Tag: CL Financial

CL Financial bailout – Smashing the Code of Silence

financial-crisis-inquiry-reportI have been preparing my submissions for the Colman Commission and took some time-out to start reading the Report into the USA’s financial crisis. Of course I am referring to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, which was published at the end of last month, about a year after its first hearings.

Even though I have barely scratched the surface of this 662-page work, it has already been a deeply fascinating read, filled with cautionary insights. The first conclusion of that Report is worth citing –

“We conclude this financial crisis was avoidable.

The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire. The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.  While the business cycle cannot be repealed, a crisis of this magnitude need not have occurred. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault lies not in the stars, but in us.

Despite the expressed view of many on Wall Street and in Washington that the crisis could not have been foreseen or avoided, there were warning signs. The tragedy was that they were ignored or discounted…”

It is an epic failure in that the world’s strongest and most diversified financial system was brought, literally, to its knees by a tidal wave of greed. Some of the main features were –

  • Slack regulators, who had looser and looser control of market activity, yet did little or nothing to propose the need for better controls.
  • Corrupt politicians, who accepted huge political donations from the financial institutions – yes, both parties – so that there was an absence of real debate on major policy shifts and consequences
  • A sheer overdose of hubris in an atmosphere in which it seemed, against all good sense, that tangible risk had been abolished.  The catchphrase among market players was ‘IBGYBG – I be gone, you be gone’ – denoting a total abandonment of the notion of customer service. In many cases the salespersons knew what they were selling was of such poor quality that their own firms were betting against it.

If any of this sounds familiar, yes, you are right; it is almost the same as our own crisis.  The old aphorism ‘When Uncle Sam catch a cold, the Caribbean get pneumonia’ comes to mind.

I have to say that the reading is a sobering experience as one starts to reflect that the deep and broad USA economy has been crippled by these ‘smartmen’ and their political minions.  So what hope do we have of resisting those elements?  That is the question we need to grapple with in this rounds.

But for all the parallels, there are two important differences –

  1. Firstly, the guilty actors are not going to own-up.  This is one pie they won’t want a piece of.  They may try to seek exoneration in a version of the truth which locates blame somewhere on Wall Street.  Those assertions need to be strongly challenged; they represent a piece of pure mischief.
  2. Secondly, the US crisis is far smaller, proportionally, than our own.  The Minister of Finance stated in the 2011 Budget (pg. 8)  that the CL Financial bailout was costing our country more than 10% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  In comparison, the US bailout was estimated, in December 2010, by their Treasury Secretary to be costing about 1% of that country’s GDP.  These facts show the double-mischief of these bold-faced people trying to tell us that this is just like in America.

According to those sources, this crisis is costing us 10 times more than the Wall Street one we keep on about. The relevant Ministry of Finance Press Release of 17th January 2011 states, “…With the Government’s planned bailout of CLFG (CL Financial Group), Standard and Poor’s expect net general government debt will rise to 28% of GDP in fiscal 2011 from 15% in fiscal 2010, though it will remain below the 36% median for ‘A’ rated sovereigns…” That is a difference of 13%. Yes, that is 13 times more than the USA…

This crisis will require us to properly compare and contrast those situations.

It has been two years, but at last the Commission of Enquiry into the T&T financial collapse is about to start its hearings. For the first time and against all their schemes and plans, the main agents of the Code of Silence are going to be forced into the direct sunlight to face questions and of course I mean the several court cases and the Colman Commission as discussed in ‘Testing the Code of Silence‘.

Sir Anthony Colman
Sir Anthony Colman

The final date for submissions to the Colman Commission is Monday 14th February, which means that all written evidence must be filed by then.   I am not sure if electronic evidence, like the 55-minute interview Brian Branker (former Executive Chairman of British American Insurance Co.) gave on Up Next! in September 2010 is allowable, but it seems worth it to try.  So this is my call for the producer of that show, Jerry George, to please do submit it.  If you are interested, it is at http://vimeo.com/15145888.

I expect that by now the main actors in this Code of Silence are all rehearsing their lines and agreeing who will speak on which piece and in fact which parts to be silent on. In my opinion we can expect nothing but self-serving and defensive statements, if not outright lies, from the main actors in this mess – the CL Financial chiefs, the wayward Regulators and of course, the auditors. The burning question is therefore how is the public interest going to be defended and advanced?  By whom?  On what terms?

To make the obvious comparison with the Uff Enquiry, we are looking at the same kind of procedure.  The decisive difference is that, in this case, the balance of forces is entirely different.

You see, in the Uff Enquiry there were the forces of the State and its agents all lined up to defend their way of operating – that included UDeCOTT, Calder Hart, National Insurance Property Development Company (NIPDEC), Housing Development Corporation (HDC) and of course the State itself was in the Enquiry in the person of the Attorney General.  On the other side there were the Joint Consultative Council and Dr. Keith Rowley, MP.  All those parties were strongly represented.  There were also independent forces at the Enquiry – the Trinidad & Tobago Transparency Institute (TTTI), Carl Khan and myself – the only two witnesses whose testimony stood without hostile cross-examination.

Due to the balance of forces in that forum, the Uff Enquiry was satisfactory in that all versions were strongly contested under cross-examination and also by conflicting testimonies – the Enquiry was forced to decide on the veracity and relevance of evidence…there was no easy middle road or settling for a version because no one had spoken against it.

Here, in the Colman Commission, we face an entirely different order of challenge.  Let me explain –

  1. Firstly, the quantities of money involved are several times larger – at least ten times more, in my estimation.
  2. Secondly, the entire establishment seems to have capitulated to the ‘Duprey Dream’.  That is a state in which no serious questioning of the actions of the CL Financial chiefs is undertaken.  In the USA experience, this phenomenon is described as Regulatory Capture.  It is one in which regulators are actually ‘occupied’ by forces who are the people they are supposed to police. That is not unfamiliar to us here in Trinidad & Tobago, but that is why we must fight against it. It is a true nadir of absolute corruption.  A roaring silence of the formal and informal regulators.
  3. Finally, based on that record, the Colman Commission will be dominated by these people, the ones who caused the entire mess.  If that is the case, there is a real danger that the truth could be compromised or even sacrificed. That peril is what we have to work against.

Some of us have insisted on this Enquiry as a necessary step in preventing a repetition and further looting of the society. The facts and the versions of the facts are about to be tested in the crucible of the Colman Commission.

The only way we can avoid the US fate, and possibly worse, is by doing our very best to learn from the bitter experience. Those of us, who have insisted on this crisis being a real turning-point, must make the most of this moment. In my opinion, that can take place on two levels –

  1. The publicity level, with lobbying to ensure that the process receives the maximum possible exposure, generally, and spot-lobbying to ensure that the key players in the mess are spotlighted when it is their turn to testify. The sole Commissioner was reported to have said that the hearings will be televised.  How can we check on and ensure that takes place?  Also, we should be insisting on a similar arrangement to Uff with the transcripts being on-line.
  2. The evidential level, at which we need to make submissions to contend with the rotten and dishonest discourse from the utterly unresponsible parties who are ultimately responsible.  We not only have to contend with and destroy the ‘Anansi-stories‘, we also have to advance our own arguments into the spaces and places they do not want us to go into.
trevor sudama
Trevor Sudama, former MP

The key person from whom I would like to see a submission is the respected former MP and economist Trevor Sudama, who was the first person to put onto the public record these serious concerns over the health of the CL Financial group.  That was in the 2001 Budget debate and of course we all know that Sudama and his colleagues – Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj and Ralph Maraj – were strongly attacked, ostracized and ultimately forced from the political Head Table.  All by their own party colleagues.

Mr. Sudama, we need your input in this vital matter.  The background for your intervention in this matter, your debate on it and the political attack must form part of the record in this Enquiry.

Some of the key commentators who should put in written submissions are Camini Marajh of the Express, Andre Bagoo of Newsday and Anthony Wilson, the Ag Editor-in-Chief of this newspaper.

Our professional Institutions have been pointedly silent and I would hope to see submissions from –

Our institutions of higher education should join in with their perspectives –

  • Arthur Lok Jack School of Business, part of UWI
  • School of Business and Computer Studies
  • School of Accounting and Management
  • Caribbean Centre for Monetary Studies, also a part of UWI
  • UWI’s Economics Department
  • UWI’s Government Faculty

I am going to close by sketching just one parallel.

To go back to the main points of the Wall Street experience as outlined above, we hear of these complex debt swap instruments and their toxic consequences.  The fatal flaw of these instruments, according to the reports I have read, seems to be that they seemed to be a good way to invest with high returns and little or no risk.  The truth turned out to be just the opposite.

It all seems remote from our own situation, but that is not the only way to look at it.  The most controversial single item in this entire situation here has been the EFPA, an annuity duly approved by the Supervisor of Insurance.  When we consider the promotional literature for that product, it is nothing less than scandalous that a leading company should have been allowed to advertise an investment product with exceptional rates of return and the repeated phrase ‘guaranteed investment’.  There is absolutely no such thing as a guaranteed investment.  It is a complete contradiction in terms, but yet it went out to tens of thousands of people, who suspended their disbelief and went along for the ride.  That is the Trini parallel with those complex debt swap instruments.

You see?

Freedom of Information Request for Duprey Letter of 13 January 2009.

foi4This my Freedom of Information application made on 22nd December 2010  to the Minister of Finance for the ‘Duprey’ letter of 13th January 2009 and the 31st December 2008 accounts of the CL Financial Group.

Readers who are not familiar with the ‘Duprey’ letter and its implications, should read – ‘Finding the Assets.’

This is the third application I am making for these documents. The first was to the previous Minister of Finance, Karen Nunez-Tesheira, who delayed a long time, then ended-up telling me to go to the Central Bank, since they were the original addressees. Of course that was a transparent ploy to frustrate my application, as we know that the Central Bank is immune from the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA).

My next application was on 28th June 2010 to the present Minister of Finance, Winston Dookeran, who never acknowledged the application, despite several reminders.

Readers, please remember that the FoIA requires that the public authority reply to applications in 30 days. There are no penalties for breaching that requirement, so we have to contend with these tactics.

It is now occurring to me, as I write this, on Thursday 20th January 2011, that by Monday 24th we will have reached yet another deadline, but this time we will go further than just letter-writing.

When you combine the failure to reply by both PNM and PP Ministers of Finance with the bizarre affidavited evidence of our Inspector of Financial Institutions, Carl Hiralal on the background to the Central Bank’s application to wind-up CLICO Investment Bank, it is clear to me that the decision has been taken to suppress that letter. For whatever reason, as we say in these parts.

The CMMB story

The audited accounts for CMMB for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 were obtained from the SEC.  They allow a view of CMMB’s financial affairs for the 5-year period 2005 to 2009.  I have included some  selected ratios drawn from those accounts.

There has been a challenge to my assertion that CMMB failed, reaching to the stage of my having been requested to provide the Business Guardian with an indemnity against possible legal costs and damages.  I was unable to persuade the Editor to accept my conclusions and agreed alterations to my prior column on this matter.  Regular readers will know that my concern was triggered by reports in the pages of the Business Guardian that some of the key people in CMMB have now opened a new investment house, KSBM.

Since 22nd October 2010 I have been trying to obtain the official Terms of Reference for the Colman Inquiry into this financial fiasco, but those several enquiries were fruitless until the Secretary to the Inquiry faxed me the requested document on the first working day of the New Year.  Thank you. The Terms of Reference were published in the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette of 17th November 2010 – No. 144 in Volume 49.  Here is the first sentence in the second paragraph, for any of those who still have doubts –

…And whereas the President on the advice of the Cabinet has deemed it advisable and for the public welfare that a Commissioner be appointed to enquire into the failure of CL Financial Limited, Colonial Life Insurance Company (Trinidad) Limited, CLICO Investment Bank Limited, British American Insurance Company (Trinidad) Limited, Caribbean Money Market Brokers Limited and the Hindu Credit Union Cooperative Society Limited with a  view to ascertaining why such events occurred…

So there we have it – the President on the advice of the Cabinet – but there is more, if anybody needs more signs of a failure.  The Central Bank issued a Press Release on the day of the Bailout – 30th January 2009.  The first objective stated in that document is  –

  1. To stem the increasingly serious liquidity pressures being faced by the financial services companies within the Group – i.e. CLICO Insurance Company Limited (CLICO), CLICO Investment Bank (CIB), British American Insurance Company Limited (BAICO) and Caribbean Money Market Brokers Limited (CMMB)…

I am not going to spend any more time stating the obvious, but it would be interesting for the other side to give a public opinion on all this. Can anyone seriously claim that CMMB did not fail? Well, I guess we will have to wait and see. The sheer boldfaced attitude of certain people knows no bounds and with the Carnival Season starting-up, anything could play.

In my view, there are substantive issues beyond the obvious failure and those would include –

  1. CMMB’s role in the CL Financial group. In the 5 years I examined, there was a very low rate of profit earned by CMMB.
    Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
    Return on Assets 1.22% 0.97% 0.0015% 0.0043% 0.0094%

    Given the very low profits earned during CMMB’s operations, there are two inescapable questions arising – What is the real reason for the CL Financial group to hold onto this company? and What was in it for them?

    It was certainly useful for the parent company to be able to secure advances of $1.8Bn from CMMB on what were no doubt good terms. So CMMB was a useful subsidiary for CL Financial to be able to draw on when there was the need.

  2. The JMMB (Jamaica Money Market Brokers) element. But then also we need to consider the sidebar item on the acquisition by CL Financial of the JMMB block of shares in October 2008.   What could have been the rationale for CL Financial to spend $262M on securing its ownership of a company that was about to fail?  No doubt that would have been a period of considerable cash-flow pressure within CL Financial itself, so it does seem to be a bizarre decision. Given all of those elements, why would CLF pay such high multiples to buy the remaining shares in a failing subsidiary? This is one of those intrigues which makes me wonder whether there was more in the mortar than the pestle, so to speak. Given that the purchase of the JMMB shareholding was only 3 months before Duprey wrote that fateful letter requesting financial assistance,what was CLF’s rationale?  Could there have been a prior agreement as to the price to be paid for those shares? Was a valuation of those shares ever done? If so, by whom, on what assumptions and with what result?It seems that a huge sum of money (over $260M, by my calculations) was drawn out of the collapsing parent company, on what was virtually the brink of the meltdown, to buy the remaining shares in yet another collapsing company.  It is staggering to conceive of a situation in which a financial company could spend over $260M without such elementary due diligence, which is why this aspect is an important one. At the very least, the quality of judgment of the CL Financial chiefs seems suspect. Could it be that the reporting systems of the group were so poor as to be unable to foresee the impending collapse at either the group or CMMB level?
  3. The First Citizens’ Bank purchase. The FCB price of $1.00 shows the evaporation of CMMB’s shareholders’ capital. The apparent request by FCB’s auditors for a specific confirmation of the State guarantee is important since it is reasonable to assume that PwC, also CL Financial’s auditor, would have been aware of the fragility of the imputed security for those massive advances.
  4. Ramcharan Kalicharan

    Kalicharan’s explanation. The former CMMB Managing Director, Ramcharan Kalicharan gave a version of events in these pages on 16th December 2010? He was trying to contend that the liquidity pressure on CMMB developed as a result of the bailout of the parent company. Of course the fact that they were both in trouble at the same time – hence their being mentioned repeatedly at the time of the bailout – lends the lie to that one.

  5. Leveraging. One of the features of the failed firms elsewhere has been the extent to which they were over-leveraged i.e. the amount of capital they had borrowed greatly outweighed the amount the firm’s owners had invested from their own money. The conventional thinking is that an over-leveraged firm would be likely to act in a more risky fashion if a smaller proportion of the partners’ own money is likely to be lost. Some of the findings of the ongoing global meltdown are causing those formerly settled principles to be re-examined. In the case of the Wall Street firms which were bailed out in the US crisis, the leverage ratios were in the 35 to 40 times range. That means that those firms had borrowed 35 to 40 times more than the capital they had committed out of the shareholders’ funds.
    Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
    Leverage (Gearing ratio) 28.7 20.1 36.4 34.5 240.8

    So, the CMMB gearing ratio exceeded the 20-times range since 2005, with that startling 240-times as at the date of collapse. It seems that CMMB was run far over the ‘redline’ for a substantial period and what is worse, that this steep level of risk was disclosed in their filed audited accounts. Which leads right into the second point, which is, of course, the role of the regulators in all this. To return to the issue I raised in writing about AIC a few months ago, this speaks to the question of the proper role of the regulators of our financial system. Are they to fulfill a virtually clerical function, to ensure that statements and accounts are filed on time and in the correct fashion? Or do they have a more pro-active and forward-looking role and responsibility in identifying firms which may have all their filings in order but, by virtue of their actual behaviour in the market, may be posing serious risks to the entire system?

  6. The medium-term implications for FCB. Finally, when I consider the levels of volatility and the cost of ‘fixing-up’ CMMB for FCB to take it, this,together with FCB’s  exposure to Home Construction Limited (as evidenced in FCB’s 2009 Annual Report in which they disclosed that 9% of their entire loan portfolio (an amount in excess of $1.0BN) had been advanced in a single instrument at favourable rates to Home Construction Limited) would have the combined  effect of the FCB group itself now being significantly exposed, seemingly more so than other banks, to an element of CL Financial risk.

SIDEBAR: Jamaica Money Market Brokers (JMMB)

JMMB and CL Financial established CMMB in 1999. In October 2008, CL Financial purchased JMMB’s 45% share in CMMB at a price of $41.37M USD ($262.7M TTD). That equates to a value for the entire enterprise in the range of $580M and given that CMMB’s Total Profit in 2008 was $35M, that is an earnings multiplier in excess of 16-times. See – http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20081015/business/business1.html

Did CMMB collapse or not?

KSBM directors, Brent Salvary, Ramcharan Kalicharan, Robert Balgobin and Robert Mayers

The headline was an arresting one – ‘Investment pros set up new business‘ at page 10 of the Business Guardian of 9th December.  It was reported that a new investment house, KSBM, was launched and it seemed that they were profiling.

Given that all four of KSBM’s Executive Directors are ex-CMMB chiefs, there is an inescapable question… ‘Did CMMB collapse, or did they not?‘

Our society’s level of development will be limited by our capacity to reason and learn from that reasoning.  The Code of Silence must be destroyed if we are to progress. It is necessary to probe this question most soberly and this is my attempt.

As is my practice, I am proceeding from the published record –

If we refer to the MoU signed on 30th January 2009 there are only two references to CMMB, in which, at clauses 1 c) and 6 b), the CL Financial group agrees to sell its shares in CMMB, along with a list of other assets.

Also at CNews of 30th January 2009

…Today, the Government, the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, and First Citizens Bank (FCB) became part of a bail-out package for CLICO Investment Bank, CLICO and British American Insurance and Caribbean Money Market Brokers (CMMB)…

The Governor’s statement made that day goes a little further, by referring to the transfer of third-party assets and liabilities of CIB and CMMB to First Citizens’ Bank.

The third reference to CMMB was at the first press conference held by the Central Bank Governor on this matter, 13th March 2009, his opening sentence was:

…This is the first in a series of media conferences that the Central Bank intends to schedule to update the national community about progress with respect to resolving the financial difficulties in CLICO, CIB and CMMB…

It is reasonable to ask why it became necessary to transfer CMMB’s third-party assets and liabilities (which would have included depositors) to another financial institution.  More to the point, it would seem from the events that only a State-owned financial institution was willing to partake.  In my view, if CMMB were healthy and whole, it would never have been even mentioned in all of this.

But, wait, there were conditions –

The fourth reference of course was the revelation that the previous administration had created a $1.8Bn guarantee to cover CMMB’s advances to its parent company, CL Financial.  First Citizen’s Bank had made that guarantee a condition of its acquiring CMMB.

On 1st October, 2010, which was the fateful Friday on which our Prime Minister discussed the CL Financial matter at length in Parliament, First Citizen’s Bank wrote to the Minister of Finance to get confirmation that that guarantee was properly in place.

According to a report in Newsday of October 2nd 2010 – see  – under the headline: ‘First Citizens: Honour $1.8B CMMB deal‘

Larry Howai, First Citizens CEO
Larry Howai, First Citizens CEO

…First Citizens Bank CEO Larry Howai yesterday confirmed the bank’s request and revealed that it was made in relation to the bank’s acquisition of Caribbean Money Market Brokers (CMMB) under the terms of a supplemental agreement drawn up subsequent to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of January 30, 2009. CMMB had racked up a substantial debt due to loans to parent company CL Financial.

“What happened is when we acquired CMMB, CMMB was owed money by the CL Financial Group,” Howai said. “We had told the government at the time that we would only acquire CMMB if they guaranteed the debts…

It seems to me that the guarantee First Citizen’s Bank was confirming had been made in conditions of great privacy, for it was the first time I was reading about it.  A Supplemental Agreement to the published MoU – one can only wonder when that is to be published.

Finally, the Terms of Reference of the Colman Commission were specified as

…The terms of reference of the Commission of Enquiry include looking into the causes, reasons, and circumstances leading to the deterioration of the financial conditions at CLICO, CLICO Investment Bank Ltd, British American Insurance Company (Trinidad) Ltd and Caribbean Money Market Brokers and HCU which threatened the interest of depositors, investors, policyholders, creditors and shareholders and the circumstances, factors, causes and reasons leading to the January 2009 intervention by the Government for the rehabilitation of the companies…

Some other views have been put to me, most notably by the editor of a leading newspaper, to challenge my assertions on CMMB, so one needs to go further.

Yes, it is now time to consider First Citizens’ Bank’s (FCB) 2009 Annual Report.

As to the post-bailout events, I am considering page 77 of FCB’s 2009 annual report and Note 1 to the accounts ‘General Information’ is giving me pause – the relevant paras are cited –

cmmb_logo…The CMMB Group comprises CMMB Limited, CMMB Trincity and CMMB Barbados…Effective 2 February, 2009, the Bank assumed control of CMMB Securities and Asset Management Limited (CSAM)…

The meaning of that series of statements is unclear to me…FCB assumed control of the CMMB Group (which we are told has 3 parts) on 2nd February 2009.  Ditto for CMMB Securities and Asset Management (CSAM)…is that part of the CMMB group or not?  I am not at all clear on what, if any, is the difference in these companies.

But, apart from that note, the real meat of the matter is found at Note 39 on page 131 – ‘Business Combination’ – the opening para of which, in reference to CMMB, reads –

…The acquired business contributed revenues of $369.9 million and net profit of $91.9 million to the group for the period from 2 February 2009 to 30 September 2009…

The acquired business is obviously CMMB and that profit rate, at just about 25% of turnover, is below FCB’s overall 45.5% profit rate disclosed at page 73, in the Consolidated Income Statement.

The CSAM performance, disclosed on the next page of the same note, is less impressive –

…The acquired business contributed revenues of $3 million and net loss of $0.16 million to the group…

But the body of that Note is contained in its details of Net Asset Values, to quote –

…The details of the fair value of the assets acquired and arising from the acquisition are as follows…

The Fair Value of Net Assets for the two acquisitions is disclosed as being:

CMMB Fair Value CMMB Carrying Value CSAM Fair Value CSAM Carrying Value
($187,444,000) $74,949,000 $14,219,000 ($14,218,000)

I abbreviated the table to show its headings and totals only.

  • Fair Value is the estimated market value of the assets and liabilities, with an adjustment for any ‘special purchaser’ advantages or disadvantages.
  • Carrying Value is what used to be called ‘Book Value’ – i.e. acquisition cost less any depreciation.

The largest negative entry in that accounting is Other Funding Instruments, disclosed at $5.464Bn.  What were these?

Point being, that, even if we ‘net-off’ the two companies, these figures disclose a negative Net Asset Value of about $173M.

More to the point – which was CMMB’s state at the date of the bailout – the table in Note 39 also discloses CMMB’s cash and cash equivalents to be NIL at the time of the bailout.  CSAM’s are disclosed to have been about $7.3M.

Here I am trying to make sense of a statement in the ‘Director’s Report for the year ending 30th September 2009’, at ‘Results and Dividends – see  at page 18.

….The Group’s total assets were $27.8 billion as at the end of September, 2009 up $11.9 billion or 75%. This increase was mainly as a result of the acquisition of CMMB which accounted for just over $7.6 billion of the Group’s total assets…

I am unable to reconcile the contents of Note 39, which specify a negative Net Asset Value of at least $173M, with this statement as to the additional $7.6Bn in total assets.

The conflict in the narrative is evident even in the very CEO’s statement –

At page 13, we read –

…During the year, the most significant event for the Group was the acquisition of Caribbean Money Market Brokers (CMMB), the largest brokerage house in Trinidad and Tobago. The acquisition contributed to growth in assets, profits and funding…

Then, at page 14…

…we were called upon by the Central Bank to assist with the payments to depositors of CLICO Investment Bank (CIB) and to acquire CMMB, both of whose customers were seriously affected by the necessary interventions made by the authorities to stabilize the system…

How were the CMMB customers ‘seriously affected by the necessary interventions’?

Nothing in FCB’s 2009 Annual Report leads me to doubt my original conclusion as to CMMB’s collapse.  I am sure more details will emerge during the Colman Commission, the Terms of Reference for which were again requested from the AG’s office this week.

But in fact more details emerge in the Business Guardian column of 16th December ‘First Citizens profits from Duprey’s CMMB‘. Two quotes from the First Citizens CEO will suffice –

  • “As far as First Citizens chief executive officer, Larry Howai, is concerned, the bank and the government together saved CMMB – ‘They would not have been able to continue in business much longer’”
  • “CMMB had serious impairment of between $1.6 and $1.8billion which would have had to to have been written off or provided for in some other way”

It would really be refreshing to have one of those CMMB chiefs (Ram Ramesh or Robert Mayers, maybe?) assist us in gaining a clearer picture of the events.

In summary, we have CMMB

  1. reportedly with NIL cash balances as at the bailout
  2. reportedly with a negative Net Asset Value
  3. with its customers stated to be ‘seriously affected’
  4. acquired by the State-owned bank
  5. The terms of which acquisition include a secret guarantee for $1.8BN of presumably irrecoverable advances to its parent company
  6. The subject of the oncoming Colman Commission

The big question for me is how come the chiefs of CMMB, a financial institution which is known to have failed on this scale, can be permitted to open another one? We are acting as if we have no capacity to learn from our errors. Just carrying on as though nothing happened. What is the role of the SEC and the Central Bank in all this? Have we learned nothing?

I certainly hope that my colleagues in the press are going to be as insistent and detailed on this matter as the circumstances demand.

CL Financial bailout – Testing the Code of Silence

The Code of Silence has formed the subject of several columns in this series.

I am referring to the unwritten agreement amongst the leadership group in our society to maintain silence in matters of white-collar crime.  The guiding principle of the Code being that the members of that group must never be exposed to the same scrutiny and penalties as the common criminal.

That Code of Silence is poisonous to the progressive development of our society.  Unless we can bury the notion that white-collar crime pays, our society is doomed to lurch from crisis to crisis.  White-collar crime will never be truly challenged until the Code of Silence is tested to destruction.  I welcome anything which would dismantle the Code of Silence.  Literally anything.

The Commission of Enquiry into the various financial collapses which have beset us – Clico, British-American, Clico Investment Bank, Caribbean Money Market Brokers, the CL Financial group and the Hindu Credit Union – was announced by the Prime Minister in her 1st October address to Parliament.

On 17th November, Sir Anthony Colman QC was sworn in as the new sole Commissioner – he replaced the original choice – Sir Gavin Lightman QC, who had an apparent conflict of interest.  The Secretary to the Colman Commission is Judith Gonsalves, who served the Uff Commission in that role.  It is reported that Colman intends to hold open hearings and that those should start sometime in this month.

So, we are seeing three powerful channels emerging –

  • CIB winding-up action – ongoing litigation from National Insurance Board and National Gas Company to stop the Central Bank’s winding-up action.  Those court actions have been set for hearing in April and the sum of money at stake is an estimated $1.8Bn.
  • Policyholders challenges – The various policyholders’ groups have now declared their intention to take legal action to recover the monies they feel are owed to them.  The sum of money at stake in that series of actions is estimated to be $12Bn.
  • The Colman Enquiry – This is an overall, public investigation into the causes of the large-scale financial collapse as listed above.  Given the continuing failure to produce the accounts, the total sums of money involved are unknown.

So, what is the likely effect of these lawsuits and the oncoming Colman Commission of Enquiry on the entrenched Code of Silence in our society?

To begin with, I expect a series of legal challenges to the very hearings of the Commission, with the likely grounds being the long-established principle that no person should suffer ‘double jeopardy’, in terms of two sets of charges to be answered.  It will be an attempt to completely derail the entire Commission of Enquiry.

I would not be very surprised if certain state agencies also sought to shut the enquiry down.  That would be a repeat of the unprecedented recent situation in which UDeCOTT went to court to challenge the Uff Commission.

The beneficiaries of the Code of Silence will make great efforts to avoid any deep examination of its members and the public needs to be alert to this point.  There is absolutely no shame in that group and we should also prepare ourselves mentally for the ‘memory loss’ defence of the kind we saw from Hafeez Karamath in the recent Uff Commission.

After generations of operating unexamined, the very bowels of the society’s leaders are about to be opened up to a disgusted and skeptical public.  The motivations, links and payoffs between these leaders are to be exposed to view.  The exposure is going to be critical.  Given the speed with which our legal system operates, the exposure is likely to be lengthy.  Given the range of active media in our society, the details are going to be all over the place.

So, what is at stake here?  What else can we expect, apart from legal challenges?

To begin with, I believe that the sums of money involved are several times more than in the Uff Commission.  In addition, the slowing economy and the pattern of behaviour have set the public into a very critical mood.

In my view, these are some of the people we would see publicly cross-examined in the Commission of Enquiry and various lawsuits –

  • Lawrence Duprey. Photo courtesy the T&T Review
    Lawrence Duprey

    Most important of all, the Chief of Chiefs, Lawrence Duprey – Will he or won’t he show up for the many hearings?  What can we expect to hear?  Can Duprey offer an explanation for the shocking discrepancy between the $100BN+ asset valuation as at the end of 2007 and the $23.9Bn asset value he specified in his letter of 13th January 2009 to Ewart Williams? A mere 56 days separate the publication of those 2007 accounts – on 18th November 2008 – from Duprey’s letter, which has been hidden from view, despite my two Freedom of  Information applications.  The only reason we have some idea of this discrepancy – no…that is the wrong word, maybe staggering decline is better – is the anxiety of the then Minister of Finance to clear her name from allegations of Insider Dealing.  That anxiety led the Minister to read this letter into Hansard on 4th February 2009.

  • Andre Monteil
    Andre Monteil

    Second most important of all, the Chair of Chairs, Andre Monteil – Monteil is now in retirement as a farmer and his testimony is surely one of the most awaited in recent times.  As former PNM Treasurer, CL Financial Group Finance Director, Chairman of Education Facilities Company, National Housing Authority, then Housing Development Corporation and Clico Investment Bank, it is difficult to imagine a player who was more central.  It is almost like a spy movie called ‘The Man who knew Too Much’.

  • Patrick Manning
    Patrick Manning

    Patrick Manning – When one considers the huge donations reportedly made by CL Financial to the PNM and the tangled web of this entire affair, it is difficult to see how Manning can escape serious, hard questions on many aspects. For instance, his 2002 decision to stop  enquiries into HCU by then Minister in the Ministry of Finance, Conrad Enill, will surely be open to question.  Manning’s recent bizarre behaviour might well be the beginnings of a defence.  We will see.

  • Karen Nunez- Tesheira
    Karen Nunez- Tesheira

    Karen Nunez-Teshiera – The Minister of Finance who had to go to Parliament twice to attempt to clear her name in this matter.  Firstly, from allegations that she withdrew her money from CIB early, having had inside information.  Secondly, from allegations that as a CL Financial shareholder, she was biased in her dealings with the bailout, having failed to recuse herself from the discussions.  Not one person I know, even blindly-loyal PNM-ites, is willing to openly defend the behaviour of Nunez-Teshiera. Not one.  Imagine that.  I think the phrase is “…A jury of one’s peers…”  I wonder whether her Cabinet colleagues knew that the Minister was a shareholder?  We won’t have to wait long.

  • Carl Hiralal
    Carl Hiralal

    The Regulators – from both the Supervisor of Insurance, and the Inspector of Financial Institutions, Carl Hiralal.  Just imagine the Supervisor explaining how Clico kept its licence all those years its statutory fund in serious shortfall.  Or the Inspector justifying how CIB can fail to file its tax return and yet keep its licence.  Mr. Hiralal must be considering his position most carefully at this point.

  • Ewart Williams, Governor of the Central Bank TT. Photo courtesy Trinidad Guardian.
    Ewart Williams

    Central Bank Governor – Imagine Ewart Williams reconciling his several statements on Clico being a problem case since 2004, with his having two fixed deposits at CIB.  Williams must also be having a few reflective moments.

  • The Directors – What is to be the position of the Directors of these failed companies?  According to an affidavits filed in the Central Bank’s winding-up action, CIB made an undocumented loan with no interest rate or repayment period agreed.  That loan was in the sum of $162M USD – yes, about $1.03Bn of depositors’ funds were lent to Angostura (a related party) with no documentation.  It would be interesting to hear the Directors explain the degree to which that sort of advance is compatible with their fiduciary duty.  It is important to note that the phrase fiduciary duty in this case refers to the obligation of those CIB Directors to act with the depositors’ interest as their first priority.  But remember that CIB was wholly-owned by CL Financial.  So, can one properly reconcile the fiduciary duties owed to depositors with those owed to the sole shareholder?  It is a veritable conflict to be loaning depositors’ monies to the main shareholder, but that is why the loan agreements and credit committees exist.  So as to provide safeguards against incautious loans, which can jeopardise depositors’ funds, so as to ultimately destabilize the bank itself, as in this case.  There was no agreement.  None at all.  For a loan exceeding one billion dollars.  All of the safeguards to balance the several duties of the prudent Director seem to have been ignored in this situation.  Just imagine the Chairman who presided over the meeting of CIB’s Board which approved that loan, answering a series of critical questions, explaining just what they were doing dispensing with depositors’ funds in that loose fashion.  I can scarcely wait.
  • The Auditors – The various PWC professionals who prepared and signed those audits.  Will we see the release of the hidden accounts?  How much longer can they remain concealed?  There must be some quiet desperation creeping into Balisier House and PWC, just edging forward, along Victoria Avenue.
  • Robert Mayers
    Robert Mayers

    Robert Mayers – When he retired on 7th December 2008, did he or did he not know that Caribbean Money Market Brokers (CMMB) was heading for a financial collapse?  Of course, we now know from the official statements that CMMB collapsed a mere 7 weeks after Mayers left office as its Managing Director.  So, which is it to be?  Is it that the collapse came like a bolt of lightening from a clear blue sky?  Were there any warning signs?  Do CMMB’s accounts give any clues?

  • Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie
    Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie

    Dr. Bhoendradatt Tewarie – He is former principal of UWI’s St. Augustine campus and now heads UWI’s Institute for Critical Thinking.  Dr. Tewarie was a Board Director of the parent company, CL Financial, at the time of the collapse.  Was he aware of Duprey’s letter to the Central Bank Governor, a mere 3 days before that Board authorized payment of a dividend to CL Financial’s shareholders?

  • The same characters and many of the same questions are in the HCU part of the story.

The members of that Code of Silence are probably considering how best to escape the consequences of their actions and inactions.  It will be a truly unique Christmas season for some of them.  There are probably not enough lawyers in the country to handle this tidal-wave of legal actions.

The stakes are huge and the burning question for me is – Can this be the first time that prominent people go to jail?  Serious sentencing?  Will any stolen monies be recovered?

Can the Code of Silence survive this challenge?

The Code of Silence must be destroyed if we are to progress.

SIDEBAR: Who is Anthony Colman?

Sir Anthony Colman
Sir Anthony Colman

Take a read at his comprehensive website including his CV. http://www.siranthonycolman.com/

CL Financial bailout – Amazing scenes

Winston Dookeran vs Peter Permell. Original photo courtesy Trinidad Guardian. Illustration by NiCam GraphicsThe new situation is charged with peril and one is reminded of Naipaul’s father, the intrepid journalist from A House for Mr. Biswas whose favourite tagline was “…amazing scenes were witnessed…”

Finance Minister, Winston Dookeran, addressed Parliament on the Finance Bill (No. 2) 2010 on Wednesday 24th November.  It was a lengthy and detailed statement, which put things into a necessary perspective.  For me, it was important that Dookeran gave priority to the claims of the contractors and of course, the last item being the claims being made by the various groups representing Clico policyholders.

The Finance Minister held his position as set out in the 2011 budget, which was no surprise when one considers his statement that the various submissions received from the policyholders’ groups did not withstand scrutiny.  I only had two significant concerns in terms of outstanding items which require proper attention.

  1. The first of those was the continuing failure to produce the audited accounts for the CL Financial group – by now the 2008 and 2009 accounts are long overdue.  The absence of those important figures means that the many heated discussions taking place, in the media and privately, are all uninformed.  The questions are simple – Are the 2008 and 2009 audits for the CL Financial group completed or not?  Yes or no?  If they are, when are they to be published?  If not, what is the problem with completing these?After all, as I wrote about the 12th June 2009 CL Financial Shareholders’ Agreement in this space on 1st April 2010 –

    …Clauses 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. of the SA, require the outgoing CL Financial chiefs to render all assistance to the incoming Board and Management in terms of all records and accounts etc.  The question here is ‘Have the new Board and management been receiving the full assistance of the previous CLF chiefs?’  If not, what is being done about it?…

  2. The second concern I had was with the special window being opened to assist the Credit Unions, some of whom had invested in excess of 10% of their funds in the EFPA, an annuity approved for individual investors.  We need to know just which Credit Unions took those imprudent investment decisions.  There is no way we can merely legislate or pay our way out of this crisis, the problem runs deeper, into fundamental matters such as the attitudes of the leadership group in the society.  Some of those details might emerge during the upcoming Commission of Enquiry, but it would be to Dookeran’s credit if he released the names of those Credit Unions and the amounts to be refunded.

The immediate statements of the Clico Policyholders’ Group (CPG), which targeted Dookeran, are a perturbing sign.  For whatever reason, the CPG is ignoring the settled principle of Cabinet’s collective responsibility.  That stance seems to be detrimental to effective negotiation and I am beginning to wonder if some person or persons in the Cabinet is ‘giving them basket’.

The threatening statements from the CPG as to the damage their proposed lawsuit can do to our country’s economy are nothing less than scandalous.  We are now witness to a grim game of brinksmanship.

We have all heard the arguments and rumours surrounding this bailout, so no point repeating those.  It certainly seems that those are going to be ventilated in a high-profile series of lawsuits.  I only hope that the hearings remain open and do not take place in a sealed Court.  That is what happened in the very first lawsuit after the bailout, in which the Central Bank was attempting to get CL Financial to comply with the terms of the bailout.  The stakes are too high now for any concept of privacy to prevail in this matter.

The Minister of Finance also announced that the conditions under which the financial relief would be offered were being considered and it is good to know that there is to be no unconditional relief at our collective expense.

My thoughts on that aspect are that the State must conduct itself in an exemplary fashion and not be placed at any further disadvantage, having already shouldered this enormous, exceptional payout.

There are now anti money-laundering (AML) laws which require depositors to make declarations as to the Source of Funds, all in an effort to prevent the proceeds of crime from entering the legitimate economy.  In my view it is necessary for the government to be satisfied that the various sums being claimed by these policyholders were properly declared under the AML laws.  We have had shocking reports about the elementary management controls which were either absent or awry in the CL Financial group, so it would not surprise me if their AML-compliance was lax.  That needs to be thoroughly checked.  It would not be acceptable for our taxpayers’ monies to be used to rinse ‘dirty money’.

Also, the claimants who owe on their taxes – VAT, PAYE, Corporation Tax, Income Tax and so on – should not be refunded.  As Dookeran said in that address, if everyone paid the taxes due, our budget would not be in deficit.  We cannot go deeper into deficit without these elementary precautions being taken.

Finally, there is the issue of the many borrowers from Clico, British-American, Clico Investment Bank (CIB).  In the case of CIB alone, we are told that about $1.0Bn of those loans are ‘non-performing’ – which means that the borrowers are not repaying their loans.  It would be perverse for some of those non-performing borrowers to receive refunds from the State.  This is a live part of this situation, since in the case of CIB itself, the very Inspector of Financial Institutions swore in his affidavit filed in the winding-up action for that failed bank –

…With respect to the Creditors of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has met the statutory obligations for the Board of Inland Revenue (except for Corporation Tax Returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009 which are being prepared and remain outstanding)…

That is a glaring example of the kind of wanton wrongdoing at the heart of this mess.  CIB fails to file its Corporation Tax returns for three years, yet keep their banking licence and arrange for the taxpayer to bail them out when it all goes sour.

Some claimants may try to invoke the ‘corporate veil’ to shield themselves from various breaches committed by their companies, but this is an exceptional situation in which the State is making an offer.  In my view, the corporate veil ought properly to be ignored, so that the long-standing commercial principle of ‘set-off’ can be applied to the claimants.

The Colman Commission of Enquiry and its effects on the Code of Silence will be my next topic.

CL Financial bailout: A Season of Unreason

We are now entering a bizarre endgame in this rounds of musical chairs.  The children’s game has returned for us adults, but with a vengeance.

As I wrote on 10th September in this space, the real question is ‘When exactly did the CL Financial group collapse?’.

To understand this huge matter we need to put things in the correct order –

  1. Firstly, the CL Financial chiefs left others holding the risks.  Some dates and names, to support the theory –
    •  L.A. Monteil – retired at the end of March 2008
    • M.A. Fifi – retired in August 2008
    • Robert Mayers – retired in December 2008.

    What did they know and when did they know it?

  2. Secondly, there was a series of large-scale, rapid withdrawals of funds which preceded the start of the bailout.  That pattern of activity would have speeded-up the collapse.  It would be very interesting to see details of who broke their deposits and failed to ‘roll-over’ in that crucial final stage.
  3. Thirdly, post-January 2009, we have the massive payout of State funds, as detailed in the Guardian editorial of 25th October.  Who was the recipient of those funds?  Who benefited?  On 1st October, the Prime Minister promised to publish that list and we await with interest.
  4. Now, with the PP government taking the decision to review the bailout process, we have entered a truly bizarre stage of this matter.  This is the part where all those trusting people who were told to wait and have faith, are realizing that the people in the know have already withdrawn and secured themselves.  Some of those people in the know were the same ones who were telling the faithful to keep on waiting.  What a thing.

There now appear to be at least four groups representing these investors –

  •  The Clico Policyholders’ Group (CPG) – which is the most visible one with Peter Permell, Manny Lawrence and Norris Gomez etc.
  •  The Clico Policyholders’ Protection Association (CPPA), which is the one with Harold Sookhan and Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj.
  •  South Action Group – with Solomon Hem Lee
  •  Denbow Group – a small number of Clico investors who are being represented by Dr. Claude Denbow SC.

Some of the positions being taken by the various groups are indicative of the degree of desperation of the parties, hence the title of this article. The general view emerging from these groups seems to be that the CL Financial group is basically healthy and profitable, so there should be no issue about returning their investment. 

I do not know what those views are based on and it is impractical to continue basing our discussions on the series of rumours and draft reports and suchlike.  We need good quality information to make a quality decision and that is not negotiable.  We need to insist on that as a minimum.

After the first round of organizing and attorneys’ letters, followed by the Prime Minister’s important address on 1st October, we are now into what appears to be an even stranger place.

Two of the stranger proposals emerging from the CPG’s Port-of-Spain meeting on 24th October were –

  •  Prem Beharry of the CPG was reported in the Trinidad Guardian to have said – “…Ryan ALM are saying they would take US$600 million and would convert it to the best debt instrument in the world which is US Treasury Bills,” Beharry said.
    “The Ryan ALM group is saying, within three months if they are engaged, they would be able to sell those bonds and get in cash of US$1.8 billion which is equal to the debt of TT$10.5 billion—that money would be used to pay all the policyholders…” That is literally too good to be true.  It is the same approach that created this mess in the first place – both at the CL Financial group and Hindu Credit Union.  It seemed to me that the CPG was recommending that the government put $600M USD of our taxpayers’ money into this scheme.  Yes, I said scheme.  Maybe if it was really so good they should have just accepted the discounted rates being offered in the budget and invested those funds with Ryan ALM.  After one time is really two times, yes.  I recently read that one Prem Beharry was appointed to the National Gas Company Board. 
  •  Another proposal, this one reportedly stated by Peter Permell, the CPG’s most prominent spokesperson was for the state to pay 40% immediately with the balance being payable in 5 to 7 years.  The persons waiting for delayed payments would earn interest of 4-4.5% on those unpaid balances and also be entitled to a 51% share of any uplift in the value of sold assets.  No, there was no proposal for those CPG members to share in any losses if assets had declined in value.

It may all just be a series of negotiating positions, but it seems pretty clear that no one from these various investors’ groups intends to take a discount or ‘haircut’ on the monies owed to them.  The unstated assumption is that if someone has to stand the bounce or take a haircut, that someone must be the taxpayer.  That could never be the correct position.  So, we need the facts.

The most startling development is the Central Bank’s full page adverts on Thursday 28th October, repudiating the claims that it had offered any guarantees in this situation.  The reaction was immediate, with the CPPA publishing large adverts in opposition the next day and a new anti-bailout group emerging for the first time – at last!  The CPG’s response was a nadir in their campaign, with the Trinidad Guardian reporting that – “…Permell went on to say that they do not care where the Central Bank gets the money from once they guarantee the policyholders’ contracts…” – I could scarcely believe what was on the page before me.  Even the most militant Trade Unionists use more reasonable language.

Which brings us right to the meat of the matter, the order of things.  What is the reason that the investors’ groups are now at the front of the line for assistance from this government?  I could be wrong, but it is easy to get that impression when one hears of Cabinet discussing the matter twice in one week, certain groups giving threatening timetables and so on.  I do not know if our Cabinet – PNM, UNC or PP – has ever given such a total priority to any matter in the past.

There are other claims on the limited monies available to the State.  All of those claims existed before these investors groups.  All.

Many people have poor water supply.  Outstanding payments to contractors and suppliers are in excess of $7.0Bn, according to Central Bank estimates. Insufficient money for OPVs – the estimated cost of $3.0Bn is too much for the country to bear, so national security is falling behind.  More guns and drugs entering our homeland.  Public Servants claims are about $3Bn and that is also a strain on the Treasury.  Not enough police cars.  Sad situation in the public hospitals.

The CPG issued a 2 page advert in the Guardian on Thursday 4th November and it deserves careful reading.  It was good to see their call for the publication of the correct financial information before making a decision.  They set out their proposals for the relief of CPG members – those are the latter of the two above, with the added condition that they be given two seats on the boards of CL Financial and Clico.

The CPG claims that its proposals place no additional burden on the taxpayers, which is a good thing, if that is truly so.  The CPG’s proposals are silent as to how the monies already spent are to be recovered.

The real test will be if the accounts and asset valuations reveal the group to be insolvent.  Will the various investors’ groups accept that or are we in for a long, bitter fight?

SIDEBAR: The Commission of Enquiry

The Attorney General recently announced that he had withdrawn Sir Gavin Lightman QC as the sole Commissioner, due to an apparent conflict of interest.  Lightman had appeared for Clico in a 1991 court case and the PNM did well to have stopped this before it went too far.

Two important further points, though –

  1. Firstly, this is the second such occasion.  In the first case, the Commission of Enquiry into 1990 was announced with retired Appeal Court Judge Mustapha Ibrahim as its chair, until he pointed out that he too had a conflict of interest.  There needs to be some more care taken on this count.
  2. Secondly, the terms of reference need to be qualified, since the AG was reported to have said that “…The COI, he said, covers CL Financial, Colonial Life Insurance Company (Clico), Clico Investment Bank, British American Insurance Company and the HCU…” Having been frustrated in my efforts for the past fortnight to get confirmation of the Terms of Reference from the AG’s Ministry, I am forced to rely on press reports.  Question being, why is CMMB being omitted?

CL Financial bailout: These Turbid Times

Last week I wrote about the Code of Silence observed by our ruling class.  I gave examples to support my idea, but there was not enough space to mention everyone.

The Bankers Association of Trinidad & Tobago (BATT) and the Association of Trinidad & Tobago Insurance Companies (ATTIC) are also part of the situation.

We have a long history of our rulers making huge, stupid, destructive decisions without any commitment to transparency or accountability.  That lack of transparency is what allows corrupt to flourish.  We can never eliminate corruption, but if we are serious about reducing it, we need to proceed differently.

Maybe, just maybe, this is the kind of colossal event which could force some of us to drastically change our ways, despite the positions we now assume.  This is a moment of national peril and the continued observance of the Code of Silence is going to cost our country plenty money.

lawrence dupreyAs it is, we already have been bound to a rotten bailout of the wealthiest individual in the Caribbean by our Treasury at ZERO interest.  Anybody looking to set up a small business has to face the bank and pay interest. None of that for Lawrence Duprey and the CL Financial chiefs.  They have been able to enrich themselves and when the entire thing went wrong, they were able to negotiate a handsome handshake for themselves and then leave the mess for our government to clean-up.

That is the plain meaning of the bailout.  Is not policyholders we bailing-out, is the richest, smartest characters in the country.  The bailout script is unfolding so well that almost the entire discussion is now about the fairness/unfairness of the government’s position with respect to retired policyholders etc.

Real Anansi antics.

The CLICO Policyholders Group (CPG)
Competing agendas?There was an EFPA group and a CLICO Policyholders group formed just after the budget on 8th September, but they soon merged under the latter name.  I am now seeing what appears to be a substantial split with 2 competing meetings being organised for 10am today – one in Port-of-Spain and the other in San Fernando.

The CPG group has been very successful at getting their views known and making the media circuit, with the eventual meetings with the advisory group set up by the PM.

The main concern being advanced by the CPG is for the recovery of the funds deposited with CLICO and there has been no reply whatsoever to the point that, despite its labelling, the EFPA was largely sold and understood as a deposit.  The accounting rule of thumb as to ‘substance over form‘ in interpretation is an irrefutable part of the debate on this, but CPG have been silent on this point.

Almost all the many people with whom I have discussed this issue, have been very plain in their language – ‘I had my money deposit with CLICO‘ and so on.  But the word Policyholder is more likely to attract sympathy, so the games continue.

We already spent $7.3Bn in cash since the bailout was announced.  Please note that nobody is even talking about how the State is going to recover that loan.  The only talk is about how are they, the depositors, going to recover their monies.

There is a real principle of financial equity being shredded to pieces in the conduct of this bailout and it was disappointing that Mr. Dookeran, as an Educator in the field, did not take the opportunity to expand on this.

The intent is plainly to deprive the Treasury of its limited funds so that the assets of 15,000 people can be preserved.

So, What about those negotiations?

Sen. Vasant Bharath
Sen. Vasant Bharath

When the Prime Minister spoke on 1st October, she created an advisory group (headed by Minister of Food Production, Vasant Bharath)  to meet with the policyholders to seek other options.

The Prime Minister was to meet with concerned persons and activists on Wednesday 7th October in Chaguanas, but that meeting was cancelled at short notice, with no alternative dates given.

What we are left with is lengthy, secret meetings to discuss the review of the bailout terms, with no concrete information emerging.  That secrecy is totally unsatisfactory.  It smacks of secret deal-making and does nothing to inspire the confidence which is supposedly the very purpose of this exercise.

The last regime, with all of their noble intentions and devout Ministers, lost their way in a morass of muddled purposes, secret deals, mixed-up with misleading and false public statements from the highest office in the land.  We all know how that ended.  The question is whether we have learned anything from that bitter experience.  The Peoples’ Partnership were the main beneficiaries of those PNM errors, have they learned from that?

Our money is being spent on this massive exercise and it is not good enough to emerge from these closed meetings with agreed phrases like ‘constructive or meaningful’.  This emerging pattern speaks of disrespect for the acumen of our people.

To re-state my equation:

Expenditure of Public Money – Accountability and Transparency = CORRUPTION

Imagine these bold-faced people declaring that when they are done and settled, the terms will be announced to us who paying for the whole thing.  The first sign of a bad marriage is when the husband is the last to know – some say, the wife.  But the main point is that the public cannot be the last to know.

The simple and painful fact is that public confidence in our leaders is at an all-time low.  The time-honoured notion that a leader is someone wiser, more mature, less reckless and  of overall higher ideals has been tested to destruction by events.  In this particular case, it is easy to understand the charged atmosphere, hence the need for extra ventilation and transparency.

I was recently emailed by a well-meaning group asking that I start setting out some ideas of how CLICO might be rescued and I had to remind them that without basic information, all we can do is argue emptily with each other.  All to the amusement of the masterminds of this, the greatest economic crime in our nation’s history.

I was even ‘phoned, while writing this, by an acquaintance who is a leading member of the CPG to join him and an un-named UK guest in a TV studio on Monday morning to discuss all this.  Yes, I dismissed the request – too much secret-thing for my taste – and challenged the caller to name the person, supposedly a top UK expert.

What would be ‘constructive and meaningful’ would be to publish these long-outstanding reports so that we in the public can inform ourselves on the vital issues –

  • The original Duprey letter of 13th January 2009.
  • The audited accounts of the CL Financial group for the years ending 31st December 2008 and 2009 – Have PwC completed that?  When are they to be published?
  • Wendell Mottley, Colin Soo Ping Chow, Steve BideshiThe Mottley Report – There was a team of three advisers – Wendell Mottley, Colin Soo Ping Chow and Steve Bideshi – appointed to examine the CL Financial group and we need to know what were the findings of this group.
  • Given that we are being asked to bailout and clean-up Mr. Duprey’s crisis, I feel we need to be told  the names and details of those who benefitted from the $7.3Bn paid out so far, as well as those details for the borrowers of the $1.0Bn of ‘non-performing loans’ in CIB’s portfolio.
  • Finally, we also need to have the position of the CLICO Policyholders’ Group published.  What exactly are they claiming?

We have seen reports in the press about the very long Cabinet meeting on Thursday 21st at which the CLICO issue was said to be part of that agenda.

It would be totally unacceptable for a deal to be sealed without properly informing us, the taxpaying public, as to the true background.

The People’s Partnership has already distinguished itself, positively, by announcing Commissions of Enquiry into the attempted coup in 1990 and the Financial collapse (CL Financial and HCU).  This is no time to get diverted into back-room deals.

I am working for betterment and from you, our elected rulers, I expect better.

Barbados Free Press spreads the word for AfraRaymond.com


Code of Silence was an article in two parts – the first dealing with the agents and effects of that Code and the second dealing with the unfolding case of AIC.

As usual, I sent the article to my main blogging-collaborator Barbados Free Press (BFP) who split it apart into those halves. Maybe they felt that the bond default by AIC Barbados in the second half deserved a separate focus for their readers – who knows?

So, BFP published Code of Silence surrounds CL Financial bailout on Saturday 16th and Michael Lee-Chin’s AIC Finance – Another CL Financial CLICO situation in progress? on Monday 18th.

Later that day, the AIC story was picked-up by Forbes.com and that story is here, Forbes picks up Barbados Free Press news feed!