29 August, 2007

Social Insecurity

At Last! The 2003 Accounts.

I recently received a message that the long overdue Social Security Annual Report for the year 2003 has been published. I had a look at the website. The letter of transmittal and other reports are undated. We have to assume that the Minister received the Report when it was published, in August 2007. I would have thought this was a tad in arrears for a Social Security Board?

My correspondent was not impressed. He sent me a query he had received recently. I shall publish his response at a later date. This is what the query he received said:

We finally get to see the Social Security Annual Report for 2003. As expected, it is not very revealing. How much does Tim earn? You tell me:


2003 $$

2002 $$

Salaries & Allowances of Admin staff



Allowances & Expenses of the Board



Other Expenses of Administration



Other Expenses






This trough has room for countless snouts.

They have over $14 million in a Smith Barney account. In 2002 it lost over $3.5 million. Madre de Dios!

They own an unstated number of vehicles, having a total depreciated value of $69,000+ at the beginning of 2003. I don't know what they cost, or how many of them are devoted to Tim's "official" use.

They spend, very roughly, $4 million a year to give out $3 million in benefits. This does not include the Development Fund.

The Development Fund gave a $100,000 grant to the Jazz Festival.

What else do you see here that might interest Don? He has a somewhat limited fascination for financial statements.

Is this what they call a faith based initiative?

Yours faithfully etc,

I know that Director Tim Hodge honestly believes that Social Security is transparent and likety-splick clean. However, the Social Security fund is one of the largest honey pots of potential for misuse on the island. There must be few funds, other than the government’s total income housed in the Consolidated Fund and the entire asset base of one of our major banks, that are larger than the public monies held in trust by the Social Security Board. To this end, the Board must expect that its accounts will be subject to the most stringent examination and analysis. Tim is an old friend of mine. But, old friendships must not be permitted to stand in the way of rigorous examination of the accountability of the Board for the funds upon which future generations of employees must depend. The Social Security Board has no shareholders meeting to face questions. It is all the more incumbent on them to provide us with the fullest details of where our money is invested and what is being done with it.

I have to agree with my correspondent that the explanation of administrative costs published on Social Security's website, no matter how acceptable it is to the accounting profession, should not be acceptable to us here in Anguilla. Later, my correspondent's response to the above letter.


  1. Well, I too am interested in Social Security Annual reports. I believe timely reports should be part of performance pay for any Director. Tim has failed us miserably. What is taking Mr. Hodge so long to update the reports page on the website. He is assuming we all can go and look up reports in his office or the library. There is no reason why the public should not have access to what foreign investment funds the scheme has invested our money.

    I would ask Mr. Hodge to look at St. Lucia Social Security website and tell us if he thinks he deserve his money. I am absolutely outraged that they cannot hire a Computer systems specialist. Our money is being wasted on frivilous projects and we have no say in the matter. The entire approach to Statuatory Boards, accountability and transparency need revisiting.

    All the expert accounting and auditing could not save ENRON. I afraid I am a skeptic and willl not share Mr. Hodge's optimism and confidence about actuarial excercises. They are spending way too much money for the lack of transparency we are getting., Why can't they spend some of that money creating a social security database and online system. Why can't employees view their contributions online? Also invest in internal staff training. I cannot understand how this Board can have a website whereby some staff members cannot furnish a picture. Social security should be the leader in technology. For heavens sake hire an Indian software company to design a modern system, if experts on island are too busy.

    Who are the members of the Investment Committee? How much of social security is invested in foreign stocks? How much is invested in various companies? Do they invest more than 5% in any one company? I suppose Tim wants me to visit his office to get these answers.

    Someone please explain to me, why Anguilla has so many operations clerks, managers and other inflated employee titles when across the region they have less. Where are the accountants, Computer specialist, etc. Explain to me, why Anguilla Security has more staff than the bigger islands with more workers. The BVI whose monetary holdings is much more than that of Anguilla's has less staff. And they have many more workers than us. Are we paying Tim for productivity or quantity? If we in AXA don't start taking mangement and leadership seriously, we will pay for it in years to come.

    The Director claimed to have pattern our scheme from that of the BVI. It's a pity he did not patterned the BVI transparency model also.
    See: www.bvissb.vg

  2. This was the response by my correspondent to the queries raised in the post. [The bits between brackets are my comments]:

    "You've skillfully identified what I would consider to be the main parts of the report in your message - fascinating stuff.

    These days, publicly quoted companies list the benefits earned by key individuals (such as Tim) by name; the disclosure level in the Social Security Board is therefore archaic and not in line with current best practice regarding corporate governance.

    One problem seems to be the number of directors of the SS Board who are also directors of NBA. I can only assume that this was a factor in deciding to hand certain investment responsibilities and authority to Smith Barney, who have operated the investment programme for NBA customers for many years. [Is this fair? I am sure that Smith Barney had to compete for the right to advise on the investment of the funds. On the original point of the value of the investment having gone down, that is the nature of the market. Sometimes it is up, sometimes it is down. You only know if you have lost when you sell. Until then, you have not lost anything.]

    The level of investment in local banks is huge. They would argue that they have diversified and minimized risk by putting $x in CDs at NBA, $y at CCB, and $z at First Caribbean. Others might suggest that they should be investing a hefty part of this outside of Anguilla itself in order to mitigate risk. [That is the whole point of the Smith Barney connection. Using Smith Barney to access the US stock market spreads the risk overseas and ensures financial safety. The main point is well taken. Should Social Security keep so much money in cash? The US dollar lost one quarter of its value in 2006 alone.]

    The notes to the accounts do not say what the reporting currency is. However we can see, from the Investment Schedule, that it is EC$. The cost of the vehicle(s) is EC$69,436, which is just over US$25K. At the end of 2003, it had one year's depreciation left to go. Note 8 does not say how many years the vehicle is written off (bad presentation/disclosure) but we can see that there had been 3 years before the current year by reference to the brought forward figure. Accordingly it is being depreciated over 5 years and so would have been acquired by the SS Board in, or just before, 2000. I wonder if it/they are still being used.

    I'd say that the ratio of admin costs to benefits is unacceptably high, but this needs to be compared to other SS Institutions in the region or elsewhere in the world to see if their ratios are the same or different.

    As an employer/employee/contributor, I question the right of the SS Board or the enabling legislation to take my contributions and then to give them away to what the SS Board consider to be worthy causes such as the Tranquility Jazz Festival."


  3. On page 30 it says:

    "As described in the accounting policies, the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the historical cost convention on the basis of cash receipts and disbursements while presenting certain transactions on an accruals basis. This presentation is consistent with that of the previous years."

    And on page 39:

    "These financial statements have been prepared on a modified basis of cash receipts and disbursements, consequently, certain revenue and the related assets are recognized when received rather than when earned. Outstanding amounts relating to investment income and rental fees are treated on an accrual basis - See note 9."

    It is unusual for a set of accounting statements to be prepared on part-cash and part-accrual basis. It's usually cash-based or accrual-based.

    Unfortunately, past due and uncollectible contributions are not treated on a cash basis. In fact, as far as I can find in this entire 52 page Annual Report, they are not accounted for, they are not quantified and in fact, they are not even mentioned!

    If an establishment owes money to Social Security the next thing that should be done is to quantify the amount due and, if necessary, provide a provision for uncollectible debts against it which would result in a net (expected) amount due. A merchant does not disregard sales simply because a customer has not paid or thinks he has slipped under the radar.

  4. I wonder how much uncollected money is on the books at Social Security. My concern is that if the Finance Ministry fails to ensure that Social Security is collecting its contributions, then the employee who thought he was going to get a pension is sent to the Social Services Ministry, who knew nothing about the problem, so that the person can get welfare for the rest of his life.

    Seems to me Tim should spend less time going to ceremonies, and less money on public relations, and more emphasis on collecting the money employers have deducted from employees checks.

    If nobody's enforcing the laws, we can't expect employers to be very concerned about obeying them.

  5. Victor was on the radio Monday. Elkin asked him about the Indians. If they're only getting $6 a day, but have a "benefits package" of $1,000 a month, Social Security gets only $18 a month. Victor said contributions are payable only on the cash component actually paid.

    I had thought otherwise, although I don't remember why I think that. If Elkin thought Victor was mistaken, he was very quiet about it.

  6. Why is the 2001 Annual Report "coming soon?
    It's been coming soon for years. Why do I have similar feelings about both Social Security and NICA?

  7. Travel expenses for Asian workers are included in their labour contracts, as a requirement of the Labour Department.

    If an Indian worker is paid $180.00 net per month, but his total package is worth $1,500.00, and if that is the amount on which his Social Security contribution is computed, both he and his employer would each pay 5%, or $75.00. That would be over 41% of his net wages.

    The chance of his ever benefiting from Anguilla Social Security is somewhat less than his flying to the moon.

    If his employer has to pay $75.00 a month for each employee, and there are 400 Indians, that's $360,000.00 a year. As Maglan Richardson of Social Security said on Elkin's programme last year, "That's extremely a lot."

    In fact, it's enough to make any employer want to put pressure on the Minister of Finance to redefine the amount subject to Social Security contributions.

  8. Social Security have published lots of leaflets to inform employees and employers of their rights and obligations, seeing as most of them do not have, or can be bothered with getting, access to the legislation.

    A green one page document, "Know Your Social Security Regulations", says:


    Wages shall consist of all pecuniary emoluments paid to or on behalf of the Employee including:

    a) Overtime payments
    b) Cost of living payments
    c) Commissions for profit on sales
    d) Payments for night or shift work
    e) Holiday pay or other amount set aside out of the Employee's remuneration
    throughout the year, or part of the year paid to him periodically.”

    I have not seen the Regulations so it is quite possible there is a better definition there and the above is a dumbed-down version. In the above text, I would suggest that the relevant words are: "Wages shall consist of all pecuniary emoluments paid ... on behalf of the Employee" Certainly in places like SXM and in most or all income-tax paying countries, benefits in kind, such as accommodation and meals are taxable. This makes sense in the Social Security context too. For example, I could employ you for $3000 a month and I'd expect to pay Social Security Contributions on that. Or, in an effort to evade or avoid my Social Security outgo, I could rent an apartment from Albert Lake for $2000 and then pay you $1000 in cash. Would I be within the law to pay Social Security contributions on the $1000? Based on the document quoted above, I do not think so. Less certain would be the situation regarding airfares for employees paid for by employers. If it is part of the employment contract (employer pays for annual R&R trips) the answer should obviously be "Yes". If it is the mobilization and demobilization element I suppose a case could be made for saying that it is a government-imposed expense (like work permit fees) although the simplest answer would be to treat it as an employee-related expense and therefore one-time assessable.

    If Social Security Administration worked more closely with Labour Dept and both of them insisted on being given a copy of any signed employment contract, they could get a grip on this. It would be very employer-unfriendly and provoke howls of outrage from certain quarters.

  9. Hi Don

    This is Tim Hodge. Unlike your correspondents who in typical Anguillian style "throw stones and hide their hands" I have no difficulty in identifying myself. But I do understand particularly when certain persons are more interested in mischief or nonsense than genuine answers to genuine questions. I just hope that if I get into a cycle of questions and response this time around you publish my responses instead of choosing which you think warrant publishing and then have me accused of failing to answer in spite of my protestations. As to the questions/comments. I too am upset/pissed that the reports are not posted on time/partially posted on the website/coming soon etc. I have promised to have this corrected, after all the purpose of the website is to post information in an accurate and timely manner. I have said last time around that the website has been completely revamped and unfortunately somethings have gotten messed up, etc. However to say that one can assume that the complete 2003 report being posted means that it has only now been submitted to the Minister is mischeivous and ridiculous. After all it was properly posted on the previous website years ago. And website postings, which are not statutorily required by the way, have nothing to do with the submission to the Minister/House of Assembly. However, I will admit that the reports are all submitted late, because of delays in submission of the Audit, and then even more delays waiting for the report of the Chief Auditor (in the UK) on the Accounts. So, our 2006 Audit Reports have not yet been received. But your correspondent blames me, says I shouldnt get paid! And someone asks how much I get paid - approximately what a Permanent Secretary in Government does so thats easy to check. Your correspondent seems to suggest that we hire computer technicians dedicated to the website. I guess he hasnt thought before making that statement - especially if he wants me to run an efficient organization. The website issues will be sorted out, but I cant hire an elephant to kill an ant.

    Then I anm asked to look at the websites of St. Lucia and the BVI and compare. Well, the St. Lucia website wont tell you that the most professional and competent Director hasnt had her contract renewed (read she was fired). So are you trying to present that as exemplary? And the BVI website doesnt, if you think about it before you write, contain the staff structure, only the management staff, so wrong again. Their staff is larger than ours. And by the way, they dont have a single annual report on their site, so who's better, our problems with trying to show all or their not showing any?

    Thanks Don for trying to help your correspondents with understanding stock markets etc, as you say you dont actually lose money until you sell, so what are shown are unrealized losses which were corrected when the market corrected. I guess there's more to answer as I have time, (such as how many cars I drive at the same time) but thats all for now.

  10. It is true that the 2003 Annual Report was posted on the old website. What Tim fails to mention is that he or somone intentionally omitted the financial statement from the report, leaving only hype.

    He offers the excuse that audit approval has contributed to the delay. The Eastern Caribbean Central Bank posts their financial statements quite promptly and notes that they are unaudited. This shows a level of confidence in what they're doing. I find it regrettable that Tim lacks such confidence in the staff and accountants.

    Always the statesman, Tim blames others for the delay in posting the 2003 report. He fails to say why the 2001 report is "coming soon". Tim, this is not a drug store you're running here; this is the money that the less fortunate of our neighbours are counting on to survive when they are no longer able to work. This is about them, not your reputation. If you don't understand this, look in your Bible.

    The people are entitled to know not only what Tim gets in wages, but what other benefits and allowances he receives, and what their value is. How many vehicles does the Board own and who customarily uses them? How much is paid for travel, entertainment and other allowances and expenses and what benefit do we, the people, derive therefrom?

    I want to know about past due, uncollected monies owed to the Board. I want to know who owes rent from 1999 or earlier and what Tim is doing about it. By "who" I mean "what are their names?" I want to know what employers are deducting Social Security from the wages they pay, and then failing to pay this money over to the Board. I consider this theft and believe such people should be in prison. Who are they and why are you protecting them, Tim?

  11. Tim here again. I would like to know one thing, who is this person that wants to know so much and cant even put down his (or her) name? And who makes this person so assured when so often he is proved wrong? Doesnt he/she think its time they stop making stupid statements without any corroborating eveidence, such as "he or somone intentionally omitted the financial statement from the report, leaving only hype". Oh, we can post our unaudited financial statements, except that we would then probably face some other stupid statement/question, so we prefer to subject ourselves to the audit of KPMG, an international audit firm, as well as the Chief Auditor of the National Audit Office, UK. Thats how confident in our operations we are. I guess damned if you do, damned if you dont. About posting of the reports, I must blame someone else. To begin with, the reports were not prepared for a website. They were prepared for print. Secondly they were not printed in Anguilla and the files on the printers' computers couldnt be located. You wouldnt believe how much times I have cussed and fumed about the incomplete presentation of reports on our website. But I forget that you know when people intentionally do things, so I guess you know this too already, sorry for boring you. I guess I should be totally non-transparent and take them off the website altogether, and let you conspiracy theorists have a field day.

    There are many copies of the annual reports here in the office if you can get up from your computer and ask for one. They are not "coming soon", it was hoped they would be on the website soon. They have existed for years in printed form. And please stop being hung up on what I get paid etc, its not that much. If you so want to know come and ask me, for sure the Board presents in internationally acccepted fashion all its accounts and they are there for the world to see. About amounts due to the Board, the Office takes defaulters to court, so be assured no-one and certainly not me protects them. It is my job to collect these monies, so no need to tell me that. You want to know their names, check the court records. If anyone wants to know whether their employer has paid for them, all they have to do is enquire at the office and they get an instantaneous answer. By the way, if you are so hung up on names, whats yours? And why are you so abrasive anyway? Its not a drugstore you are running, Tim. How much you get Tim? Tim, ever the statesman. How many cars you drive at the same time Tim? Why you lack confidence in accountants/staff Tim? Why you hire more people than the BVI Tim (WRONG AGAIN.) Do you dream about Tim at nights? Why not just come in and ask all the questions and get knowledge rather than spouting off and proving that you dont. And you dont even have to tell me your name if you dont want to.

  12. When the British take us for fools, we assume it is due to historical presumptions and congenital prejudice. But when our own Director of Social Security does the same, what assumptions are we to make of his behaviour?

  13. I want to thank Tim for responding. You are one of the few people that will clarify your position publicly. I disagree with your approach to the comments about the Social Security institution but that's all I will say for now. Your attack on semantics is typical of leaders who rather use purfuctory verbosity to address customers concerns. Always remember great leaders never see criticisms as personal attacks. If the public are provided with facts and timely reports, they will not to resort to conjecture.

  14. To paraphrase Michael Corleone in The Godfather, "It's not personal, Tim. It's strictly business."

    The people are asking questions about the people's business. They deserve public answers in a public forum. Answer the people's questions.

  15. This kind of concealment, lack of open government and resentment of those who dare to ask questions is the example we set for the youth. The government that consents to Tim's evasive whining is the same government that admonishes us for failing to come forward with information for the police.

    On the radio this morning, Ijahnya commented that people complain that some of our young people are "deviant." "Deviant from what?" she asked. "Look at the adults. Is their behaviour any different from the young people?"

    Tim would say I'm being biased and unreasonable. Yes, I admit there are differences. Wrongdoing can be done with a gun, a knife or a pen.

    Is Tim involved in wrongdoing at Social Security? A complicated question, but many of the answers should be in the Annual Report. They are not. I know of no reason this information is not available to us, except to conceal something. I wonder what it is.

  16. Tim again, thanks for the last posts. I apologize if I appeared to respond with "purfunctory verbosity". Thats not typical me, neither is it typical me to want to respond in a high-handed manner. So, I apologize. But how come no-one attacks the writer who makes a statement such as "What Tim fails to mention is that he or somone intentionally omitted the financial statement from the report, leaving only hype." Among other nonsensical and untruthful statements-For example, one looks at the BVI website, sees (ONLY) management staff there, and compares THOSE NUMBERS with our entire staff. There is so much wrong and silly in the statement I quoted and the others that its funny no-one thinks it is wrong on their part. And I have said over and over again that it was an issue of putting a file on the website, and it was there on the old website, the website was updated, the wrong file was put back up and it has taken a while which was purely maddening for me, to be corrected. Why do our people have to be conspiracy theorists, and when they elicit responses from someone like me who wants to see our people conduct their affairs more fairly and maturely, I get scolded. (By the way a little scolding is good). I have said before that what was left in the report is not hype, its the analysis of performance in words that the financials present in figures. But if thats good, its hype. What do you really respond to things like that? Why would I or someone intentionally do that when the reports are readily available, and all one has to do is come to the office and pick one up? They have been laid before the House of Assembly, etc. etc. So to the writer who says respond to the questions, I really should, like the same writer says, go to the Bible, which tells how one should answer such, i.e. dont! This institution is leading the way in putting its reports there for the public to see, and someone says we have things to hide!! If that was so it would be so easy to do like the rest and publish nothing or put nothing on the website. The Anguilla Social Security System has a proud history of performance and quite to the contrary of intentionally hiding, we want to put it out there for all to see, not to boast but so that persons can have confidence that the system is strong and sustainble as it has consisently been determined by the experts to be! As to the presentation of financial statements, every year standards are changing and so as we publish more recent accounts there will be different treatment of disclosure such as executive salaries, etc. Rest assured that KPMG will ensure that whatever has to be discloded will be disclosed, and also rest assured that whatever is there we are proud of. The System's assets at the end of 2003 were $111 million, at the end of 2006 they were $160.5 million, and now rapidly approaching $200 million. Dont get hung up on market corrections and such in 2003, one of Anguilla's and the world's most difficult years following September 11, 2001 and the Afghanistan and 2nd Gulf Wars around that time with their heavy impacts on our economy and naturally on our system. Thats why the rest of the report is there, to give context and explanation, not hype. Trust me, if you are looking for some sensation or scandal, its not there, and hopefully will never be. The system is performing well, indeed beyond expectations. The question of the Social Security Development Fund monies being spent on socially desirable projects has also been addressed in the past, this is not as Don says a honey pot for political manipulation but a statutory fund established by law in 1986 to which 3.75% of contribution income is allocated and from which moneys are spent on socially desirable projects as determined by the Board and with the approval of the Minister. So for over 20 years this fund has been contributing to our general well-being.

    I trust that thats enough for now, and that the writer will recognize that his/her caustic comments/statements/ innuendos are not necessary and outright unnacceptable. I am capable of answering and willing to answer any question about social security's operations that does not border on disclosure of confidential information. And I do have quite a lot of work to do so I just cant spend all day answering questions on this or any other blogspot. If someone has a question, ask me. Its totally unnecessary to go about trying to create issues where there are none. And by the way, the Social Security Board will soon hold its first public Stakeholders Forum (sort of an Annual General Meeting) when any questions as to its accounts, operations etc will be welcomed. A good day to all!

  17. The Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly on Friday passed the Freedom of Information Bill into law. The Cayman Islands is on its way to giving legislative backing to the public’s right to access most records of government, including statutory authorities and government owned companies.

    As your website says about the 2001 Annual Report, Tim, "Coming Soon!"

  18. Tim here, my post just crossed the last one and in fact hasnt appeared yet. But see Don, the kind of nonsensical posts on your blogspot? Someone doesnt see or get an answer from an Annual report (nothing by the way which suggests anything strange) and you get the question "Is Tim involved in wrongdoing at Social Security?" Now what basis is there for such a question? Other than some overactive skeptic's ability to ask stupid questions? And i am not apologizing for that because this is going from the ridiculous to the sublime. If you cant undrstand financial statements, thats no reason to make stupid statements or suggest wrongdoing. Shame on you.

  19. Seems to me that it would take the busy and important Mr. Hodge less time to answer our questions than to offer all these excuses.

    He is correct about the 3.75%; he is only doing what the law requires. But there have been questions and accusations about this issue for years and he has not been effective in communicating the truth about this issue. If the public is ignorant about the details of Social Security, is that our fault for being ignorant, or his fault for failing to educate us effectively? He has no control over our ignorance. All he can try to do is educate us.

    I want to know if there's wrongdoing in his office. I deeply resent being attacked for asking. I will continue asking this question until the people get public information and answers instead of excuses. This is not NICA; this is a sacred trust.

  20. Aya luka wuk. Tim calling the questions stupid. I am very disappointed with you, TIMOTHY! A director must exercise more restraint. Leave that condescending attitude for Hubert Hughes. My Professors always emphasise there are no stupid questions. Maybe we need more of the patience of philosophers in Anguilla. No wonder very few persons go on air and ask questions of their leaders. To ask questions in Anguilla, we are stupid. To ask questions in other countries, it is considered engaging interest in public discussion.

    Authur Anderson, a reputable accounting firm could not give ENRON good advice. KPMG was sued by Fannie Mae for bad accounting and negligence. KPMG was consistently over stating earnings. Morgan Stanley had to pay almost half a billion in fines for mutual fund cheating. Some of the same Funds I am sure Social Security was invested in.

    But I am sure ALL the companies doing work for Social Secuirty in Anguilla are morally and ethically superior to their counterparts in the USA. I wish I could vist your office to see how my money is invested. Unfortunatley, I'm in Timbuktu, Tim. To that end, this is my last comment on this issue. Perhaps, someone who is more educated in reading financial statements will have to break down the analysis of why many persons are concerned about the lack of portfolio diversification.

  21. Tim again, I had planned to make my last comment my last comment, but since it is the weekend I will just do this one more time and promise it is my last. I said it was stupid to state, and I quoted more than once, that "What Tim fails to mention is that he or somone intentionally omitted the financial statement from the report, leaving only hype." Isnt it stupid to make a statement like that? How does someone KNOW whether someone else has done something deliberately? And isnt it a stretch to take it from that to suggest wrongdoing? I think it is rather mischeivous at the least. I have referred to other really silly statements by the writer, like saying that the written part of the report is "hype" and comparing apples with oranges, i.e. the number of BVI management staff with all Anguilla's staff. Funny nobody criticizes that. This is not condescension, and sorry if it appears that way. This is just being plain upset with nonsense. I suppose it wouldnt be stupid of me to have people make all sorts of statements (including plucking issues of wrongdoing from out of some magic hat)and not respond. Where did the question of wrongdoing come from? Shouldnt I, to use his words, "deeply resent" that? Is it fair for someone to hide behing his computer screen and suggest such? How come no-one gets scolded for that? I never called the writer stupid, simply asked him/her to be less abrasive, stop the innuendo and conspiracy theory, and stop making stupid statements. I am quite aware that portfolio diversification is necessary, but I think the report does show diversification, including into US and international markets (which incidentally also elicited strange statements.) If there is a concern about the portfolio, it would be much more productive to examine the portfolio today than at 31 December 2003. We should shortly post the 2004, 2005 reports and if we get the audit as promised, 2006. Then we hopefully will move away from conspiracy theories concerning the posting on the website of the 2003 reports which was really a non-issue because the reports are easily available and were presented as statutorily required a long time ago. You know, it is all so strange that so much time is being spent trying to make issues out of the Social Security Office's attempts (not TIM's) to present information, and to treat this efffort, not to my knowledge being made by very many other institutions including the BVI Social Security Board's website referred to, as an attempt to deliberately hide information. This attempt to put the information on th ewebsite is, by the way, without any prompting from anybody, unlike the Cayman's as you said where it is being legislated. As you said, Aya Luka wuk.

  22. This blog is part of the local media in Anguilla. A public official complaining about questions in the media -- even challenging and rude questions -- is like a captain complaining about the ocean.

    Answer the questions, Tim.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.