How could they not know?
Dear Editor,
The statements given by former CEOS of Stocks and Securities Limited (SSL) regarding the missing funds at the company are perplexing.
Zachary Harding, a former CEO, said that during his time at SSL (almost three years) he was not aware that Usain Bolt had an account at the company. Even if the account was under a company name, which Minister Nigel Clarke has now confirmed, how could someone managing the operations be unaware who the top clients are? The same way one would be aware of the top-performing instruments, the top sales people, or advisors in this case, all of which are key drivers of revenue and net profit.
Reports are that Bolt’s company operated an account at SSL since 2012, over 10 years. If they didn’t know, I would question the competence of CEOS and management running the company.
It is also mind-blowing that a company could function, much less operate for years, with what now appears to be loose controls and management. According to the 2017 Financial Services Commission (FSC) report on SSL, there were allegations of unsafe and unsound practices, which included offer of unregistered securities; overstatement of assets; incomplete client request for proposals, which did not include risk appetite of client; there were also inconsistencies in reported asset amounts and funds were overstated; client statements were deficient, did not show investment portfolio, and did not reconcile accurately with bank statements; SSL clients’ accounts were not properly managed and even an astute client would not have recognised this. All affiliated companies must be investigated.
It is incomprehensible that the FSC, the regulatory body responsible, didn’t act on what they knew. Even the auditors have questions to answer. How could they not know that problems were severe enough to encourage fraud, considering that the company operates in the financial sector with a significant portfolio of investments?
At least one audit report expressed concerns that the company could continue as a going concern, given the level of irregularities, but it stopped short of raising an alarm. If the reports are true, how could a wealth advisor be responsible for defrauding clients’ accounts of millions using informal documentation without anyone knowing or suspecting irregularities?
We know that private companies, unlike public ones, don’t undergo the same levels of scrutiny and public disclosure, but considering SSL relied on clients’ investments, you would think that transparency and accountability were priorities of management.
My guess is that the loose controls will make it very difficult for the investigators, even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to unravel the mess at SSL. We can only hope that Bolt and others affected will eventually recover most of their investments when assets are seized and liquidated.