Sir Philip Green vs Select committee

[rohrl]

Jockman said:

"But MP Frank Field, co-chair of the BHS inquiry carried out by the committees, said Sir Philip should write a cheque for "at least" £571m for the BHS pensioners."

Is the deficit anywhere near this figure?

It's exactly that figure. Why do you think Field would have chosen such a specific number otherwise?

[Jockman]

rohrl said:

Jockman said:

"But MP Frank Field, co-chair of the BHS inquiry carried out by the committees, said Sir Philip should write a cheque for "at least" £571m for the BHS pensioners."

Is the deficit anywhere near this figure?

It's exactly that figure. Why do you think Field would have chosen such a specific number otherwise?

Are you sure?

[rohrl]

Jockman said:

rohrl said:

Jockman said:

"But MP Frank Field, co-chair of the BHS inquiry carried out by the committees, said Sir Philip should write a cheque for "at least" £571m for the BHS pensioners."

Is the deficit anywhere near this figure?

It's exactly that figure. Why do you think Field would have chosen such a specific number otherwise?

Are you sure?

Yes.

The FT said:

...BHS pension fund deficit...£571m.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee7892f0-0d66-11e6-b41f-...

The Guardian said:

...the retailer’s £571m pension deficit.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/25/b...

Daily Telegraph said:

...the cost would be an estimated £571m.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/26/bhs...

[turbobloke]

rohrl said:

The report says that Philip Green is "The unacceptable face of capitalism" and I'd agree. He and his family have ripped the guts out of their businesses for their own personal enrichment leaving the employees without a pension and/or without a job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36879241

What an appalling mess Green left for the inexperienced buyer of BHS to mess up even more. Theresa May needs to be seen to be true to her words on taking up the PM role.

[Jockman]

Why has sidicks said otherwise on page 2 of this thread?

sidicks said:

Not true.

Very high level:
- There was a funding deficit of circa £230m in 2012
- This has increased to around £300m in 2016

In order to buy out the liability with an insurer, the shortfall is closer to £570m.

(This is because insurers have to take a much more prudent approach in terms of a) asset strategy and b) prudent margins for risk and uncertainty).

[AyBee]

Jockman said:

Why has sidicks said otherwise on page 2 of this thread?

sidicks said:

Not true.

Very high level:
- There was a funding deficit of circa £230m in 2012
- This has increased to around £300m in 2016

In order to buy out the liability with an insurer, the shortfall is closer to £570m.

(This is because insurers have to take a much more prudent approach in terms of a) asset strategy and b) prudent margins for risk and uncertainty).

BHS is dead, it can't continue to run the scheme, hence why they're talking about the higher figure.

[Jockman]

AyBee said:

Jockman said:

Why has sidicks said otherwise on page 2 of this thread?

sidicks said:

Not true.

Very high level:
- There was a funding deficit of circa £230m in 2012
- This has increased to around £300m in 2016

In order to buy out the liability with an insurer, the shortfall is closer to £570m.

(This is because insurers have to take a much more prudent approach in terms of a) asset strategy and b) prudent margins for risk and uncertainty).

BHS is dead, it can't continue to run the scheme, hence why they're talking about the higher figure.

So if Green even wanted to plug the £300m deficit it would now cost him the Insurance figure of £570m?

[Murph7355]

Jockman said:

So if Green even wanted to plug the £300m deficit it would now cost him the Insurance figure of £570m?

Looks that way.

What price a knighthood

[sidicks]

Jockman said:

So if Green even wanted to plug the £300m deficit it would now cost him the Insurance figure of £570m?

Given movements in yields and spreads in the last few weeks, I suspect that the scheme deficit has increased significantly, but the insurance buy-out cost probably won't have increased so much, due to the widening of credit spreads.

[lauda]

Jockman said:

So if Green even wanted to plug the £300m deficit it would now cost him the Insurance figure of £570m?

Not necessarily. There are occupational schemes out there without sponsoring employers and which are in a far worse funding position than the BHS scheme.

There may be potential for him to fund the scheme up to 100% on an ongoing basis rather than full buy-out.

[RYH64E]

rohrl said:

Jockman said:

rohrl said:

Jockman said:

"But MP Frank Field, co-chair of the BHS inquiry carried out by the committees, said Sir Philip should write a cheque for "at least" £571m for the BHS pensioners."

Is the deficit anywhere near this figure?

It's exactly that figure. Why do you think Field would have chosen such a specific number otherwise?

Are you sure?

Yes.

The FT said:

...BHS pension fund deficit...£571m.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee7892f0-0d66-11e6-b41f-...

The Guardian said:

...the retailer’s £571m pension deficit.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/25/b...

Daily Telegraph said:

...the cost would be an estimated £571m.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/26/bhs...

There was an interview on Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I think it was someone on the inquiry, and it was said that the £571m figure was what the deficit stood at last year, and that it was significantly higher today.

[sugerbear]

turbobloke said:

rohrl said:

The report says that Philip Green is "The unacceptable face of capitalism" and I'd agree. He and his family have ripped the guts out of their businesses for their own personal enrichment leaving the employees without a pension and/or without a job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36879241

What an appalling mess Green left for the inexperienced buyer of BHS to mess up even more.

Or that Mr Green found a convenient patsy and offloaded BHS knowing full well what the outcome would be for BHS.

[vonuber]

As I understand it he/his wife/harry Redknapp's dog is under no obligation to pay anything?

[fido]

sugerbear said:

Or that Mr Green found a convenient patsy and offloaded BHS knowing full well what the outcome would be for BHS.

+1. Easiest way to offload a pension liability.

[ATG]

RYH64E said:

There was an interview on Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I think it was someone on the inquiry, and it was said that the £571m figure was what the deficit stood at last year, and that it was significantly higher today.

I caught the end of that. Sounded like Frank Field. Think we can safely say he's not one of Phil's biggest fans. "Worse that Robert Maxwell."

[AyBee]

vonuber said:

As I understand it he/his wife/harry Redknapp's dog is under no obligation to pay anything?

Correct. Although Sir Phil has said he will "sort it" - whatever that means...

[RYH64E]

ATG said:

RYH64E said:

There was an interview on Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I think it was someone on the inquiry, and it was said that the £571m figure was what the deficit stood at last year, and that it was significantly higher today.

I caught the end of that. Sounded like Frank Field. Think we can safely say he's not one of Phil's biggest fans. "Worse that Robert Maxwell."

What he said was that, in his opinion, Robert Maxwell stole from the pension funds in order to keep his companies afloat and probably intended to pay the money back but that he was skint when he died, whereas Philip Green has the money and could fully fund the pensions if he chose. He didn't mention the fact that there's a big difference between taking from a pension fund and not putting 'enough' in, nor that defined benefit pensions are largely a relic of the past, just that Maxwell had no money and so no choice, and Green does.

[Jockman]

AyBee said:

vonuber said:

As I understand it he/his wife/harry Redknapp's dog is under no obligation to pay anything?

Correct. Although Sir Phil has said he will "sort it" - whatever that means...

Considering all the money went to the wife........

[crankedup]

rohrl said:

The report says that Philip Green is "The unacceptable face of capitalism" and I'd agree. He and his family have ripped the guts out of their businesses for their own personal enrichment leaving the employees without a pension and/or without a job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36879241

At long last perhaps these greedy self serving parasites may just be recognised for the damage that their actions cause to Society, employees and good business folk . Same goes for the greedy bankers. Talk of a board seat for worker representation is long long overdue, the sooner it is introduced the better.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

rohrl said:

The report says that Philip Green is "The unacceptable face of capitalism" and I'd agree. He and his family have ripped the guts out of their businesses for their own personal enrichment leaving the employees without a pension and/or without a job.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36879241

At long last perhaps these greedy self serving parasites may just be recognised for the damage that their actions cause to Society, employees and good business folk . Same goes for the greedy bankers. Talk of a board seat for worker representation is long long overdue, the sooner it is introduced the better.

Between Maxwell and Green how many cases like this have there been - I can't remember any others but there may have been some all the same.

In Green's case I already posted that Theresa May needs to live up to the statement she made on becoming PM.

The Co-Op mismanagement saga doesn't fit the bill but it was / is memorable.

2013
Co-op Group Chair quits over Paul Flowers drugs claims

2014
Co-op Group accepts resignation of Chief Executive Sutherland

2015
Co-op Bank says it will make no profit until 2017

2016
Shock Co-op boss exit after milk price row