Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?
Discussion
avinalarf said:
Whether he loses his knighthood is of no real interest to me apart from schadenfreude.
Anyone following his career over the past 40 years will not be surprised that he is a wheeler dealer,arguably a clever chancer,whose "luck" run out,albeit he's made a fortune in the process.
He is far from alone in businessmen lacking moral judgement but that has never been a requisite of the job,however desirable.
What does concern me is that due diligence appears not to have been taken by those whose job it was to oversee the best interests of the pension scheme and of whom there has been a distinct lack of comment.
The cause of the pensions deficit (as with many companies) is due to market movements I.e. The massive falls in interest rates since the credit crisis.Anyone following his career over the past 40 years will not be surprised that he is a wheeler dealer,arguably a clever chancer,whose "luck" run out,albeit he's made a fortune in the process.
He is far from alone in businessmen lacking moral judgement but that has never been a requisite of the job,however desirable.
What does concern me is that due diligence appears not to have been taken by those whose job it was to oversee the best interests of the pension scheme and of whom there has been a distinct lack of comment.
avinalarf said:
I understand that many well known and large companies also have massive black holes in their pension schemes.
There is of course the question of how much responsibility an owner or major shareholder owes to the company he controls,over his own personal interests.
This appears to be a classic case of asset stripping,therefore nothing new.
What is interesting is why Green did not sell BHS to a more suitable person before it became a basket case.
One might presume it was a combination of extreme greed and carelessness.
You can certainly argue that Green 'asset stripped' BHS however he did NOT take anything out of the pension scheme.There is of course the question of how much responsibility an owner or major shareholder owes to the company he controls,over his own personal interests.
This appears to be a classic case of asset stripping,therefore nothing new.
What is interesting is why Green did not sell BHS to a more suitable person before it became a basket case.
One might presume it was a combination of extreme greed and carelessness.
avinalarf said:
Hi sidicks
I agree with both your points,I didn't realise I'd intimated otherwise.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!I agree with both your points,I didn't realise I'd intimated otherwise.
On the first point I don't think you can blame the Trustees / Sponsor for market movements! With the benefit of hindsight they could have carried out some hedging, but the financial crisis came as a shock to most people and after that, few people were expecting rates to continue to fall!
On the second point I was just clarifying what I thought you meant - other people have tried to claim 'he stripped the pension fund akin to what Robert Maxwell did'!!
sidicks said:
avinalarf said:
Hi sidicks
I agree with both your points,I didn't realise I'd intimated otherwise.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!I agree with both your points,I didn't realise I'd intimated otherwise.
On the first point I don't think you can blame the Trustees / Sponsor for market movements! With the benefit of hindsight they could have carried out some hedging, but the financial crisis came as a shock to most people and after that, few people were expecting rates to continue to fall!
On the second point I was just clarifying what I thought you meant - other people have tried to claim 'he stripped the pension fund akin to what Robert Maxwell did'!!
I tried to be as rational as possible as I'd thought you might be around,you having previously commented on this subject.
I try to be careful not to arouse your forensic expertise ...........
Adrian W said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37709803
There must be a point where he sues,
It does seem a shame that the MP's don't put so much enthusiasm into the affairs Amazon, Starbucks etc. Green seems to be a very easy target.
If you watched his performance in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee back in July you'll realise he actually made himself a very easy target with many of the responses he gave. It was a golden opportunity for him to refute the allegations by showing he had a full command and understanding of the situation and had acted reasonably and honourably throughout; however, he didn't do that and instead just came across as a wide boy who'd been caught out trying to walk away from a mess he'd helped to create. There must be a point where he sues,
It does seem a shame that the MP's don't put so much enthusiasm into the affairs Amazon, Starbucks etc. Green seems to be a very easy target.
As I've said before, I don't think he's actually done anything illegal but someone who's been awarded a knighthood should in my view demonstrate a standard of behaviour (level of integrity, sense of justice, etc) well above that which Green has shown. Of course he's not alone in falling well short of the mark in that respect and that's probably as good an argument as any for the whole honours system to be revised or perhaps scrapped altogether; however, the way he's behaved he should to lose his knighthood IMO.
Whether he eventually contributes to plugging the hole in the BHS pension schemes remains to be seen but my bet is he'll offer an amount which is well below what he and his family extracted from the company during his period of ownership. Personally I doubt he gives a damn about the BHS pensioners (he'd have addressed the deficit problems long ago if he did) and if he does anything now it will only be because he's been shamed into it; little doubt in my mind he'd have ridden off into the sunset without a backward glance if he could have got away with it.
JNW1 said:
If you watched his performance in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee back in July you'll realise he actually made himself a very easy target with many of the responses he gave. It was a golden opportunity for him to refute the allegations by showing he had a full command and understanding of the situation and had acted reasonably and honourably throughout; however, he didn't do that and instead just came across as a wide boy who'd been caught out trying to walk away from a mess he'd helped to create.
As I've said before, I don't think he's actually done anything illegal but someone who's been awarded a knighthood should in my view demonstrate a standard of behaviour (level of integrity, sense of justice, etc) well above that which Green has shown. Of course he's not alone in falling well short of the mark in that respect and that's probably as good an argument as any for the whole honours system to be revised or perhaps scrapped altogether; however, the way he's behaved he should to lose his knighthood IMO.
Whether he eventually contributes to plugging the hole in the BHS pension schemes remains to be seen but my bet is he'll offer an amount which is well below what he and his family extracted from the company during his period of ownership. Personally I doubt he gives a damn about the BHS pensioners (he'd have addressed the deficit problems long ago if he did) and if he does anything now it will only be because he's been shamed into it; little doubt in my mind he'd have ridden off into the sunset without a backward glance if he could have got away with it.
What has the amount he took out of the company (through dividends, as the owner of a protable business) got to do with the deficit in the pension scheme (caused primarily by adverse market movements)?As I've said before, I don't think he's actually done anything illegal but someone who's been awarded a knighthood should in my view demonstrate a standard of behaviour (level of integrity, sense of justice, etc) well above that which Green has shown. Of course he's not alone in falling well short of the mark in that respect and that's probably as good an argument as any for the whole honours system to be revised or perhaps scrapped altogether; however, the way he's behaved he should to lose his knighthood IMO.
Whether he eventually contributes to plugging the hole in the BHS pension schemes remains to be seen but my bet is he'll offer an amount which is well below what he and his family extracted from the company during his period of ownership. Personally I doubt he gives a damn about the BHS pensioners (he'd have addressed the deficit problems long ago if he did) and if he does anything now it will only be because he's been shamed into it; little doubt in my mind he'd have ridden off into the sunset without a backward glance if he could have got away with it.
sidicks said:
JNW1 said:
If you watched his performance in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee back in July you'll realise he actually made himself a very easy target with many of the responses he gave. It was a golden opportunity for him to refute the allegations by showing he had a full command and understanding of the situation and had acted reasonably and honourably throughout; however, he didn't do that and instead just came across as a wide boy who'd been caught out trying to walk away from a mess he'd helped to create.
As I've said before, I don't think he's actually done anything illegal but someone who's been awarded a knighthood should in my view demonstrate a standard of behaviour (level of integrity, sense of justice, etc) well above that which Green has shown. Of course he's not alone in falling well short of the mark in that respect and that's probably as good an argument as any for the whole honours system to be revised or perhaps scrapped altogether; however, the way he's behaved he should to lose his knighthood IMO.
Whether he eventually contributes to plugging the hole in the BHS pension schemes remains to be seen but my bet is he'll offer an amount which is well below what he and his family extracted from the company during his period of ownership. Personally I doubt he gives a damn about the BHS pensioners (he'd have addressed the deficit problems long ago if he did) and if he does anything now it will only be because he's been shamed into it; little doubt in my mind he'd have ridden off into the sunset without a backward glance if he could have got away with it.
What has the amount he took out of the company (through dividends, as the owner of a protable business) got to do with the deficit in the pension scheme (caused primarily by adverse market movements)?As I've said before, I don't think he's actually done anything illegal but someone who's been awarded a knighthood should in my view demonstrate a standard of behaviour (level of integrity, sense of justice, etc) well above that which Green has shown. Of course he's not alone in falling well short of the mark in that respect and that's probably as good an argument as any for the whole honours system to be revised or perhaps scrapped altogether; however, the way he's behaved he should to lose his knighthood IMO.
Whether he eventually contributes to plugging the hole in the BHS pension schemes remains to be seen but my bet is he'll offer an amount which is well below what he and his family extracted from the company during his period of ownership. Personally I doubt he gives a damn about the BHS pensioners (he'd have addressed the deficit problems long ago if he did) and if he does anything now it will only be because he's been shamed into it; little doubt in my mind he'd have ridden off into the sunset without a backward glance if he could have got away with it.
Strocky said:
Does duty of care not come in to it?
As owner of the business, he was fully responsible for funding the pension scheme. He did NOT take dividends when the scheme was in deficit. Indeed he had established additional contributions to close this deficit, albeit over 20 rather than the usual 10 years, presumably because the profitability of the business simply did not support a higher level of contributions.When he sold the business, that responsibility shifted to the new owner.
sidicks said:
JNW1 said:
If you watched his performance in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee back in July you'll realise he actually made himself a very easy target with many of the responses he gave. It was a golden opportunity for him to refute the allegations by showing he had a full command and understanding of the situation and had acted reasonably and honourably throughout; however, he didn't do that and instead just came across as a wide boy who'd been caught out trying to walk away from a mess he'd helped to create.
As I've said before, I don't think he's actually done anything illegal but someone who's been awarded a knighthood should in my view demonstrate a standard of behaviour (level of integrity, sense of justice, etc) well above that which Green has shown. Of course he's not alone in falling well short of the mark in that respect and that's probably as good an argument as any for the whole honours system to be revised or perhaps scrapped altogether; however, the way he's behaved he should to lose his knighthood IMO.
Whether he eventually contributes to plugging the hole in the BHS pension schemes remains to be seen but my bet is he'll offer an amount which is well below what he and his family extracted from the company during his period of ownership. Personally I doubt he gives a damn about the BHS pensioners (he'd have addressed the deficit problems long ago if he did) and if he does anything now it will only be because he's been shamed into it; little doubt in my mind he'd have ridden off into the sunset without a backward glance if he could have got away with it.
What has the amount he took out of the company (through dividends, as the owner of a protable business) got to do with the deficit in the pension scheme (caused primarily by adverse market movements)?As I've said before, I don't think he's actually done anything illegal but someone who's been awarded a knighthood should in my view demonstrate a standard of behaviour (level of integrity, sense of justice, etc) well above that which Green has shown. Of course he's not alone in falling well short of the mark in that respect and that's probably as good an argument as any for the whole honours system to be revised or perhaps scrapped altogether; however, the way he's behaved he should to lose his knighthood IMO.
Whether he eventually contributes to plugging the hole in the BHS pension schemes remains to be seen but my bet is he'll offer an amount which is well below what he and his family extracted from the company during his period of ownership. Personally I doubt he gives a damn about the BHS pensioners (he'd have addressed the deficit problems long ago if he did) and if he does anything now it will only be because he's been shamed into it; little doubt in my mind he'd have ridden off into the sunset without a backward glance if he could have got away with it.
Now when things went pear-shaped following the financial crisis what he could have done was acknowledge that, with the wisdom of hindsight, he'd taken too much out of the company and put some back in to help plug the pension deficit. However, he didn't do that and actually came up with a recovery plan for the schemes which would have taken twice as long as normal to recover the situation - hardly the action of man who was concerned for the welfare of the BHS pensioners?
deadslow said:
presumably that's why he sold it to the first tramp he met in the street for £1. Proper business genius and all round nice guy.
Why did the 'tramp in the street' buy it for £1?No doubt there will be an enquiry to see whether the sale wasn't purely with the intention of offloading the liabilities, but if the company had folded, rather than been sold, the situation would have been identical, wouldn't it?
sidicks said:
Why did the 'tramp in the street' buy it for £1?
No doubt there will be an enquiry to see whether the sale wasn't purely with the intention of offloading the liabilities, but if the company had folded, rather than been sold, the situation would have been identical, wouldn't it?
It would. No doubt there will be an enquiry to see whether the sale wasn't purely with the intention of offloading the liabilities, but if the company had folded, rather than been sold, the situation would have been identical, wouldn't it?
My view is that he knew whatever happened the company was probably going to the wall and the pension fund was going to represent a massive PR problem so he thought he'd fish around and see if anyone was stupid enough to take it on. He must have been pissing himself with laughter when that bloke turned up, even if it did ultimately mean he'd have to vendor finance the whole thing.
I've only been involved in a few of these types of things, and maybe you've seen more, but we have haven't ever (to my knowledge) been successful in offloading an open DB fund so and so that marks Chappell out as a nutter in my book.
FN2TypeR said:
Oh look it's the Guardian again I hope he starts suing MP's who have slandered him, this really is a lynching, and are they going to treat all of the other executives of companies in the same way,lets start with the banks, Libor,PPI etc etc
sidicks said:
Strocky said:
Does duty of care not come in to it?
As owner of the business, he was fully responsible for funding the pension scheme. He did NOT take dividends when the scheme was in deficit. Indeed he had established additional contributions to close this deficit, albeit over 20 rather than the usual 10 years, presumably because the profitability of the business simply did not support a higher level of contributions.When he sold the business, that responsibility shifted to the new owner.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff