalence’. False Equivalence arises when two arguments are presented as being of equal relevance, but in fact one is solidly fact-based and the other is mere speculation or invention. Those dangers are especially present in matters of public importance, as recent events have shown.
Michael Coppin is on Dr Rowley’s left, the smiling, tieless chap in the blue jacket. Photo courtesy Lime.tt
I do not think that any law or rule was broken by Mr. Coppin representing Mr. Duprey in that Court case, but my feeling about that situation is one of deep unease. It seems to me that there is a likely conflict between Mr. Coppin’s sworn duties to represent the public interest as one of our Parliamentarians and his equally serious duty to wholeheartedly represent Duprey in that litigation, given the serious negotiations between the government and Duprey.
Of course we do not pay our Parliamentarians to attend to their public duties on a full-time basis, so they are allowed to continue with their professional lives. That potential for conflict and the real needs of proper governance by our Parliamentarians speaks to the strong case for full-time terms of engagement to be agreed so that no other employment is allowed. This proposal was raised by Dr. Rowley during the 2015 election campaign and it should be pursued in my view.
That opening stanza is my tweet of a witty friend’s remark at Ferdie Ferreira’s booklaunch and 85th Birthday celebrations on Wednesday 14 June 2017. It was not surprising to see Lawrence Duprey and Carlos John sitting together at that event. We may be seeing Duprey more and more, the way this fiasco is unfolding. There were some media reports that John was suing Duprey for some money owed, but the case now appears to have been resolved by agreement. I took little note of that case, except for one aspect, explained in the sidebar.
By now, we know that Duprey intends to regain control of the CL Financial empire which was bailed-out by the State after its failure in January 2009. There have been reports about Duprey’s legal demands that the State remove its Directors from the CL Financial board, with the State having asked for more time to respond. That contest for control of CLF is not the topic of this article, I am concerned here with the apparent failure and/or refusal of the Central Bank to apply its fit and proper regulations to the CL Financial chiefs.
Two criticisms of my position on the fit and proper regulations are that:
nobody has been convicted of, or even charged with, any criminal act, and that
I am placing too much reliance on the words of various politicians.
I actually base the fit and proper case against Duprey and the other CLF chiefs in the CLF letter of 13 January 2009 to the then Minister of Finance, Karen Nunez-Tesheira. That letter, signed by Duprey as CLF’s Executive Chairman, admitted that the group had failed and requested ‘urgent liquidity support’ from the Central Bank, as ‘lender of last resort’. CLF owned and controlled three banks – Barbados National Bank, Clico Investment Bank and Republic Bank – yet was forced into in an illiquid situation. Just imagine that. Continue reading “CL Financial bailout – Fit and Proper action”→
Afra Raymond speaks to Ria Roopchandsingh on the ongoing CL Financial bailout debacle in light of the renewed threats by Lawrence Duprey to regain his company. Video courtesy CNMG.
Programme Date: 29 May 2017 Programme Length: 00:16:27
The Wilson-King Congruence. Graphic by NiCam Graphics.
Recent events have forced a further re-examination of the proposition that Lawrence Duprey and his chiefs could regain control of the CL Financial group. The Public Interest has been betrayed or badly delayed at every stage of this matter, which is the only reason we are forced to have this painful conversation.
Lawrence Duprey and the other CL Financial chiefs could soon be regaining their positions, which is a public concern at this time. I consider that to be an unacceptable prospect and that was stated in my joint open letter to the Central Bank Governor on 31 January 2017. Both Anthony Wilson and Mary King took issue with those views of mine in the Business Guardian of 27 April 2017.
The arguments coming from Wilson and King emphasise Duprey’s property rights as the major shareholder of CLF. Wilson, who is the Business Guardian editor, appears to agree with me that the CLF chiefs could not satisfy the central bank’s ‘fit and proper’ rules which apply to those who direct, manage and hold controlling shareholdings in financial institutions. He also made the important point that there are companies in CLF which are not financial institutions and therefore Duprey ought to be able to regain control of those, provided the bailout sums are recovered. The main non-financial companies in the CLF group are Home Construction Ltd., Angostura, CL World Brands and CL Marine. I am still unclear, from Mary King’s article, whether she holds the view that the CLF chiefs are still fit and proper persons. Continue reading “CL Financial bailout – the endgame”→
This is an interview on the issue of Lawrence Duprey regaining control of CL Financial…Richard Noray and I were interviewed by Andy Johnson on ‘Impact TT’ on Sunday 30th April 2017 on Power 102.1 FM. Audio courtesy Power 102.1 FM.
Programme Date: 30 April 2017 Programme Length: 00:33:14
On 31st January 2017 I co-signed an open letter to the Central Bank Governor on the CL Financial bailout. My collaborators were Rishi Maharaj of Disclosure Today and David Walker, with our common purpose to pointedly question the Central Bank’s handling of the bailout.
When over two months passed without a reply or acknowledgment, we decided to act again to bring the issues forward. On 19th April 2017, we delivered the letter again to the Governor’s office, this time with media coverage.
That approach seems to have worked, since the Central Bank actually replied on 21st April 2017 – see attached.
Of course there is no real reply to our queries, so we will be doing a thorough reply on those issues.
This is my interview with Rennie Bishop on 107.7 FM on Sunday 30 April 2017 to discuss the controversial Property Tax and the prospect of CL Financial being returned to its owners. Video courtesy TTRN -Trinidad and Tobago Radio Network Limited.
PM issues Statement on CLICO Report of Sir Anthony David Colman, QC. Courtesy news.gov.tt
“…Whilst in the last five-year administration, the management of Clico, CLF and the associated companies were shrouded in secrecy by the UNC administration, this PNM Government has no intention of operating in that manner. This Government will operate in an open, transparent and accountable manner as it has been doing…“ (The emphases are mine)
On the issue of interest due on Public Money advanced for the CL Financial bailout
I have been stating that the Public Money advanced for this CL Financial bailout was interest-free and that was a clear indication of the ‘most-favoured’ status of the borrowers. With apologies to my readers, CLICO’s 2015 audited accounts, (which were issued on 17th October 2016) disclose at its 32nd note that 4.75% was charged on the first tranche of $5Bn which was lent in 2009, so my prior claims on that item are now withdrawn. That first advance was converted to 4.75% preference shares, so interest was charged on the bailout monies but at such a paltry rate as to leave my fundamental point undisturbed, as explained below.
The Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) is a metric used to show what is the average cost of the capital raised by a company. It is a vital tool in strategic management and allows the company’s leaders to make effective borrowing decisions.
If we apply this approach to the CL Financial bailout the answer is instructive. So, one can assume that the total advanced is $25Bn with only 4.75% interest on the first $5Bn and no interest on any more of the Public Money advanced to CLF. Accordingly, given that only 20% of the CLF bailout pays interest at 4.75% and the other 80% is at zero-percent, the WACC is .95%. Yes, less than 1% is the interest due from CLF for this epic loan. I tell you.
Once again, there are multiple versions of reality operating in relation to the CL Financial bailout, like some award-winning ScyFy movie. In one dimension, we have the PM accusing the previous regime of untoward secrecy while pledging to be open, transparent and accountable. In another dimension, we have a Minister of Finance promising to give us all the details of the monies spent on this bailout, while battling in the Appeal Court to overturn the High Court judgment I won to have those same details published. At the same time, Lawrence Duprey lobbies for the return of the CL Financial companies to him, while sidestepping any proper explanation of what went wrong. Both the PM and the Central Bank Governor label the CL Financial chiefs in scathing terms, while refusing to insist on proper commercial terms for the enormous financial assistance of the State. In yet another dimension, the State is said to be weathering a series of tough financial challenges, while showing stunning generosity to the wealthiest man in the Caribbean.
To paraphrase Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Junot Diaz – ‘ScyFy? What ScyFy?! The Antilles was Scyfy before there was ScyFy!‘
In July 2015, the High Court ruled in my favour that details of the CLF bailout were to be published by the Ministry of Finance, but that ruling has now been appealed.
Min of FInance, Colm Imbert, MP
The Ministry’s appeal, which was submitted on Friday 30th December 2016, has these main points –
CLF Accounts – The order to provide the accounts used by a previous Finance Minister to prepare a High Court affidavit is being contested as being a breach of legal professional privilege;
Parliamentary briefing – The order to provide the briefing to Independent Senators prior to debate on two laws on the CLF bailout is being contested as a breach of parliamentary privilege;
Who got paid? – The order to provide the names of those who were paid in the CLF bailout and the date of those payments is being contested as inimical to the confidentiality which a private person should enjoy.
Those arguments are only now being introduced, for the first time, during this appeal. That fact alone I consider to be unacceptable, but the points are being contested strongly and of course the Court of Appeal will be ruling on them.
For those readers who might consider the ScyFy comparison to be an overdone one, just consider how the Minister of Finance has approached the appeal with these further excerpts from Dr Rowley’s important address to the Parliament –
“…once the Minister of Finance has completed his on-going audit, he will come to Parliament and tell the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago the exact amount of money expended by the Government with respect to the said bailout. This will include the cost incurred by lawyers, accountants, professionals and all others. Furthermore, any and all disposal of assets from the group will be announced to the public in an open and transparent manner as well…”
At a time of economic sacrifice, the free-ticket given to CLF in January 2009, by the Patrick Manning-led Cabinet is being endorsed and renewed for further travel by the Keith Rowley-led Cabinet…this is where we are…
This is an interview on Hard Talk with Tony Rackhal-Fraser to discuss the CL Financial bailout with myself and Peter Permell of the Clico Policyholders Group. Audio courtesy Power 102.1 FM.
In the BG of 27th April 2017, both Anthony Wilson and Mary King took aim at my assertion that Lawrence Duprey and his chiefs should not be allowed to regain control of the CL Financial group. Last week I responded to them, but subsequent statements from the CLF chiefs show that regaining control of the entire group is the target. Those events include the abortive meeting between Lawrence Duprey and the CLICO Policyholders’ Group, led by Peter Permell; the several press statements from Duprey and his spokesmen, Carlton Reis and Claudius Dacon and the Mid-Year Budget Review from Finance Minister, Colm Imbert.
Lawrence Duprey and the other CL Financial chiefs could soon be regaining their positions, which is a public concern at this time. I consider that to be an unacceptable prospect and that was stated in my joint open letter to the Central Bank Governor on 31 January 2017. Both Anthony Wilson and Mary King took issue with those views of mine in the Business Guardian of 27 April 2017.
On 31st January 2017 I co-signed an open letter to the Central Bank Governor on the CL Financial bailout. My collaborators were Rishi Maharaj of Disclosure Today and David Walker, with our common purpose to pointedly question the Central Bank’s handling of the bailout.
This is my interview with Rennie Bishop on 107.7 FM on Sunday 30 April 2017 to discuss the controversial Property Tax and the prospect of CL Financial being returned to its owners. Video courtesy TTRN -Trinidad and Tobago Radio Network Limited.
AfraRaymond.net 