Talk:British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Whare do I go to find out where to cash in my shares of BCRIC. (British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation)
This article desperately needs at least one year in it ... right now, it's impossible to tell if it's an historical event from the 19th century, or something that still exists. - DavidWBrooks 21:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As I recall it was around 1979-80....I'll come back on that...Skookum1 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am currently looking at a couple of BRIC "5 Share" Certificates, the original distributed to citizens of British Columbia. To ground this discussion in time, it may be helpful to note that the effective date of August 7, 1979. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)John James O'Brien
This wasn't exactly a scandal, depending on who you're talking to anyway. Scandalous yes, but not a political scandal in the usual sense; still I'm wondering if Category:Canadian political scandals or an eventual (currently non-extant) Category:British Columbia political scandals) cat shouldn't be added. I'll add Politics of British Columbia, as the BCRIC story is certainly part of historical politics in BC.....(I think it was the sucker-line for the '79 election but I'll check...the shares were largely worthless by '80/'81 - I remember that as I lost mine at the Luv Affair with the rest of my wallet on New Years....).Skookum1 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Was BCRIC a Crown Corporation or not?
I have one of the BCRIC bearer share certificates that were sent to all British Columbians in the 70's. I was thinking of uploading the image for this article. They are worthless so it should be less of a concern than uploading something like a scanned $20 bill. But even so, I have no idea whether that is ok. Does anyone know? --KenWalker | Talk 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC) I too have a red bearer share certificate 5 shares dated August 7th, 1979. with the BCRIC seal and president's signature. Is this worth anything at all or is it just a neat thing to have? email me with any information: email@example.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I just snipped out this section; i'll leave it here, in case someone needs it (yes, i know it's available in the history, but the IP who wrote it may not, so...).
[ADDED on 10/03/2010] This privatization has been described and the whole process thoroughly analyzed with many citations of authority in the book Ohashi, T. M., T. P. Roth, Z. A. Spindler, M.L. McMillan and K. H. Norrie 1980: "Privatization Theory and Practice: Distributing Shares in Private and Public Enterprises: BCRIC, PETROCAN, ESOPs, GSOPs". A book-length study, report, collection of analytical and empirical papers. The public was given free shares in the privatization of major firms and resources. There is a wealth of detail, and lists of do's and don'ts. This was the largest stock issuance in Canada's history, and the third largest in North America as of the date of their book (1980). The complete text of the privatizing corporation bylaws in the massive BCRIC [ British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation] privatization is given starting at their page 77. This act was very influential in shaping the Alaska Permanent Fund privatization, which has paid out billions to the residents of Alaska. [a few copies of Onashi and Roth are available at AMAZON, where I have posted a full review].
Subsequent to my writing the above, BCRIC has collapsed due to misuse of its assets. It is interesting to speculate what would have been its fate had it been subject to the Prudent Person Standard of Care. In the interesting case of Brane v. Roth, the managers of a cooperative were ordered by a court to pay restitution to members because the managers had not used available processes to protect the member’s interests. [GOOGLE colbert242 for more of my writings.]
- LOL, that last line kills me:
- In the interesting case of Brane v. Roth, the managers of a cooperative were ordered by a court to pay restitution to members because the managers had not used available processes to protect the member’s interests.
- That must be American jurisprudence, or to do with matters in another province. It would be a marvellous thing if British Columbia elected officials functioning as managers over Crown assets were ordered to pay restitution for not protecting their constituents' interests....this in relation not just to BCRIC but to BC Rail, BC Hydro etc in more recent times....in fact, there's talk of a civil suit on behalf of BC taxpayers against the current regime for exactly that rationale...but BCRIC, for those of us old enough to remember it, was a flim-flam show, and its stock was overvalued from the moment it was minted; it was created as a diversionary tactic, a "buy-out" to rescue Bill Bennett's flagging political fortunes, an d with the usual help of a typically friendly BC media, the public got sold hook, line and sinker....in a place where courts are creatures of the ruling party, any restitution for mismanagement, nay for fraud, is virtually impossible to consider.Skookum1 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)