Trimingham?s:The truth

April 12, 2005

Dear Sir,

I write in response to the letters from ?loyal customer of A.S. Cooper? & ?Saks of Devonshire? of April 12:

1. Trimingham?s tried at every possible opportunity to retail goods at either US Retail, or at a ?Duty Free? retail significantly below USA Recommended Retail, which, in my humble opinion, is why the disdainful accusation of being ?overpriced and overvalued? lacks merit.

2. Mindful of the huge sea-change which had taken place in Bermuda?s tourism business and the challenges of competing with overseas shopping, Lawrence Trimingham and his family engaged the services of experienced US retailers to manage the business and to adapt its focus and to re-align it for survival in increasingly difficult times.

3. In choosing voluntary liquidation, and meeting the family?s financial obligations to its workforce, Lawrence Trimingham showed formidable strength of character and integrity to all those employed by Trimingham Brothers Ltd., rather than the ?disdain? which he is accused of by ?Loyal Customer?.

4. When closure specialists are engaged to wind down a company, the infusion of close-out merchandise and any such deals which may be available in the marketplace, is perfectly normal, and a matrix of timed discount-increases comes into play.

5. ?Loyal Customer? refers to Trimingham?s as having ?The finest lines in the world? and Saks of Devonshire refers to ?Poor Quality Goods?. Yes, there have been misjudgments, and unexpected inclusions, but proportionate to total business, these were peripheral.

6. The only goods to have ?languished in the warehouse for years? were Smith?s Kirsch curtain hardware inventory, which was extensive and is now heavily reduced on Smith?s third floor. It was the policy of Trimingham?s to take timely markdowns and to clear goods which failed to sell within a reasonable time window. Past-season apparel was cleared promptly, and other goods were never allowed to fester. Sometimes, with our relationship with Federated Stores, with which we participated in corporate product development buys, the quantities required meant that we held somewhat heavier stocks than normally, but again, we undertook disposal of these if they failed to sell in the quantities which we contracted to order.

7. Trimingham?s was populated by an experienced and current-focused team of buyers who worked long hours and travelled extensively covering major world markets and trade shows. Most important new designer names and style and product trends were captured by Trimingham?s buyers. The sales per square foot substantially exceeded those of most USA Department Store Groups, so it is in my opinion ? albeit a subjective one ? unfair to take a swing at Trimingham?s buyers and hold them responsible for the company?s unfortunate demise.

8. Essentially, the need to remain competitive with the US market and thus operate on shortened margins ? versus the payroll and taxes and duties and general operating costs - prevented Trimingham?s from staying above water, which was why a last ditch attempt was made to merge the Smith?s and Trimingham?s sales volumes, merge and reduce the payrolls and the other operating costs, and thus at least break-even, and hopefully eventually, return to modest bottom-line profit to pay for renovation and general maintenance.

9. However, after having acquired Smith?s and acceded to The Bank?s directive to install a company of consultants to oversee this phase, there was a hold-up in the agreed financing. There were numerous delays as the company delivered against various revised stipulations of the Fire Department over a period of time. Planned renovations were continuing to take place as contracted, but the agreed financing remained further delayed.

10. The family remained determined to do everything in its power to save the company and its employees and collateralised the loan with their assets.

11. The company was poised to continue to do business and to offer the customers the right goods, in the right place, at the right time, and in the right quantity, but for reasons I cannot explain, the credit line necessary to fund the purchase of inventory failed to materialise, so, inevitably, the merchandise mix began to show gaping holes, and vendors waited and waited and waited for payment, sales flagged, and with that, the generation of profit to finance the loan began to falter, and with that, the scenario became a self-fulfilling prophesy of ultimate doom.

12. It may sound paternalistic to some, but the Trimingham family considers its employees part of a wider framework of extended family. They were devastated by the turn of events and strove at every turn of the screw to try to save the employees. Ultimately, as everyone now knows, The Bank of Bermuda (HSBC ) became the owners of the Trimingham building and its warehouse. I am assuming that maybe HSBC will demolish the building and construct a new Front Street building for both the bank and its other present and future worldwide interests , and maybe reincorporate its global headquarters in Bermuda, a tax-neutral zone, and maybe help to formulate a regulatory environment suitable for the growth of its varied financial services as it continues to become an ever greater player on the world-stage of today?s financial products and services.

13. Regarding the bold bannering of the store, the same formulae is attached to most closures of this kind. The gradual wind-down and sell-out and closure cannot be undertaken effectively without highly-visible marketing techniques coming into play. The people who are managing the wind-down have very difficult jobs to perform in an emotionally-charged environment, but they are doing their best for everyone involved and have shown a great deal of sensitivity towards all involved in this catastrophic tragedy.

14. In my opinion, had Trimingham?s been allowed to pass through the period of reorganisation and re-financing, it could have gone forward profitably, ensuring the continued employment of its staff and the provision for long-term benefits for all 220 people directly employed.

15. People often overlook the fact that in addition to the employees of Trimingham?s, the company indirectly was responsible for at the very least the part-employment of many others who are employed by firms which provided services and goods to Trimingham?s, e.g., local vendors, local media, local utilities, etc.

I am an ex-employee of Trimingham Brothers Ltd., but many of my former colleagues continue to give of their best during the wind-down. All of these people will be looking for jobs very shortly, so now is not the time to hurl unfounded abuse and reckless accusations against people who are having enough of a hard time of it as it is. Please give everyone your support and understanding and your tolerance and your compassion. Remember, what goes around, comes around.WE ARE EACH EACH OTHER?S CUSTOMER

Paget

BIC filibuster?

March 29, 2005

Dear Sir,

It is 10.30 p.m. and I have just returned from the public meeting on Independence, hosted by the BIC for the benefit of the UN Committee on Decolonisation and still in session at the St. George?s Cricket Club. Repeatedly we were told that this and future meetings at other venues were for the benefit of Bermudians wishing to make verbal submissions to the Commission and UN Committee.

There was much talking, mostly from the stage. There was a heavy camera and reporter presence ? somewhat intimidating for the average soul. There were many mutually congratulatory and ingratiating laterally addressed statements from the stage.

Every committee member responded to each submission (such as there was time for between the interminable and largely irrelevant memoirs of ?how my country achieved Independence and managed the cost?). Thrice over we heard from Papua New Guinea, and of its many tribes and languages. (By the way, do they still occasionally eat one another there?) Then there was St. Lucia and its highly praised bananas. Highly praised from the stage, and later on highly praised from the floor.

After a lengthy introduction, the meeting was opened to the floor, and immediately the first contributor railed against the press, in particular , for not printing ?verbatim? what was said at the last meeting. Then came emotional submissions ? monologues really ? by those who were deeply ashamed of being colonial Bermudian and loathed the Queen. One man stood up and complained of the intimidating force the group ?Bermudians for a Referendum? was applying to the poor (brainless?) Bermudian passersby, who were regularly pressured into signing their petition. Then came several (in my personal opinion quite obviously pre-selected) submissions neatly covering those areas the BIC wanted covered.

I too had plucked up courage for a short, but positive submission to make about all the really good things, which accrue to those of us who, irrespective of the pigmentation of our skin, have made the most of Bermuda?s ties with the UK and by extension the EU. Short of wrestling the microphone away from someone ? no chance, Sir! None whatsoever. Nil, rien, nada, nichts. Finito.

I believe what we have here is a case of a committee and commission actually filibustering its own public ?fact finding? hearings!

There is some good news though! The UN committee is paying for its trip here.P.s. Could someone let the UN committee members know that it was not actually Britain, which was responsible for imposing segregation on Bermuda in the 50s and 60s, as one gentleman attested, but in fact Bermudians who did this to their fellow Bermudians.