Sir Philip Green vs Select committee

[sidicks]

desolate said:

Take your bonus and fk off somewhere else?

Come on - it's not rocket science.

Since when did you get a bonus for 'buying something'??

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Since when did you get a bonus for 'buying something'??

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the people playing this particular game didn't know what they were doing?

[sidicks]

desolate said:

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the people playing this particular game didn't know what they were doing?

You didn't answer my question!

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

Have you not read Burwood's précis of events which to me are pretty sound ?

See my comments on Burwood's post, above!

Do you understand the detail to make a judgement that his précis is 'pretty sound'?

No.
But he seems a lovely guy that is prepared to comment on a post in an reasonable manner.
I have seen your post regarding Burwood's comments and they also seem fair enough to me.
Is it ok for me to say that ?
I have stated that my posts are only from a layman's perspective and that I'm only to happy to be corrected and educated.
So pipe down you little ste and be a bit more agreeable and less condescending.

Edited by avinalarf on Tuesday 2nd August 11:34

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

You didn't answer my question!

I know I didn't.

There are lots of scenarios in which a person can receive a bonus for buying something.

In addition, buying something can also be used to prop up a balance sheet if a bogus valuation and optimistic future revenue projections are used. Thus producing bonuses galore.

But then I suspect you knew that already.

So were they guilty of hybris or where they just thick?
Or was it someone else's fault?

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

No.
But he seems a lovely guy that is prepared to comment on a post in an reasonable manner.
I have seen your post regarding Burwood's comments and they also seem fair enough to me.
Is it ok for me to say that ?

But our posts put a very different slant on the issue, that's my point.

avinalarf said:

I have stated that my posts are only from a layman's perspective and that I'm only to happy to be corrected and educated.
So pipe down you little ste and be a bit more agreeable and less condescending.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's a fair point - you have two posts that you agree seem 'fair enough' but the posts contradict each other and can't both be correct. How do you know which is more accurate ?

[sidicks]

desolate said:

I know I didn't.

There are lots of scenarios in which a person can receive a bonus for buying something.

In addition, buying something can also be used to prop up a balance sheet if a bogus valuation and optimistic future revenue projections are used. Thus producing bonuses galore.

But then I suspect you knew that already.

So were they guilty of hybris or where they just thick?
Or was it someone else's fault?

If you are trading these securities then you'd need to sell them for more than you bought them for - you can't just buy a security and suddenly value it at much more than its market price!

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

If you are trading these securities then you'd need to sell them for more than you bought them for - you can't just buy a security and suddenly value it at much more than its market price!

You didn't answer my question.

[sidicks]

desolate said:

You didn't answer my question.

How about 'none of the above'.

How about they thought they were buying good securities and their analysis was insufficient (for a variety of reasons)?

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 2nd August 11:49

[RYH64E]

Some of you have way to much time on your hands...

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

No.
But he seems a lovely guy that is prepared to comment on a post in an reasonable manner.
I have seen your post regarding Burwood's comments and they also seem fair enough to me.
Is it ok for me to say that ?

But our posts put a very different slant on the issue, that's my point.

avinalarf said:

I have stated that my posts are only from a layman's perspective and that I'm only to happy to be corrected and educated.
So pipe down you little ste and be a bit more agreeable and less condescending.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's a fair point - you have two posts that you agree seem 'fair enough' but the posts contradict each other and can't both be correct. How do you know which is more accurate ?

I don't .
I think ,however, that combined with other articles I have read about the subject both your comments and Burwood's seemed reasonable.
I didn't realise your comments diametrically opposed Burwood's ,just that you had your own opinion on the subject,based on your experience of having worked in banking.
I will be interested to read Burwood's comments on your post.

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

Some of you have way to much time on your hands...

Typing one-liners is OK though. I'll stop there....

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

I don't .
I think ,however, that combined with other articles I have read about the subject both your comments and Burwood's seemed reasonable.
I didn't realise your comments diametrically opposed Burwood's ,just that you had your own opinion on the subject,based on your experience of having worked in banking.

Not diametrically imposed, but certainly with a different slant on the real risks involved and the culpability!

avinalarf said:

I will be interested to read Burwood's comments on your post.

Me too.

Apologies if my replies are somewhat blunt - normally it comes from trying to provide responses with limited time to soften the language used.

[Digga]

RYH64E said:

Some of you have way to much time on your hands...

That's kind of the whole premise of the forum. And your point is?

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

How about 'none of the above'.

How about they thought they were buying good securities and their analysis was insufficient (for a variety of reasons)?

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd August 11:49

Ok - incompetent rather than thick, that's probably fairer.

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

Me too.

Apologies if my replies are somewhat blunt - normally it comes from trying to provide responses with limited time to soften the language used.

Thank you your apology happily accepted,let us move on.
I appreciate that in can be aggravating if comments posted show a degree of ignorance of a subject that another person has a depth of knowledge of.
However for me every day's a school day.

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

Thank you your apology happily accepted,let us move on.
I appreciate that in can be aggravating if comments posted show a degree of ignorance of a subject that another person has a depth of knowledge of.
However for me every day's a school day.

There's no problem with showing ignorance and asking for help - my issue is with those who are ignorant and pretend otherwise!

As I've said repeatedly, if someone has a genuine interest in a topic and is asking for information, I try and help them. I apologise if I've not lived up to this, on this occasion.

[Burwood]

avinalarf said:

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

Have you not read Burwood's précis of events which to me are pretty sound ?

See my comments on Burwood's post, above!

Do you understand the detail to make a judgement that his précis is 'pretty sound'?

No.
But he seems a lovely guy that is prepared to comment on a post in an reasonable manner.
I have seen your post regarding Burwood's comments and they also seem fair enough to me.
Is it ok for me to say that ?
I have stated that my posts are only from a layman's perspective and that I'm only to happy to be corrected and educated.
So pipe down you little ste and be a bit more agreeable and less condescending.

Edited by avinalarf on Tuesday 2nd August 11:34

You've got it all wrong larf. I haven't heard anyone refer to me as 'lovely' for a very long time. I'm sure my wife has said it before but even that was quite some time ago

[Burwood]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

Thank you your apology happily accepted,let us move on.
I appreciate that in can be aggravating if comments posted show a degree of ignorance of a subject that another person has a depth of knowledge of.
However for me every day's a school day.

There's no problem with showing ignorance and asking for help - my issue is with those who are ignorant and pretend otherwise!

As I've said repeatedly, if someone has a genuine interest in a topic and is asking for information, I try and help them. I apologise if I've not lived up to this, on this occasion.

I think there is truth in what you say. Being obtuse with one line responses can be aggravating

[avinalarf]

Burwood said:

You've got it all wrong larf. I haven't heard anyone refer to me as 'lovely' for a very long time. I'm sure my wife has said it before but even that was quite some time ago

Don't you start.
I've only just kissed and made up with your partner in crime sidicks.
You are very lovely and fragrant and if I were so inclined,which I'm not,we could have had a good future together.