At a September 24 forum in Queens Village, New York, President Irfaan Ali invited overseas Guyanese to invest in the country’s next phase of development. A proposed special investment vehicle would allow the diaspora to participate in projects including a fertiliser plant and gas bottling facility, with returns guaranteed by the government. It is an appealing proposition. It also requires considerably more explanation before anyone can assess it as an investment.
Guyanese abroad have supported families and communities for generations. They have paid school fees, built homes, financed businesses and helped relatives through difficult times. But an appeal for investment carries different obligations. People committing their savings to an industrial project need to understand what they are buying, how they will earn a return and what happens if the venture underperforms. National pride cannot answer those questions.
Four issues should be addressed clearly. First, ownership: would investors purchase bonds, shares in individual projects, or units in a pooled fund? These arrangements carry different rights and risks. A bondholder expecting scheduled interest payments occupies a different position from a shareholder whose dividends depend on profits.
Second, returns: the President’s promise of a government guarantee deserves particular scrutiny. What exactly would be guaranteed: the original investment, interest payments, dividends, or some combination? In which currency would investors contribute and receive payment? What legal document would establish the guarantee, and how could an investor enforce it? A commitment made from a podium must eventually become a clearly defined contractual obligation.
Third, timing: when would investors begin receiving payments, and when could they recover their capital? Industrial projects can face construction delays, cost overruns and weaker demand than anticipated. Prospective investors need to know who absorbs those costs and whether they can sell their holdings before the investment matures.
Fourth, accountability: who would manage the money, appoint the board, audit the accounts and publish financial results? A Guyanese nurse in Brooklyn or engineer in Toronto may have neither a board seat nor the resources to pursue a dispute in Georgetown. Independent oversight, regular disclosure and accessible remedies should be built into the arrangement from the beginning.
The government should also explain how this proposal relates to its earlier announcements. On May 26, President Ali said a diaspora bond would be launched within a week. At the same event, Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley outlined plans for the Trident Arrow Investment Fund, intended to facilitate investment by citizens of both countries. Are these separate initiatives, complementary arrangements, or different stages of a developing proposal? Potential investors should not have to piece together the answer from successive speeches.
A consolidated public update would help: the status of each initiative, the responsible institution, the proposed structure and a realistic timetable for publishing offering documents. Those documents should explain project feasibility, fees, risks, governance and the source of investor payments. If taxpayers would ultimately support the promised returns, the public also deserves to know the extent of that obligation.
There is a worthwhile opportunity here. Diaspora investment could connect Guyana’s development needs with overseas Guyanese seeking a financial stake in their homeland. But trust grows when institutions provide information that people can examine, question and compare with other opportunities.
The next invitation should therefore come with documents. Publish the terms, explain the guarantee and give prospective investors time to assess the risks. Guyanese abroad have already demonstrated their commitment to the country. Those seeking their capital must now demonstrate the same seriousness about protecting it.