OFFICIAL CLICO THREAD

[bushwakka]

LOL...so you're equating a 'product guarantee' to a 'guarantee' as used with respect to a financial investment and you're telling me to check the law books?

No wonder some of you got taken...

u serious? forget the clico ting for a moment here.....if a judge tell u that the law says that it is legal to lewwe say, fly yuh kite in de savannah (gives u a written legal opinion an all).......yuh go still stop an question it?

Why not? Judges sometimes make mistakes. Do you think the justice system has an appeal process in place just for style?

In any case borse, how is this relevant to the CLICO situation?...

its an analogy.... and yuh bein an arse...cuz we trust ppl to do their jobs, especially ppl in exalted positions such as judges.......if u had to stop an question everything everybody says then u wud stay home an go nowhere!!

and the thing is that, even tho CBTT printed the letter and the policyholders ASKED for and OBTAINED other written guarantees ADDRESSED to them BY NAME.....most of them still questioned it and sought legal opinions.......these ppl did not just roll the dice and re-invest hoping to get rich..

[hydroep]

LOL...nismoid, you really lost it man...

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".[/color]

exactly my point,"as you understand it"
You got it all wrong, who told you the guarantee was for long term and motor insured?
see? there you go again believing in hearsay,

Buh borse, you are not a judge. How do you know that I'm wrong? And where did I say that "the guarantee was for long term and motor insured?" I said:
"...the statutory fund was designed to protect long term policyholders and motor vehicle policy holders only...". Yuh cyar read or what?

And who says anyone told me that? Stop making foolish assumptions nah.

the guarantee letter covers the EFPA,and it forms part of the contract ( the contract, application form, any addendum and the guarantee letter all form part of the entire efpa contract) it is unfortunate that your agent didnt give you a guarantee letter...

Buh borse, who says that she didn't? All I said was that "I don't recall seeing one."

( if you ever did have an efpa policy, personally i think you are lying).

Buh borse, I really had one...really. Would I lie to you?...

so wherever or whoever gave you your information is clearly keeping you in the dark with respect to the efpa policy.

Buh borse, yuh come back here with this hearsay thing again? You do have some basis for making such a claim, don't you?

oh and yeah i got a $hitload of money there and i also own a company that is contracted with clico that has another $hitload of money there, so unlike you I aint talking outta my a$$.

Buh borse, just because you can proudly boast that you and your company have more money with CLICO than I do, doesn't make you an expert. If anything it makes you look like more of a fool because it shows that you couldn't use some of that 'expertise' to insulate yourself against the fallout.

Heres what. go to the cbtt and get a copy of the insurance act, together with a copy of the statuary fund policies, read them and stop taking what 'people tell you' for gospel.

Buh borse, who says that I'm not privy to such information?

And this is the third time that you've alluded to this hearsay thing. Why are you making so many accusations about that? Like you believe that because you take what 'people tell you' for gospel all the time, that everyone is guilty of the same or what?

what i say is directly out of cbtt's lawbook.
go check for yourself, and when you do that, then come here and try to argue with me about what should happen with respect to the laws governing the cbtt.

Borse, I don't know about you, but I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm just giving my opinion and dealing with those who address me directly.

And as regards your alleged knowledge of the laws on this matter, if the legislation was so definitive, why is there all this controversy? Yuh sure is not you who talking out of your arse?...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ fellas that argument is not helping anyone reading this.

[nismoid]

^^ Duane, its no argument! the facts are the facts not thing else.
Hydro, just wait and see, when the bailout happens we will resume this "argument"

[hydroep]

LOL...so you're equating a 'product guarantee' to a 'guarantee' as used with respect to a financial investment and you're telling me to check the law books?

No wonder some of you got taken...

u serious? forget the clico ting for a moment here.....if a judge tell u that the law says that it is legal to lewwe say, fly yuh kite in de savannah (gives u a written legal opinion an all).......yuh go still stop an question it?

Why not? Judges sometimes make mistakes. Do you think the justice system has an appeal process in place just for style?

In any case borse, how is this relevant to the CLICO situation?...

its an analogy.... and yuh bein an arse...cuz we trust ppl to do their jobs, especially ppl in exalted positions such as judges.......if u had to stop an question everything everybody says then u wud stay home an go nowhere!!

Borse, as with the judge analogy, the Government/CBTT can make mistakes...and they did. Former Junior Finance Minister, Mariano Brown speaking on one of the talk shows said as much when he indicated that his Government may have underestimated the extent of the problem in CLICO. So who is to say, that their policy position would not have changed, given the tightening economic circumstances?

And I don't know about you but while I trust people, I don't put blind faith in them. Now, before you start ranting like a jackarse, I'm not talking about questioning everything everybody says eh. I'm just talking about being diligent.

Even if you'd like to use the excuse that EFPA holders were lured into a false sense of security by Duprey and his cohorts whom they 'trusted' to do their jobs, one would have expected that the investors would have been more diligent after the collapse when the Government stepped in. Especially in light of the fact there was information available such as the damage to the CLICO brand, questions surrounding the extent of its problems, no concrete plan for its resurrection and the changeable nature of Government policy.

Put simply, the investors weren't diligent and they got burned again. Deal with it.

and the thing is that, even tho CBTT printed the letter

Is this the same 'guarantee letter' that nismoid said is attached to the policy? I thought that was issued by CLICO?...

and the policyholders ASKED for and OBTAINED other written guarantees ADDRESSED to them BY NAME.....most of them still questioned it and sought legal opinions....

There are more guarantees? Who issued these additional 'guarantees', CLICO, the CBTT...who? I've already stated why I think the first one may be void. What makes you believe that any subsequent ones would be legal and binding?

...these ppl did not just roll the dice and re-invest hoping to get rich..

Not all perhaps, but some did.

[hydroep]

^^ Duane, its no argument! the facts are the facts not thing else.

Facts, schmacks. Y'all keep regurgitating the same things over and over, like 'guarantee letter', 'newspaper ad', and what not, as if that makes any difference. The important fact is that there are too many unanswered questions surrounding this whole issue to make a determination one way or the other.

The Government's proposal on the table for the EFPA holders consists of an initial partial payment of $ 75,000 and the rest amortized at 0% over 20 years. That's already more than the investors would have gotten if CLICO had been allowed to fail.

I heard Peter Permell, Deputy Chairman of the Clico Policyholders Group talking about negotiating a reduced time for the payout and some interest. That's possible.

But if you're suggesting that EFPA holders, save for the special cases like retirees are going to get the whole hog, I think you're mistaken.

Hydro, just wait and see, when the bailout happens we will resume this "argument"

LOL...So yuh want tuh play bad after the fact? That is man fuh yuh...

[nismoid]

LOL...So yuh want tuh play bad after the fact? That is man fuh yuh...



ent yuh grouse was that yuh find de government shuddent bail out clico?
well just wait an see,, i doh know how tuh spell it out fuh yuh nah.
all yuh could afta de bail out is gripe, while i collect meh money

[hydroep]

ent yuh grouse was that yuh find de government shuddent bail out clico?

LOL...Borse, are you really that desperate? Where in this entire discussion did I ever say that the Government shouldn't bail out CLICO? I hope your 'facts' about this bailout aren't as accurate as that or else you're in gonna be in serious trouble...

well just wait an see,, i doh know how tuh spell it out fuh yuh nah.

But I am waiting and I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

all yuh could afta de bail out is gripe, while i collect meh money

LOL...whose griping? I'm just stating an opinion. I'd be happy if everyone gets what they want and the country doesn't suffer. However, based on the information that is being fed to the public concerning the state of the treasury and CLICO itself, I can't see that happening.

You on the other hand seem to have your panties all in a bunch. I just hope that when you go to collect that first payment, you aren't disappointed...

[bushwakka]

And as regards your alleged knowledge of the laws on this matter, if the legislation was so definitive, why is there all this controversy? Yuh sure is not you who talking out of your arse?...

most legal matters can be debated....thaz why we hav lawyers and courts for....doorrrrhhh!
most likely, (if the matter goes to court) it will be proven that the gov't argument in terms of liability is weak

a good lawyer can argue the both sides of an argument to equal effect...doooorrrrrh!

also, w.r.t. to ur argument for the last gov't making mistakes....is that a reason to shrug ur shoulders an say 'oh well it was an honest mistake'?

wud u shrug ur shoulders if ur wife was givin birth to ur chile in de hospital an made a mistake an kill both of them???

[ninjamage]

Actually, notwithstanding the "guarantee", the Statutory Funds do cover the EFPA and this has been the case from the inception. It is a deferred annuity and the contract reflects that. Only Central Bank could have changed that and they would have had to stop Clico from selling the policy to do so. Policies already purchased would have continued to be covered by the fund until surrendered. We don't even need to argue the point, because it is obvious: if the EFPAs were not covered by the Statutory Fund, then the fund would be in surplus!

If you look at the Insurance Act you'll see that all assets pledged to the fund must satisfy the fund before any other creditor. The fund is short by less than TT$2B, but the assets are not liquid and that is the real issue. It appears that by agreeing to the MOU, the CBTT was agreeing not to pursue other options that could be theirs under law to protect policyholders.

The main selling point for those EFPA policies was that the Cash Value was SAFE due to the statutory funds and the law. The actual interest rates were comparable to banks and other institutions. Yes, SOME policies were getting 10 and 12 %, but those had CSVs of more than $5M or $10M with penalties for surrender before 2 yrs or 5 yrs in some cases. Notice that no BANK has come out to say the interest rates were ridiculous, because banks could have offered those rates and still made a profit, but the there is nothing in place to guarantee those funds. In fact if you walk into the bank with 10M to deposit, you negotiate the rate!

[ninjamage]

The Insurance Act 1980

http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/Laws2/Al ... /84.01.pdf

[hydroep]

And as regards your alleged knowledge of the laws on this matter, if the legislation was so definitive, why is there all this controversy? Yuh sure is not you who talking out of your arse?...

most legal matters can be debated....thaz why we hav lawyers and courts for....doorrrrhhh!
most likely, (if the matter goes to court) it will be proven that the gov't argument in terms of liability is weak

LOL...Most likely? So you are a judge too?...

a good lawyer can argue the both sides of an argument to equal effect...doooorrrrrh!

LOL...Really? Even if one side is lacking substantive evidence? You don't know much about law, do you?...

also, w.r.t. to ur argument for the last gov't making mistakes....is that a reason to shrug ur shoulders an say 'oh well it was an honest mistake'?

Nope, that's a reason why the investors should have been more diligent.

wud u shrug ur shoulders if ur wife was givin birth to ur chile in de hospital an made a mistake an kill both of them???

What an analogy! But let's make it a little more relevant to the CLICO situation shall we?

Let's assume that I knew that the hospital in question had serious safety issues, I chose to ignore these issues and carried my wife there to have my child.

Both die in childbirth due to the hospital's mistake.

I'd probably sue the hospital for negligence. Let's say I won a ton of money. Am I made whole? Of course not. My wife and child are dead.

So, while the hospital has paid a price for their negligence, I will also pay the ultimate price for my lack of judgment in this matter.

[teems1]

Let's assume that I knew that the hospital in question had serious safety issues, I chose to ignore these issues and carried my wife there to have my child.

What if the Ministry of Health did a thorough inspection of said hospital and found no problem after its constant inspections, and continued to allow the hospital to run.

And then many other reports from highly acclaimed and top rated independent hospital graders vouch for the this institution giving it the best ratings after their yearly inspections.

Then it would be a fair comparison.

[hydroep]

Let's assume that I knew that the hospital in question had serious safety issues, I chose to ignore these issues and carried my wife there to have my child.

What if the Ministry of Health did a thorough inspection of said hospital and found no problem after its constant inspections, and continued to allow the hospital to run.

And then many other reports from highly acclaimed and top rated independent hospital graders vouch for the this institution giving it the best ratings after their yearly inspections.

Then it would be a fair comparison.

Actually, all of that is irrelevant.

The issue of the re-investment of the EFPAs based on the so-called Government/CBTT 'guarantee', was post-collapse.

Any investor worth his/her salt would have flushed previous reports giving CLICO a clean bill of health down the toilet after the bailout announcement in January last year.

And subsequent to that, neither the CBTT nor any reputable ratings agency has given CLICO 'the best ratings'.

Apart from the Government/CBTT 'guarantee' there was little else to give that astute investor confidence that his money would be safe.

[neilsingh100]

In the end the people with the money and power will win and lots of the EFPA policyholders fit that profile.

hydroep, I disagree with you that the guarantee from the CBTT did not mean anything as it essentially said the government would pay policyholders if Clico was unable to do so and latest move by the government is essentially that they are moving the EFPA liabilities from Clico to GORTT. The bone of contention the policyholders have is the payment terms.

[sMASH]

plz take my tax out of clico and get it into some hospital

[TriniVdub]

plz take my tax out of clico and get it into some hospital

so you want yuh $2000 via cash or check?

[bushwakka]

a good lawyer can argue the both sides of an argument to equal effect...doooorrrrrh!

LOL...Really? Even if one side is lacking substantive evidence? You don't know much about law, do you?...

apparently, u know nothing about law at all......there hav been countless cases of ppl being sent to jail, both here and abroad based on circumstantial evidence alone

it all depends on how the argument is brought by the lawyer fighting the case......i not saying that a case wud win with NO evidence in their favour eh.....cuz we both know this is not the situation with this matter

[hydroep]

a good lawyer can argue the both sides of an argument to equal effect...doooorrrrrh!

LOL...Really? Even if one side is lacking substantive evidence? You don't know much about law, do you?...

apparently, u know nothing about law at all......there hav been countless cases of ppl being sent to jail, both here and abroad based on circumstantial evidence alone
it all depends on how the argument is brought by the lawyer fighting the case...

Buh borse, what does that have to do with your original assertion that "a good lawyer can argue both sides of an argument to equal effect"?

If 'a good lawyer' is presented with both sides of a case and the evidence for the prosecution is only circumstantial while that for the defense is substantive, common sense would dictate that his argument for the defense would have an advantage.

That's because in law, substantive evidence as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" trumps circumstantial evidence.

So your assertion is incorrect.

...i not saying that a case wud win with NO evidence in their favour eh.....cuz we both know this is not the situation with this matter

Well, there's certainly a lot of material floating around. As to whether or not it can be considered evidence, the courts will have to decide that.

[bushwakka]

^2 tired to even quote an go thru all dat sheit yea....all i hav to say is go read a book.....there is a reason why there are good lawyers and bad ones

[hydroep]

LOL...tired? Yuh sure you're not simply a coward?...

[Strauss]

plz take my tax out of clico and get it into some hospital

so you want yuh $2000 via cash or check?

Actually you can give me that money instead.

Except it will be x12 for the year, plus every item I pay VAT on including car purchases, tires, oil, electronics, groceries, KFC, dining, alcohol, gas (road tax), movies, KY, medicine, books, jewelry, Room#2... well pretty much everything calculated over a year. Include the same tax my wife pay as well and give me in CASH. I'm scared if you give me a cheque, they might tax that too.

When I get that money I'm going to reinvest it in car purchases, tires, oil, electronics, groceries, KFC...

[AbstractPoetic]

I also want to say the EFPA policyholders have taken a responsible stance despite the government breaking the guarantees given by CB and previous administration. This group of 15,000 policyholders control a large portion of wealth in the country and by aggravating them could cause other financial institutions to fail and everyone would suffer.

Remember these are 15,000 policyholders that are owed 12billion dollars i.e. average of 750k per policyholder so they are not small fries.

This is a huge misconception. Many of us do not come from wealth or are wealthy. A number of us just saved and invested our pennies over a period of time. We chose to invest locally and with our help, many businesses are kept running and employees are employed.

Just because we did the right thing in investing our funds and saving for a rainy day does not mean we are living big and large. Unfortunately, some of these investors are a paycheck or two away from being completely broke and living on the street. This especially holds true for a number of pensioners.

[Country_Bookie]

Actually, notwithstanding the "guarantee", the Statutory Funds do cover the EFPA and this has been the case from the inception. It is a deferred annuity and the contract reflects that. Only Central Bank could have changed that and they would have had to stop Clico from selling the policy to do so. Policies already purchased would have continued to be covered by the fund until surrendered. We don't even need to argue the point, because it is obvious: if the EFPAs were not covered by the Statutory Fund, then the fund would be in surplus!
!

Stop spreading misinformation.
The EFPA was never covered by the Stat Fund. EFPA was never registered as a Deferred Annuity, since it is not a deferred annuity, but in effect it’s a fixed deposit.
If ur EFPA was a registered deferred annuity then u would have received an approval from the Board of Inland Revenue, which no one ever did! Further one can claim tax deductions for registered deferred annuities, which again, no one ever did since the EFPA was not registered. Since only registered deferred annuities are covered by the Stat Fund, the EFPA was never covered by the Stat Fund but was a general obligation of CLICO.
Oh and the Stat Fund deficit isn’t $2Bn, try closer to $5Bn.

[ninjamage]

Actually, notwithstanding the "guarantee", the Statutory Funds do cover the EFPA and this has been the case from the inception. It is a deferred annuity and the contract reflects that. Only Central Bank could have changed that and they would have had to stop Clico from selling the policy to do so. Policies already purchased would have continued to be covered by the fund until surrendered. We don't even need to argue the point, because it is obvious: if the EFPAs were not covered by the Statutory Fund, then the fund would be in surplus!
!

Stop spreading misinformation.
The EFPA was never covered by the Stat Fund. EFPA was never registered as a Deferred Annuity, since it is not a deferred annuity, but in effect it’s a fixed deposit.
If ur EFPA was a registered deferred annuity then u would have received an approval from the Board of Inland Revenue, which no one ever did! Further one can claim tax deductions for registered deferred annuities, which again, no one ever did since the EFPA was not registered. Since only registered deferred annuities are covered by the Stat Fund, the EFPA was never covered by the Stat Fund but was a general obligation of CLICO.
Oh and the Stat Fund deficit isn’t $2Bn, try closer to $5Bn.

Sigh. Another one who is not aware that the "tax savings" are not something you are ENTITLED to with a deferred annuity. Those tax breaks can be taken away in any annual budget (as has happened in the past), or they can be increased, both according to the Govt of the day's fiscal policy for the year. A deferred annuity, whether BIR registered for tax breaks or not, is an INSURANCE PRODUCT. Hence the need to have it approved as such by the regulator, including the policy contract. It is indeed backed by the statutory funds.
YOU should stop spreading misinformation. Try looking it up BEFORE you rush to comment. Did you bother to look up and read the Insurance Act from the link I posted? Here is another link to a UK site: http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org. ... /annuities
There is a lot of info on there about planning for retirement and annuities. Let me quote just one bit:

"Deferred Annuities

Many people now find that the pension they earned under an occupational pension scheme has been bought out with an insurance company under a contract of insurance known as a Deferred Annuity. If the insurance company were to go bankrupt, compensation will be paid by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Our understanding is that this will be on the same basis which applies to long term insurance (i.e. 100% of the first £2,000, plus 90% of the remainder)."

The EFPA is a deferred annuity! The rest of the world acknowledges it as a long term product.

WHY do you think the Govt had to bring legislation to block legal action wrt their actions/decisions? And when the legislation was vetoed, had to finally consult with POLICYholders?

[bushwakka]

LOL...tired? Yuh sure you're not simply a coward?...

u shouldnt use ''big'' words if u don't kno the meanin of them.....cuz u clearly don't know what context to use ''coward'' in

[hydroep]

LOL...tired? Yuh sure you're not simply a coward?...

u shouldnt use ''big'' words if u don't kno the meanin of them.....cuz u clearly don't know what context to use ''coward'' in

LOL...if you say so, coward...

[Country_Bookie]

For those who still believe that the EFPA was really an annuity, and thus covered by the Statutory Fund, educate yourself on what an annuity is supposed to be:

What Is a Variable Annuity?
A variable annuity is a contract between you and an insurance company, under which the insurer agrees to make periodic payments to you, beginning either immediately or at some future date. You purchase a variable annuity contract by making either a single purchase payment or a series of purchase payments.
A variable annuity offers a range of investment options. The value of your investment as a variable annuity owner will vary depending on the performance of the investment options you choose. The investment options for a variable annuity are typically mutual funds that invest in stocks, bonds, money market instruments, or some combination of the three.
Although variable annuities are typically invested in mutual funds, variable annuities differ from mutual funds in several important ways:
FIRST, variable annuities let you receive periodic payments for the rest of your life (or the life of your spouse or any other person you designate). This feature offers protection against the possibility that, after you retire, you will outlive your assets.
SECOND, variable annuities have a death benefit. If you die before the insurer has started making payments to you, your beneficiary is guaranteed to receive a specified amount—typically at least the amount of your purchase payments. Your beneficiary will get a benefit from this feature if, at the time of your death, your account value is less than the guaranteed amount.
THIRD, variable annuities are tax-deferred. That means you pay no taxes on the income and investment gains from your annuity until you withdraw your money. You may also transfer your money from one investment option to another within a variable annuity without paying tax at the time of the transfer. When you take your money out of a variable annuity, however, you will be taxed on the earnings at ordinary income tax rates
rather than lower capital gains rates. In general, the benefits of tax deferral will outweigh the costs of a variable annuity only if you hold it as a long-term investment to meet retirement and other long-range goals.

Remember: Variable annuities are designed to be long-term investments, to meet retirement and other long-range goals. Variable annuities are not suitable for meeting short-term goals because substantial taxes and insurance company charges may apply if you withdraw your money early. Variable annuities also involve investment risks, just as mutual funds do.

http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/sec-guide-to-variable-annuities.pdf

[bushwakka]

For those who still believe that the EFPA was really an annuity, and thus covered by the Statutory Fund, educate yourself on what an annuity is supposed to be:

we weren't asking for another useless definition....we can google

[ninjamage]

For those who still believe that the EFPA was really an annuity, and thus covered by the Statutory Fund, educate yourself on what an annuity is supposed to be:

we weren't asking for another useless definition....we can google

LOLz, not to mention that is from the US SEC site and has NO BEARING whatsoever on TT laws and regulations...

The CBTT included it in the Statutory Funds for Clico. CBTT as the regulator approved it and the contract as an annuity, an insurance policy. These are facts. Wishful thinking doesn't change that, even if you're the Minister of Finance and think you can do anything you want regardless of legality (after all, with the necessary majority in place any law can be changed!).