Skip to main content

Who owns the debt in Amaila?

August 18, 2013 | By | Filed Under Letters 

 

 

Dear Editor,
President Ramotar has stated that the Amaila Falls project would not incur any national debt to Guyana’s Treasury /tax payers. This cannot be the case because the Government has requested Parliamentary approval to pay from the Treasury up to GUY $150.0 billion or US$750.0 million for default payments to Amaila by Guyana Power and Light (GPL), signaling that the Treasury would have to record this liability on the national books. Further, with Sithe Global/Blackstone (SB) seeking to get 100 percent ‘buy-in’ from all Parliamentary parties, this is implicitly a non-revocable guarantee from the Treasury that is better than political risk insurance bought in financial markets. As a result, it would be useful to examine the paper work or certificate issued for the incorporation of Amaila as this would bring clarity to many outstanding issues; and this information should be placed in the public domain.
The rationale for political and financial guarantees in this project is based on the fact that Guyana Power and Light (GPL) is currently not a financially viable company that can generate large cash-flows sufficient enough to pay in full and on-time its debts to Amaila. Evidence suggests that GPL has not been a profitable undertaking for many years and recent audited reports show that it made losses instead of profits, despite its almost monopoly status in the economy. Evidence will also show that GPL financing for capital works are covered by the Treasury, once Parliament approves those requests made by the Ministry of Finance. These are Treasury transfers with no repayment terms; hence, the need for Treasury guarantees for Amaila as any financial dependency on GPL will be misguided and a high risk for investors.
Usually, investments are paid for with what we own (equity) and what we owe (debt). Specifically: Investment = Debt + Equity. In the Amaila project, the total investment cost according to the government is US$858.0 million of which the government equity contribution is US$100.00 million (US $80.0 million from Redd funds; and US$20.0 million from the Treasury), with remainder of US$ 758.0 million as debt from Sithe Global/ Blackstone (SB) at US$150.0 million; China Development Bank (CDB) at US$500.0 million; the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) at US$100.0 million and an unknown lender, yet to be declared, at US$8.0 million; this should be clarified by government.
The rule in investment projects is that the higher the risk, the higher the return. This however does not seem to be the case in the Amaila project. Specifically, the government initial guarantee of GUY$150.0 billion is equivalent to US$750.0 million (US$1= GUY $2.00), implying that all foreign lenders are covered by Guyanese tax payers through the guarantee issued by the Guyana Treasury. The main implication of this guarantee is that all the debt and risk
(US$758.0 million) are solely owned by the government and there is no risk to the lenders: SB, IADB, and CDB. More intriguing is the fact that SB is guaranteed a rate of return of 19 percent for no risk, while the government has all the risk, but we do not know the rate of return on its investment as it has not been publicized. This need to be corrected and the calculations made public.
Finally, the fact that the approved amount by Parliament for the guarantee was less than US$758.0 million and there was no consensus by Parliament endorsing the project unreservedly indicates that the risk exposure was too great for at least one investor who walked away. Given these concerns, President Ramotar cannot be right about who owns the debt in Amaila.
C. Kenrick Hunte

 

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 

quote:



The rule in investment projects is that the higher the risk, the higher the return. This however does not seem to be the case in the Amaila project. Specifically, the government initial guarantee of GUY$150.0 billion is equivalent to US$750.0 million (US$1= GUY $2.00), implying that all foreign lenders are covered by Guyanese tax payers through the guarantee issued by the Guyana Treasury.

~~~~~The main implication of this guarantee is that all the debt and risk

(US$758.0 million) are solely owned by the government and there is no risk to the lenders

~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Risk management is not that simplistic as he mentions.  Risk metrics is a science and a full time occupation nowadays. VAR models, LTCM, all help to determine confidence level and the price of risk.

 

The fact is, if there was no risk as he claims, only a fool would walk away from an investment. SB is certainly no fool. 

 

FM
Originally Posted by TI:
The fact is, if there was no risk as he claims, only a fool would walk away from an investment.

Correct, .. Risks are in every aspect of life; simply getting out of bed is a risk.

FM
Originally Posted by TI:

 

quote:



The rule in investment projects is that the higher the risk, the higher the return. This however does not seem to be the case in the Amaila project. Specifically, the government initial guarantee of GUY$150.0 billion is equivalent to US$750.0 million (US$1= GUY $2.00), implying that all foreign lenders are covered by Guyanese tax payers through the guarantee issued by the Guyana Treasury.

~~~~~The main implication of this guarantee is that all the debt and risk

(US$758.0 million) are solely owned by the government and there is no risk to the lenders

~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Risk management is not that simplistic as he mentions.  Risk metrics is a science and a full time occupation nowadays. VAR models, LTCM, all help to determine confidence level and the price of risk.

 

The fact is, if there was no risk as he claims, only a fool would walk away from an investment. SB is certainly no fool. 

 

It's not VAR its VaR. And by the way VaR is a crappy risk management model. 

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by TI:
The fact is, if there was no risk as he claims, only a fool would walk away from an investment.

Correct, .. Risks are in every aspect of life; simply getting out of bed is a risk.

its all depends who bed you getting out of like the ppp is in any crookish bed the people walk because this bed was getting too hot for them now the ppp is left holding the bag and losing respect from they supporters very fast

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by TI:
The fact is, if there was no risk as he claims, only a fool would walk away from an investment.

Correct, .. Risks are in every aspect of life; simply getting out of bed is a risk.


For you it could be a D_G task.

Mitwah

According to George Bush Jr thinking.  If you owe lots of money you do not have a problem.  You can sleep sound at night because it is the lender that has the problem.  But we have to remember this. There is no such thing as good or bad debt.  You are basically borrowing money on your future earnings.  That is if you will have future earnings.

FM

I will give you a list of Businesses that have zero debt.

 

1. Master Card.

  

 

2. Bed, Bath and Beyond.

 

 

3. Apple.

 

 

4. T.Rowe Price.

 

 

5. LSI

 

 

6. Amazon.com

 

 

7. Citrix.

 

 

 

FM
Last edited by Former Member

I find it very ironic that the company Master Card that put so many peope in debt got no debt themselves.  That's capitalism for you.  I would like Baseman, Cobra and Stormborn to explain that one.

FM
Originally Posted by Wally:

I find it very ironic that the company Master Card that put so many peope in debt got no debt themselves.  That's capitalism for you.  I would like Baseman, Cobra and Stormborn to explain that one.

Master card does not spend, it finances spending.  Those who spend more than they work for enjoys the spoils of their spending and needs to pay up. Don't blame Master Card for people going in debt, the people have the choice and judgement.  Master Card and others play an important role in facilitating transactions, convenience and security.

 

People should listen to Susan Orman and they will not get into trouble.

FM

Wally, you own Apple stock?

 

Why is Apple making this comment?

The company intends to issue debt that includes floating- rate notes maturing in 2016 and 2018 and fixed-rate securities due in 2016, 2018, 2023 and 2043, Apple said today in a regulatory filing. Proceeds may help Cupertino, California-based Apple avoid so-called repatriation taxes on its $102.3 billion of funds held overseas as it returns an additional $55 billion to shareholders through 2015 to compensate for a stock that’s been hammered by signs of slowing growth.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

Without debt the entire world would fall apart.

FM

I owned Apple stock once. I sold it a long time ago together with my Tyson Chicken stock around the time of the American invasion of Iraq.  I was thinking then that I got a good price for those two companies because I had doubled my money.  Looking back now I realized what a bad mistake I made.  Well win some, lose some I guess.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Wally:

I find it very ironic that the company Master Card that put so many peope in debt got no debt themselves.  That's capitalism for you.  I would like Baseman, Cobra and Stormborn to explain that one.

Master card does not spend, it finances spending.  Those who spend more than they work for enjoys the spoils of their spending and needs to pay up. Don't blame Master Card for people going in debt, the people have the choice and judgement.  Master Card and others play an important role in facilitating transactions, convenience and security.

 

People should listen to Susan Orman and they will not get into trouble.

Susan was one time bankrupt so it would be good to learn from her. 

FM
Originally Posted by Wally:

 

I agree with Susie.  Save your money and then invest with it in low risk situations. I like some of Susie's approaches.  For example, she supports investing in stocks of companies that own vast amounts of intellectual property which generate royalties that they pay out as dividends. For example, if you look at companies like Universal Music Group (before they were bought out) or Getty Images you will see the vast amount of publishing rights that those companies own which can generate huge amounts of royalities. I think the woman knows what she is talking about "slow but sure"  

 

 

FM
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

Saving is better than spending beyond your means.  After saving, then you can talk investment.

FM
Originally Posted by Wally:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Wally:

I find it very ironic that the company Master Card that put so many peope in debt got no debt themselves.  That's capitalism for you.  I would like Baseman, Cobra and Stormborn to explain that one.

Master card does not spend, it finances spending.  Those who spend more than they work for enjoys the spoils of their spending and needs to pay up. Don't blame Master Card for people going in debt, the people have the choice and judgement.  Master Card and others play an important role in facilitating transactions, convenience and security.

 

People should listen to Susan Orman and they will not get into trouble.

Susan was one time bankrupt so it would be good to learn from her. 

You should also listen to baseman, and you will not get into financial trouble.  I cannot say the same for political.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

Saving is better than spending beyond your means.  After saving, then you can talk investment.

Investing is not spending beyond your means. If you form a Corporation, pay yourself, and use OPM for investments, you are having your cake and eating it.  This is why companies issue bonds. They use bond holders money to fund their business.  I have never yet seen wealth created without some form of debt or loan. if you want to get rich, get an idea, then get others to finance it. 

FM
Originally Posted by Wally:
Originally Posted by Wally:

 

I agree with Susie.  Save your money and then invest with it in low risk situations. I like some of Susie's approaches.  For example, she supports investing in stocks of companies that own vast amounts of intellectual property which generate royalties that they pay out as dividends. For example, if you look at companies like Universal Music Group (before they were bought out) or Getty Images you will see the vast amount of publishing rights that those companies own which can generate huge amounts of royalities. I think the woman knows what she is talking about "slow but sure"  

 

 

No stock is low risk, some are less volatile than others. When the market tanks, it is across the board. You cant get rich off stocks unless you have at least $2 million and actively trading in stocks. You have to be careful listening to these TV people. Their job is to promote their tv shows and their books.

my advice...if you want to get rich, invest in real estate with cash flow in good locations. Form a corporation, and if you get big, go public.  Then you can seriously consider stocks.

 

FM
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

That's the way to do it.  I get 18 - 20% ROI and pay out about 5 - 8%.  Look at opportunities with residual income that can pass on to generations to come.

Mitwah
Originally Posted by TI:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

Saving is better than spending beyond your means.  After saving, then you can talk investment.

Investing is not spending beyond your means. If you form a Corporation, pay yourself, and use OPM for investments, you are having your cake and eating it.  This is why companies issue bonds. They use bond holders money to fund their business.  I have never yet seen wealth created without some form of debt or loan. if you want to get rich, get an idea, then get others to finance it. 

I said spending, not investing.  The other stuff you talk about is hogwash to the average working man.  The average working man has to live within his means and invest in growth funds and growth stocks and pension.  The earlier the better.  The problem is many spend most of what they earn and will always be behind the 8th ball.

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TI:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

Saving is better than spending beyond your means.  After saving, then you can talk investment.

Investing is not spending beyond your means. If you form a Corporation, pay yourself, and use OPM for investments, you are having your cake and eating it.  This is why companies issue bonds. They use bond holders money to fund their business.  I have never yet seen wealth created without some form of debt or loan. if you want to get rich, get an idea, then get others to finance it. 

I said spending, not investing.  The other stuff you talk about is hogwash to the average working man.  The average working man has to live within his means and invest in growth funds and growth stocks and pension.  The earlier the better.  The problem is many spend most of what they earn and will always be behind the 8th ball.


And they spend it on coffee, cigarettes and booz. The average man does not understand the rule of 72 and the power of compounding.

Mitwah
Originally Posted by Mitwah:
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

That's the way to do it.  I get 18 - 20% ROI and pay out about 5 - 8%.  Look at opportunities with residual income that can pass on to generations to come.

Could you please explain the arithmatic of the 18-20% ROI and how it relates to the 5-8% interest rate!

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Mitwah:
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

That's the way to do it.  I get 18 - 20% ROI and pay out about 5 - 8%.  Look at opportunities with residual income that can pass on to generations to come.

Could you please explain the arithmatic of the 18-20% ROI and how it relates to the 5-8% interest rate!

On a $10,000 investment, a payment of $150 - $167 per month is 18-20% ROI before the payout, which could be $50 - $67 which is 5-8%. So you can make $100 per month on OPM. That's what the Banks do and they are able to make 13 turns; if you can do this, then divide 72 by your net ROI and it will tell you how many years it will take you to double your net worth or capital which is OPM.
TI understands this.

Mitwah
Originally Posted by Mitwah:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Mitwah:
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

That's the way to do it.  I get 18 - 20% ROI and pay out about 5 - 8%.  Look at opportunities with residual income that can pass on to generations to come.

Could you please explain the arithmatic of the 18-20% ROI and how it relates to the 5-8% interest rate!

On a $10,000 investment, a payment of $150 - $167 per month is 18-20% ROI before the payout, which could be $50 - $67 which is 5-8%. So you can make $100 per month on OPM. That's what the Banks do and they are able to make 13 turns; if you can do this, then divide 72 by your net ROI and it will tell you how many years it will take you to double your net worth or capital which is OPM.
TI understands this.

I don't get it, so are you saying ROI= interest rate charged by the investor?  Are you pulling off a Sase/Rose confusionist lies?

 

You are a fool, real fool if you confuse ROI with interest rate!

 

Was Sithe an equity of debt investor in Amelia?

FM
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Mitwah:
Originally Posted by baseman:
Originally Posted by Mitwah:
Originally Posted by TI:

If you listen to Susie Orman, you wouldn't get rich.  She advises people to save, not how to create wealth. Wealth is created by OPM.

 

That's the way to do it.  I get 18 - 20% ROI and pay out about 5 - 8%.  Look at opportunities with residual income that can pass on to generations to come.

Could you please explain the arithmatic of the 18-20% ROI and how it relates to the 5-8% interest rate!

On a $10,000 investment, a payment of $150 - $167 per month is 18-20% ROI before the payout, which could be $50 - $67 which is 5-8%. So you can make $100 per month on OPM. That's what the Banks do and they are able to make 13 turns; if you can do this, then divide 72 by your net ROI and it will tell you how many years it will take you to double your net worth or capital which is OPM.
TI understands this.

I don't get it, so are you saying ROI= interest rate charged by the investor?  Are you pulling off a Sase/Rose confusionist lies?

 

You are a fool, real fool if you confuse ROI with interest rate!

 

Was Sithe an equity of debt investor in Amelia?

I don't know anything about "equity of debt investor".

 

Interest rate, participation fees,management fees, ??? fees, equity/ debt... I don't care about semantics. At the end of the day, did my net worth increase? Take a look at discounted bonds and you will see what is ROI versus Interest. The banks and other financial Institutions use OPM to create wealth. Why can't you do the same?

Mitwah
Originally Posted by TI:
Rule of 72. What matters is positive cash flow. I don't believe in scrimping and saving.

You are a wise person. I have seen too many become a slave to the numbers and morphed into financial hoarders. Life is all about balance. Take some time off.. go to Baganara  and enjoy your successes and reflect on your past achievements and past failures and plan your next strategies.

Mitwah

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×