Dear Editor,
Suriname State Oil Company is issuing new bonds, offering an interesting investment opportunity. The company aims to raise funds to support its participation in the development of Suriname’s first offshore oil field, GranMorgu. This initiative offers individual investors the chance to invest in a stable and potentially lucrative financial asset. The primary target audience for these bonds includes residents of Suriname, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten who hold USD and/or EUR bank accounts.
Although the bonds will be publicly traded on the Dutch Caribbean Securities Exchange (DCSX) and the Suriname Stock Exchange (SSX), it is unclear whether foreign investors outside these specified countries, including those in Guyana, can directly subscribe during the initial offering. However, Guyanese investors may have access to these bonds on the secondary market after the initial issuance.
The discussion surrounding transparency in this bond issuance is valid and relevant for all investors. International standards such as IFRS, ESMA, and SEC require full financial disclosure for such offerings. Suriname State Oil must provide clear and comprehensive information to ensure investors can make informed decisions. Without this transparency, the company’s actual financial health and the risks associated with the investment remain uncertain.
While concerns about transparency are justified, it is also important to critically examine the criticism itself. Some claim that the DCSX, where these bonds will be listed, does not meet international standards. However, there is little concrete evidence to support this assertion. How does the DCSX fundamentally differ from larger exchanges such as the NYSE or Euronext? Only fact-based analyses can add real weight to such claims.
Additionally, concerns have been raised about oversight by the Central Bank of Suriname and the role of the Surinaamsche Bank (DSB) as an intermediary. Some suggest that these institutions are not fulfilling their regulatory obligations, yet formal complaints and solid evidence are often lacking. Investors benefit most from objective facts rather than speculation.
Another critical factor is risk assessment. International regulations such as MiFID II and SEC rules require financial institutions to provide investors with clear information on the risks associated with financial products. Whether Suriname State Oil fully complies with these regulations remains uncertain. The absence of a publicly available comprehensive risk analysis does not necessarily mean internal assessments have not been conducted. However, all investors should have access to this information to make well-informed decisions.
One undeniable indicator of risk is the relatively high interest rate on Suriname State Oil bonds. Higher yields often signal increased credit risk, limited alternative financing options, and an uncertain macro-economic environment. While the potential returns may be attractive, they are almost always accompanied by heightened risks. Investors – whether in Suriname, Guyana, or elsewhere – must carefully consider whether the higher interest rate adequately compensates for these risks.
Investors should proceed with caution and maintain a critical perspective. Transparency, well-supported analysis, and a thorough risk assessment are essential to ensure that investors – both Surinamese and Guyanese – recognize not only the opportunities but also the potential risks. Responsible investing is not just about seeking growth opportunities; it is also about carefully evaluating and managing risks.
Sincerely,
Vincent Roep
