- The loan that KCB is running after is considerably higher than the Ksh2bn that is out there. As DN makes clear today, this was based on a KPC estimate of the import price at Ksh60*126m litres. But remember that prices during this period (and the period seems to be almost 9 months) were alot higher, so its better to use say Ksh90. That means that KCB share of the loan now goes up to Ksh3bn. The questions, given volatile oil prices, how does KCB (1) value its loans (2) keep up with the collateral needs for such loans?
- Triton stole the oil because it wanted to create an artificial shortage so that prices would temporarily go up allowing it to make money or breakeven on its omporting prices.
- Its still not clear why KPC was not the one importing the oil. Why?
- The collateral agreements are not agreements. It is merely a process and one that can easily be breached. A collateral agreement always has a clause that in effect makes you the guarantor. Is KPC (and by extension GoK) the guarantor of these loans?
- MTNs-when did they become legal financial instruments in Kenya? Is CMA aware?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Why Triton stole and unanswered questions
Having read through the stories in the daily (I think DN has done a very good job so afr on this oil story), one can conclude that: