Respectfully, your article was dates April 25th. Mine was dated yesterday (28th). And it directly refuted both your and the 25th April assertions. The good news? Trump has already walked back his threats of escalating tariffs, as he should, as he was not in the pole position to advance such harsh measures, so it appears that the airliners will be able to restate their position within the next week or so.
That is not what they said. In fact, they said just the opposite: fares are becoming cheaper due to less bookings. They did, however, pull back their financial forecast. You can read it here: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel…
Again, it is a private placement, which, by definition, means that details do not have to be disclosed. That is not inherently corrupt, and it is certainly not illegal. But, as I mentioned in my first post, if the company is attempting a public offering (as suggested that prospectus is with the Securities Commission), then, perforce, the information will be disclosed. Let's wait and see before we start irresponsibly engaging in tabloid gossip.
Never one to let facts get in the way of a good story, are you? Our system does not work the way that Kimsley is describing (as he himself knows). Don't be ignorant, sheeprunner12, though I know that it is hard for you.
Idiot - that is not the way the system works. Please, by all means, be partisan - but have a damn understanding of the system before you talk nonsense on this website.
If, as the article says, the application is before the Securities Commission, then the complete prospectus has not been released to the general public as yet (Commission can't release it until it has been reviewed). So naturally, you will not see in the public domain, the information that you are suggesting. SC will not approve if that info is not in the prospectus. As for your questions regarding the 37% - it was acquired via private placement and, accordingly, legally the names of the owners behind that venture do not have to be disclosed to the public, hence the "private placement".
Well, would you look at that - scenario "B" actually just happened (yesterday. The Bahamas has been given a positive outlook by S&P - Moody's will surely follow, as they collude ratings. Which means a few things, but most importantly: a) borrowing will be cheaper for The Bahamas. So, all things being equal, the government appears to have made the prudent move in using existing capital to pay current debt, then borrowing in the future - at lower interest rates - to service residual existing and future debt. Any first year economics student or first year debt management strategist knows this. Doesn't fit with ExposedU2C's specious, banal drivel, though, so he continues to assert that the sky is falling.
1) You should know where local pension funds are invested, but they are required to disclose such information.
2) Generally, local pension funds cannot invest internationally, absent CBOB approval. There should be a negligible effect to local pensions. (Those affected will almost certainly be high net-worth individuals, who will be able to weather the storm.)
tetelestai says...
Respectfully, your article was dates April 25th. Mine was dated yesterday (28th). And it directly refuted both your and the 25th April assertions.
The good news? Trump has already walked back his threats of escalating tariffs, as he should, as he was not in the pole position to advance such harsh measures, so it appears that the airliners will be able to restate their position within the next week or so.
On ‘Don’t panic’ but brace, hotel workers warned
Posted 29 April 2025, 9:25 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
That is not what they said. In fact, they said just the opposite: fares are becoming cheaper due to less bookings. They did, however, pull back their financial forecast. You can read it here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel…
On ‘Don’t panic’ but brace, hotel workers warned
Posted 29 April 2025, 3:41 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
Again, it is a private placement, which, by definition, means that details do not have to be disclosed. That is not inherently corrupt, and it is certainly not illegal. But, as I mentioned in my first post, if the company is attempting a public offering (as suggested that prospectus is with the Securities Commission), then, perforce, the information will be disclosed. Let's wait and see before we start irresponsibly engaging in tabloid gossip.
On Bahamian investors in $20m power plant ownership offering
Posted 25 April 2025, 10:03 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
Never one to let facts get in the way of a good story, are you? Our system does not work the way that Kimsley is describing (as he himself knows).
Don't be ignorant, sheeprunner12, though I know that it is hard for you.
On ‘Conflict of interest for Glover-Rolle to head Public Service and Labour’
Posted 25 April 2025, 5:42 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
Idiot - that is not the way the system works. Please, by all means, be partisan - but have a damn understanding of the system before you talk nonsense on this website.
On ‘Conflict of interest for Glover-Rolle to head Public Service and Labour’
Posted 25 April 2025, 5:41 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
You support the FNM and make this nonsensical statement? LOL
On Glover-Rolle defends against union chief’s conflict of interest criticism
Posted 25 April 2025, 5:36 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
If, as the article says, the application is before the Securities Commission, then the complete prospectus has not been released to the general public as yet (Commission can't release it until it has been reviewed). So naturally, you will not see in the public domain, the information that you are suggesting. SC will not approve if that info is not in the prospectus. As for your questions regarding the 37% - it was acquired via private placement and, accordingly, legally the names of the owners behind that venture do not have to be disclosed to the public, hence the "private placement".
On Bahamian investors in $20m power plant ownership offering
Posted 25 April 2025, 5:15 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
Yes of course, our financial troubles only began with this iteration of the government.
On PM: Tariffs put country in uncharted territory
Posted 11 April 2025, 3:22 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
Well, would you look at that - scenario "B" actually just happened (yesterday. The Bahamas has been given a positive outlook by S&P - Moody's will surely follow, as they collude ratings. Which means a few things, but most importantly: a) borrowing will be cheaper for The Bahamas. So, all things being equal, the government appears to have made the prudent move in using existing capital to pay current debt, then borrowing in the future - at lower interest rates - to service residual existing and future debt.
Any first year economics student or first year debt management strategist knows this.
Doesn't fit with ExposedU2C's specious, banal drivel, though, so he continues to assert that the sky is falling.
On Gov’t uses $161.5m of bond reserves to finance current debt
Posted 8 April 2025, 3:34 a.m. Suggest removal
tetelestai says...
1) You should know where local pension funds are invested, but they are required to disclose such information.
2) Generally, local pension funds cannot invest internationally, absent CBOB approval. There should be a negligible effect to local pensions. (Those affected will almost certainly be high net-worth individuals, who will be able to weather the storm.)
On Halkitis: Trade war fallout a bigger concern than 10 percent US tariffs
Posted 7 April 2025, 3:49 a.m. Suggest removal