Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?
Discussion
JNW1 said:
The link below might help to shed a bit of light on things!
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
That link appears to show that £307m was taken out of the firm between 2002 and 2004.http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
It also shows the pension scheme to be in surplus during that time, as I claimed originally.
What have I missed?
fblm said:
Is there any difference when the only reason is to try and establish a perception of professional authority for doling out unsolicited diagnosis in public? I guess the ethics module was also elective.
He might be trying to help. I mean if you have no empathy, you might not be able to see that you're a sociopath? I haven't ever heard of any of the usual NPandE suspects go and get themselves checked out to see if they could do with some professional help. You've been here a while, it's quite clear there are loads of people in here that aren't wired up in a way that probably benefits society. I think it's great that experts come on here and freely give out advice. It's better than dull people just droning on about their stuff all the time.
el stovey said:
He might be trying to help. I mean if you have no empathy, you might not be able to see that you're a sociopath? I haven't ever heard of any of the usual NPandE suspects go and get themselves checked out to see if they could do with some professional help. You've been here a while, it's quite clear there are loads of people in here that aren't wired up in a way that probably benefits society.
It's quite clear that this is an Internet forum, not the 'real world'.el stovey said:
I think it's great that experts come on here and freely give out advice. It's better than dull people just droning on about their stuff all the time.
Let me guess, only when you agree with those 'experts'?
JNW1 said:
The link below might help to shed a bit of light on things!
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
Hardly unbiased or definitive, who are business adviser?http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
Want to know who really f
ked final salary pension schemes?
TB and Winky Mcfknuts
In November 2000 there was a small change in accounting procedures called FRS17.
Ever heard of FRS17?
Well, before FRS17 actuaries had used the long term yields expected on equities to calculate the amount of money that needed to be in the pension fund to cover future pension payments. This was fine because pensions are generally long term investments, and the funds themselves were comprised to a large extent of equities. In fact, many pension funds were in surplus to the extent that your greedy corporate raider would take over a company to get his hands in the pension fund! All was rosy.
Enter Bliar and Winky.
FRS 17 said that actuaries should not use equity yields, but should use gilt yields instead, as gilts are safer than equities. Safer, but much lower yielding. More money was thus needed in the fund to cover future liabilities. Boom!! Final salary pension funding costs shot up, companies could no longer afford them, they closed down, and pensioners are now very much worse off then they were before.
Thanks guys.
ked final salary pension schemes?TB and Winky Mcf
knutsIn November 2000 there was a small change in accounting procedures called FRS17.
Ever heard of FRS17?
Well, before FRS17 actuaries had used the long term yields expected on equities to calculate the amount of money that needed to be in the pension fund to cover future pension payments. This was fine because pensions are generally long term investments, and the funds themselves were comprised to a large extent of equities. In fact, many pension funds were in surplus to the extent that your greedy corporate raider would take over a company to get his hands in the pension fund! All was rosy.
Enter Bliar and Winky.
FRS 17 said that actuaries should not use equity yields, but should use gilt yields instead, as gilts are safer than equities. Safer, but much lower yielding. More money was thus needed in the fund to cover future liabilities. Boom!! Final salary pension funding costs shot up, companies could no longer afford them, they closed down, and pensioners are now very much worse off then they were before.
Thanks guys.
sidicks said:
JNW1 said:
The link below might help to shed a bit of light on things!
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
That link appears to show that £307m was taken out of the firm between 2002 and 2004.http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
It also shows the pension scheme to be in surplus during that time, as I claimed originally.
What have I missed?
For me, the bottom line is Green bought a company with pension funds in surplus and, under his ownership, they went significantly into deficit whilst at the same time he and his family took huge amounts of money out of the business. Viewed in conjunction with his ducking and diving with the regulator over things like the recovery plan for the pension schemes it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth and if you'd witnessed his performance in front of the Select Committee you'd understand why I - and many others - have little or no time for him. I'm quite prepared to believe he hasn't acted illegally (like I say, he's probably too smart and has too many well paid advisers to get caught like that) but his ethics stink IMO....
el stovey said:
He might be trying to help.
I refer you to your previous post. Anyway I'm much more interested in a professional opinion on Jonhs theory of fat (read greedy) billionaires being predisposed to crime than whether or not Sidicks cries when Jenny dies.(ps 'spaths' know what they are)
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 19th October 15:35
JNW1 said:
That article quotes the dividends taken between 2002 and 2004 but in total I think the Green family took around a further £100m in dividends plus a sizeable amount (£150m plus) in rent for a number of properties owned by another of their companies (and apparently those rents were top-end of the market rates for the properties concerned).
Do you have a link to support either of these claims?Wouldn't HMRC be concerned if intra-compnay transactions were not done at an appropriate market rate?
JNW1 said:
For me, the bottom line is Green bought a company with pension funds in surplus and, under his ownership, they went significantly into deficit whilst at the same time he and his family took huge amounts of money out of the business.
Once again, it's not clear that Green took 'huge amounts of money out of the business' while the scheme was in deficit.The scheme moved into deficit due to economic conditions, as did numerous other schemes.
JNW1 said:
Viewed in conjunction with his ducking and diving with the regulator over things like the recovery plan for the pension schemes it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth and if you'd witnessed his performance in front of the Select Committee you'd understand why I - and many others - have little or no time for him. I'm quite prepared to believe he hasn't acted illegally (like I say, he's probably too smart and has too many well paid advisers to get caught like that) but his ethics stink IMO....
How profitable was the business when the recovery scheme was being produced?What were the proposed deficit reduction contributions compared to company profits?
I have no time for him personally, I'm just trying to understand the facts of the situation.
Lots of focus here on the pension scheme & very little on the sale of BHS to Chappell et al. It was never ever going to fly & those people appeared to be in only so they could strip out as much cash as they could find.
Some suggestion that Green funded / guaranteed that sale in some ways - was he in effect paying them to take a big problem off his hands?
Has also been suggested to me that the law firms involved were possibly the only ones who would touch the deal as it was obviously fishy.
Goldman Sachs get out of jail free card was "they didn't pay for our advice"...
Some suggestion that Green funded / guaranteed that sale in some ways - was he in effect paying them to take a big problem off his hands?
Has also been suggested to me that the law firms involved were possibly the only ones who would touch the deal as it was obviously fishy.
Goldman Sachs get out of jail free card was "they didn't pay for our advice"...
sidicks said:
In any case, it doesn't support the claim being made!
Sorry, what claim was that? What I said was that during Green's ownership the pension schemes went from surplus to deficit whilst at the same time he and his family took hundreds of millions out of the business - I think that's actually a matter of record and the link to the article I posted supports that?I have to confess to not having read all of this thread so what is it you're trying say Green did or did not do? I get the impression you're attempting to defend his behaviour but happy to stand corrected if that's not the case!
JNW1 said:
Sorry, what claim was that? What I said was that during Green's ownership the pension schemes went from surplus to deficit whilst at the same time he and his family took hundreds of millions out of the business - I think that's actually a matter of record and the link to the article I posted supports that?
As explained above, the schemes moved into deficit because of market movements.When the dividends were taken, the schemes were in surplus.
The article you provided clearly refers to dividends up to 2004, when the scheme was in surplus.
JNW1 said:
I have to confess to not having read all of this thread so what is it you're trying say Green did or did not do? I get the impression you're attempting to defend his behaviour but happy to stand corrected if that's not the case!
I'm doing nothing of the sort, just trying to differentiate between what some people are claiming he has done and what he has actually done.I'm quite sure that he ran the business to enrich himself at the expense of others with no regard for the staff etc (and in no way am I defending that), but the evidence is NOT that this resulted in the pension scheme deficit which appeared post 2004.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 19th October 15:59
fblm said:
el stovey said:
He might be trying to help.
I refer you to your previous post. Anyway I'm much more interested in a professional opinion on Jonhs theory of fat (read greedy) billionaires being predisposed to crime than whether or not Sidicks cries when Jenny dies.(ps 'spaths' know what they are)
Shall we make a list:
Fat Billionaires:
mike Ashley
Phil Green
Gina Rinehart
Sheldon Adelson
Silvio Berlusconi
Donald Trump
Raj Rajaratnam
Thin Billionaires:
Steve Jobs (VERY thin)
Bill Gates
Larry Ellison
Zuckerberg
Elon Musk
Jeff Bezos
(Is Carlos Slim fat or slim?)
Travis Kalanick
Ayahuasca said:
Want to know who really fked final salary pension schemes?
TB and Winky Mcfknuts
In November 2000 there was a small change in accounting procedures called FRS17.
Ever heard of FRS17?
Well, before FRS17 actuaries had used the long term yields expected on equities to calculate the amount of money that needed to be in the pension fund to cover future pension payments. This was fine because pensions are generally long term investments, and the funds themselves were comprised to a large extent of equities. In fact, many pension funds were in surplus to the extent that your greedy corporate raider would take over a company to get his hands in the pension fund! All was rosy.
Enter Bliar and Winky.
FRS 17 said that actuaries should not use equity yields, but should use gilt yields instead, as gilts are safer than equities. Safer, but much lower yielding. More money was thus needed in the fund to cover future liabilities. Boom!! Final salary pension funding costs shot up, companies could no longer afford them, they closed down, and pensioners are now very much worse off then they were before.
Thanks guys.
Gosh, I rememeber the days of FRS17.ked final salary pension schemes?TB and Winky Mcf
knutsIn November 2000 there was a small change in accounting procedures called FRS17.
Ever heard of FRS17?
Well, before FRS17 actuaries had used the long term yields expected on equities to calculate the amount of money that needed to be in the pension fund to cover future pension payments. This was fine because pensions are generally long term investments, and the funds themselves were comprised to a large extent of equities. In fact, many pension funds were in surplus to the extent that your greedy corporate raider would take over a company to get his hands in the pension fund! All was rosy.
Enter Bliar and Winky.
FRS 17 said that actuaries should not use equity yields, but should use gilt yields instead, as gilts are safer than equities. Safer, but much lower yielding. More money was thus needed in the fund to cover future liabilities. Boom!! Final salary pension funding costs shot up, companies could no longer afford them, they closed down, and pensioners are now very much worse off then they were before.
Thanks guys.
I'm currently dealing with FRS102 and 105 at the moment. Those accounting chappies HAVE been busy.
edh said:
Lots of focus here on the pension scheme & very little on the sale of BHS to Chappell et al. It was never ever going to fly & those people appeared to be in only so they could strip out as much cash as they could find.
Agreed. Sadly given Chappell's history (not least in motorsport) what transpired should be of no surprise. What did surprise me was the line (in wiki) ;"when it became likely that BHS would be going into receivership Chappell had moved £1.5 million from the firm to a company owned by a friend who was also a fellow board member of Retail Acquisitions. The sum had been later refunded at the request of BHS' chief executive Darren Topp (less £50,000 bank transaction fees)". 50k in transaction fees on a 1.5m transfer? 
sidicks said:
JNW1 said:
The link below might help to shed a bit of light on things!
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
That link appears to show that £307m was taken out of the firm between 2002 and 2004.http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
It also shows the pension scheme to be in surplus during that time, as I claimed originally.
What have I missed?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff