Arcadia

HundredRoom said:
Why aren't these pension funds ring fenced from the companies. They are in other european countries. Usually a recognised pension fund like Prudential or the like.
Click to expand...
because Tory donors will have lobbied for it to stay as a fund they can dip in and out of as they wish
 
So they need how much? I'm reading something like £30million to save all those thousands of jobs.

This is one of his 3 yachts. Value? £110million. These people are a cancer on our society.
 

Attachments

  • 128561420_10158487589310660_4735958560788056185_o.jpg
    128561420_10158487589310660_4735958560788056185_o.jpg
    91.7 KB · Views: 2
HarryVegas said:
So they need how much? I'm reading something like £30million to save all those thousands of jobs.

This is one of his 3 yachts. Value? £110million. These people are a cancer on our society.
Click to expand...
Mike Ashley offered a 50 million pound loan and they turned it down.
Something is fishy.
 
RandySavage said:
Mike Ashley offered a 50 million pound loan and they turned it down.
Something is fishy.
Click to expand...
There's not much point in taking a £50 million loan if the business itself is unsustainable. It's just adding to the company's perilous position making a rescue even less likely.

Arcadia needs a sustainable business model, not £50 million.
 
WTF! said:
rumour is the pension fund is a basket case and millions in debt... two guesses why.
Click to expand...
Reported this morning that part of the assets of the pension fund was they leased some of the shops & then sub-let to Top Shop etc. for the income. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.

HundredRoom said:
Why aren't these pension funds ring fenced from the companies. They are in other european countries. Usually a recognised pension fund like Prudential or the like.
The only job of the company should be to hand over the pension they have deducted from salaries every month and pay it in.
Click to expand...
It seems obvious doesn't it?

There must be a lot of large political donors using pension funds to support their businesses and have decided with their lackeys in Govt that it is cheaper for the tax payer to provide the safety net if it all goes t*ts up.
 
Soutra said:
There's not much point in taking a £50 million loan if the business itself is unsustainable. It's just adding to the company's perilous position making a rescue even less likely.

Arcadia needs a sustainable business model, not £50 million.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

They should have pushed online sales back in march.
 
He did transfer £1200m share dividend I believe to his wife from Arcardia about 20 years ago. His wife is a tax resident of Monaco so she received the money tax free. This money transfer has probabaly restricted any new investment in the development of Group. The Group has failed to adopt to online shopping. It is also said Phil Green is not really skilled in fashion, but his expertise is finance.

The pension fund has suffered like most occupational pension funds, because its projections were based on interest rates of 6% to 7% when returns on fixed investments are currently 0.8%. So if the funds keeps paying out @ original projections and extra contributions are not made a deficit is created. Green has not raided the pension fund, but he has not put in any extra contributions. He did under a lot of pressure @ BHS to cover most of the deficit. Alot of these pension schemes should have been modified ages ago when it became clear people were living longer and interest rates would never be 10% again. The Trustees often hope the owner of the attached business will subsidise them from the current profits of the business. Look at BT most of its profits subsidise its very large pension fund and appear will for years to come.
 
Pension Funds were also harmed by Gordon Brown taxing the dividends earned on holdings. I believe it has been described as the biggest stealth tax in history.
 
I’m afraid all the evidence points to Green stripping his businesses bare without much thought for the long term consequences.

Just look at those brands (so called) now
Dorothy Perkins; Miss Selfridge; Wallis: Evans, Burton - archaic and irrelevant
Outfit?
Top Shop/Top Man - getting their asres kicked by Primark, Zara and online.

Retail guru my asre.
In fact Ralph Halpern was the driving force behind Burton and Top Shop back in the day.
He’s very wealthy tho and has lots of nice friends does Mr Green
 
Since1973 said:
Pension Funds were also harmed by Gordon Brown taxing the dividends earned on holdings. I believe it has been described as the biggest stealth tax in history.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree this reduced returns for pension funds, but not as much as the decline in interest rates. The Brown change also occurred in 1997, funds have had plenty of time to change their terms, but some of chosen not to.

For example increasing contributions from employees or reducing payment out to say 80ths from 60ths on later contributing years. Many just stopped new contributions to occupational schemes and new members in the last 23 years.
 
I am amazed how much support the very wealthy receive from most of the media and the general public. There are some very good wealthy people who have created enterprises themselves and created wealth and income for others too. Then they have paid taxes on their gains and also given money away to good causes. For example Bill Gates.

That there are others that have not given much back, becoming tax exiles, taking enormous undeserved dividends, who don't really care for their employees or weaker people in society

Then there are the inheritors that have inherited vast wealth whose say grand parents created it. Some will pay their full taxes and help others while others do the opposite.

That there are the ones that same to have billions gained in less than 10 years from the "reorganisation" of the former Soviet Union. And ones who live on billions of pounds of natural resources

Often there doesn't seem to be much difference in how they are treated for example leave them alone they all create wealth for us all. It will trickle down etc. They have all worked hard for their money and are very clever etc
 
I would love a system which re bases your family.
When you die, whatever is left, goes to the state.

For obvious reasons - it never goes down well
 
I have a feeling Greene wants it all to fail so he isn’t liable for the pensions or the rents.
He will then buy the bits that he wants to keep like TopShop/Topman and the rest will disappear
 
Since1973 said:
Pension Funds were also harmed by Gordon Brown taxing the dividends earned on holdings. I believe it has been described as the biggest stealth tax in history.
Click to expand...
This was done at a time when there were companies not paying into the funds and just relying on the stock market increases to cover the debt. So his aim was to try and force the companies to stop taking pension holidays as they were called in those days.

Whether it worked is debatable (well clearly it didn't), but the real reason that pensions are in the mess that they are in is due to the pyramid scheme that most of the ones that are paying out now were based on eg ever expanding work force aways paying into a large company pension with 10% interest rates and 10% inflation.

Also people were expected to die earlier, didn't take into account that all of the early post war estimates for life expectancy were based on a big war once a generation to kill lots of the working age men before they claimed any pension.
 
Now Debenhams going.

Pretty soon we won't be leaving our house to do anything. Not to work not to shop. Sad little lives in front of screens.

In that book sapiens yer man talks about how progress can make lives worse as much as it can make them better. About how the hunter gatherers had a much better life than the farmers. This seems to be the process we are undergoing at the minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top