RBC doesnt fit the criteria. RBC is not a Bahamian company. We have no "right" to tax revenue as such. This law targets companies that have their headquarters in foreign domains so they can skip taxes in their home country. RBC is headquartered in Canada, Canada has no reason to say RBC is avoiding paying taxes

One of the things Ive seen since COVID is alot of people with no background in technolog jumping into the space, creating window dressing and proudly pronouncing that *we are now digital*. ClickToClear is a prime example, it was literally heralded with "*theyll have to change the way they work to fit the system*". This is digitilization sacrilege. Now they're forcing brokers to purchase another system to fix the first sysyem

**This is actually comparing apples and oranges, the "offshore" sector is well regulated by the Central Bank, CB had no oversight of FTX. Which is puzzling**. CB has since published a paper pointed to all the **gaps** in the DARE Act and confirming that they will step in now to fill thrm, specifically providing oversight of the Risk Management framework

Not sure if you get the spirit of the treaty. You mention it *might open the door to corporate tax*, this IS a corporate tax. There are some other elements being mixed up as well...

This is a GLOBAL treaty that we've **already** signed on to. It might be a stretch to believe that countries sign the treaty then create local laws to negate the treaty, is such a thing even possible? If it were possible, what black blue gray red list would we appear on next?

Also the objective is actually the **reverse** of what you suggest. I have no idea if RBC meets 750million in revenue threshold, if they do, it is **Canada** who would say even though you send "profits" back, you're not paying all of the taxes you should because you're in the Bahamas.

In addition RBC is **headquartered in Toronto**, so they're not hiding their headquarters in what could be considered a tax haven while making profits off of Canadians. They're physically here because they're physically offering a service. I dont think this treaty targets them.

The law is really meant to stop the bleeding of tax revenue lost to digital giants

I still have questions but I "believe" the intent is if the digital giant makes money selling to a Bahamain, the Bahamian govt would get a share of the 15% tax through some revenue sharing algorithm. Not sure....

"*newly released analysis notes the proposed global minimum tax – which The Bahamas, along with 136 other jurisdictions, has agreed to implement – is now expected to result in annual global revenue gains of around $220 billion, up from the OECD’s previous estimate of $150 billion*" nassau guardian

So wherever your company is headquartered in the world, you will be subject to a minimum tax of 15% and those tax dollars will be sent back to your home country. This applies to companies making 750 million euros.

I wonder how this pans out. Does it currently affect us at all? Seems like a grab at the digital giants like google and Amazon. They mention that developing countries will gain the most in proportion to existing revenues, but that sounds like fancy talk, for you een making much now anyway so whatever we give you will seem like alot.

If companies are registered here because we're a low tax jurisdiction but this new law says they get taxed anyway what percentage of those companies will see no benefit in registering here after 2024 implementation? And if they leave our share of 15% minimum will be exactly $0 dollars no matter the fancy estimates. I hope someone did the analysis and we didnt just sign because THEY said it would be goestimates. But... we need to move from 100% dependency on taxes anyway.. not sure how we make the leap, not because we cant, but because we typically elect presentation over substance, they then do their darndest to block substance from moving forward and supplanting them, stiffling innovation

Someone turned on a lightbulb for me. They said "*it is exactly 2 weeks after which thousands congregated at junkanoo*". Would be interesting to find out the percentage of this influx of cases that represent respiratory emergencies and benchmark against years when we did and did not congregate in a similar fashion

I wondered if anyone else got it. I dont know who approves these things. We brag about our tourism numbers, and what's the biggest draw? Our "water", but somebody in some ivory tower, looking at a computer screen calculating that they could make 6000 per month in billboard revenue if we hide the seaview with giant pictures of the seaview. The backwards thinking never ceases to amaze me.

My mind just ran on days being picked up from school and driven over a giant hill near Gladstone road, I recall it was a very steep descent off that hill rivaling any natural rise we have today. I dont even remember the exact location of the hill, I just know it's gone. What are we doing???

I wonder if any customers will launch a suit against the SCB for dereliction of their fiduciary duty...

The more I think about it, this is extremely weird. Why wasnt the Central Bank involved in oversight? This is what they do. Is it possible that Sam **told** the PM, as the CEO of Albany told PM Minnis, *stay out of our business*?

"*given FTX’s lack of accounting and corporate records, systems and near-total absence of corporate governance. *"

**Anyone who's participated in a Central Bank audit understands what a monumental failure this was on the part of the SCB**. The CB looks at roles, separation of roles, systems, what's captured by systems, processes, monitoring processes, who has access to what and risk.

Companies regard CB audits with great trepidation and put priority one on ensuring that all people and systems are in place and ready for the audit. This goes on months in advance, it is no small task. The fact that Sam was in the corner calculating margins said he had no such fear.

There is literally no way the SCB conducted any regulatory oversight of a company that would have seen them operating in this unprofessional manner in Nov 2022 with the SCB unable to even provide basic info like how many clients they had registered and what was the valuation of the portfolio. I also have a sinking suspicion that even those basic questions were prompted by the AG asking the SCB questions they couldnt answer.

**The Central Bank would have taken this company's license on Day-2... maybe Day 0.3**. PM Davis can only go around the world and brag about the strong regulatory framework because he does not understand fully the colossal scale of what happened.. more like, did not happen, here.