Sir Philip Green vs Select committee
Discussion
Murcielago_Boy said:
Please elaborate if you will.
I'm just really curious. This guy has been WORSHIPED in the business press until recently and I want to get a feel for why anyone that has dealt with him is so wary.
funny because when he started out ,the business world and politicians viewed him as 'just a jewish market trader' ,they hated him.Unitl the BHS deal when he went from zero to hero overnight.I'm just really curious. This guy has been WORSHIPED in the business press until recently and I want to get a feel for why anyone that has dealt with him is so wary.
He is a very very good deal maker,can spot a deal a mile away.
I used to supply him with product,I didn't like him ,the way he was and how he behaved,and also he acquired one of his first big deals by screwing a relative of mine over,funnily enough that relative made complaints about him identical to some that have been made recently ,in particular his relation with the receivers and how the receivers were appointed.
I don't understand why this is news? Even the Guardian knew that BHS was worth £1 a year ago because the stores were old the pension was in deficit.
Guardian said:
The nominal sale price reflects the scale of the challenges facing the new owner, a group of investors operating under the name Retail Acquisitions. The group’s stores need investment to bring them up to date and the company is saddled with a pension deficit valued at about £100m in 2013, according to accounts filed at Companies House.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/12/s...alock said:
I don't understand why this is news? Even the Guardian knew that BHS was worth £1 a year ago because the stores were old the pension was in deficit.
Well it's news because whilst allowing the company to sink into a £100m pension deficit Green took out close to £400million in dividends and other rewards. Then he sold the company for £1 to a guy who was a complete shyster and had neither the knowledge, finances or where with all to make it a going concern.Guardian said:
The nominal sale price reflects the scale of the challenges facing the new owner, a group of investors operating under the name Retail Acquisitions. The group’s stores need investment to bring them up to date and the company is saddled with a pension deficit valued at about £100m in 2013, according to accounts filed at Companies House.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/mar/12/s...Green presided over the worst kind of asset stripping, sucking the pension fund dry, saddling suppliers with debt and then shelving it off to some clueless ring piece.
If that's the kind of behavior we as a species want to reward and condone then quite frankly I'm oot.
I'm oot.
FredClogs said:
Well it's news because whilst allowing the company to sink into a £100m pension deficit Green took out close to £400million in dividends and other rewards. Then he sold the company for £1 to a guy who was a complete shyster and had neither the knowledge, finances or where with all to make it a going concern.
Green presided over the worst kind of asset stripping, sucking the pension fund dry, saddling suppliers with debt and then shelving it off to some clueless ring piece.
If that's the kind of behavior we as a species want to reward and condone then quite frankly I'm oot.
I'm oot.
As explained previously, he took nothing from the pension fund. Please get your facts correct!Green presided over the worst kind of asset stripping, sucking the pension fund dry, saddling suppliers with debt and then shelving it off to some clueless ring piece.
If that's the kind of behavior we as a species want to reward and condone then quite frankly I'm oot.
I'm oot.
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Well it's news because whilst allowing the company to sink into a £100m pension deficit Green took out close to £400million in dividends and other rewards. Then he sold the company for £1 to a guy who was a complete shyster and had neither the knowledge, finances or where with all to make it a going concern.
Green presided over the worst kind of asset stripping, sucking the pension fund dry, saddling suppliers with debt and then shelving it off to some clueless ring piece.
If that's the kind of behavior we as a species want to reward and condone then quite frankly I'm oot.
I'm oot.
As explained previously, he took nothing from the pension fund. Please get your facts correct!Green presided over the worst kind of asset stripping, sucking the pension fund dry, saddling suppliers with debt and then shelving it off to some clueless ring piece.
If that's the kind of behavior we as a species want to reward and condone then quite frankly I'm oot.
I'm oot.
t, the macro effect of what he did was to line his own pocket whilst the company didn't fulfill their contractual obligations to their staff. You can't seriously be arguing what he did was anything other than a s trick?FredClogs said:
Mealy mouthed bullst, the macro effect of what he did was to line his own pocket whilst the company didn't fulfill their contractual obligations to their staff. You can't seriously be arguing what he did was anything other than a s trick?
What proportion of the deficit was caused by insufficient contributions (compared to that planned in the valuation) and what proportion is due to unforeseen market movements?t, the macro effect of what he did was to line his own pocket whilst the company didn't fulfill their contractual obligations to their staff. You can't seriously be arguing what he did was anything other than a s trick?To help you out, why has the aggregate deficit of UK Pension schemes increased by circa £320bn between 2011 and 2016...? Has every other CEO been 'sucking their pension scheme dry' too??
FredClogs said:
Green presided over the worst kind of asset stripping, sucking the pension fund dry, saddling suppliers with debt and then shelving it off to some clueless ring piece.
That's not quite what happened, though I can see how it does look like that from a distance.He took the dividends when the pension fund was in SURPLUS.
(That's my reading of the annual reports of the companies in question.)
Subsequently, mostly owing to ZIRP, the pension fund (along with many MANY others) went into a deficit.
That's not from someone "sucking it dry" it's more to do with lower investment returns and longevity.
Truly, not Green's fault.
And indeed "saddling suppliers with debt" isn't what happens either.
You take inventory from suppliers and then you pay them once you have sold the products.
That's completely standard in retail.
Whether or not the suppliers choose to run up their own debts is up to them.
Perhaps what you mean is that SPG ran up large debts WITH suppliers - which is true, but again standard.
That's why BHS was refused credit insurance, which is where an insurer offers protection to those suppliers through an insurance product that BHS/the retailer pays for.
It's often curtains once that insurance is refused since many suppliers will (sensibly) refuse to hand over inventory when they are likely not to get paid for it in an administration situation, as will likely be the case here.
IMHO what is more interesting is that:
1. SPG capped the pension contributions to £10m. These are payments to help reduce the deficit. That's very dodgy.
2. He appears to have done everything in his power to hide the scale of the pension hole from the aforementioned clueless ring piece (CRP). e.g. not letting CRP speak to the regulator, avoiding the subject, preventing due diligence etc...
3. Everything points to him NEEDING a CRP for anyone with half a brain would have noticed the ridiculous hospital pass they were getting and run a mile. Hence no deal with the lovely Mr Ashley (Mike not Laura). He would have seen the problems a mile off. Again, that's abhorrent behaviour and most likely illegal.
He once said, “If I give you my plane...and you tell me you’re a great driver and you crash it into the first mountain, is that my fault?”
Well, yes it is if you forgot to mention that the plane has no fuel and is missing a wing.
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Mealy mouthed bullst, the macro effect of what he did was to line his own pocket whilst the company didn't fulfill their contractual obligations to their staff. You can't seriously be arguing what he did was anything other than a s trick?
What proportion of the deficit was caused by insufficient contributions (compared to that planned in the valuation) and what proportion is due to unforeseen market movements?t, the macro effect of what he did was to line his own pocket whilst the company didn't fulfill their contractual obligations to their staff. You can't seriously be arguing what he did was anything other than a s trick?To help you out, why has the aggregate deficit of UK Pension schemes increased by circa £320bn between 2011 new 2016...?
If you make a commitment to people you stick to it, it's called being a man, and not a oily f
king slug.Take his money and string him up.
walm said:
That's not quite what happened, though I can see how it does look like that from a distance.
He took the dividends when the pension fund was in SURPLUS.
(That's my reading of the annual reports of the companies in question.)
Subsequently, mostly owing to ZIRP, the pension fund (along with many MANY others) went into a deficit.
That's not from someone "sucking it dry" it's more to do with lower investment returns and longevity.
Truly, not Green's fault.]
Don't let facts get in the way of another Fred Cloggs ignorant rant...He took the dividends when the pension fund was in SURPLUS.
(That's my reading of the annual reports of the companies in question.)
Subsequently, mostly owing to ZIRP, the pension fund (along with many MANY others) went into a deficit.
That's not from someone "sucking it dry" it's more to do with lower investment returns and longevity.
Truly, not Green's fault.]
walm said:
IMHO what is more interesting is that:
1. SPG capped the pension contributions to £10m. These are payments to help reduce the deficit. That's very dodgy.
I wouldn't say it was 'very dodgy' - this had to have Trustee approval. Deficit reduction contributions to repair the deficit over the more usual 10 years, rather than 20, would not have made a massive difference to the current deficit.1. SPG capped the pension contributions to £10m. These are payments to help reduce the deficit. That's very dodgy.
walm said:
2. He appears to have done everything in his power to hide the scale of the pension hole from the aforementioned clueless ring piece (CRP). e.g. not letting CRP speak to the regulator, avoiding the subject, preventing due diligence etc...
Really? Isn't the deficit published in the accounts? Don't the Trustees have a responsibility to oversee the fund and act accordingly.FredClogs said:
Unforeseen market movements my arse... I can't just not pay my mortgage this month and say to the building society, sorry peeps, unforeseen markets movements, you understand, I know I've sold the kitchen, carpets and fittings and half the structural components, pocketed the money in my wifes name in a swiss bank and damaged the rest rendering the house unsaleable but - you know, unforeseen market movements.
If you make a commitment to people you stick to it, it's called being a man, and not a oily fking slug.
Take his money and string him up.
Suggest you try and learn the basics about a topic before you make you post your ignorant comments.If you make a commitment to people you stick to it, it's called being a man, and not a oily f
king slug.Take his money and string him up.
FredClogs said:
Unforeseen market movements my arse... I can't just not pay my mortgage this month and say to the building society, sorry peeps, unforeseen markets movements, you understand, I know I've sold the kitchen, carpets and fittings and half the structural components, pocketed the money in my wifes name in a swiss bank and damaged the rest rendering the house unsaleable but - you know, unforeseen market movements.
If you make a commitment to people you stick to it, it's called being a man, and not a oily fking slug.
Take his money and string him up.
Yes but if you have sold your house then you no longer have to pay the mortgage!If you make a commitment to people you stick to it, it's called being a man, and not a oily f
king slug.Take his money and string him up.
sidicks said:
walm said:
IMHO what is more interesting is that:
1. SPG capped the pension contributions to £10m. These are payments to help reduce the deficit. That's very dodgy.
I wouldn't say it was 'very dodgy' - this had to have Trustee approval. Deficit reduction contributions to repair the deficit over the more usual 10 years, rather than 20, would not have made a massive difference to the current deficit.1. SPG capped the pension contributions to £10m. These are payments to help reduce the deficit. That's very dodgy.
walm said:
2. He appears to have done everything in his power to hide the scale of the pension hole from the aforementioned clueless ring piece (CRP). e.g. not letting CRP speak to the regulator, avoiding the subject, preventing due diligence etc...
Really? Isn't the deficit published in the accounts? Don't the Trustees have a responsibility to oversee the fund and act accordingly.So when the deficit was £100m a £10m top up per annum might have made sense (as per your 10 year rule).
But I am sure he said somewhere that he "capped" it somehow, which implies something different to the normal way you plug the deficit, IIRC.
As for the accounts - yes - but they are MASSIVELY delayed and deficits can move £100m +/- in a very short period as was the case here.
Before buying BHS you need an up to date assessment of the pension fund, not something from April 2013, or whatever!
wc98 said:
this i do tend to agree with. as for pensions, i think the public have had enough examples over the years to be able to determine if you want a reasonable pension, do something about it yourself . relying on the business that employs you is a strategy fraught with problems.
All very well, but employers pension schemes are topped up (yeah, I know not always)by the employers contributions. Unless they go belly-up (and even then) they pay a lot more than putting cash into a private scheme. I have a couple of private schemes, and one matured a couple of years ago, paying out a lot less than forecast many years ago.... So what happens? No redress at all, and the provider even removed (without reference or exlpanation) some £700 when the annuity was sent to a new fund (which incidentally paid out 20% more than the providers quote for Annuity). I had very little (ie No) option other than transfer the fund "given", although I eventually got the £700 off them by asking many times - I wonder how many others they had duped with their "Handling fee" at the 11th hour, having given figures 2 weeks before saying no further deductions would be taken? They hide behind the "get a financial advisor" statement, and rip us off for many years. Incidentally the original FA wouldn't handle it on maturity, because the sum was too small -strange it was going to be good when he sold it to me. Anyway back on topic...... I don't understand the point of the select committee and interrogation - if it has no legal standing why waste the time and money? (that could go to the pensioners?) If they/he have broken the law, then lets see this process done properly in a court of law.
sidicks said:
walm said:
As for the accounts - yes - but they are MASSIVELY delayed and deficits can move £100m +/- in a very short period as was the case here.
Due to market movements, as discussed previously...!
Just kidding - yes 100% - interest rates, poor returns and health improvements/medicine!
Fastpedeller said:
All very well, but employers pension schemes are topped up (yeah, I know not always)by the employers contributions. Unless they go belly-up (and even then) they pay a lot more than putting cash into a private scheme. I have a couple of private schemes, and one matured a couple of years ago, paying out a lot less than forecast many years ago.... So what happens? No redress at all,
Markets go up and down. Forecasts are not guarantees.What exactly were you expecting?
sidicks said:
Fastpedeller said:
All very well, but employers pension schemes are topped up (yeah, I know not always)by the employers contributions. Unless they go belly-up (and even then) they pay a lot more than putting cash into a private scheme. I have a couple of private schemes, and one matured a couple of years ago, paying out a lot less than forecast many years ago.... So what happens? No redress at all,
Markets go up and down. Forecasts are not guarantees.What exactly were you expecting?
Whatever, returning to the "markets go up and down" statement, yes I agree that is a correct statement, but something which bothers me is that it is impossible for an individual to know 100% if they are being diddled or not with a pension fund - The numbers are so complex an actuary finds it difficult (and ask 10 and you would get 11 different answers). Employing a FA to advise is so costly it wipes a great chunk off the fund, so the customer is never in a winning situation.
Fastpedeller said:
Something which bothers me is that it is impossible for an individual to know 100% if they are being diddled or not with a pension fund - The numbers are so complex an actuary finds it difficult (and ask 10 and you would get 11 different answers). Employing a FA to advise is so costly it wipes a great chunk off the fund, so the customer is never in a winning situation.
I mostly agree.But IFA advice is actually quite reasonable if you pay on an hourly rate, not commissions.
The transparency of fees and charges will hopefully continue to improve.
Personally I would just go for low-cost ETFs in ISAs and SIPPs instead of letting three layers of fees steal half the returns.
Fastpedeller said:
Well I wasn't expecting them to take off c£700 without reason or explanation. It seems (from doing some online searches)they make a habit of unfortunately making this "small error", so I wonder a)how many spot it (I bet a FA wouldn't, he'd just check the figures add up) and b) if it's standard company policy just in case they can "get away with it"
A transfer charge is not unusual.Fastpeddler said:
Whatever, returning to the "markets go up and down" statement, yes I agree that is a correct statement, but something which bothers me is that it is impossible for an individual to know 100% if they are being diddled or not with a pension fund -
No, these things are highly regulated and fund valuation is relatively straightforward.FastPeddler said:
The numbers are so complex an actuary finds it difficult (and ask 10 and you would get 11 different answers).
You now appear to be confusing DB and DC schemes. The calculations are not complex (not for actuaries at least), but there is scope for difference of opinion in assumptions (and hence valuations).Fastpeddler said:
Employing a FA to advise is so costly it wipes a great chunk off the fund, so the customer is never in a winning situation.
Depends what sort of advice you are after...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff