Sir Philip Green vs Select committee
Discussion
greygoose said:
Quite a bit of mockery of Green in the paper today, his amnesia over events and his peculiar accusation that an MP had the temerity to look at him whilst he was talking.
Not terribly surprising. Probably better for him to 'not remember' than 'remember', legally/financially!johnwilliams77 said:
greygoose said:
Quite a bit of mockery of Green in the paper today, his amnesia over events and his peculiar accusation that an MP had the temerity to look at him whilst he was talking.
Not terribly surprising. Probably better for him to 'not remember' than 'remember', legally/financially!Adrian W said:
I hope they decide to call Lady Green to explain all of the things he says he knows nothing about, implying its her business, her answers will be brilliant.
I thought that was hilarious as well; the idea good old Lady Green will be able to explain what all these loans and dividends were about (because it's her business) came as a surprise to me and it will be interesting to see how she gets on if the Select Committee request her presence!JNW1 said:
I thought that was hilarious as well; the idea good old Lady Green will be able to explain what all these loans and dividends were about (because it's her business) came as a surprise to me and it will be interesting to see how she gets on if the Select Committee request her presence!
Probably very similar advice would be given by top lawyers as the advice was given to big Phil. Anything possibly incriminating: be vague and don't give any details.
So far as I can see the problem here is that huge dividends were taken while there was an enormous black hole in the Pension Scheme. If this is not illegal it should be.
Trying to apportion blame between the trustees, the pension auditors or the company auditors is futile and idiotic. They are all ultimately paid by the company, therefore they are all subject to undue influence not to rock the boat (the structural weakness of current corporate capitalism) so obviously they are not going to say anything. From Sir Philip Green's perspective, they are paid to be scapegoats if the wheels come off the train.
Sir Philip Green must now honour his apparent commitment to sort out the BHS Pension Scheme. If the pension scheme is unsustainable, as many though not all Final Salary type schemes are, the only honest solution is to come up with a sustainable alternative structure and put it to the pension holders to vote. It is in everybody's interest to come up with a solution bearing in mind that the alternative is a bankrupt scheme, knighthoods being stripped, fraud investigations etc.
Trying to apportion blame between the trustees, the pension auditors or the company auditors is futile and idiotic. They are all ultimately paid by the company, therefore they are all subject to undue influence not to rock the boat (the structural weakness of current corporate capitalism) so obviously they are not going to say anything. From Sir Philip Green's perspective, they are paid to be scapegoats if the wheels come off the train.
Sir Philip Green must now honour his apparent commitment to sort out the BHS Pension Scheme. If the pension scheme is unsustainable, as many though not all Final Salary type schemes are, the only honest solution is to come up with a sustainable alternative structure and put it to the pension holders to vote. It is in everybody's interest to come up with a solution bearing in mind that the alternative is a bankrupt scheme, knighthoods being stripped, fraud investigations etc.
Perhaps not going with the flow, but these Select Committees are a joke, and all that comes out of them for me is a feeling that they need to be scrapped in current form as a waste of time, money and column inches.
If the govt think there's been impropriety in his dealings with BHS as the owner or during the sale, then they should get the departments that already exist to go and review the situation using the rules and regulations that already exist as their framework.
If something has been done wrong, prosecute against it. And by all means then drag him in front of you if you feel the need for a public flogging, though I thought we got rid of the stocks some time ago.
If nothing has been done wrong and the framework that exists is still considered sensible then no matter what we think of his sun tan, haircut, friends or attitude, let him go off and do his thing.
If nothing has been done wrong but you expose a load of loop holes, have a Select Committee with the law makers and rule setters, ask them why the loop holes exist and then set about fixing them.
This sort of Select Committee achieves nothing other than making all involved (including and especially the committee members) look like muppets.
Asking someone like Green for the minutiae is utterly pointless. If you want those sort of details, you talk to his finance and legal teams. But for God's sake get someone to talk to them who knows what they're talking about and understands business.
I suspect that Green's advisors must have thought he was on thin ice somewhere along the line with him proposing the pension deal he has. I'd have expected that in selling the business for £1 the new owner would have been expected to pick up all liabilities. That tends to be why companies get sold for the nominal sum. But ultimately that needs to be looked at by people who have access to the details and the experience to know whether anything was done wrong, or if it was just a bad business deal.
If the govt think there's been impropriety in his dealings with BHS as the owner or during the sale, then they should get the departments that already exist to go and review the situation using the rules and regulations that already exist as their framework.
If something has been done wrong, prosecute against it. And by all means then drag him in front of you if you feel the need for a public flogging, though I thought we got rid of the stocks some time ago.
If nothing has been done wrong and the framework that exists is still considered sensible then no matter what we think of his sun tan, haircut, friends or attitude, let him go off and do his thing.
If nothing has been done wrong but you expose a load of loop holes, have a Select Committee with the law makers and rule setters, ask them why the loop holes exist and then set about fixing them.
This sort of Select Committee achieves nothing other than making all involved (including and especially the committee members) look like muppets.
Asking someone like Green for the minutiae is utterly pointless. If you want those sort of details, you talk to his finance and legal teams. But for God's sake get someone to talk to them who knows what they're talking about and understands business.
I suspect that Green's advisors must have thought he was on thin ice somewhere along the line with him proposing the pension deal he has. I'd have expected that in selling the business for £1 the new owner would have been expected to pick up all liabilities. That tends to be why companies get sold for the nominal sum. But ultimately that needs to be looked at by people who have access to the details and the experience to know whether anything was done wrong, or if it was just a bad business deal.
Jockman said:
He has been advised well.
You think? My initial reaction to his performance yesterday was how on earth has a person like this managed to amass such a massive fortune? On reflection I then concluded that he and his advisors must have decided that looking like he didn't know what was going-on was preferable to admitting he did but the truth has a nasty habit of coming out and he's done his reputation no favours with this IMO....greygoose said:
Quite a bit of mockery of Green in the paper today, his amnesia over events and his peculiar accusation that an MP had the temerity to look at him whilst he was talking.
He's interested in retail, and he's good at that. He's like most CEOs though, in that he's got an eye for detail in the things that interest him, and none whatsoever in pensions and the like. It'll be about 472nd on his list.That's not to excuse him, but to point out that he's far from being alone in this (possibly genuine) selective memory. I had a CEO who had zero understanding of our financial statements, other than the fact that if we sold X volume at Y margin then I could take care of the rest and convert to cash/profit accordingly. Absolutely no clue about any other part of our numbers, and the balance sheet - other than the vaguest concept of what it might be - was a mystery to him. Pensions was another blank space.
I should add that this was a £500m turnover business, and the CEO was and is a (rightly) highly respected player in the industry. Ask him anything on our products or strategy and he was razor sharp; anything on numbers, pension deficits/triennial valuations etc and he was a void.
cardigankid said:
Give over. Nobody however focussed or dense or misguided could miss a f
king great hole in the pension scheme. What you mean is that he kind of knew about it but didn't give a toss, provided he could still get money out. That is no excuse.
Please read previous comments about the pension situation.king great hole in the pension scheme. What you mean is that he kind of knew about it but didn't give a toss, provided he could still get money out. That is no excuse.I'm no psychologist but the man quite clearly has some kind of narcissistic personality disorder and paranoid delusions.
I suspect he's an absolute nightmare to be around which is probably how he became so wealthy. Whether or not he's done anything illegal is largely a moot point, people like him should be held up and shown to society to be the ill failures of human psyche that they are and given treatment.
I suspect he's an absolute nightmare to be around which is probably how he became so wealthy. Whether or not he's done anything illegal is largely a moot point, people like him should be held up and shown to society to be the ill failures of human psyche that they are and given treatment.
longblackcoat said:
He's interested in retail, and he's good at that. He's like most CEOs though, in that he's got an eye for detail in the things that interest him, and none whatsoever in pensions and the like. It'll be about 472nd on his list.
That's not to excuse him, but to point out that he's far from being alone in this (possibly genuine) selective memory. I had a CEO who had zero understanding of our financial statements, other than the fact that if we sold X volume at Y margin then I could take care of the rest and convert to cash/profit accordingly. Absolutely no clue about any other part of our numbers, and the balance sheet - other than the vaguest concept of what it might be - was a mystery to him. Pensions was another blank space.
I should add that this was a £500m turnover business, and the CEO was and is a (rightly) highly respected player in the industry. Ask him anything on our products or strategy and he was razor sharp; anything on numbers, pension deficits/triennial valuations etc and he was a void.
And all that's fair enough but in a large organisation you have specialists in the relevant areas who should be able to give the CEO a succinct précis of the situation and recommended an appropriate course of action; it's then the CEO's job to either back the specialist's recommendation or push back and request for other options to be considered. A substantial hole in the funding of the company pension scheme is something a CEO should have been made aware of and in this case not only was Green aware he was also involved quite actively in determining the company response to the problem (remember he was the one who was saying company contributions to the scheme would be no more than £10m a year). The bottom line is that as the head man Green and his family were taking millions out of this business and trying to play the "I knew nothing" and the "it wasn't down to me" cards isn't good enough; with large rewards comes responsibility IMO.....That's not to excuse him, but to point out that he's far from being alone in this (possibly genuine) selective memory. I had a CEO who had zero understanding of our financial statements, other than the fact that if we sold X volume at Y margin then I could take care of the rest and convert to cash/profit accordingly. Absolutely no clue about any other part of our numbers, and the balance sheet - other than the vaguest concept of what it might be - was a mystery to him. Pensions was another blank space.
I should add that this was a £500m turnover business, and the CEO was and is a (rightly) highly respected player in the industry. Ask him anything on our products or strategy and he was razor sharp; anything on numbers, pension deficits/triennial valuations etc and he was a void.
JNW1 said:
longblackcoat said:
He's interested in retail, and he's good at that. He's like most CEOs though, in that he's got an eye for detail in the things that interest him, and none whatsoever in pensions and the like. It'll be about 472nd on his list.
That's not to excuse him, but to point out that he's far from being alone in this (possibly genuine) selective memory. I had a CEO who had zero understanding of our financial statements, other than the fact that if we sold X volume at Y margin then I could take care of the rest and convert to cash/profit accordingly. Absolutely no clue about any other part of our numbers, and the balance sheet - other than the vaguest concept of what it might be - was a mystery to him. Pensions was another blank space.
I should add that this was a £500m turnover business, and the CEO was and is a (rightly) highly respected player in the industry. Ask him anything on our products or strategy and he was razor sharp; anything on numbers, pension deficits/triennial valuations etc and he was a void.
And all that's fair enough but in a large organisation you have specialists in the relevant areas who should be able to give the CEO a succinct précis of the situation and recommended an appropriate course of action; it's then the CEO's job to either back the specialist's recommendation or push back and request for other options to be considered. A substantial hole in the funding of the company pension scheme is something a CEO should have been made aware of and in this case not only was Green aware he was also involved quite actively in determining the company response to the problem (remember he was the one who was saying company contributions to the scheme would be no more than £10m a year). The bottom line is that as the head man Green and his family were taking millions out of this business and trying to play the "I knew nothing" and the "it wasn't down to me" cards isn't good enough; with large rewards comes responsibility IMO.....That's not to excuse him, but to point out that he's far from being alone in this (possibly genuine) selective memory. I had a CEO who had zero understanding of our financial statements, other than the fact that if we sold X volume at Y margin then I could take care of the rest and convert to cash/profit accordingly. Absolutely no clue about any other part of our numbers, and the balance sheet - other than the vaguest concept of what it might be - was a mystery to him. Pensions was another blank space.
I should add that this was a £500m turnover business, and the CEO was and is a (rightly) highly respected player in the industry. Ask him anything on our products or strategy and he was razor sharp; anything on numbers, pension deficits/triennial valuations etc and he was a void.
All I was trying to point out is that he's far from alone in not giving a s
t about anything other than the parts of the business in which he's expert.Will the committee be calling the (independent) trustee of the company pension scheme?
I'd read somewhere that she was a former head of one of the big London accounting firms, and therefore used to dealing with CEO's and their egos, and presumably getting the right decision made. People picking up nice retainers for overseeing other people's money should answer questions too.
As for the idea of 'trial by select committee' I'll give it some room after that classic showdown with the Co-op's banking genius Paul Flowers in 2013;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24995811
I'd read somewhere that she was a former head of one of the big London accounting firms, and therefore used to dealing with CEO's and their egos, and presumably getting the right decision made. People picking up nice retainers for overseeing other people's money should answer questions too.
As for the idea of 'trial by select committee' I'll give it some room after that classic showdown with the Co-op's banking genius Paul Flowers in 2013;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24995811
sidicks said:
wc98 said:
a few more words in your explanation of why would be handy.business gets 300 odd million of wage subsidy for employees while removing 400 million. numbers not my strong point, but it will take osbornesque levels of economics to alter my impression of that.
If you don't understand that benefits paid to employees are not the same as cash paid to a business, then I'm not sure where to go from here.You're somehow saying that tax credits are a wage top-up - they're not. They are a benefit paid by government, they aren't in place of wages. If the government didn't pay the £397m in tax credits to BHS employees (as you mention), then Green could still take the £400m dividend.
It's different money from different sources.
FredClogs said:
I'm no psychologist but...
Here comes the psychologist's conclusion...FredClogs said:
....the man quite clearly has some kind of narcissistic personality disorder and paranoid delusions.
...
BOOM!...
(Not having a dig - I simply find this sort of sentence amusing
"I don't mean to be rude..." etc).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff