Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?

[JNW1]

avinalarf said:

Obviously Cash flow is important but I don't understand why you appear to suggest it is more important than profit.

You can't pay bills with profit, ultimately businesses go under because they haven't got the cash to meet their obligations! Also, while accounting standards limit the amount of manipulation a company can do, profit & loss accounts can be massaged to some extent (depreciation policy, creation of provisions, etc); therefore, if you were (say) trying to put a value on a company you were looking to acquire you'd be better to use the cash flow rather than the profit figures.

[Jockman]

JNW1 said:

avinalarf said:

Obviously Cash flow is important but I don't understand why you appear to suggest it is more important than profit.

You can't pay bills with profit, ultimately businesses go under because they haven't got the cash to meet their obligations! Also, while accounting standards limit the amount of manipulation a company can do, profit & loss accounts can be massaged to some extent (depreciation policy, creation of provisions, etc); therefore, if you were (say) trying to put a value on a company you were looking to acquire you'd be better to use the cash flow rather than the profit figures.

Profitable companies go out of business every day. They run out of cashflow. It's simply about money in and money out (as you imply).

Stock manipulation is another classic way of distortion. The Construction industry is awash with small companies using a basic WIP to value their stocks. Then they wonder why they are rejected for finance on their new vans for example !!

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

I refuse to believe that PG didn't know the pasty was a chancer and that in normal circumstances he wouldn't have said to him "feck off sonny boy".

Avinalarf. I've been very reasonable with you up until now, but if you're going to disrespect the Cornish by using 'pasty' as a derogatory term, then we are going to fall out sooner rather than later...'

Edited by sidicks on Friday 21st October 19:44

[avinalarf]

sidicks said:

avinalarf said:

I refuse to believe that PG didn't know the pasty was a chancer and that in normal circumstances he wouldn't have said to him "feck off sonny boy".

Avinalarf. I've been very reasonable with you up until now, but if you're going to disrespect the Cornish by using 'pasty' as a derogatory term, then we are going to fall out sooner rather than later...'

Edited by sidicks on Friday 21st October 19:44

Ho ,Ho....well spotted,you really are on good form at the moment.
I do appreciate you giving me an easy ride of late and your brave attempts at banter.
Have a good day.
Steven

[avinalarf]

Jockman said:

JNW1 said:

avinalarf said:

Obviously Cash flow is important but I don't understand why you appear to suggest it is more important than profit.

You can't pay bills with profit, ultimately businesses go under because they haven't got the cash to meet their obligations! Also, while accounting standards limit the amount of manipulation a company can do, profit & loss accounts can be massaged to some extent (depreciation policy, creation of provisions, etc); therefore, if you were (say) trying to put a value on a company you were looking to acquire you'd be better to use the cash flow rather than the profit figures.

Profitable companies go out of business every day. They run out of cashflow. It's simply about money in and money out (as you imply).

Stock manipulation is another classic way of distortion. The Construction industry is awash with small companies using a basic WIP to value their stocks. Then they wonder why they are rejected for finance on their new vans for example !!

Thanks for the clarification, I probably misinterpreted the context of the comments regarding profit.

[Adrian W]

So the pension regulator has sent out a notice saying sort it out, does this actually mean anything?

[Welshbeef]

Adrian W said:

So the pension regulator has sent out a notice saying sort it out, does this actually mean anything?

Apparently Green and Chapple and the pre Green former owners need to make a Contribution that could be £10 or £300m.

This will take years now in the courts.


Green has offered £200m via a vehicle which the regulator has rejected.

[JNW1]

Welshbeef said:

Adrian W said:

So the pension regulator has sent out a notice saying sort it out, does this actually mean anything?

Apparently Green and Chapple and the pre Green former owners need to make a Contribution that could be £10 or £300m.

This will take years now in the courts.


Green has offered £200m via a vehicle which the regulator has rejected.

What it appears to mean is the regulator has lost patience with Green and feels he hasn't really come-up with a satisfactory proposal despite assuring everyone he would; no doubt Green sees things differently so I suspect the whole affair could just drag on and on. However, I wasn't aware owners pre-Green had been served with the notice; the pension scheme was in surplus when they sold the business so not sure why they would need to contribute to a deficit which accumulated under subsequent management?

[Welshbeef]

JNW1 said:

Welshbeef said:

Adrian W said:

So the pension regulator has sent out a notice saying sort it out, does this actually mean anything?

Apparently Green and Chapple and the pre Green former owners need to make a Contribution that could be £10 or £300m.

This will take years now in the courts.


Green has offered £200m via a vehicle which the regulator has rejected.

What it appears to mean is the regulator has lost patience with Green and feels he hasn't really come-up with a satisfactory proposal despite assuring everyone he would; no doubt Green sees things differently so I suspect the whole affair could just drag on and on. However, I wasn't aware owners pre-Green had been served with the notice; the pension scheme was in surplus when they sold the business so not sure why they would need to contribute to a deficit which accumulated under subsequent management?

Because average live has increased notably and also returns on gilts and interest rates have caused ore Gree nowners the need to chip in. This has big ramifications for all companies.

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

Because average live has increased notably and also returns on gilts and interest rates have caused ore Gree nowners the need to chip in. This has big ramifications for all companies.

There is no way that the 'pre-Green' owners will be forced to make any contributions.

[JNW1]

Welshbeef said:

Because average live has increased notably and also returns on gilts and interest rates have caused ore Gree nowners the need to chip in. This has big ramifications for all companies.

Where have you seen reference to the BHS owners pre-Sir Philip Green being served with notice of enforcement action by the pension regulator? Not saying you're wrong but at a quick glance on the internet I can't see any mention of them being included in this action and in truth I can't see why they should be; they sold a company with pension funds which were in surplus by reference to the rules and regulations which applied at the time and if subsequent management then allowed them to run into deficit why should the previous owners be expected to pick-up part of the tab? Once they'd sold the business surely it was the responsibility of the new owner (i.e. Philip Green) to ensure the pension scheme was continued to be funded adequately?

[Welshbeef]

JNW1 said:

Welshbeef said:

Because average live has increased notably and also returns on gilts and interest rates have caused ore Gree nowners the need to chip in. This has big ramifications for all companies.

Where have you seen reference to the BHS owners pre-Sir Philip Green being served with notice of enforcement action by the pension regulator? Not saying you're wrong but at a quick glance on the internet I can't see any mention of them being included in this action and in truth I can't see why they should be; they sold a company with pension funds which were in surplus by reference to the rules and regulations which applied at the time and if subsequent management then allowed them to run into deficit why should the previous owners be expected to pick-up part of the tab? Once they'd sold the business surely it was the responsibility of the new owner (i.e. Philip Green) to ensure the pension scheme was continued to be funded adequately?

It was mentioned on R4 Today programme.

Also when Phillip Green left the deficit was sub £200m -he has offered £200m this is rejected so it appears the blue on leaving isn't relevant

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

There is no way that the 'pre-Green' owners will be forced to make any contributions.

Why?

If you say it was because it was in surplus then you could view the BHS pension fund in 2007 and it was in surplus even after he took cash out of the main business. So the financial crash and decimated interest rates can be rightly argued to have caused the GAP.



What about listed companies if you own shares but then sell after which point pension fund gets into trouble are you liable? Why is it only Green/private companies?

[Welshbeef]

It's on R4 Today now too 7:32.

However this time they have said letters have been sent to Chapple and Green - so they have revised or clarified it.

[Welshbeef]

His offer was a package created by Deloitte - instead they want a chq.

However as they want £300m that will go to the pension protection fund not BHS so BHS pensioners will actually get less than his package.

Interesting.

[Welshbeef]

He has stated he has done what he said he was going to do to sort it.
So that is his full and final offer.

Order requested £300m
Not required to be paid now instead pay in every year as and when they fall due so rather than a massive hit it can be drop fed.

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

Why?

If you say it was because it was in surplus then you could view the BHS pension fund in 2007 and it was in surplus even after he took cash out of the main business. So the financial crash and decimated interest rates can be rightly argued to have caused the GAP.

Because the debate with Green / Chapell was whether this was a genuine arms length sale or simply a manufactured agreement to avoid responsibility for the ongoing pension liability. It would appear the regulator believes it was the latter.

This was certainly not the case when Green bought the business previously.

Welshbeef said:

What about listed companies if you own shares but then sell after which point pension fund gets into trouble are you liable? Why is it only Green/private companies?

It is only relevant in the scenario identified above.

[Murph7355]

What a mess.

Seems to me that the Pensions Regulator either needs to use or push for changes in the law and go down that route. The current grand standing could easily lead to Green saying FU if there no legal basis for the moaning.

[sidicks]

Welshbeef said:

His offer was a package created by Deloitte - instead they want a chq.

However as they want £300m that will go to the pension protection fund not BHS so BHS pensioners will actually get less than his package.

Interesting.

Eh?

The proposal will take the scheme out of the PPF and provide higher benefits than under PPF compensation rules.

[sidicks]

Murph7355 said:

What a mess.

Seems to me that the Pensions Regulator either needs to use or push for changes in the law and go down that route. The current grand standing could easily lead to Green saying FU if there no legal basis for the moaning.

But there IS a legal basis, that's why the regulator is on the case with Green and Chappell!