Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 462
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 hours ago, monkeyman1974 said:

torn on this

seems to me the equity (shareholders) and creditors (banks and suppliers) were subsidising the customers (inc Govt)

the exec pay is a red herring, albeit a distasteful one

capitalism is working; non-execs and auditors should be ashamed, marginal sympathy for suppliers

 

Sure the  shareholders and banks have lost serious money, not sure if the customer meanwhile was getting such a great deal and being subsidised. No doubt if you got Carillion to do one of those Homes under the Hammer refurbs that suspiciously comes in on a tuppence ha'penny budget, Carillion would find some way of charging half a million quid given how eye wateringly expensive these  infrastructure projects come in. You just wonder whether head office was some kind of employment scheme for non jobs, a bit like a public sector quango on speed. Think the money probably disappeared on a bloated employment structure and unaffordable pensions.

Edited by crashmonitor
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Errol said:

Interserve being talked about in the same vein as Carillion in the financial press this morning.

Another nasty business that screws its suppliers, cuts corners and has fingers in to many pays.

The construction and facilitates industry is ripe for reform with:

  • strictly enforced rules for tendering to prevent corruption
  • proper policing of specification and regulations to ensure safety, quality and environmental efficiency.
  • prevention of long supply chains where the main contractors subs to sub contractors and who then subs to sub-sub contractor who then employers a labour provider whose team are often working as contractors. Such an environment makes it difficult for anyone in the chain to take responsibility.

The main contractors have gradually subbed everything so the staff that work for them don't get their hands dirty. This is true of FM now. The whole thing is liable to go pop if the order book drops or cost go up or a few contracts turn sour. Leaving high overheads of staff who wouldn't now what a shovel is.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stop_the_craziness said:

Theresa May has got to be hoping that Gidiot gets (even more) tainted by all of this when the inquiry starts naming names.

Gidiot is to blame for being swayed by the construction industry lobbyists and splashing loads of money on infrastructure projects to allow the construction Ponzi to continue post Nu-Labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Preacherman said:

Gidiot is to blame for being swayed by the construction industry lobbyists and splashing loads of money on infrastructure projects to allow the construction Ponzi to continue post Nu-Labour.

Nope.

Brown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear.  Just listened to the R4 Today programme.  The "expert" (actually sounded like one!) was asked if everyone was shorting, who was left holding the shares?  More or less said retail investors.  Then, when asked whether the government's (May's) announcement the director's will receive no more was just spin, simply said "yes", that's what always happens in a liquidation!  The FRC guy came on later - bit of a dud performance.  Did the FRC no favours.

Edited by Fence
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fence said:

Oh dear.  Just listened to the R4 Today programme.  The "expert" (actually sounded like one!) was asked if everyone was shorting, who was left holding the shares?  More or less said those at HL!  Then, when asked whether the government's (May's) announcement the director's will receive no more was just spin, simply said "yes", that's what always happens in a liquidation!  The FRC guy came on later - bit of a dud performance.  Did the FRC no favours.

"those at HL"? Retail investors?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Fence said:

Point was - retail investors, wherever.

More here, from HL but by the FT, on who's been left holding the Carillion "baby":

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2018/1/19/carillions-downfall-shows-dumb-money-knows-no-borders?cid=halDM16392&bid=76661263&e_cti=3622137&e_ct=T&utm_source=AdobeCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Content_EONRM_Daily newsroom_new_19.01&theSource=EONRM&Override=1

Retail investors indeed, plus, surprise......

"Shareholders, many of them British retail investors, will be big losers, too. Anyone who owned the shares four years ago had already suffered a 96 per cent hit by last Friday, the company’s final trading day before it was put into insolvency.  More obscurely, there is likely to be a large contingent of German casualties. Thanks to Carillion’s unusual debt structure, a clutch of German banks and their customers are on the hook for £112m of so-called Schuldschein, or debt certificates - a German hybrid of bonds and bank debt........."

A bit unfortunate of that guy to mention HL in the way he did on the radio yesterday as overall his analysis was excellent.  Fair point, it was the retail investors, typically the sort with HL, but this is no way a HL specific thing.  I think he meant that but was open to being misunderstood (easy when the interviewer is rushing you, as usual!).  

Edited by Fence
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

I read the same story, different place.

Couldn't quite understand it either, but it appears the figure is the sum the insurance company would require to take the pensions on. Claim 2.6bn, but will actually get nothing? since it will be going into the PPF.

Actual cost 980m, still a long way out though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have got this wrong, but I thought that contributions employer & employee paid into pension schemes were supposed to be kept seperate from the financial workings of a company. Safe and sound, managed by a committee of trusted people. They are not there for a company to dip into when cash flow is struggling. Yet, time and time again we hear about companies failing and, surprise surprise, the pension account is empty! Is it not against the law, if not why not? And why aren't directors facing serious charges when this happens?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, frankief said:

I must have got this wrong, but I thought that contributions employer & employee paid into pension schemes were supposed to be kept seperate from the financial workings of a company. Safe and sound, managed by a committee of trusted people. They are not there for a company to dip into when cash flow is struggling. Yet, time and time again we hear about companies failing and, surprise surprise, the pension account is empty! Is it not against the law, if not why not? And why aren't directors facing serious charges when this happens?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/19/frank-field-demands-answers-over-reckless-running-of-carillion

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, frankief said:

I must have got this wrong, but I thought that contributions employer & employee paid into pension schemes were supposed to be kept seperate from the financial workings of a company. Safe and sound, managed by a committee of trusted people. They are not there for a company to dip into when cash flow is struggling. Yet, time and time again we hear about companies failing and, surprise surprise, the pension account is empty! Is it not against the law, if not why not? And why aren't directors facing serious charges when this happens?

They are, post Maxwell.

The issue with Carillion is they allowed the pension deficit to balloon.

This more to do with QE, BoE and Brown ruining the country then Carillions board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, spyguy said:

They are, post Maxwell.

The issue with Carillion is they allowed the pension deficit to balloon.

This more to do with QE, BoE and Brown ruining the country then Carillions board.

It's only what the public sector do, except that's trillions not billions to be covered by future taxpayers and the unborn. No good MPs getting all self righteous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chronyx said:

I think BT would just get bailed out. Even 'convince' the government that was the right thing to do

Imagine what a nationwide loss of BT comms would do

They'd get renationalised and the 15 billion pension deficit, largely created during the GPO years, returned in house. Banks and shareholders would lose every penny so not really a bail out. Got a Bt pensioner next door going on ninety, retired in the days of Busby pre floatation. Some of these pensions might last 50 years....we are talking the days of early retirement.

Edited by crashmonitor
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, chronyx said:

I think BT would just get bailed out. Even 'convince' the government that was the right thing to do

Imagine what a nationwide loss of BT comms would do

BT pension post privatisation is backstopped by ukgov.

There cant be that many people on it. Id guess 10% die every year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 415 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.