Tony Hoyos
Tony Hoyos
Mr. Minister [Chris Sinckler], as individuals own less than 10% of the BNB shares, you are negotiating for all of us on this occasion. Please do not sellout the Barbadians that have small shareholdings. There is no reason why you should not seek the best price for the Government and people of Barbados. At a minimum, seek competitive bids from other entities. We look forward to your support, in what is your first major action that will impact us. Thanking you in advance – A. Freeman
The resignation of Tony Hoyos from the Board of Directors of the Barbados National Bank (BNB) should should concern Barbadians. Hoyos’ letter of resignation was posted on Peter Boyce’s Facebook Page earlier today.
A full page statement was posted in the local press today by Republic Bank (BNB’s parent company) signalling it will be making an offer to buyout the remaining shareholders in BNB. An article also appeared in the Trinidad press yesterday. Currently Republic Bank Limited (RBL) owns 65.13% of BNB, the government of Barbados 28% and individuals 7% round out the ownership.
Hoyos makes a few assertions in his letter of resignation which should make Barbadians take interest. When majority interest in BNB was sold to RBL in 2003 many Barbadians cried we were not given enough time to buy into the deal. Many years later Barbadians still become emotional at the thought of our national bank under Trinidadian ownership. The Late Prime Minister David Thompson echoed the feelings of Barbadians by making the hollow statement in 2008 that Barbados should look to to repurchase BNB from RBL.
Barbadians have a chance to make their voices heard second time around. If RBL wants to buyout the remaining 35% shares in BNB they should be made to pay a premium. No doubt the RBL offer of $5.57 is influenced by the fact the government of Barbados is currently labouring under a serious cashflow-debt burden problem. It would be a shame if Barbadians allowed RBL to grab our family treasure at a steal, again. All Barbadians need to get involved in this discussion, the 28% shares owned by the government of Barbados means we the PEOPLE are owners of a significant stake of the BNB pie. By all means sell your minority interest but it must be at a premium.
Additional to fetching a premium price for the remaining shares the use of the name Barbados in the name of the bank should be withdrawn. BNB has been able to generate healthy profits linked to the goodwill and sentiment associated with the use of the name ‘Barbados National Bank’. While there is a vested interest in the current arrangement for minority shareholders, if RBL is able to acquire 100% interest in BNB, the accommodation of the use of ‘Barbados’ should cease when the deal is consummated.
BU commends Tony Hoyos for the principled position he has taken in this matter based on the information in the public domain..
@Doc R
Thanks for your insight, it is appreciated.
FDI FDI FDI, and what government official do with FDI? Import cover, import cover, import cover, travel, travel, travel, spen’, spen’, spen’…!
By an’ way, when bank show big profit, know that bajan consumer be big exploited …
I have some difficulty with the contribution of @Doc R. Since he was involved in the BNB before RBL he should be aware of the ownership structure which was complex (four types of shares) and only served to frustrate the local investors. The credit unions were willing to participate in the purchase but were snubbed by the then Government. Check Stephen Lashley who spoke at length on the matter in the house of assembly recently. When it was announced that RBL were to involved as a “strategic partner” Government immediately went to parliament and changed the share structure of the BNB to accommodate RBL. This was not done for BARBADIANS when we were asked to buy. We were being told to invest but without any say , the offer was insulting. Very few people remember this .Why is that?????
@Carlos | October 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM |
“I have some difficulty with the contribution of @Doc R. Since he was involved in the BNB before RBL he should be aware of the ownership structure which was complex (four types of shares) and only served to frustrate the local investors. The credit unions were willing to participate in the purchase but were snubbed by the then Government. Check Stephen Lashley who spoke at length on the matter in the house of assembly recently. When it was announced that RBL were to involved as a “strategic partner” Government immediately went to parliament and changed the share structure of the BNB to accommodate RBL. This was not done for BARBADIANS when we were asked to buy. We were being told to invest but without any say , the offer was insulting. Very few people remember this .Why is that?????”
Carlos, my friend, this discussion is not about me, or whatever role I may have played in the disposition of the BNB. Are you suggesting, however, that I am now questioning decisions in the determination of whose content I MAY have played some bit part?
If so, cannot I request a pardon for any errors that I committed in that incarnation?
The record will show that I retired from the public service in August 1996 (since I went on pre-retirement leave, my last effective working day was in April of that year, and I left Barbados before the end of June). One of my last activities was the negotiation of the Investment Sector Reform Program (ISRP- pronounced “eye syrup”) loan with the IDB. Admittedly, the discussions recorded in the GOB’s letter regarding its, then, future policy actions contemplated the eventual privatisation of the BNB. However, I had no involvement in the detailed construction of the privitisation programme, nor in the manner of its execution.
An even if I had been so involved, I would still feel that it is in order for me to draw the attention of the Barbadian public to the consequences of what has been done in its name!
D’ont get me wrong Dr. Reid there is nothing personal. I appreciate your discourse but i just wanted to set the record straight. But now we are in this position what do you recommend to resolve this issue in favour of all Barbadians?Is it too late? we have passed the blame stage.
Think some might have missed the point as to where majority of your pensions reside. HINT: NIS. Think about what that may mean.
Thanks Tony for being Frank. I holin’ on to me shares.
WIIIFM. Whats in it for Tony Hoyos? Whenever I see Hoyos I remember that female employee who testified he ordered that meal allowances paid to her must be spent at his restaurant. Anyone remember government agency at which he was a Board member? I simply dont trust that fellow.
Is there something in BNB’s bye laws that would require Republic Bank to own 100% of the shares to be able to make a decision to delist.
When this issue re-emerged in 2008 I wrote an article in the newspaper arguing that barbadian investors should try to acquire majority shares in BNB. In lieu of such a move I have difficulty seeing the advantage of the government continuing to hold on to 17%.
I think some pertinent questions would be:
Are there other buyers willing to acquire that large a quantity of shares at a better price than the current offer?
Given the way our stock market works, is the share price likely to get to $7 per share in the near to medium term?
Should/can investors who want cash for their shares wait for the share price to rise or a better offer to come along? I think there are some serious question marks over how long an investor would have to wait for either event to occur.
Given that they already own 65% of the shares why would Republic Bank pay a premium to axquire more.
Effective control of BNB was ceded to Republic Bank when they were sold 50+% of the shares. I believe that the best approach would be for barbadian capital should mobilise to acquire a majority ownership stake. In lieu of that I fail to see the advantage of govt holding on to 17%. For investors who want cash for their shares I am not sure a better offer is on the horizon. For those with a longer term perspective, by all means hang on to your shares.
Not so much an advantage but 28% shareholding ensures representation on the Board of Directors and possible contribution to policymaking?.
The reason the BLP government would have sold BNB had to do with a commitment to building regional partnerships. What has changed?
regional and partnership has changed
One of the reasons why the OECS has been able to withstand the shocks of Stanford failure and others has been the ability of the OECS governments via the regulator to influence the financial market.
In the case of Barbados what would be homegrown options if similar occurred in Barbados.
David
We have little options now, our reliance would have to on the NIS funds as the government has been doing since the sale of the majority of Shares. We cannot influence anything now, decision making is now based in Port of Spain.shameful.
Mr. Arthur’s continued gloating in the nation newspaper is not doing his cause any good.
Mr. Justin Robinson’s contribution is based on the amount of cash one can get for the shares. If you have a house built by your own hands and with a measure of pride it is increasing in value. Would you sell to anyone because of the cash?
@Carlos | October 28, 2010 at 12:47 PM |
“Mr. Justin Robinson’s contribution is based on the amount of cash one can get for the shares. If you have a house built by your own hands and with a measure of pride it is increasing in value. Would you sell to anyone because of the cash?”
The real choice may be cash now vs cash later, if BNB shares continue to earn good dividends. Anyway, what would anyone do with the cash? Perhaps, buy RBL shares! Caw, caw, and caw!!
@Carlos
Yes NIS funds maybe the cash of last resort but the bank is the agent through the use of financial vehicles is then able to influence/regulate the market. This is the difference between the OECS and Barbados.
Hi Ravin’ Craven Raven; You asked “Anyway, what would anyone do with the cash? Perhaps, buy RBL shares! Caw, caw, and caw!!”
Perhaps pay 20% of the CLICO bailout moneys! caw caw
Now time for Credit Union to have freedom to set up Credit Union Bank no? Hmm, not think what would happen to BNB without Credit Union support no? Maybe Credit Union become Bank now no?
I strongly agree should the 100% of Barbados National Bank by Republic Bank occur that the bank should change its name, otherwise it would be false advertising.
I am in a quandary however by the comments made by opposition leader Owen Arthur supporting the buy out, its not the sale of the shares thats repulsive its the below preminum price, is Owen Arthur getting soft? Its another clear cut case of Trinidadians jukking out Bajan’s eye, Why can’t the BNB shares be offered so average Bajan could buy them any way?
@Peter
The issue here is that the government needs hard currency and 94 million US dollars may appear to be hitting the spot. Selling to credit unions will likely not yield such a good result. Bear in mind the credit rating agencies and others are pressing us at the moment.
Noticed that Barbados Online is carrying a story today trumpetting the cry of the accountants of Barbados that the RBL offer of 5.57 is to low.
Looks like the Republic Bank Limited is playing hardball with government. The government should stand firm!
Dear Shareholders of Light & Power Holdings Ltd.
Re: Offer to Light & Power Holdings Ltd. Shareholders (http://www.emera.com/en/home/mediacentre/recentnews/2010/newsreleasedetails.aspx?SourceParams=reqid-1500321)
Accept no less than $26/share.
Regards.
Re: http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/wibisco-wants-sagicor-probe/
The CEO of Sagicor is on record as opposing the ability of trades of small amounts of shares of an entity, on the Barbados Stock Exchange, to influence the market price of those shares and significantly reduce the valuation of the relevant entity and the wealth of the shareholders, as such trades are normally done by “unsophisticated” individuals that are seeking quick cash. The referenced transaction is therefore puzzling, as it would have been approved by the Board of Directors of Sagicor. While the intent is clearly not to harm Sagicor, is there a case for other shareholders to join WIBISCO in legal action against the directors of Sagicor?
@A..Freeman
Maybe we have to be more critical of an ‘unsophisticated’ stock exchange system that would allow brokers to trade high/low at opening and a few trades later close high/low based on their fancy.
David, you are very likely correct – the Barbados Stock Exchange needs to improve the rules that govern the valuation of the shares that trade on the Exchange. That notwithstanding, the owner and potential buyer of a share have a right to agree to an exchange price that satisfies them. However, the directors of Sagicor are not making decisions regarding their own property, but rather that of the shareholders and, as such, have a duty of care to those shareholders. I believe the shareholders have a right to know how the directors were able to conclude on the agreed price, especially when the existing shareholders would have likely taken up an offer of additional shares at the time.
Pingback: Going, Going, GONE! |