Sir Philip Green vs Select committee
Discussion
Countdown said:
avinalarf said:
Entrepreneurs and other successful business people did not get where they are by being stupid.
Most work very hard to achieve their position and gain experience in their business and during that process they get to know those people they can use to their advantage.
Most have forceful personalities that may overcome the doubts of those responsible for due diligence
They sound very similar to gangsters.Most work very hard to achieve their position and gain experience in their business and during that process they get to know those people they can use to their advantage.
Most have forceful personalities that may overcome the doubts of those responsible for due diligence
and a whole bunch of politicians.
Too become a billionaire in one lifetime takes either extraordinary talent and focus,or a propensity to break the law or travel with those that do.
However it is quite possible to remain within the Law but outside the spirit of the Law,and then it becomes a moral issue and that is not,in this context,a criminal offence.
Edited by avinalarf on Wednesday 27th July 15:49
Jockman said:
Would a Gangster offer a Defined Benefit Pension to all of his Employees? Surely he would opt for a Defined Contribution one 
In Leon, Tony looks after Jean Renos money for him, providing both banking services and tax efficient inheritance planning. I assume this is standard.sidicks said:
Presumably they were less hedged, likely because they couldn't afford to lock in a deficit.
Almost certainly. Or, looking at it from a slightly different angle, they couldn't get enough contributions from the pension scheme's sponsor so had to take more of a punt with the scheme's assets to try and make up the difference. In different times, that punt might have paid off.Whoozit said:
Not true. There are any number of external factors that go into calculating the fund's assets and liabilities, none of which are
In the owner's control. People expected to love longer. Interest rates go up/down. Prudent expectations of investment returns change. And since these are assessed only every three years IIRC, there could indeed be a sudden swing.
Trustees have to balance how closely to shear the sheep. Not so deep the sheep is damaged, but enough so the wool keeps growing.
Nonsense - if you are taking a cautious approach you would hedge the key variables - interest rates, inflation, longevity etc!In the owner's control. People expected to love longer. Interest rates go up/down. Prudent expectations of investment returns change. And since these are assessed only every three years IIRC, there could indeed be a sudden swing.
Trustees have to balance how closely to shear the sheep. Not so deep the sheep is damaged, but enough so the wool keeps growing.
And investment strategy is NOT only reviewed every 3 years - the formal fund valuation is carried out every 3 years - that's fundamentally different.
Zigster said:
Almost certainly. Or, looking at it from a slightly different angle, they couldn't get enough contributions from the pension scheme's sponsor so had to take more of a punt with the scheme's assets to try and make up the difference. In different times, that punt might have paid off.
Murcielago_Boy said:
avinalarf said:
Too become a billionaire in one lifetime takes either extraordinary talent and focus,or a propensity to break the law or travel with those that do.
You left out (legal) political leverage and connection.... I'm not writing a thesis,just the odd comment.
fblm said:
Jockman said:
Would a Gangster offer a Defined Benefit Pension to all of his Employees? Surely he would opt for a Defined Contribution one
In Leon, Tony looks after Jean Renos money for him, providing both banking services and tax efficient inheritance planning. I assume this is standard.Countdown said:
Jockman said:
Would a Gangster offer a Defined Benefit Pension to all of his Employees? Surely he would opt for a Defined Contribution one
There's a difference between "offering and taking all the contributions" and actually "providing". He's effectively taken all their money and done a runner.Whoozit said:
v
Not true. There are any number of external factors that go into calculating the fund's assets and liabilities, none of which are
In the owner's control. People expected to love longer. Interest rates go up/down. Prudent expectations of investment returns change. And since these are assessed only every three years IIRC, there could indeed be a sudden swing.
Trustees have to balance how closely to shear the sheep. Not so deep the sheep is damaged, but enough so the wool keeps growing.
Pedant alert....Not true. There are any number of external factors that go into calculating the fund's assets and liabilities, none of which are
In the owner's control. People expected to love longer. Interest rates go up/down. Prudent expectations of investment returns change. And since these are assessed only every three years IIRC, there could indeed be a sudden swing.
Trustees have to balance how closely to shear the sheep. Not so deep the sheep is damaged, but enough so the wool keeps growing.
Sorry geezer but you gave me a chuckle.....your misspoke.....
"People expected to love longer".
Hehehe.....
sidicks said:
Jockman said:
Pretty sure they will have Insurance? Might need it?
Difficult position to be in for the Trustees that are also employees - standing up to the boss to carry out your regulatory duty but risking your job in the process?!Is there any comeback on the Trustees here?
Jockman said:
Countdown said:
Jockman said:
Would a Gangster offer a Defined Benefit Pension to all of his Employees? Surely he would opt for a Defined Contribution one
There's a difference between "offering and taking all the contributions" and actually "providing". He's effectively taken all their money and done a runner.They paid £X contributions believing that he would pay £Y (£Y being the amount needed to fund their guaranteed final salary pension). Instead of paying £Y he told the Trustees he could only afford £Z and that was ALL he would pay. Instead of paying the amount required he chose to take out billions in dividends. He had obligations. He failed to met those obligations.
Surely we can agree that is dodgy at the very least, if not criminal?
Countdown said:
Jockman said:
Countdown said:
Jockman said:
Would a Gangster offer a Defined Benefit Pension to all of his Employees? Surely he would opt for a Defined Contribution one
There's a difference between "offering and taking all the contributions" and actually "providing". He's effectively taken all their money and done a runner.They paid £X contributions believing that he would pay £Y (£Y being the amount needed to fund their guaranteed final salary pension). Instead of paying £Y he told the Trustees he could only afford £Z and that was ALL he would pay. Instead of paying the amount required he chose to take out billions in dividends. He had obligations. He failed to met those obligations.
Surely we can agree that is dodgy at the very least, if not criminal?
If you were to ask me if I were a BHS Pensioner, would I want to string up PG then yes I most certainly would.
Countdown said:
Kind of a moot point.
They paid £X contributions believing that he would pay £Y (£Y being the amount needed to fund their guaranteed final salary pension). Instead of paying £Y he told the Trustees he could only afford £Z and that was ALL he would pay. Instead of paying the amount required he chose to take out billions in dividends. He had obligations. He failed to met those obligations.
I believe he agreed to pay the ongoing contributions but it was the additional deficit reduction contributions that were to be paid over an extended period.They paid £X contributions believing that he would pay £Y (£Y being the amount needed to fund their guaranteed final salary pension). Instead of paying £Y he told the Trustees he could only afford £Z and that was ALL he would pay. Instead of paying the amount required he chose to take out billions in dividends. He had obligations. He failed to met those obligations.
The Trustees would be at fault if he took dividends when there was a significant deficit - are you sure this was the case?
Countdown said:
Surely we can agree that is dodgy at the very least, if not criminal?
See above!Jockman said:
Absolutely.
Is there any comeback on the Trustees here?
That's a difficult one. Trustees are supposed to be lay people, and aren't required to be perfect. The concept is that they make decisions that a reasonable person would make. If they can demonstrate that they got the best deal they could from PG then they are probably okay. IANAL ...Is there any comeback on the Trustees here?
As others have said, in practice it can be difficult for trustees (who are often employees of the sponsoring employer) to be very strong in standing up to their employer, particularly one with a forceful personality like Philip Green. At least arguably, this is a flaw with the Trustee model, although the rise of independent trustees (i.e. trustees not otherwise involved with the sponsoring business) helps ameliorate that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff