OFFICIAL CLICO THREAD

[hydroep]

why put the word assurance in quotes?

Because Governments change policies all the time depending on the circumstances, once it's in the public interest of course.

does that full page notice mean nothing?

No one said that. It's just one of many pieces of information that was available to potential investors/re-investors.

the fact is, the CBTT guaranteed policyholders their money, all those years they were supposed to regulate the financial institutions, and they did not do their job properly, now they have to pay the policyholders such as the law states.

simple as that.

It's not quite that simple at all.

While the regulators may have failed in their responsibility, the investors found themselves in trouble either because they were too greedy or not financially vigilant (or both).

The Government has recognized it's part in the fiasco and is committed to re-paying the principal of investors.

Notwithstanding all the "gun talk" by Ramesh L. Maharaj, no one has yet provided any proof that this move by the Government is illegal.

Investors must recognize that they also had a part to play in this situation, especially those who foolishly re-invested their money despite all of the warning signs. If some of them aren't careful, they could end up with nothing.

[Country_Bookie]

Most people don’t think rationally when they stand to lose what they have saved for years to accumulate. They also don’t want to admit that they made a risky investment in Clico because they were chasing higher returns. They’ll grasp at straws, remembering that they heard it was ‘guaranteed’.

But guaranteed by who? By Clico? If so then did you ever ask to see Clico’s balance sheet to determine whether they could make good on a guarantee? Ansa McAL guarantees the Ansa Secured Fund, but they publish their financials in the papers so you can see what their balance sheet looks like.

Oh but Karen Nunez Taxsharer said in January 2009 that my deposits were safe so I thought everything was gonna be alright, right? Wrong!! Taxsharer said that because if she had said anything else Clico there’d be widespread panic and turmoil in the financial system. It takes time to unwind the mess that is Clico, and to determine the amount by which liabilities exceed assets. The gov’t already injected $5 Billion into Clico last year and this year they still have a shortfall of $15 Billion. So the gov’t just supposed to just find $20 Billion in an entire national budget of $49 Bn? And we done know if they try to raise taxes or cut any social programs, is civil war in this place.

[Redman]

you should be aware that these annuities peddled by insurance companies in particular are somewhat of a loophole as compared to bonafide annuities by other financial institutions


at the end of the day, where the "full guaranteed" principal supposed to come from if a company insolvent ?
CBTT/govt supposed to wave a magic wand ?

I recall Fantasy Tours a few years ago guaranteeing principal also, where are they now ?
guarantee don't mean nothing when a company buss

In the U.S. an annuity contract is created when an insured party, usually an individual, gives a life insurance company money that will later be distributed back to the insured party over time. Annuity contracts traditionally provide a guaranteed distribution of income over time, until the death of the person or persons named in the contract or until a final date, whichever comes first. However, the majority of modern annuity customers use annuities only to accumulate funds free of income and capital gains taxes and to later take lump-sum withdrawals without using the guaranteed-income-for-life feature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_%2 ... roducts%29

So what you saying that while it was an annuity-it eh meeting your criteria-show me where cbtt indicated that the EFPA is not an annuity.
for the 15 years that it was peddled-
Thankfully in the real world the process to approve a financial instrument is established-and at the end of the real world day this was approved-despite your misgivings and allowed to be sold.

Annuities are backed by the statutory fund which is segregated and managed by the CBTT.

Fantasy Tours is irrelevant-why not talk about Maxsenhouse?

CLICO is a registered licensed and approved Insurance Company-The EFPA was approved for sale by CBTT. At the point of contract the conditions were as I stated.

Do you have any thing that disproves this more relevant than your emotive opinion?

Later

[pugboy]

if you listened to the news today/tonight you would have heard mr inspector heeralal himself say that local companies are not required to have capital funds backing up their policies like in the US.

Besides there would never be a requirement for a company to have full 100% fund backing up all their policies for when the company goes bust, somebody must lose when it bust
otherwise they would not make money and actuaries would not be required anymore since no more statistical guessing needed.

that would be like banks required to keep 100% of all deposits as their reserve requirement
they are only required a small minimum and hope that the customers don't all go and withdraw their money

[djaggs]

People saying these investors were greedy, but I have seen and heard some of them. Some are very old people who put their life savings into this because their small pensions cannot mind them. They did so after being assured that these products were guaranteed and backed by central bank. Some have died since this has happened, as a result of this debacle. People work hard for their money and to say that they were just greedy investors is wickedness. I have a relative who sold his house and invested his money to live off the interest. Now he has no money, no income, no where to live cause he cant pay rent.

U cannot compare this with the US since the investments made in the US situation did not have the backing or oversight of the Treasury, its not the same.

If these guarantees were worthless then I wud advise everyone in Trinidad to take their money out of Unit Trust too, and every other invetsment fund in Trinidad. Lets see what will happen since guarantees in Trinidad has no value whatsoever.

Why cant some assets be sold off and money put into the statutory fund to bring CLICO back in line with its legal obligations. Then allow Clico to continue running as an Insurance Company with new management.

[pugboy]

I agree, a lot of innocent people were had, the greedy ones were the agents though
I have had many a meeting with them who tried hard to get me to put my money with them
thing is you should never put all your eggs in one basket

the assets are nowhere close to equalling the dues, they still in the hole even after the govt pump 8bn+

[bushwakka]

you should be aware that these annuities peddled by insurance companies in particular are somewhat of a loophole as compared to bonafide annuities by other financial institutions

at the end of the day, where the "full guaranteed" principal supposed to come from if a company insolvent ?
CBTT/govt supposed to wave a magic wand ?

I recall Fantasy Tours a few years ago guaranteeing principal also, where are they now ?
guarantee don't mean nothing when a company buss

question? how cud the company be insolvent when the CBTT clearly gave guarantees that the EFPA was FULLY BACKED by assets AFTER all the fracas had broken out and AFTER the govt had ''taken control'' of the clico issue?

this is the whole issue.....the CBTT guaranteed that the EFPA was a solid product i.e. their regulators investigated the product and found it was safe to sell to the public (remember govt was in control of clico at this time eh, so u can't say that afterwards, due to a lack of oversight, someone disappear sum assets)

I agree, a lot of innocent people were had, the greedy ones were the agents though
I have had many a meeting with them who tried hard to get me to put my money with them
thing is you should never put all your eggs in one basket

the assets are nowhere close to equalling the dues, they still in the hole even after the govt pump 8bn+

so if the assets were nowhere.....where was the money being generated from to pay the interest to policyholders for the last year and something? and interest was being paid eh!

if the assets were nowhere and money was being paid out, one can only come to 2 conclusions bearing in mind that the govt was controllin clico:
1. The government was running a Clico Ponzi scheme with the knowledge of the Central Bank
2. The central bank was printing money to give investors

now, when u see that those 2 conclusions are assinine, u will know that dookeran is lying when he says nothing was being done to stabilise the company......

where de fack they findin 83m to pay for laptops from eh? dat is auxiliary expenditure compared to this wtf

[cdx2k1]

"Investors should just accept the fact they made the wrong call and be thankful that they're at least getting their principal back. It could have been worse, much worse"

I concur!

[djaggs]

"Investors should just accept the fact they made the wrong call and be thankful that they're at least getting their principal back. It could have been worse, much worse"

I concur!

Well tell that to the 80 yr old man who put his life savings into it and now have nothing left. Tell him relax nah man, yuh getting it back in 20yrs.

[hydroep]

^Did anybody put a gun to his head and force him to put his money in Clico?

[Aaron 2NR]

"Investors should just accept the fact they made the wrong call and be thankful that they're at least getting their principal back. It could have been worse, much worse"

I concur!

Well tell that to the 80 yr old man who put his life savings into it and now have nothing left. Tell him relax nah man, yuh getting it back in 20yrs.

at age 80, he should not be worrying about money but should be spending time with family. tell him take the money and leave it for the grandchildren university fees or sum

[teems1]

alyuh acting like if Clico policyholders invested in some high risk scheme with no guarantee.

These products before they were launched, were endorsed by the CBTT, Supervisors of Insurance, GOTT and guaranteed by the statuary fund. Policyholders only signed the contracts and handed over their money because of these terms.

after the announcement in 2009, the CBTT then gave further reassurance to policyholders that their money was safe.

now alyuh sayin the Clico policyholders greedy?

seriously, try and use logic in your arguments.

[hydroep]

It is a well known fact that the interest rates being offered by Clico were well above existing market rates, which in itself was a red flag to the wary investor.

It is common knowledge that high interest rates carry a higher risk. Some greedy investors took the risk, lost out and now want to be fully compensated?

Where's the logic in that?

[bushwakka]

^preach on brudda.....government and central bank shud be sued forthwith if such a thing is possible for making false advertisements and claims

[teems1]

It is a well known fact that the interest rates being offered by Clico were well above existing market rates, which in itself was a red flag to the wary investor.

It is common knowledge that high interest rates carry a higher risk. Some greedy investors took the risk, lost out and now want to be fully compensated?

Where's the logic in that?

The Clico contract for EFPA in may 2008 has 7% guaranteed.

Guardian Life's Individual Personal Accumulator in May 2008 was 6.5% guaranteed.

So a 0.5% difference is greed?

[hydroep]

It is a well known fact that the interest rates being offered by Clico were well above existing market rates, which in itself was a red flag to the wary investor.

It is common knowledge that high interest rates carry a higher risk. Some greedy investors took the risk, lost out and now want to be fully compensated?

Where's the logic in that?

The Clico contract for EFPA in may 2008 has 7% guaranteed.

Guardian Life's Individual Personal Accumulator in May 2008 was 6.5% guaranteed.

So a 0.5% difference is greed?

Borse, that rate was also above the prevailing market rate at the time which was around 3.5%. As a matter of fact after the collapse there were claims that a number of other financial institutions were in the same boat as Clico, your cited example being one of them.

But then, you seem to be knowledgeable about the sector. So you knew that, right?...

[teems1]

It is a well known fact that the interest rates being offered by Clico were well above existing market rates, which in itself was a red flag to the wary investor.

It is common knowledge that high interest rates carry a higher risk. Some greedy investors took the risk, lost out and now want to be fully compensated?

Where's the logic in that?

The Clico contract for EFPA in may 2008 has 7% guaranteed.

Guardian Life's Individual Personal Accumulator in May 2008 was 6.5% guaranteed.

So a 0.5% difference is greed?

Borse, that rate was also above the prevailing market rate at the time which was around 3.5%. As a matter of fact after the collapse there were claims that a number of other financial institutions were in the same boat as Clico, your cited example being one of them.

But then, you seem to be knowledgeable about the sector. So you knew that, right?...

Then that means the regulators (CBTT, SOI etc) were not doing their job properly.

These insurance companies do not function within a vacuum.

Hence they have to pay now.

[hydroep]

It is a well known fact that the interest rates being offered by Clico were well above existing market rates, which in itself was a red flag to the wary investor.

It is common knowledge that high interest rates carry a higher risk. Some greedy investors took the risk, lost out and now want to be fully compensated?

Where's the logic in that?

The Clico contract for EFPA in may 2008 has 7% guaranteed.

Guardian Life's Individual Personal Accumulator in May 2008 was 6.5% guaranteed.

So a 0.5% difference is greed?

Borse, that rate was also above the prevailing market rate at the time which was around 3.5%. As a matter of fact after the collapse there were claims that a number of other financial institutions were in the same boat as Clico, your cited example being one of them.

But then, you seem to be knowledgeable about the sector. So you knew that, right?...

Then that means the regulators (CBTT, SOI etc) were not doing their job properly.

These insurance companies do not function within a vacuum.

Hence they have to pay now.

LOL...doh worry borse, I could go around in circles too. Permit me to show you how..

Yes the Government failed in it's fiduciary responsibility and in recognizing that it is partly responsible for the situation has decided to repay the principal invested in Clico to the company's clients.

However, that does not negate the fact the investors failed in their own responsibility to make wise financial choices. The warning signs were there all along, even before the collapse. A smart investor, would not have put his money in high risk investments if he/she weren't willing to risk losing it and then come crying like a set of spoilt children afterwards to get their money back on their terms.

They too blasted bold face.

They should be thankful that they're getting back anything at all.

[teems1]

It is a well known fact that the interest rates being offered by Clico were well above existing market rates, which in itself was a red flag to the wary investor.

It is common knowledge that high interest rates carry a higher risk. Some greedy investors took the risk, lost out and now want to be fully compensated?

Where's the logic in that?

The Clico contract for EFPA in may 2008 has 7% guaranteed.

Guardian Life's Individual Personal Accumulator in May 2008 was 6.5% guaranteed.

So a 0.5% difference is greed?

Borse, that rate was also above the prevailing market rate at the time which was around 3.5%. As a matter of fact after the collapse there were claims that a number of other financial institutions were in the same boat as Clico, your cited example being one of them.

But then, you seem to be knowledgeable about the sector. So you knew that, right?...

Then that means the regulators (CBTT, SOI etc) were not doing their job properly.

These insurance companies do not function within a vacuum.

Hence they have to pay now.

LOL...doh worry borse, I could go around in circles too. Permit me to show you how..

Yes the Government failed in it's fiduciary responsibility and in recognizing that it is partly responsible for the situation has decided to repay the principal invested in Clico to the company's clients.

However, that does not negate the fact the investors failed in their own responsibility to make wise financial choices. The warning signs were there all along, even before the collapse. A smart investor, would not have put his money in high risk investments if he/she weren't willing to risk losing it and then come crying like a set of spoilt children afterwards to get their money back on their terms.

They too blasted bold face.

They should be thankful that they're getting back anything at all.

It is you who cannot comprehend the basics of contract law.

You expect everyone to be a savvy investor? These financial institutions exist so that the layman can invest their money.

The Government needs the common man to invest, and even better to invest in the country, otherwise there would zero growth in the economy.

Which is why regulatory bodies such as CBTT, SOI exist so that these financial institutions do not rip off the layman.

[hydroep]

The Clico contract for EFPA in may 2008 has 7% guaranteed.

Guardian Life's Individual Personal Accumulator in May 2008 was 6.5% guaranteed.

So a 0.5% difference is greed?

Borse, that rate was also above the prevailing market rate at the time which was around 3.5%. As a matter of fact after the collapse there were claims that a number of other financial institutions were in the same boat as Clico, your cited example being one of them.

But then, you seem to be knowledgeable about the sector. So you knew that, right?...

Then that means the regulators (CBTT, SOI etc) were not doing their job properly.

These insurance companies do not function within a vacuum.

Hence they have to pay now.

LOL...doh worry borse, I could go around in circles too. Permit me to show you how..

Yes the Government failed in it's fiduciary responsibility and in recognizing that it is partly responsible for the situation has decided to repay the principal invested in Clico to the company's clients.

However, that does not negate the fact the investors failed in their own responsibility to make wise financial choices. The warning signs were there all along, even before the collapse. A smart investor, would not have put his money in high risk investments if he/she weren't willing to risk losing it and then come crying like a set of spoilt children afterwards to get their money back on their terms.

They too blasted bold face.

They should be thankful that they're getting back anything at all.

It is you who cannot comprehend the basics of contract law.

You expect everyone to be a savvy investor? These financial institutions exist so that the layman can invest their money.

The Government needs the common man to invest, and even better to invest in the country, otherwise there would zero growth in the economy.

Which is why regulatory bodies such as CBTT, SOI exist so that these financial institutions do not rip off the layman.

LOL...Borse doh talk foolishness about contract law and all kinda nonsense. The regulatory functions of the GOTT/CBTT does not guarantee the safety of investors' monies. They are there to help ensure that financial institutions keep in line. If the GOTT/CBTT are negligent in the performance of their duties then they should be held accountable...which they have, hence the reason that they're committed to repaying the principal invested by Clico's clients.

If all that mattered was the GOTT/CBTT doing their job properly then people's investments would be 100% guaranteed, but that isn't so. That's why there's the concept of risk to help investors make wise choices (depending on their level of aversion to risk) and things like Bankers Insurance and to mitigate the effects of failures.

And in case yuh don't realise it, it's your money. You do not have to be any expert to realise that if something is too good to be true it usually is. That is simple common sense. And if you want more expertise, educate yourself. There are lots of resources and sources of information. Find them and use them. If you prefer to remain ignorant, then you know what they say: "A fool and his money are soon parted".

What's going on here is that some of the investors just want to blame everyone else and do not want to accept the fact that they made bad choices. And on top of that, they want their money on their terms.

Shameless...

[nismoid]

LOL...Borse doh talk foolishness about contract law and all kinda nonsense. The regulatory functions of the GOTT/CBTT does not guarantee the safety of investors' monies.

yes they do and I'll show you how.
they guarantee policyholders monies by use of a stat fund.
a stat fund is mandatory for any insurance company and different requirements are stated for each company, it consists of assets pledged to it by the company to ensure the liabilities are met.

the stat fund is monitored closely by the central bank to ensure the assets are current and to top it off, the central bank recognizes only 65% of the value of the asset pledged, eg. if a property/bonds/shares valued 1million was used in the fund, central bank would see it as 650k, this measure was to protect the policy holder in case of any devaluation of property/assets.

when the efpa was sold, there was a 'guarantee letter' issued to the client which stated ' the principal and interest is guaranteed for the length of the term'
this guarantee would have been on the premise that the central bank would have done their job and monitored the stat fund weekly to inform clico that they are 'still in the black' with respect of the fund.

now the central bank is supposed to report to clico on a weekly basis the valuation of the fund, and if for any reason clico cannot meet the requirements, the central bank was supposed to have stopped clico from writing any further business. but the cbtt did not do their job effectively, and this is what caused the enormous deficit in the fund.

cbtt and the supervisor of insurance closely monitors/inspects/analyses all policies by insurance companies before being sold, every letter of every sentence of the policy contract is checked for any ambiguity before approval is given to any insurance company.

so when a guarantee letter which is part of the contract says its guaranteed, it means the cbtt approved this contract to be issued to the policy owner.
so if the cbtt is part of the 'state' then its reasonable to assume the state is responsible for the guarantee of the policy owners principal at least. so that is how the regulatory functions of the cbtt/gott is responsible for the safety of the people's money.

[pugboy]

this is not really correct, if you watched the news yesterday, Mr. Inspector Heeralal himself
said that Trini insurance companies are one of the few countries where they are not required to have funds backing up their policies or something to that effect. He said laws are being passed for this for next year.

all of this talk of guarantee this and that, policy stat fund etc is a waste of time since at the end of the day, a company and their auditors can and will jimmy the books to suit who is going to watch them. This was obviously being done with CL on an obscene scale so you people are just being hopeful by arguing that case.
If anybody should get licks is PWC who been auditing them with flying colours.

The PM just said the company is insolvent on the radio.

[Redman]

Pug,
This would be Heeralal who I believe was the SOI and therefore the man responsible for oversight of INSURANCE COMPANIES. Andtherefore had his thumb up his arse while things fell apart.So take his talk with some salt.

The jail thing roster is PWC,SOI CBTT and where there is fraud-CLICO mgt.
Remember mismanagement is not a crime-once it is not viewed as breaching the fiduciary responsibility where it exists.



hydro - Insurance companies are treated differently to Investment companies-so CBTT is charged with the oversite on the Stat Fund and a lso ensuring compliance.
So Ins co are required to place hard unencumbered assets into the Stat Fund that is essentially managed by CBTT.
Therefore in this context the CBTT is has the responsibility to ensure that CLICO was keeping itself in order.

SO the question really is what was the real position at the time the policies were issued.
And what happened to all the assets that CL owned-and how come the INVESTORS at CIB were paid off first with assets from the Stat Fund??
Could it be that KNT and a certain Governer of a certain Central Bank had money dey???
Jus asking

Later

[pugboy]

most likely some of whom you mention probably own apts in 1 woodbrook place, under a different name

according to past reports, all the assets for the most part were already mortgaged to provide funding for other things.
eg how do you think they were able to buy liquor companies, set up methanol plants around the world ?
the wide base of policies, depositor funds etc was propping up the pyramid
the only company which probably could stand strong by itself and keep making money is angostura
but they "borrowed" 100m usd from them which is why angostura could not provide financials

when you own plenty companies you are simply taking money from different pockets on the same pants until you run out of pockets to dip your hand

[hydroep]

yes they do and I'll show you how.
they guarantee policyholders monies by use of a stat fund.
a stat fund is mandatory for any insurance company and different requirements are stated for each company, it consists of assets pledged to it by the company to ensure the liabilities are met.

The statutory fund is a measure designed to help safeguard investors, but it does not guarantee their funds, at least as I understand it. The law only deals with asset sufficiency, not asset quality. So an insurance company could put one set of illiquid assets in it's fund at reporting time just to meet it's legal requirements. This is partly the problem with CLICO at the moment.

the stat fund is monitored closely by the central bank to ensure the assets are current and to top it off, the central bank recognizes only 65% of the value of the asset pledged, eg. if a property/bonds/shares valued 1million was used in the fund, central bank would see it as 650k, this measure was to protect the policy holder in case of any devaluation of property/assets.

now the central bank is supposed to report to clico on a weekly basis the valuation of the fund, and if for any reason clico cannot meet the requirements, the central bank was supposed to have stopped clico from writing any further business. but the cbtt did not do their job effectively, and this is what caused the enormous deficit in the fund.

I don't agree with this assessment.

There is no requirement for the statutory fund to be monitored on a continuous basis by the CBTT. As a result, the value of assets and liabilities held by the insurance company could easily change in value without the CBTT's knowledge. Furthermore, compliance with the Act is done retrospectively, so that an insurance company could easily move assets out of the fund between reporting dates, leaving those at the CBTT none the wiser.

It's quite possible that things got as bad as they did because stricter monitoring guidelines were not enshrined in law.

when the efpa was sold, there was a 'guarantee letter' issued to the client which stated ' the principal and interest is guaranteed for the length of the term'...

I'd really like to see an example of this alleged letter. I gave up my EFPA some years ago and I don't recall seeing one.

In any case, as I understand it, the statutory fund was designed to protect long term policyholders and motor vehicle policy holders only. I'd class the EFPA as a short to medium term investment vehicle which would exclude it from being covered by the statutory fund. That would render any "guarantee letter" void, IMO.

...this guarantee would have been on the premise that the central bank would have done their job and monitored the stat fund weekly to inform clico that they are 'still in the black' with respect of the fund.

Eh? Borse, I have a serious problem with this logic. This alleged letter gave an "assurance" to the client. That "assurance" was from the company, NOT the CBTT. It was based on the premise that CLICO though its accountants and investment managers would have done it's job and safeguarded the investments of its clients, including prudent compliance with the requirements of the Statutory Fund.

cbtt and the supervisor of insurance closely monitors/inspects/analyses all policies by insurance companies before being sold, every letter of every sentence of the policy contract is checked for any ambiguity before approval is given to any insurance company.

so when a guarantee letter which is part of the contract says its guaranteed, it means the cbtt approved this contract to be issued to the policy owner.
so if the cbtt is part of the 'state' then its reasonable to assume the state is responsible for the guarantee of the policy owners principal at least. so that is how the regulatory functions of the cbtt/gott is responsible for the safety of the people's money.

I'm unfamiliar with the procedure for approval of insurance contracts before they're issued to the public, so I'll take your word for it.

If the authorities did approve such a letter, I'd say that it was erroneous as per the investment types covered under the Statutory fund.

It would certainly be interesting though, if this letter was not approved by the authorities and was used by CLICO to lull investors into a false sense of security, wouldn't it?

[pugboy]

you people need to understand how the stat fund/reserve req etc operate with finance companies:
---------------------------
You deposit $100 in a bank
The bank is required to keep 20%(for argument's sake) as fund backup/reserve requirement/stat fund or whatever they want to call it

They can therefore lend $80 to who they feel like and charge some interest on it

If I come back tomorrow and ask for my $100, the bank only has $20 available since they already lent $80 out
so they in problems, however the statistical likelyhood is there are other depositors, hopefully 5 more who have money in the bank so they will get the $100 from that pool of money which is supposed to be at least the sum of all depositors 20%

Worse yet is if they lend the $80 to someone who runs with the money to Florida and buys land, liquor companies, methanol companies etc and never pays it back

If everybody comes asking for their money then the bank has a real problem and could shutdown
in a flash, this is called "a run on the bank"
This was triggered when NGC pulled a pile of money out of CIB

[Redman]

The truth is that whatever was being used to market the policies was used for a long time.
So therefore the regulators implicitly allowed this situation to evolve into what it is today.

That combined with the adds and the declared position of the Govt equate to an understandable comfort in renewing the policies-AT 2%.

Later

[bushwakka]

you people need to understand how the stat fund/reserve req etc operate with finance companies:
---------------------------
You deposit $100 in a bank
The bank is required to keep 20%(for argument's sake) as fund backup/reserve requirement/stat fund or whatever they want to call it

They can therefore lend $80 to who they feel like and charge some interest on it

If I come back tomorrow and ask for my $100, the bank only has $20 available since they already lent $80 out
so they in problems, however the statistical likelyhood is there are other depositors, hopefully 5 more who have money in the bank so they will get the $100 from that pool of money which is supposed to be at least the sum of all depositors 20%

Worse yet is if they lend the $80 to someone who runs with the money to Florida and buys land, liquor companies, methanol companies etc and never pays it back

If everybody comes asking for their money then the bank has a real problem and could shutdown
in a flash, this is called "a run on the bank"
This was triggered when NGC pulled a pile of money out of CIB

clico has assets that can be liquidated to pay the ppl back.....done talk.......the last govt found a way, so can this one, dookeran is lying

[pugboy]

well you obviously have access to their books unlike the rest of us
good hope for you

[djaggs]