Tuesday, 26 July 2016

Is Philip Green a crook?

I'm confused. Are Philip Green and his wife crooks, as some are suggesting, or merely obscenely greedy, utterly immoral, sociopathic bottom-feeding scum, as the Parliamentary report finds?

And are MPs so cross because they can't compel the couple, however odious they are, to recompense the BHS pensioners from the cash they creamed from the company?

I suppose humiliating them, after they've had their stationery printed, and making them change their passports early is some comfort. 

16 comments:

Rush Is Right said...

What puzzles me is the status of the pension fund. It's in deficit, we are told, but how did this deficit arise. Did Green simply take money out of it like Maxwell did, or was it simply a case of him never putting enough money in in the first place? Or, was the fund adequate at some point in the past, but rendered inadequate by poor investment outcomes? Were the actuaries at fault? Or maybe a combination of all these? Who are the Trustees, and what is their relationship (if any) to Green? And if they don't have the power to compel the employer to top up the fund if there is not enough money in it, then what is the point of them?

Cuffleyburgers said...

Radders - in questions like this Tim Worstall is usually worth a look, link below:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/07/25/the-seriously-terrible-report-into-bhs-sir-philip-green-and-the-pensions-collapse/#56d1235fe99c

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Or it could even be that the pension fund was fine at one time, and then Gordon Brown worked his magic, and suddenly it was broke.

That would make it quite similar to a lot of other British companies' pension funds.

Why does El Gordo somehow never get the blame for this?

Sackerson said...

As a retired IFA, my understanding from presentations I attended is that it has never been clearly established who owns the assets of a funded final salary pension scheme, so that if the fund has a surplus and is wound up there remains the question of who gets the extra.

What many companies did in the debt-fuelled boom time was allow themselves contribution holidays, rather than keep up a surplus to deal with future bad times. Now that the years of lean kine have arrived the question is who owns the loss - and chances are it's the poor pensioners, who will endure up to a 10% drop, with any further shortfall made up by the Pension Protection Fund, i.e. taxation.

This is all part of the wonderful benefits of globalisation and the free movement of capital, which allows the likes of Sir PG to act like the Hole In The Wall Gang.

Barnacle Bill said...

Perhaps piggies who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones?

If they had legislated properly in the first place, drawing up laws with-out glaringly obvious loopholes that could be exploited by the unscrupulous bosses or, lax supervision both with-in the company or by outside regulators. The situation at BHS and scores of other pension funds might not have arisen.

Of course Weekend Yatchsman is spot on with his observation about Gay Gordon. The closet shirt-lifter certainly fecked my retirement plans. Lefties can never keep their grubbing paws off other people's money/savings.

Dioclese said...

He's done nothing illegal - and that's the worrying bit...

Sackerson said...

@Barnacle Bill: To judge by the actions of Sir PG, the rich "can never keep their grubbing paws off other people's money" either.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

The issue of pension fund viability in a time of plummeting and subsequently stagnant primary interest rates is a huge factor in the demise of BHS pensions - people not buying enough and price competition in a marketplace must also be a factor.

That said - the Monaco domiciled ownership for tax purposes plus the obvious helicopter non domicile of Sir Philip must really grate for pensioners - but the pols who made the rules bleating about the consequences ...? - that's irony.

That the media choose to blow clouds of advocacy around all this rather than give a rigorous account of the to-ings and fro-ings in the business...

I mean he's fallen out of favor a bit what? - thanks to the agitation from the loony left.

That said - paying yourself a (f-ing huge) wedge with a LOAN taken out by one of your companies.... - that - in most folks view = crooked...

Cuffleyburgers said...

What Dioclese said

English Pensioner said...

Everyone avoids tax if they possibly can. The question is whether he broke any laws in avoiding tax. If not, he did exactly what any of us would have done if the opportunity had arisen. Blame the laws and the lawmakers if you don't like what is happening.

Rossa said...

The downside of any pension scheme, private or employer, is that we are just creditors of the schemes as we are with the banks. The money contributed into any scheme is theirs, not ours. It's their bottom line as Equity Life proved. Basically, it's another Ponzi scheme and all pension schemes over time are going to collapse.

No point in relying on a 'state' pension as that just comes out of general taxation. The math is unavoidable because of our ageing populations, living longer, with a low birth rate. Part of the migrant issue is Govts trying to address the issue with typical lack of foresight or long term infrastructure planning, employment/unemployment issues or benefits.

Which is why IMO we will see more 'talk' about a basic income for everyone. As major economies continue to slide into more of a recessionary deflation cycle there will have to be more moves to decentralise. Globalisation only works on a basis of continual growth which just isn't happening. And They can't react fast enough to correct any imbalances.

Problem with a basic income is that it can't be based on the current financial system as that is collapsing. There's no 'thought' at the top of the pyramid as to how it would work, even if it was on the table. Best idea I've seen is an internal 'economy' in each country where a basic income (scrip issued by Govt., not central banks) basically provides money circulation to local suppliers/providers. Anything else just leads to a bigger bankruptcy.

Downside of that is most 'first world' countries aren't currently able to feed their own populations let alone support local commerce and are too dependent on the import/export cycle. Main commodity affected would be fuel and power to keep transportation and the lights on. How it will all get unravelled we'll have to wait and see.

Poisonedchalice said...

The fund, at one point, was in surplus and very viable. Two things happened. WY has it right in the Snotty McDoom stole from it to fund his public sector largesse and then "the company" stopped paying its contributions in order to pay certain execs large dividends; in order to fund their largesse. Corporate governance has to change. Soon.

Anonymous said...

Raedwald said:

'I'm confused. Are Philip Green and his wife crooks, as some are suggesting, or merely obscenely greedy, utterly immoral, sociopathic bottom-feeding scum, as the Parliamentary report finds?'

Bit of both I would imagine. Fleecing the goyim is a way of life for some of them.

Steve

Anonymous said...

A note to Rossa, among others. As the law stands, pension schemes are bailed out a bit by the taxpayer - that means those of us who pay taxes, and also the money isn't there to pay for something else, so in the long run it affects those who don't pay taxes too. So, there are 60 million plus of us each robbed a little, because this bastard made off with a lot. And because the state doesn't step in for the whole lot, the erstwhile pensioners are robbed of a lot.

Is it any wonder we in the Labour Party are anti-semitic when this sort of theft is perpetrated by one of the same race and religion as Maxwell? Perhaps RoPpers are not all wrong! The RoT (Religion of Theft) seems to make a habit of this.

Personally, I'd have that fecker in a wooden hut in striped pyjamas and the queue for a shower with his gold teeth being recycled before you could say Arbeit Macht Frei - as my German Socialist Workers' Party mates would say.

Anonymous said...

Philip Green, decided enough was enough, what he did was clearly unethical but..... there is certainly no room for sentiment.....it was legal, he knew full well he was clearing off just before the proverbial hit the fan.

Though Gawd almighty, Brown was handing out gongs galore for the banksters. Plus, who allowed the large care home companies to be bought up and asset stripped by the Hedgers?
And think, Pubcos?

What Green was doing, there's no difference.

*--------------*-------------*--------------*------------*-------------*--------------*------------*

A heinous murder, and the ultimate desecration, may they burn for eternity.

Fr. Hamel, you are in grace, may the Lord bless and rest your soul.

War is here, a marker is laid down, they are fomenting evil and thank God in the UK, as yet, been unsuccessful.

Will the UK authorities finally admit who are the real enemy?

Hearken, when will a Westminster politician stand up for the people or, will they leave us defenceless?

And then what, because: war will come anyway.

DeeDee99 said...

What I do find darkly "amusing" about this is Green's statement that he is "trying to find a way to resolve the pension deficit."

It really isn't difficult Green ......... you write a bloody great cheque for the deficit from the money you and the Missus siphoned out of BHS using every legal tax-dodge our useless MPs and HMRC left available to you.