Sir Philip Green vs Select committee
Discussion
crankedup said:
greygoose said:
Wills2 said:
He always spoils threads with his one-upmanship style of bickering, seems incapable of putting his views forward without trying to belittle other posters, it's a bit of a shame TBH for a grown man to act in this way.
Condescension seems to be his default style sadly, could explain why he posts on here rather than talking to friends at work!greygoose said:
I am sure he knows what he is talking about but it seems the financial services way to try and cloak their workings in impenetrable language, I wish there had been education at school about pension funds etc but there wasn't in my day, perhaps it has changed. It doesn't take much to be polite and try and explain to those less knowledgable though rather than ridiculing.
That's exactly what was happening up until the top of page 16 when 'Whoozit' turned up and aggressively contradicted me, despite seemingly not having a clue what he was talking about - re-read the thread!!In fact, on the previous page, we had this:
fblm said:
This has been a genuinely educational thread. Blimey. Thx Sidicks et al.
I'll spend as much as time as necessary trying to help someone who genuinely doesn't understand something, but I have little patience about those who pretend they know far more than they actually do and end up disrupting the thread. Sorry about that.You don;t list your profession on your profile, but I doubt you'd be particularly patient if someone was discussing your area of expertise and was repeatedly telling you that you were wrong, when you knew otherwise?!
Edited by sidicks on Friday 29th July 19:01
sidicks said:
Whoozit said:
...I would ask, if as you say longevity/NPV (and not simple interest rate hedges thankyouverymuch) hedges are easily and cheaply available, why are these DB schemes running into trouble? That didn't seem to be a major topic of discussion in Parliament. I am genuinely interested, if you really want to educate I'm all ears.
So you've changed your tune somewhat?! You now appear to recognise that it is easy, straightforward and relatively inexpensive to hedge interest rate and inflation risk for a pension scheme, which captures the vast majority of market risk. Such a cautious approach would have protected the scheme in the last 5+ years. In comparison to interest rates and inflation, longevity risk is second order, and evolves over long time horizons not short ones. Longevity risk and the implications on DB schemes has crept up over 10-20 years rather than changed massively recently - this was certainly NOT the main reason for the deficit in the BHS scheme.
Longevity hedges clearly include some margins against idiosyncratic risk and trend risk, hence there is a cost beyond the expected value of liabilities. Again, a cautious strategy would seek to hedge this too, or at least the more stable pensioner liabilities within the scheme.
http://www.uk.mercer.com/newsroom/mercer-zurich-la...
https://www.towerswatson.com/en-GB/Insights/Newsle...
http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-p...
https://www.corporate-adviser.com/issues/july-2016...
Etc etc etc
By not hedging these key components, DB schemes are actively choosing to take risks with the aim of reducing the overall cost of providing benefits. When those risks don't work out, they only have themselves to blame and are entirely responsible for the deficits caused.
greygoose said:
crankedup said:
greygoose said:
Wills2 said:
He always spoils threads with his one-upmanship style of bickering, seems incapable of putting his views forward without trying to belittle other posters, it's a bit of a shame TBH for a grown man to act in this way.
Condescension seems to be his default style sadly, could explain why he posts on here rather than talking to friends at work!crankedup said:
Agreed, we could all be heroes if we decided to expose our wealth of knowledge within our own individual area of expertise. If it makes the guy feel good about himself or he feels he is providing some sort of public service through this forum, so be it. Polite is not something that seems to be inherent within the banking services, more arrogance I perciecive.
It is quite funny - almost like the Hamilton fanboys/haters threads in the F1 forum - but Sidicks clearly does know his stuff (I am reasonably qualified to recognise it as such) and in my experience explains everything very accurately and patiently generally.His mask does slip though when people simply won't listen and will argue opinion and bigotry over facts!
Well who could blame any of the PH experts for losing their rag occasionally?
Quite a few have 'flounced off' as a result. And I genuinely don't mean that the way it sounds - maybe 'departed' or 'given up' would be more appropriate???
It has been happening for years now unfortunately.....
Crankedup, our Politics and many other opinions are clearly not aligned and I am afraid I find quite a few of your posts rather..... Opinionated and very one sided. You have a right to post them though and IMHO, Sidicks has shown amazing patience most of the time.
sidicks said:
No problem - suggest you stick to topics you actually understand in future!
Goodbye!
What a condescending attitude.Why didn't you give Philip Green some advice how to run a business properly without causing so much hardship and people having to look or a other job.Goodbye!
Edited by sidicks on Friday 29th July 14:31
The Frank Fields of this world are the idiots are they?
Slaav said:
crankedup said:
Agreed, we could all be heroes if we decided to expose our wealth of knowledge within our own individual area of expertise. If it makes the guy feel good about himself or he feels he is providing some sort of public service through this forum, so be it. Polite is not something that seems to be inherent within the banking services, more arrogance I perciecive.
It is quite funny - almost like the Hamilton fanboys/haters threads in the F1 forum - but Sidicks clearly does know his stuff (I am reasonably qualified to recognise it as such) and in my experience explains everything very accurately and patiently generally.His mask does slip though when people simply won't listen and will argue opinion and bigotry over facts!
Well who could blame any of the PH experts for losing their rag occasionally?
Quite a few have 'flounced off' as a result. And I genuinely don't mean that the way it sounds - maybe 'departed' or 'given up' would be more appropriate???
It has been happening for years now unfortunately.....
Crankedup, our Politics and many other opinions are clearly not aligned and I am afraid I find quite a few of your posts rather..... Opinionated and very one sided. You have a right to post them though and IMHO, Sidicks has shown amazing patience most of the time.
Opinionated - well of course I do have an opinion on many things, like most normal people.
One sided - nah, I'm a fifty pence piece. You have picked up on the sides you disagree with.
crankedup said:
There was I demonstrating that I can be fair and balanced singing the praises of our local pensions expert, and he is, sidicks.
Opinionated - well of course I do have an opinion on many things, like most normal people.
One sided - nah, I'm a fifty pence piece. You have picked up on the sides you disagree with.
In fairness to cranked up, although we don't share the same political views (even though I believe we share a desire for similar outcomes) he is generally fair and does acknowledge when people do know what they are talking about!Opinionated - well of course I do have an opinion on many things, like most normal people.
One sided - nah, I'm a fifty pence piece. You have picked up on the sides you disagree with.
pim said:
What a condescending attitude.Why didn't you give Philip Green some advice how to run a business properly without causing so much hardship and people having to look or a other job.
I don't profess to be a 'business expert' (or to have any time for Green), but the previous pages had been a productive discussion regarding pension scheme strategies (and the extent to which Green / the Trustees had contributed to the deficit) until Whoozit butted, making demonstrably false claims on two occasions then, when challenged (and despite me posting a lot of supporting information to help him understand the issues) he flouted off the thread!Not sure why you think he was adding value in any way?
pim said:
The Frank Fields of this world are the idiots are they?
I certainly think that in this context he was more concerned about cheap political point scoring rather than understanding the issues. But that does seem to be the modus operandi for the Treasury Select Committee!Edited by sidicks on Sunday 31st July 20:54
crankedup said:
There was I demonstrating that I can be fair and balanced singing the praises of our local pensions expert, and he is, sidicks.
Opinionated - well of course I do have an opinion on many things, like most normal people.
One sided - nah, I'm a fifty pence piece. You have picked up on the sides you disagree with.
Mmm..... That's not a bad analogy - I may have to mull that one over.....Opinionated - well of course I do have an opinion on many things, like most normal people.
One sided - nah, I'm a fifty pence piece. You have picked up on the sides you disagree with.
We are certainly far from aligned though and I think that isn't a bad thing as long as we keep everything reasonably civil; if a little robust at times! ('We' as in plural generally, not you and I
)Slaav said:
crankedup said:
There was I demonstrating that I can be fair and balanced singing the praises of our local pensions expert, and he is, sidicks.
Opinionated - well of course I do have an opinion on many things, like most normal people.
One sided - nah, I'm a fifty pence piece. You have picked up on the sides you disagree with.
Mmm..... That's not a bad analogy - I may have to mull that one over.....Opinionated - well of course I do have an opinion on many things, like most normal people.
One sided - nah, I'm a fifty pence piece. You have picked up on the sides you disagree with.
We are certainly far from aligned though and I think that isn't a bad thing as long as we keep everything reasonably civil; if a little robust at times! ('We' as in plural generally, not you and I
)sidicks said:
pim said:
The Frank Fields of this world are the idiots are they?
I certainly think that in this context he was more concerned about cheap political point scoring rather than understanding the issues. But that does seem to be the modus operandi for the Treasury Select Committee!I think he may be confused with the legal obligation of Green regarding the pension deficit which, thus far, has not necessarily been established. Even the arguable moral issue is difficult to establish at this stage. I can understand where Field comes from on this, but think it is a little premature at best and at worst ill informed.
Where I do agree with him is that the case should receive further scrutiny and that the 'usual suspects' in the city, should not escape this. There are organisations whose names have cropped up in too many dubious deals to be ignored.
Digga said:
read an interview with Field in the Times on Sat. He is a difficult character to pigeonhole and has fairly complex views on the overall subject of Green. He praised him for being self made - suggested the fact a lot of British press like to destroy success is a bad thing for society and the economy - and also said he was sickened by those who wanted to see Green brought down for being a "greedy Jew". Certainly the latter view is abhorrent, but at the same time, it's odd to give it oxygen by reciting it in interview.
I think he may be confused with the legal obligation of Green regarding the pension deficit which, thus far, has not necessarily been established. Even the arguable moral issue is difficult to establish at this stage. I can understand where Field comes from on this, but think it is a little premature at best and at worst ill informed.
Where I do agree with him is that the case should receive further scrutiny and that the 'usual suspects' in the city, should not escape this. There are organisations whose names have cropped up in too many dubious deals to be ignored.
I'd certainly agree with that!I think he may be confused with the legal obligation of Green regarding the pension deficit which, thus far, has not necessarily been established. Even the arguable moral issue is difficult to establish at this stage. I can understand where Field comes from on this, but think it is a little premature at best and at worst ill informed.
Where I do agree with him is that the case should receive further scrutiny and that the 'usual suspects' in the city, should not escape this. There are organisations whose names have cropped up in too many dubious deals to be ignored.
Was quite an interesting interview with Field: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-thought-that-g...
Burwood said:
re Fred Goodwin, yes he had a £700K p.a pension. He agreed (forced) to give up £200k.
True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
How did the rest of board approve this behaviour?True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
Where the F**K were the shareholders? What the hell?!
Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Monday 1st August 14:48
Murcielago_Boy said:
Burwood said:
re Fred Goodwin, yes he had a £700K p.a pension. He agreed (forced) to give up £200k.
True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
How did the rest of board approve this behaviour?True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
Where the F**K were the shareholders? What the hell?!
Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Monday 1st August 14:48
sidicks said:
Digga said:
Where I do agree with him is that the case should receive further scrutiny and that the 'usual suspects' in the city, should not escape this. There are organisations whose names have cropped up in too many dubious deals to be ignored.
I'd certainly agree with that!crankedup said:
Murcielago_Boy said:
Burwood said:
re Fred Goodwin, yes he had a £700K p.a pension. He agreed (forced) to give up £200k.
True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
How did the rest of board approve this behaviour?True story, I did a stint at RBS. Fred didn't want anyone to know he has a private jet so the bank purchased an aircraft leasing company. Technically the other company owned the jet, not RBS (no jet on the books thanks) They kept the jet in France. The costs to run it were much greater than normal because the crew had to fly into the UK to pick him up. Aviation rules meant an overnight for the crew. I recall a flight to Spain would cost all in about £150k when you factored in the frequency and running costs. His wife and friends used the jet, his wife has a high end car with driver. That guy absolutely milked that cow(the bank) for all its worth. He was so arrogant, he bought ABN Amro and didn't even conduct proper DD. £10B in toxic debt was lurking on their balance sheet. The guy single handedly destroyed ABN/RBS and sucked Billions from the treasury.
Where the F**K were the shareholders? What the hell?!
Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Monday 1st August 14:48
Digga said:
oincidentally, his name cropped up this morning talking to Digga snr about Green being the (current) unacceptable face of capitalism and it was agreed out that Goodwin did far worse.
Agree with the above and reiterate as I've said before,the banking fiasco was scandalous and the minimal,if any, personal retribution against those who benefitted hugely financially ,especially in the UK is scandalous.Once again the regulations were either not there,or not enforced,indeed governments were just as culpable,in awe to the financial machinations that were going on.
This form of Capitalism is so corrosive and destructive and is no friend to the majority of entrepreneurs that work their arse off but are prepared to have a moral compass.
However legislation should have been in place to curb the excesses of the greedy and unscrupulous.
I doubt whether it will as it will need to be agreed by all the major players globally.
Greed is Good....no it bloody isn't .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff