Archive for the ‘Private sector’ Category

Keeping it in the Family

Sunday, March 31st, 2013

Introduction
For decades, perhaps in some cases even close to a century, family businesses have formed the backbone of the Guyana economy. Some of these, like Psaila Bros., Rodrigues Limited, the Wright Brothers (Russian Bear) Bettencourts, Elias and Sons, D. M. Fernandes Ltd., R. B. Gajraj and Sons Limited, Jaikaran’s Drug Store, may have faded out of national memory. Some are in transition such as A. Mazaharally & Sons Ltd., A. Amerally and Sons Ltd., Toolsie Persaud Limited., A.H. & L. Kissoon Ltd. and Rahaman Soda Factory Ltd. We recall too the name B. & J. Khan and Daughters suggesting no sons.

Then there are a few family businesses which have survived but are not particularly active such as C.R. Jacobs and Ltd. and Central Garage Ltd. Of the still surviving and active family businesses John Fernandes Limited is perhaps the most successful, and prominent, growing into, by acquisition and organic growth into a conglomerate although A. Gafoor & Sons Limited has grown into a huge operation in its chosen line of business. And let us remember too that Banks DIH Ltd started as D’Aguiar Bros Limited and that Bookers itself that once was the B in British Guiana was once Booker Bros.

Why some of those family businesses succeeded while others failed requires much more than a newspaper column and would make an interesting study for the resourceful student of the University of Guyana. Indeed, such a study would make for a good book.

(more…)

Budget 2013 – Get ready to rumble

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

Introduction
I take these words not from Dr. Roger Luncheon who used it around the time of the Agricola protests but from the American boxing announcer who trademarked it. There are eight working days to go to the constitutional deadline of “before or within ninety days after the commencement of the year” for the presentation of the national budget. With the practice being a prior announcement and none having yet been done, tomorrow Monday can be ruled out. That leaves seven days. The practice too has been to present the budget on a Monday or a Friday. That leaves Friday 22 and Monday 25 since Friday 29 is another public holiday. And here is where it gets a tad tricky: of the six budgets presented by Dr. Ashni Singh as Minister of Finance, three were presented on a Monday and three on a Friday. So take your pick.

My bet is that B-day will be Monday 25 to allow the government’s propaganda machinery to move into high gear, with Shadow Finance Minister Carl Greenidge being the prime target. Some of the propaganda was on display a couple nights ago on Jagdeo’s surrogate television station whose owner and friend Dr. Bobby Ramroop was granted practically universal coverage to broadcast television and or radio in Guyana in a move in what many hoped were the dying days of the Jagdeo presidency.

“Cynical”, “crude”, “vulgar”, “obscene” are too mild terms to describe Jagdeo’s action in a demonstration of abuse of office that required only a perverse mind to conceive. If there is one single incident of dozens that make it vital that the Constitution be amended to rid Guyana of the curse of the executive presidency, then Jagdeo’s action on sharing out the airwaves mainly to his friends and party supporters must surely be the straw. But back to the budget.

Missed opportunities
The 2012 budget was historic not only for its size. The stage for the battle over the 2012 budget was set on November 28, 2011 when the voters of the country placed control of the National Assembly in the hands of the opposition. This was too much for the PPP/C which had become accustomed to ruling, bullying, buying, penalizing, harassing and intimidating those not prepared to tow its line. Once again there was not even a charade of consultation envisaged in the directive principles as well as the fundamental rights enshrined in the Guyana constitution. With the wind in its sail, it was a chance for a united, reinvigorated opposition to assert its authority over public expenditure in Guyana.

On the last day permitted under the Constitution, the Minister of Finance presented his 2012 Budget with the theme “Remaining on Course, United in Purpose, Prosperity for All”, calling for expenditure of $193Bn, or 25% above 2011 spending. The budget included the sum of $4Bn for GuySuCo and $6Bn for Guyana Power & Light Inc., both state entities. While the opposition seemed to have had some idea of what it wanted, the leadership appeared confused on a clear and united strategy to challenge the Budget. After some initial differences between the AFC and the APNU whose leadership appeared to have sided with the Government on the contentious issue of the electricity tariffs in Linden, the parliamentary opposition settled down to addressing the expenditure side of the budget. Of course those initial differences caused a number of missed opportunities for stamping fiscal discipline on the entire project and process.

Cut
The Estimates of the Public Sector for the year 2012 were tabled as Bill No. 3 of 2012: Appropriation Bill 2012 with current and capital expenditure totaling $103.9Bn and $75.8Bn respectively. Of the dozens of budget agencies including known abusers of the public purse, only four were subject to any cuts, among which was GECOM for which the expenditure proposal was clearly excessive. And the real significant cut was to the budget of the Ministry of Finance in respect of expenditure out of LCDS funds which the Minister projected would be received. In many ways therefore the cuts were more symbolic than real. Principally they targeted NCN and the Office of the President where PPP/C politicians, long past their sell-by dates were put on the payroll to be paid by taxpayers, often at higher salaries and the same perks they previously enjoyed.

The cuts were reflected in Act No. 3 of 2012: Appropriation Act 2012 which was passed by the National Assembly on 26 April 2012 with current and capital expenditure totaling $101.7Bn and $57.0Bn respectively after cuts in five account lines:

2013.03.17_Table1

Enter the courts
However, after the revised budget was approved without dissent by the entire National Assembly the Attorney General Anil Nandlall in his wisdom advised the Government to go to the court and challenge the power of the parliament – including the President – to cut the budget. The AG went to the courts for several orders for the restoration of the amounts cuts by the National Assembly, all of which were refused, except for the sum of $99,000,000 for the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC). The reason for restoring the amount for the ERC was that the ERC is a constitutional body subject to a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund. Accordingly, its budget allocation was not subject to a vote of the National Assembly.

For the other heads, the Chief Justice (ag) rejected the application of the Attorney General and denied the Minister of Finance the “liberty” to make advances/withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund to restore the $21 billion 2012 budget cuts. Opportunistically the government chose to misrepresent and possibly violate the ruling by the Chief Justice which was described in his written decision as being in its “preliminary stage” and that “the views expressed at this juncture are not final.” Unfortunately the lawyers for the Speaker Mr. Raphael Trotman and Mr. David Granger, the Leader of the Opposition who along with Dr. Ashni Singh were the defendants in the matter never pursued the case to finality. Mr. Nandlall and Drs. Singh and Luncheon did not allow this simple fact to get in the way of their story that the cuts were unconstitutional. There was simply no ruling except in respect of the ERC. I have no doubt that we will see a reprise of the battle over the 2013 budget.

Dr. Singh v Greenidge
But there is a larger and more practical point. From the following exchange between the Minister of Finance and his counterpart on the opposition benches, it appears that consistent with their belief, contrived or otherwise, the government found ways to restore the cuts as necessary, some by way of the parliamentary route and others from sources unknown. After all the government has so many public funds around the place which are subject to no oversight, that finding money is not a problem. Apart from what are in effect slush funds there is always NICIL and the GGMC to help when called upon.

Here is that exchange between Mr. Greenidge and Dr. Singh:

TENTH PARLIAMENT OF GUYANA – FIRST SESSION (2012)
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY – NOTICE PAPER No. 115 – Q. 66 Opp. 65

RESTORATION OF THE SUMS DELETED FROM 2012 BUDGET

QUESTION by Mr. Carl Greenidge, M.P.

Would the Hon. Minister of Finance say whether monies cut from the Budget and not approval (sic) by this House have been restored to the Ministries? If so,

What categories and sums have been involved?

What is the legal basis for such payments?

What advice was provided on this matter by the Attorney General?

What section of the Chief Justice’s report/decision suggests that either the Chief Justice or the Ministry of Finance can restore cuts to the budget or that the Chief Justice can authorize the Ministry of Finance to make advances from the Consolidated Fund?

ANSWER – The Minister of Finance

Where the sums approved by the National Assembly under the Appropriation Act 2012 were found to be inadequate to meet the services of Government, supplementary financing was resorted to in accordance with the law.

The categories and sums involved have already been reported to the National Assembly in successive Financial Papers.

The Constitution and the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003.

The Attorney General confirmed in advance the appropriateness of the course of action adopted, which course of action was also approved by the Cabinet.

The Chief Justice made several relevant references to the Constitution.

Conclusion
There have been no substantial consultations on the 2013 budget nor have the political parties drawn any lines in the sand. Guyana is hardly any better off now than one year ago. Surely the budget is the occasion to get agreement on some vital requirements for governance. There should be no delay in appointing the Public Procurement Commission; in appointing and Ombudsman; in appointing a Chancellor and a Chief Justice; in establishing the Integrity Commission; in introducing anti-corruption legislation; in bringing the Judicial Review Act and the Access to Information Act into into effect; in reforming NCN and the Chronicle; holding local government elections; dealing with tax reform; and in activating the Constitutional Reform Commission.

The Budget cannot be divorced from these important elements in how the country is managed. Let us fix them now.

Employee or independent contractor

Sunday, February 10th, 2013

Introduction
The quotation taken from a judgment of US Supreme Court Judge Wiley Blount Rutledge is as true today as when it was handed down in a case nearly seventy years ago. But it is perhaps even more relevant today than it was then, its relevance best understood against some of the practices by employers − sometimes with the complicity of the employees, and sometimes not.

Let me give a few practical examples. Suppose entity A has a defined organisation structure with stipulated qualifications and fixed salaries. And suppose entity A wants to employ a relative of one of its top brass, for a) a position that is not on the establishment; or b) the relative does not possess the requisite qualification; or, c) the relative possesses the requisite qualification, but is to be paid remuneration higher than the one fixed on the establishment.

Another is a government on which the budget authority has imposed an employment and wage freeze. Yet another is one which wants to circumvent the law requiring the deduction of income tax and NIS from employees’ earnings.

Many entities faced with these situations choose the route of engaging the person not as an employee but as an independent contractor.

And as the examples indicate, this practice is undertaken by all employers, governments and the private sector alike. I am surprised how many employers – and employees – think that once a position is labelled independent contractor, many of the obligations to which an employer is otherwise subject, do not apply.

Employers 2, Employees 0
There is a further and equally important consideration. Coverage under employment laws boils down to whether or not the individuals in question are ‘employees’ and whether or not the entity in question is an ‘employer.’ So if you fall and break your leg, the law to be applied often hinges on whether you are an employee.

And from a financial perspective, it has been estimated that classifying individuals as independent contractors instead of as employees might result in a savings of twenty to forty per cent of labour costs. No pensions, no medical, no allowances, no overtime, no nothing − just salaries.

So employers have everything to gain, and little to lose by defining a person as an independent contractor rather than an employee.

But this has serious public policy implications by characterizing an individual as an employee, which include protection under various employment laws as well as a requirement that PAYE must be paid. It is surprising that we do not hear in Guyana of more cases reaching the courts because the problem is both widespread and acute.

Ram & McRae, the accounting firm is often called on to advise businesses on the distinction between employer and employee and this column draws on some of the research undertaken in consequence thereof.

A real case
Two years ago, an interesting case came before the UK Supreme Court. The facts as set out provided a useful framework to determine the employer/employee question. The company, Autoclenz Limited had a contract to valet cars. Twenty valeters signed contracts with Autoclenz to provide car cleaning services. The contracts contained the following clauses indicative of a contractor relationship:

• There was no duty to accept work

• There was a right of substitution (to send the work elsewhere)

• They expressly described themselves as self-employed

• They paid their own tax

• They purchased their own insurance, uniforms and some materials.

In reality, Autoclenz Limited provided all the cleaning products and equipment and arranged group insurance cover. The valeters submitted weekly invoices to Autoclenz Limited for their work. Autoclenz Limited deducted a fixed sum for the provision of cleaning materials and insurance from the payment due each week. The valeters were responsible for payment of their tax and NIC.

Subsequently, the valeters brought claims to a tribunal seeking a declaration that they were workers and an order for Autoclenz Limited to pay them the national minimum wages and unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998. Autoclenz Limited argued that the statutory rights were not available to them as they were contractors.

The courts
The tribunal decided in favour of the valeters on the grounds that the degree of control exercised by Autoclenz Limited fully integrated the valeters into its business and that the contract terms permitting the valeters to provide substitutes and suggesting a lack of mutual obligations did not reflect the reality of the situation. In practice, the valeters were required to turn up for work every day and to notify Autoclenz Limited in advance if they were unable to work. In other words, several of the terms were shams.

Autoclenz Limited appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which allowed the appeal in part and held that the valeters were not employees but that they were workers. This displeased both sides and so Autoclenz Limited appealed against the decision that the valeters were workers while the valeters cross-appealed against the decision that they were not employees.

The Court of Appeal reinstated the tribunal’s decision, dismissing Autoclenz Limited’s appeal and allowing the valeters’ cross-appeal. The Court of Appeal held that, when determining an individual’s status, tribunals should look at the actual legal obligations of the parties. It was not necessary to show a common intention of the parties to mislead. Autoclenz Limited appealed to the Supreme Court.

And so the case went to the UK Supreme Court which unanimously dismissed Autoclenz Limited’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of the Appeal that the valeters were employed under contracts of employment and thus entitled to receive the national minimum wage and statutory paid annual leave.

The principle
In the process the Supreme Court ruled as too narrow a long-standing rule that as long as the written contract is not a ‘sham’, its terms would prevail. Because of the hierarchy of courts in the UK, tribunals and courts will be able to set aside express contractual terms which are inconsistent with the reality of the relationship of the parties, without having to establish a common intention of the parties to mislead.

Even as the case wound through the judicial system, the judgment of MacKenna J in the case Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was cited with approval. He said: “A contract of service exists if these three conditions are fulfilled.

(i) The servant agrees that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, he will provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master.

(ii) He agrees, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the other’s control in a sufficient degree to make that other master.

(iii) The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service … Freedom to do a job either by one’s own hands or by another’s is inconsistent with a contract of service, though a limited or occasional power of delegation may not be.”

Conclusion
My view is that the practice by employers deprives workers of significant rights and exposes them to serious obligations. As noted earlier their rights to protection by employers for industrial injuries and death are restricted if not entirely eliminated. And on the other hand the employer shifts his responsibility to deduct and pay over taxes and NIS which now become the obligation of the employee.

I am not hopeful that the government is keen or mindful of cleaning up a situation in which it is itself involved. Here is how. It may receive funding from the British to pay the salaries for some climate change consultant. By law, that money should be paid into the Consolidated Fund as grant and then paid out as an expenditure by way of an appropriation. This government has no appetite for such accountability. It is simply paid to the consultant as an independent contractor without taxes etc, being deducted and paid over.

I would like to see the GRA directing some resources and attention to this issue. It will bring in lots more tax revenues. And I hope too that the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour would direct their attention to any omissions in the law. They will protect the workers.

Twenty years later – part 3

Sunday, January 13th, 2013

Introduction
Today I return to and conclude the topic started on December 16, 2012 to mark the 20 year anniversary of Business Page. I chose the banking sector to mark the occasion because that sector was in the inaugural column, and I thought it would be useful to see how the sector had performed over the two decades. Twenty years ago the Government played a big role in the banking and financial sectors in Guyana. It owned and operated the Guyana National Co-operative Bank (GNCB) and also had major interests in the National Bank of Industry and Commerce (NBIC) and the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry (GBTI). The only other commercial banks operating in Guyana twenty years ago were the Bank of Baroda Ltd, an Indian-owned multinational, and a branch of the Canadian-owned Bank of Nova Scotia. Other players in the financial sector were the Guyana Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank (GAIBANK) and the Guyana Co-operative Mortgage Finance Bank (GCFS), both wholly-owned Government entities, and the New Building Society Limited.

Twenty years later the government is completely out of commercial banking, GNCB and GAIBANK are no more in existence or operational while two new domestic banks are closing in on their own twenty years of operation. In other words, there is only one additional operator in the commercial banking sector and no new international bank in the twenty years since 1992. The ownership structure is one of concentration and control with one of the international banks (Scotiabank) still operating as a branch and the other (Baroda) a wholly owned subsidiary. RBL, GBTI and Citizens Bank are all subsidiaries with a majority shareholder, while DBL’s ownership structure is somewhat more complex, with its annual report disclosing that there is no shareholder whose interest exceeds 5% but whose annual general meeting, among the commercial banks, is probably attended by the least number of members.

In the tables in today’s column we see that those banks have all done extremely well, surpassing the growth in the economy many times over. Let us take profits before tax. From nothing the Demerara Bank Limited and Citizens Bank Inc. recorded pre-tax profits in 2011 of $1,279 million and $1,389 million respectively; the National Bank of Industry and Commerce which was renamed the Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited and acquired the operations, liabilities and certain assets of the GNCB has seen its pre-tax profits increase from $335 million in 1991 to $3,175 million in 2011, an increase of 847% while the GBTI which reported pre-tax profits of $571 million in 1991 saw those profits rising to $1,961 million in 2011, an increase of 243%. The performance of the Bank of Nova Scotia was no doubt equally impressive although under then prevailing laws that branch was not required to report on the performance of its domestic operations.

While the growth of the economy, inflation and the scale of their services would have contributed to the increased profitability of the banks, they would inevitably have benefited from the barriers to entry in the sector with the government very reluctant to grant further banking licences. There is no study of which I am aware into the operations of the sector to examine the effects on the economy, beyond some fierce competition for market share, which the concentration of ownership can facilitate.

This kind of research which goes well beyond a newspaper column, is what one should expect from the Bank of Guyana and the University of Guyana, and it would be helpful for a better understanding of the sector and the formulation of policy initiatives if such a study, or indeed studies were undertaken.

What is clear, however, is that while in the years immediately following 1992, it was almost obligatory for the Minister of Finance to comment critically on the high spread between the rates of interest charged on loans and advances and those paid on deposits, that no longer happens. Moreover with a number of the banks taking up membership of the Private Sector Commission the question of spreads seems completely off the table.

The following two tables show some indicators in the landscape in which the commercial banks have operated. Inflation has declined dramatically; the banks’ prime lending rate has been halved while the rate of interest paid on savings accounts has fallen much more steeply. Meanwhile and counter-intuitively the exchange rate of the Guyana dollar to the United States dollar has fallen from $122.75 to $203.75.

Table 1

2013.01.13_Table1

Source: Bank of Guyana publications

Some aggregate numbers
The banks have become bigger, much bigger. Measured in Guyana dollars, their assets have increased by 1,218%; deposits by an even larger 1,338%, loans and advances by 1,780%. The comparable US dollar percentages are 694%, 766% and 1,033%. As noted above and shown in Table 4, growth has translated to handsome profits.

Commercial Banks

Table 2

2013.01.13_Table2

Source: Bank of Guyana publications

Market share
While concerns may be expressed about the conduct of the commercial banks in a wider sense, there is no doubt in my mind that there is intense competition for loans and advances to customers.

There appears to be far too restrictive policy on making loans to non-resident companies which almost invariably have to bring money into the country on the mistaken ground of crowding out rather than borrowing from the local banking sector. At December 31, 2011 loans and advances by the commercial banks were less than 50% of their deposits which many consider are not growing as fast as they can because of interest rates that deter rather than encourage savings.

The banks however face some countervailing challenges when it comes to the economy. Some of the main players in some of the fastest growing sectors such as gold, construction, the narco-sector (which has earned special mention), the still huge underground economy and the Chinese and Brazilians, seem more interested in shipping money out of Guyana rather than borrowing from the commercial banks.

As a result of the restrictive lending rules and the nature of key sectors of the economy, market share in the banking sector, and more especially in their hugely profitable lending operations, is vital to profitability. This is how the banks stood in (2011), the last date at which figures are available. These numbers are more than just instructive.

Table 3

2013.01.13_Table3

Other Income & Salary Ratios

Table 4: 1991 and 2011 comparatives for NBIC/RBL & GBTI and 2011 for Citizens Bank (Guyana) Inc. (CBI), Demerara Bank Limited (DBL) & Bank of Baroda (BOB).

2013.01.13_Table4

One area of concern about the banks are the charges they impose on what might appear to be their miscellaneous services such as foreign exchange operations, letters of credit, returned cheques, copies of statements, etc. Interestingly, while in the case of NBIC/RBL, the percentage which such other income bears to its other income and net interest income has increased from 22% in 1991 to 27% in 2011, in the case of GBTI that percentage has fallen from 27% to 24%. Comparable percentages for the other banks are Citizens Bank 25%, Demerara Bank 28% and Bank of Baroda 33%.

Another interesting statistic is that in every bank, the salary and related costs are more than covered by other income alone, maybe strengthening the argument for more favourable interest rates, subject to the usual rules applying to risk levels.

The future
The picture for the banking sector looks rosy.

The sector will continue to be driven by technology and the banking licence – which has no carrying value on the balance sheet – will continue to be the most valuable asset, a licence to make money. While some entities will pursue the bricks and mortar strategy at least one other will see that as not the smartest approach to banking in an increasingly technologically driven environment.

Technology will play an even greater role in the sector as mobile money takes root and measures to strengthen controls and prevent increasingly clever and daring frauds continue.

But then the future is never certain. While money laundering will continue to play a significant role in the economy, with the non-bank cambios prominent, the commercial banks’ risk will not be helped by the tepid supervision of money laundering. This is likely to increase as the distributive trade continues its evolution.

There is no new legislation on the horizon and the principal regulator of the sector will continue to pursue conservative, non-interventionist policies.

Without some kind of revolutionary thinking and approaches neither the consumer nor the labour movement will exert any influence on the sector.

Twenty years later – part 2

Sunday, December 23rd, 2012

Correction, addition and appreciation
In last week’s column I stated as the year in which the Government of Guyana took over the assets, liabilities and operations of the Royal Bank of Canada as 1994. In fact the year was 1984. And I omitted to note that the percentage of the shares in the Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry Limited (GBTI) held and sold in 1994 by the Government of Guyana to the Beharry Group was 30% at a price of G$15 per share.

Finally I would like to express my appreciation to the Republic Bank (Guyana) Limited, GBTI, the Bank of Nova Scotia and Demerara Bank Limited which responded to my short survey for information for this column. I find it particularly disappointing that Citizens Bank Limited, the principal banker of Ram & McRae did not respond to the survey. I thank as well Mr Rajendra Rampersaud of the Bank of Guyana for making available information from the BoG’s library.

Finally, to the readers of this column warm wishes for a merry Christmas and 2013.

Introduction
Last week I noted how the regulatory and statutory landscape for banking has changed over the past twenty years. The changes have been more than evolutionary, affecting both the operations of the banks as well as the environment in which they operate. Shortly before 1992, the Hoyte administration had removed practically all exchange controls and had made trading on foreign currency with the introduction of the non-bank cambios with several paper controls but little meaningful supervision and enforcement, not unlike the money laundering that takes place openly in the country.

For more than a decade this column has drawn attention to the operations of these non-bank cambios arguing their usefulness and the objectives which they were expected to serve had ceased to exist. More than twenty years later, these non-bank cambios are seen as a fixture of the foreign currency landscape.

It was no surprise to me that Republic Bank noted as a concern of the earlier decades the question of security. In August 2006 the Rose Hall branches of RBL and Demerara Bank were victims of one of the most daring robberies in the history of banking in Guyana, traumatising the staff of the banks for a considerable time thereafter. I recall going up to Rose Hall immediately after the robbery to collect staff members of Ram & McRae who had to lock themselves in a washroom of RBL during the episode. They were still visibly shaken.

Wherever located, banks are now protected by armed guards and high quality electronic cameras monitoring all their perimeters and every movement by customers and staff. In fact so paranoid have the banks become that they no longer allow the use of mobile telephones in the banks, something that is still permitted in the USA.

Death of the consumer movement and advocacy
Part of the landscape then was a fairly active consumer movement and a willingness by the government to challenge the banks on what were considered exorbitant charges, unreasonable spreads between their buying and selling prices for foreign currencies, and the spread between their cost of funds and the rates of interest they charge on lending those funds. In those days, Ministers of Finance Asgar Ally and later Bharrat Jagdeo would rail about the interest spreads on funds. Now there is no consumer movement to challenge the plethora of charges imposed unilaterally by the banks while the government seems willing to extend every conceivable tax shelter to the commercial banks, even where they do not ask for such concessions.

In other words in respect of taxes the government has become the banks‘ major lobbyists and no longer analyses let alone questions the operations of the banks. In fact sometimes the relationship between the banks – or at least one of them – is so close as to allow what this column considered an improper foreign exchange transaction in a particular case.

I recall some years ago then President Jagdeo expressing surprise and alarm when I drew his attention to the effective rates of taxes paid by some of the banks. Yet, nothing has been done.

The banks’ best friends
Banking is indeed a regulated business but it is also a closed business with the government refusing to allow new entrants and allowing existing players to operate more like price-fixing cartels than genuine competitors. By the very regulations, the sector is largely protected from the vicissitudes and developments around the world, prompting Mr Jagdeo to refer, with some hyperbole, to a ring-fencing of the economy. Any detailed study of the history of the two entrants to the sector since 1992 will almost certainly show that the investors had recovered their capital within a few years, protected by a tax system that allows dividends to be paid tax-free and any capital gains arising from the disposal of shares in those companies to be exempt from taxes. On the other hand, the government sees no problem with charging at the rate of 20% the capital gains on the sale by a retired worker of her only house.

Bricks and mortar
Let us now compare the operations of the commercial banks twenty years ago and what now prevails. Rather than just accept, or rather than rely on, the words of the bank managers who provided some very useful insights into their operations in 1991 and 1992, I also went back to the financial statements and annual reports of two of our major players as well as of the Bank of Guyana for those years. In 1992 commercial banking was mainly about bricks and mortar – the customer wishing to transact any business would present herself to the bank, whether to make a deposit, withdraw money or negotiate for a loan. And more to the point, the banks had their branches mainly in the cities and towns and customers would have to travel some distance to do their business.

In fact the annual report of GBTI shows that it was not until 1992 that that Bank opened its Regent Street branch in the heart of the city. It seems fair to say that the bricks and mortar concept still largely drives commercial banking in Guyana both among the pre-1992 banks as well as those that came after. GBTI now has some nine branches and a new multi-billion head office adorning the Kingston skyline – almost all since 1992.

Republic Bank too has seen an explosion in the number of branches and the construction of a new head office since 1992. Like GBTI, Republic Bank also has nine branches. Demerara Bank has its head office and main branch in Camp Street Georgetown and five branches, including one in Essequibo and two in Berbice. Like Demerara Bank, Citizens Bank has its head office and main branch in Camp Street Georgetown and three branches.

Lethem in Region 9 is currently served only by GBTI but one should expect that others will follow to exploit the opportunities offered by the Brazil-Lethem trade link. Bartica, now more than just the gateway to the interior is served by both the Bank of Nova Scotia and Citizens Bank. Corriverton and Diamond on the Georgetown-Timehri corridor are both served by three of the commercial banks and by the New Building Society, the country’s only real building society. None of the banks disclose the profitability of their branches or have indicated the rate of return they expect in order to establish a branch, but the traffic flowing through many of these branches indicates that the driving factor might be less the volume of business than to keep up with the competition.

Changes, changes
If we were to form conclusions purely from the banks’ annual reports, we might think that the range of services has remained fairly unchanged since 1992. The balance sheets of the banks twenty years ago disclosed deposits in the form of savings, current and fixed deposits; lending in the form of loans and advances, mortgages and overdrafts; and investments mainly in government securities. The income statements reflected these items in the form of interest paid and received; investment income and other income mainly from foreign exchange transactions.

The survey and empirical evidence indicate however that the banks have moved away from a focus primarily on asset-based core lending and deposit products and now provide a suite of products and services designed to meet “specific market’s needs.” One bank indicated that its products and services have been enhanced to cater directly to segments such as commercial and small business versus retail.

The customer wanting to withdraw money does not have to rush to the bank before it closes, often before lunch, but now has a choice of Automatic Teller Machines available twenty-four hours per day seven days per week. Twenty years later it is normal for banks to offer internet banking, debit cards, local dollar credit cards and international credit cards. Customers of Scotiabank have seen their passbooks replaced by ABM cards and the PIN.

Technology and law
Many of the changes, while driven by customer expectations and a desire for instant everything, were made possible by changes in technology and telephony. Twenty years ago the Chairman of GBTI included as a highlight under the caption Computerisation “extensive research … towards upgrading our Management Information Systems” and the expectation that “the network to be fully operational by the end of 1993.” In 2012, technology rules.

Dramatic changes have also been witnessed in terms of statutory obligations in which even routine company functions like the paying of a dividend has to be sanctioned by the Bank of Guyana which also requires more and more frequent reports; new rules of accounting so that in 1991 notes to the financial statements of NBIC ran to a mere four pages compared with forty-four pages twenty years later. In fact even the auditor’s report has seen its own growth, increasing from five lines twenty years ago to twenty-one pages currently.

To be continued