This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
...at the heart of the capitalist system as it exists in our country now it's the BHS scandal. Philip Green and the other moron rinse the company for all they can get, while running it into the ground, ruining the pension scheme and putting 11,000 people out it work.
Cream doesn't rise to the top - cnuts do.
Nothing will happen though. What a great system.
Cream doesn't rise to the top - cnuts do.
Nothing will happen though. What a great system.
76
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I have a cartoon next to my desk, clipped from a newspaper about twenty years ago - the last frame says something about 'remind yourself we don't live in a meritocracy - shit *and* cream float'.
I'd love to see him experience discomfort.
I have a cartoon next to my desk, clipped from a newspaper about twenty years ago - the last frame says something about 'remind yourself we don't live in a meritocracy - shit *and* cream float'.
I'd love to see him experience discomfort.
18
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
What powers do these parliamentary committes actually have? There seems to be a lot of people being put in front of them due to various allegations but what action is brought to bear other than some level of public humiliation, which let's face it, is water off a ducks back for those who have no shame or guilt.
What powers do these parliamentary committes actually have? There seems to be a lot of people being put in front of them due to various allegations but what action is brought to bear other than some level of public humiliation, which let's face it, is water off a ducks back for those who have no shame or guilt.
6
4
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
One long-term thing we can do, is let people know about this new report: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
The IMF has come out and said (in pastel tones) - that the free market capitalism is a crock. Let your local MP know, let your mates know, everyone. If you can sow a few seeds of doubt about free market capitalism (especially to people who can only think in pound signs) then hopefully they can grow into some regulations later.
One long-term thing we can do, is let people know about this new report: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
The IMF has come out and said (in pastel tones) - that the free market capitalism is a crock. Let your local MP know, let your mates know, everyone. If you can sow a few seeds of doubt about free market capitalism (especially to people who can only think in pound signs) then hopefully they can grow into some regulations later.
7
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I always try to see the best in people but I can't believe that man can do what he's done and have any respect for himself.
He had money, he needed no more yet still he bled people's pensions dry to line his own pockets with grotesque amounts of money. He thinks money set aside for workers old age is better spent on him and 'stuff' for him. People up arms at a burglar pinching a TV to fund an addiction but it seems this man will walk away scot free. Beyond contempt.
Sorry UKC rant over.
I always try to see the best in people but I can't believe that man can do what he's done and have any respect for himself.
He had money, he needed no more yet still he bled people's pensions dry to line his own pockets with grotesque amounts of money. He thinks money set aside for workers old age is better spent on him and 'stuff' for him. People up arms at a burglar pinching a TV to fund an addiction but it seems this man will walk away scot free. Beyond contempt.
Sorry UKC rant over.
32
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Don't you wonder how we can develop a society where somebody can do something that the vast majority of people thing is wrong, but it's not illegal? I think it tells us something about the lawmakers in this country.
Don't you wonder how we can develop a society where somebody can do something that the vast majority of people thing is wrong, but it's not illegal? I think it tells us something about the lawmakers in this country.
11
2
In reply to Greenbanks:
Ah, sorry. At least we're on the same page.
Does anyone know why Green was in a position to block the sale of BHS to Mike Ashley?
Ah, sorry. At least we're on the same page.
Does anyone know why Green was in a position to block the sale of BHS to Mike Ashley?
In reply to Gone for good:
I don't think they have any power, but I'm not sure.
> What powers do these parliamentary committes actually have? There seems to be a lot of people being put in front of them due to various allegations but what action is brought to bear other than some level of public humiliation, which let's face it, is water off a ducks back for those who have no shame or guilt.
I don't think they have any power, but I'm not sure.
In reply to Tall Clare:
You see it all the time unfortunately. The phenomenon, not the cartoon...
> I have a cartoon next to my desk, clipped from a newspaper about twenty years ago - the last frame says something about 'remind yourself we don't live in a meritocracy - shit *and* cream float'.
You see it all the time unfortunately. The phenomenon, not the cartoon...
In reply to Gone for good:
Yeah, £580M buys a lot of Nikwax...
Parasitic scumbags.
Wasn't Green touted as the saviour of the high street a few years ago?
> which let's face it, is water off a ducks back for those who have no shame or guilt.
Yeah, £580M buys a lot of Nikwax...
Parasitic scumbags.
Wasn't Green touted as the saviour of the high street a few years ago?
1
10
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
One thing that made me sick was that a few weeks ago when BHS went into administration, the headlines were about how Philip Green might lose his knighthood. Not about the thousands of potentially ruined lives, but about one rich tw*t losing his empty status symbol.
If there was any justice, his entire estate would be forcibly taken from him and split up between the staff of BHS.
One thing that made me sick was that a few weeks ago when BHS went into administration, the headlines were about how Philip Green might lose his knighthood. Not about the thousands of potentially ruined lives, but about one rich tw*t losing his empty status symbol.
If there was any justice, his entire estate would be forcibly taken from him and split up between the staff of BHS.
28
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I think we have a thread in which we will have complete agreement on UKC. Personally I agree with the capitalist system provided that measures can be implemented to prevent abuse.
What PG did was presumably not illegal but theres no question of its morality.
As a billionaire already he fleeced the company for hundreds of millions over the last few years. Almost the same as the pension pot was owed. Then sold the dead company for 1 pound to another set of crooks who also continued feathering their nests. 11000 people are probably worried about their futures and all he needs to worry about is the loss of a knighthood.
I have become more and more angry as the story unfolded. Digusting to its core.
I think we have a thread in which we will have complete agreement on UKC. Personally I agree with the capitalist system provided that measures can be implemented to prevent abuse.
What PG did was presumably not illegal but theres no question of its morality.
As a billionaire already he fleeced the company for hundreds of millions over the last few years. Almost the same as the pension pot was owed. Then sold the dead company for 1 pound to another set of crooks who also continued feathering their nests. 11000 people are probably worried about their futures and all he needs to worry about is the loss of a knighthood.
I have become more and more angry as the story unfolded. Digusting to its core.
Post edited at 09:25
12
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
An especially nasty part of free market capitalism is what that has done to pension valuations. Having looked in detail into USS its amazing how dishonest things are in a period of austerity. We estimate growth on current guilt yields (below the mainly equity investment growth that occurs) and expenditure on estimates of continual above inflation pay growth (pay has fallen 14 percent below inflation in Universities since 2009). The effect of both is that the pension pot looks smaller from both ends. Another effect is pressure to make the investment more guilt based which in current times seems to cut growth without much risk reduction. In private companies (BHS?) this sort of practice makes pension pots raidable in the good times and gives a good excuse to close them in the bad. In the public sector, employers and employees get to pay more and on old closed schemes (coal miners ) the government gets to skim the missing money. Defined pensions have proved a very successful vehicle with returns much higher and safer than alternative investments for ordinary workers but given these dishonest valauations, their future looks dim.
An especially nasty part of free market capitalism is what that has done to pension valuations. Having looked in detail into USS its amazing how dishonest things are in a period of austerity. We estimate growth on current guilt yields (below the mainly equity investment growth that occurs) and expenditure on estimates of continual above inflation pay growth (pay has fallen 14 percent below inflation in Universities since 2009). The effect of both is that the pension pot looks smaller from both ends. Another effect is pressure to make the investment more guilt based which in current times seems to cut growth without much risk reduction. In private companies (BHS?) this sort of practice makes pension pots raidable in the good times and gives a good excuse to close them in the bad. In the public sector, employers and employees get to pay more and on old closed schemes (coal miners ) the government gets to skim the missing money. Defined pensions have proved a very successful vehicle with returns much higher and safer than alternative investments for ordinary workers but given these dishonest valauations, their future looks dim.
Post edited at 09:48
4
1
In reply to Offwidth:
<'Another effect is pressure to make the investment more guilt based...'>
You did this on purpose right?
<'Another effect is pressure to make the investment more guilt based...'>
You did this on purpose right?
In reply to Offwidth:
Why is this a function of "free market capitalism" rather than of actuarial practice??
I don't want to appear a s defender of Mr.Green, who has a lot of things to explain, but maybe we should all wait until the facts are known until castrating him? As I understand it he didn't "raid the pension fund". He paid himself dividends from a profitable company. It's not clear to me in what state the pension fund was at that time, but as you rightly point out, much of its decline is probably due to actuarial accounting standards as opposed to malfeasance (and I don't think it would have been reasonable in 2003 to predict a zero interest rate environment for valuation purposes).
> An especially nasty part of free market capitalism is what that has done to pension valuations.
>Why is this a function of "free market capitalism" rather than of actuarial practice??
I don't want to appear a s defender of Mr.Green, who has a lot of things to explain, but maybe we should all wait until the facts are known until castrating him? As I understand it he didn't "raid the pension fund". He paid himself dividends from a profitable company. It's not clear to me in what state the pension fund was at that time, but as you rightly point out, much of its decline is probably due to actuarial accounting standards as opposed to malfeasance (and I don't think it would have been reasonable in 2003 to predict a zero interest rate environment for valuation purposes).
Post edited at 10:10
2
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Agreed
Absolutely. Utterly disgusting behaviour by Green and the rest.
> I think we have a thread in which we will have complete agreement on UKC.
Agreed
> I have become more and more angry as the story unfolded. Digusting to its core.
Absolutely. Utterly disgusting behaviour by Green and the rest.
1
In reply to Trevers:
The problem is he didn't break any law. Because the law allows smart lawyers to exploit loopholes. Rather than plug them the government allows it to continue so you get companies like Amazon registering their business in Luxembourg and forcing their employees to become self-employed and waive all employment rights.
> If there was any justice, his entire estate would be forcibly taken from him and split up between the staff of BHS.
The problem is he didn't break any law. Because the law allows smart lawyers to exploit loopholes. Rather than plug them the government allows it to continue so you get companies like Amazon registering their business in Luxembourg and forcing their employees to become self-employed and waive all employment rights.
1
In reply to Greenbanks:
A combo of automated predictive spelling and failing eyesight I'm afraid. But hey, let's not let reality get in the way of a good story and a funny result.
A combo of automated predictive spelling and failing eyesight I'm afraid. But hey, let's not let reality get in the way of a good story and a funny result.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
There are different types of actuarial practice. The problems in USS were highlighted by actuaries who disagree with the rules used by the fund actuaries and the arguments seem pretty compelling to me. Why when predicting a fund value in conditions of austerity would you falsely represent fund growth and likely pay growth (predicted fund costs) in that way? The rules used by USS actuaries are standard but they are also based on US led free market ideas. The miners pension is a classic example that these funds were a lot more healthy than the rules indicated... the retired miners quite rightly are upset and want more of what is supposed to be their money. The government of course wants its cake (using clearly dishonest pension rules to cut state spending on public sector pensions) and to eat it (skimming the resulting over funded schemes like the miners fund rather than apologising and increasing fund benefits)
There are different types of actuarial practice. The problems in USS were highlighted by actuaries who disagree with the rules used by the fund actuaries and the arguments seem pretty compelling to me. Why when predicting a fund value in conditions of austerity would you falsely represent fund growth and likely pay growth (predicted fund costs) in that way? The rules used by USS actuaries are standard but they are also based on US led free market ideas. The miners pension is a classic example that these funds were a lot more healthy than the rules indicated... the retired miners quite rightly are upset and want more of what is supposed to be their money. The government of course wants its cake (using clearly dishonest pension rules to cut state spending on public sector pensions) and to eat it (skimming the resulting over funded schemes like the miners fund rather than apologising and increasing fund benefits)
Post edited at 11:44
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
What are you actually saying? What changed (to a neoliberal method) in the 1980s or later? Time value of money and discounting has always been at the core of pension fund valuation. You appear to be conflating a number of issues: liability valuation (eg.appropriate inflation rates), market mismatch risk etc.
> There are different types of actuarial practice.
What are you actually saying? What changed (to a neoliberal method) in the 1980s or later? Time value of money and discounting has always been at the core of pension fund valuation. You appear to be conflating a number of issues: liability valuation (eg.appropriate inflation rates), market mismatch risk etc.
Post edited at 12:22
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
The pension rules changes generated in a neoliberal market have made defined benefot pension schemes less attractive. The rules are dishonest if they undervalue funds (based mainly on equities) with a guilt linked index and value costs based on a pay inflator which is way higher than reality.
The pension rules changes generated in a neoliberal market have made defined benefot pension schemes less attractive. The rules are dishonest if they undervalue funds (based mainly on equities) with a guilt linked index and value costs based on a pay inflator which is way higher than reality.
In reply to Offwidth:
You can argue the toss on which discount rate should be taken for ever, although I can't see where "neoliberal" comes into it. But whichever rate you use when interest rates fall from from 5-6% to zero % then the surplus will fall or deficit expand and that will have been the case since at least 1970.
Like any accounting regime pension fund valuation is going to throw up anomalies and illogicalities, however it is done, because it it measuring estimated existing assets against estimated long term liabilities . That doesn't make it a function of neoliberal economics.
> The pension rules changes generated in a neoliberal market have made defined benefot pension schemes less attractive. The rules are dishonest if they undervalue funds (based mainly on equities) with a guilt linked index and value costs based on a pay inflator which is way higher than reality.
You can argue the toss on which discount rate should be taken for ever, although I can't see where "neoliberal" comes into it. But whichever rate you use when interest rates fall from from 5-6% to zero % then the surplus will fall or deficit expand and that will have been the case since at least 1970.
Like any accounting regime pension fund valuation is going to throw up anomalies and illogicalities, however it is done, because it it measuring estimated existing assets against estimated long term liabilities . That doesn't make it a function of neoliberal economics.
Post edited at 13:09
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Known unknowns, like the difficult to define effects of increasing longevity, are fair enough but assumptions of consistant above inflation pay rises in a public sector scheme, in a time of austerity, are moving from an allowance based on caution to pure fantasy and have no place in any such scheme. This has also led to massive unintended distortions. People near retirement who have been at the top of a grade for a long time now have a pensionable pay about 15% above their actual pay; if most supposedly clever people in this position thought properly about their pensions many would retire now (better still retire and come back as a fractional on less work for more nett pay) and leave us with a huge recruitment problem.
The new rules came originally from neoliberal sources in the US; some of the strongest critics of DB shemes are neo-liberal economists. The biggest beneficiaries of the shift from government and large company DB schemes across the world are the DC schemes in the finance sector (which underperform most investment funds and have rather high looking fees for this pretty poor outcome) . If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Known unknowns, like the difficult to define effects of increasing longevity, are fair enough but assumptions of consistant above inflation pay rises in a public sector scheme, in a time of austerity, are moving from an allowance based on caution to pure fantasy and have no place in any such scheme. This has also led to massive unintended distortions. People near retirement who have been at the top of a grade for a long time now have a pensionable pay about 15% above their actual pay; if most supposedly clever people in this position thought properly about their pensions many would retire now (better still retire and come back as a fractional on less work for more nett pay) and leave us with a huge recruitment problem.
The new rules came originally from neoliberal sources in the US; some of the strongest critics of DB shemes are neo-liberal economists. The biggest beneficiaries of the shift from government and large company DB schemes across the world are the DC schemes in the finance sector (which underperform most investment funds and have rather high looking fees for this pretty poor outcome) . If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Post edited at 16:13
In reply to Offwidth:
What has this got to do with the valuation of the BHS pension scheme and the surmise that its deficit is partly or largely the function of declining interest rates and the impact these necessarily have and have always had on fund valuations?
You have now gone off on a tangent about the motivations behind the shift from DB to DC pension schemes (the former were unsustainable) which may be very interesting but I don't see how it addresses my point given that the BHS scheme is still DB.
> Known unknowns, like the difficult to define effects of increasing longevity, are fair enough but assumptions of consistant above inflation pay rises in a public sector scheme, in a time of austerity, are moving from an allowance based on caution to pure fantasy and have no place in any such scheme. This has also led to massive unintended distortions. People near retirement who have been at the top of a grade for a long time now have a pensionable pay about 15% above their actual pay; if most supposedly clever people in this position thought properly about their pensions many would retire now (better still retire and come back as a fractional on less work for more nett pay) and leave us with a huge recruitment problem.
> The new rules came originally from neoliberal sources in the US; some of the strongest critics of DB shemes are neo-liberal economists. The biggest beneficiaries of the shift from government and large company DB schemes across the world are the DC schemes in the finance sector (which underperform most investment funds and have rather high looking fees for this pretty poor outcome) . If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
What has this got to do with the valuation of the BHS pension scheme and the surmise that its deficit is partly or largely the function of declining interest rates and the impact these necessarily have and have always had on fund valuations?
You have now gone off on a tangent about the motivations behind the shift from DB to DC pension schemes (the former were unsustainable) which may be very interesting but I don't see how it addresses my point given that the BHS scheme is still DB.
Post edited at 16:52
In reply to Postmanpat:
1. I think neoliberalism has something to do with pension deficits. If we were more willing to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy interest rates could be higher.
2. I expect the pension deficit or at least it's risk could be seen coming a while off. In that case is it okay to for Green to pay himself profits that might otherwise be used to cover the deficit/risk of deficit? (Genuine rather than rhetorical question)
1. I think neoliberalism has something to do with pension deficits. If we were more willing to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy interest rates could be higher.
2. I expect the pension deficit or at least it's risk could be seen coming a while off. In that case is it okay to for Green to pay himself profits that might otherwise be used to cover the deficit/risk of deficit? (Genuine rather than rhetorical question)
In reply to Donald82:
Lol. A somewhat convoluted connection and anyway not relevant to or supportive of the argument about actuarial standards or the effect of neoliberalism upon them.
So you'll be one of those clever people that shorted all markets in 2007. Don't be so silly. No company dividend policy was based on the assumption that interest rates may go to zero for about the first time in history.
Whether Green's dividend payments were made when the pension fund was already in trouble I don't know. I'd like to know because it seems a central issue to the whole case.
> 1. I think neoliberalism has something to do with pension deficits. If we were more willing to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy interest rates could be higher.
>Lol. A somewhat convoluted connection and anyway not relevant to or supportive of the argument about actuarial standards or the effect of neoliberalism upon them.
> 2. I expect the pension deficit or at least it's risk could be seen coming a while off.
>So you'll be one of those clever people that shorted all markets in 2007. Don't be so silly. No company dividend policy was based on the assumption that interest rates may go to zero for about the first time in history.
Whether Green's dividend payments were made when the pension fund was already in trouble I don't know. I'd like to know because it seems a central issue to the whole case.
1
1
In reply to radddogg:
I know that, I meant if there was "real" justice not just an upholding of the law.
Realistically, what would they be able to do to him? Frank Field has indicated that he would like Philip Green to pay £600 million into the pension pot, but what powers do they have to make him cooperate or force the payment if he's not technically guilty of embezzlement and broken no law? Removal of the knighthood should be done of course but it'll be an empty gesture to those who've lost livelihoods.
> The problem is he didn't break any law.
I know that, I meant if there was "real" justice not just an upholding of the law.
Realistically, what would they be able to do to him? Frank Field has indicated that he would like Philip Green to pay £600 million into the pension pot, but what powers do they have to make him cooperate or force the payment if he's not technically guilty of embezzlement and broken no law? Removal of the knighthood should be done of course but it'll be an empty gesture to those who've lost livelihoods.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Seems a fairly straight forward and uncontentious link to me.
Rates were low and pension funds in trouble before 2007.
Seems a fairly straight forward and uncontentious link to me.
Rates were low and pension funds in trouble before 2007.
In reply to Donald82:
No surprise there then and still irrelevant to the point under discussion.
Thankyou for that random observation but the discussion is specifically about the BHS pension fund and dividend policy 2000-4.
> Seems a fairly straight forward and uncontentious link to me.
No surprise there then and still irrelevant to the point under discussion.
> Rates were low and pension funds in trouble before 2007.
Thankyou for that random observation but the discussion is specifically about the BHS pension fund and dividend policy 2000-4.
1
In reply to Trevers:
But there is no "law" (that works) in this field.
28 years of my life after school were spent working for a company who were steady until the last 10 years. The company was established in 1945. The ignorant version of PG then took over.
In those 10 years the company tripled in size then went bust. 5000 people lost their jobs and livelihoods. Countless subcontractors lost their shirts (houses, cars, lives etc).
Stories abound of shareholdings being transferred to wives (and then sold) only weeks before it all went t*ts up. FD's walking out the door with big pay offs likewise only months before the end. Pension scheme was one of the few things that hadn't been raided, there was a shortfall but then all DB schemes have those?
I see the bloke has had the cheek to pinch one of the original names of the old company and now runs a new one that pretends it has the heritage of the original one.
He got away with it. PG will too. Justice?
> I know that, I meant if there was "real" justice not just an upholding of the law.
But there is no "law" (that works) in this field.
28 years of my life after school were spent working for a company who were steady until the last 10 years. The company was established in 1945. The ignorant version of PG then took over.
In those 10 years the company tripled in size then went bust. 5000 people lost their jobs and livelihoods. Countless subcontractors lost their shirts (houses, cars, lives etc).
Stories abound of shareholdings being transferred to wives (and then sold) only weeks before it all went t*ts up. FD's walking out the door with big pay offs likewise only months before the end. Pension scheme was one of the few things that hadn't been raided, there was a shortfall but then all DB schemes have those?
I see the bloke has had the cheek to pinch one of the original names of the old company and now runs a new one that pretends it has the heritage of the original one.
He got away with it. PG will too. Justice?
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Neoliberalism was discussed re pension valuation rules. And then you said what's neoliberalism got to do with it - low interest rates are low interest rates. So it seems fairly topical to note the link between neoliberal policies and low rates.
Pretty sure that low rates and long run pension fund risks were common knowledge circa green's time in charge.
Neoliberalism was discussed re pension valuation rules. And then you said what's neoliberalism got to do with it - low interest rates are low interest rates. So it seems fairly topical to note the link between neoliberal policies and low rates.
Pretty sure that low rates and long run pension fund risks were common knowledge circa green's time in charge.
1
In reply to Donald82:
The discussion was about neoliberalism and its influence actuarial valuation standards, not about neoliberalism and the cause of low interest rates. You must be able to detect the the difference so stop pretending you don't.
Jesus wept, of course, but but no company in the world operated its pension fund or its dividend policy or anything else on the basis that interest rates would go to zero (or for that matter that they would go to 20%) so it's completely bloody daft to suggest BHS should have done so.
> Neoliberalism was discussed re pension valuation rules. And then you said what's neoliberalism got to do with it - low interest rates are low interest rates. So it seems fairly topical to note the link between neoliberal policies and low rates.
The discussion was about neoliberalism and its influence actuarial valuation standards, not about neoliberalism and the cause of low interest rates. You must be able to detect the the difference so stop pretending you don't.
> Pretty sure that low rates and long run pension fund risks were common knowledge circa green's time in charge.
Jesus wept, of course, but but no company in the world operated its pension fund or its dividend policy or anything else on the basis that interest rates would go to zero (or for that matter that they would go to 20%) so it's completely bloody daft to suggest BHS should have done so.
1
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
It would be good if there was a law against this sort of action, I'd like to see him get 10 years in Dartmoor nick for it, as well as striped of all "his" money.
> ...at the heart of the capitalist system as it exists in our country now it's the BHS scandal. Philip Green and the other moron rinse the company for all they can get, while running it into the ground, ruining the pension scheme and putting 11,000 people out it work.
It would be good if there was a law against this sort of action, I'd like to see him get 10 years in Dartmoor nick for it, as well as striped of all "his" money.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
There is a law against "it".
Can you or others be clear, however, about what you think Green has done before you lock him up? Has he actually raided the pension pot or is he only "guilty" of legally paying himself dividends out of profits he legitimately made while (possibly) neglecting the pension scheme? Did he sell BHS for £1 out of "greed" or is the price suggestive of a desperation to offload the crumbling asset without performing due diligence on potential owners. If the latter, what obligation does he actually owe to staff or other shareholders when he sells his share in a Plc? It's his share after all. His acumen may have deserted him in recent years but is it inconceivable that his long record of success at Arcadia actually prolonged employment by more than a decade for BHS employees and indeed built up some the pension pot before trading took a turn for the worse?
In Chappell's case it appears more clear-cut. He would seem to have been extracting funds that were not legitimately at his disposal.
Let's be clear I'm not defending Green, whose tax avoidance strategies are highly visible and morally indefensible. But there's a real lack of clarity in this thread about the specifics of his "crimes" at BHS.
> It would be good if there was a law against this sort of action, I'd like to see him get 10 years in Dartmoor nick for it, as well as striped of all "his" money.
There is a law against "it".
Can you or others be clear, however, about what you think Green has done before you lock him up? Has he actually raided the pension pot or is he only "guilty" of legally paying himself dividends out of profits he legitimately made while (possibly) neglecting the pension scheme? Did he sell BHS for £1 out of "greed" or is the price suggestive of a desperation to offload the crumbling asset without performing due diligence on potential owners. If the latter, what obligation does he actually owe to staff or other shareholders when he sells his share in a Plc? It's his share after all. His acumen may have deserted him in recent years but is it inconceivable that his long record of success at Arcadia actually prolonged employment by more than a decade for BHS employees and indeed built up some the pension pot before trading took a turn for the worse?
In Chappell's case it appears more clear-cut. He would seem to have been extracting funds that were not legitimately at his disposal.
Let's be clear I'm not defending Green, whose tax avoidance strategies are highly visible and morally indefensible. But there's a real lack of clarity in this thread about the specifics of his "crimes" at BHS.
Post edited at 07:42
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I see the difference. As I said in my last post. You said it's not about neoliberal accounting standards, it's about low rates. So I said, those low rates have a neoliberal cause. This seems completely on topic to me. If someone say's something had a neoliberal cause related to X and you say no the cause is related to Y, but Y also has a neoliberal cause it seems relevant to point this out.
Sure. I'm not suggesting they did or should. I am suggesting everything was not rosey when Green took all that money out. Hopefully time will tell.
I see the difference. As I said in my last post. You said it's not about neoliberal accounting standards, it's about low rates. So I said, those low rates have a neoliberal cause. This seems completely on topic to me. If someone say's something had a neoliberal cause related to X and you say no the cause is related to Y, but Y also has a neoliberal cause it seems relevant to point this out.
Sure. I'm not suggesting they did or should. I am suggesting everything was not rosey when Green took all that money out. Hopefully time will tell.
In reply to BnB:
I might be wrong, but were Green's tax dodging schemes not possible because he was NOT declaring profits , which would then have been taxed?
So if that was the case , then that conflicts with the statement that he took dividends from the companies legitimate profits.
He can't say that he had NO profits to tax in the first place then say he is only taking legitimate dividends from the same companies profits. ( that apparently did not exist)
I might be wrong, but were Green's tax dodging schemes not possible because he was NOT declaring profits , which would then have been taxed?
So if that was the case , then that conflicts with the statement that he took dividends from the companies legitimate profits.
He can't say that he had NO profits to tax in the first place then say he is only taking legitimate dividends from the same companies profits. ( that apparently did not exist)
In reply to Donald82:
No I didn't. I said pension accounting standards are not "neoliberal" , and that was the topic being discussed.
So, as BnB suggests, let's wait to find out instead of prejudging.
> I see the difference. As I said in my last post. You said it's not about neoliberal accounting standards, it's about low rates.
>No I didn't. I said pension accounting standards are not "neoliberal" , and that was the topic being discussed.
> Sure. I'm not suggesting they did or should. I am suggesting everything was not rosey when Green took all that money out. Hopefully time will tell.
So, as BnB suggests, let's wait to find out instead of prejudging.
In reply to Jim C:
Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the pension fund was in surplus until 2008 (source: Grauniad), several years after the period BHS was paying Mrs.Green big dividends.
> I might be wrong, but were Green's tax dodging schemes not possible because he was NOT declaring profits , which would then have been taxed?
>
No, why do you think that? BHS made a profit over the period 2000-05 out of which dividends were (arguably excessive dividends relative to profits).Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the pension fund was in surplus until 2008 (source: Grauniad), several years after the period BHS was paying Mrs.Green big dividends.
Post edited at 09:38
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I should have checked, I must be getting confused with other companies, thanks for putting me straight on that one.
I should have checked, I must be getting confused with other companies, thanks for putting me straight on that one.
In reply to Jim C:
He can say that because dividends are paid out of accumulated retained profits (from any number of years) and rarely out of profits for the year in which the dividend is made as these are usually tied up in working capital until freed up by the succeeding year's profits.
> I might be wrong, but were Green's tax dodging schemes not possible because he was NOT declaring profits , which would then have been taxed?
> So if that was the case , then that conflicts with the statement that he took dividends from the companies legitimate profits.
> He can't say that he had NO profits to tax in the first place then say he is only taking legitimate dividends from the same companies profits. ( that apparently did not exist)
He can say that because dividends are paid out of accumulated retained profits (from any number of years) and rarely out of profits for the year in which the dividend is made as these are usually tied up in working capital until freed up by the succeeding year's profits.
In reply to Postmanpat:
My own observation is that the pension fund is a minor issue. The basic problem was BHS' s demise on the high street. When all said and done Geeen is a very good entrepreneurial retailer and property guy. He had simply given up on BH S and was focusing his time on Top Shop.
I wonder what posters would be saying if Ashley had been successful in buying the business.
My own observation is that the pension fund is a minor issue. The basic problem was BHS' s demise on the high street. When all said and done Geeen is a very good entrepreneurial retailer and property guy. He had simply given up on BH S and was focusing his time on Top Shop.
I wonder what posters would be saying if Ashley had been successful in buying the business.
In reply to BnB:
<Let's be clear I'm not defending Green, whose tax avoidance strategies are highly visible and morally indefensible. But there's a real lack of clarity in this thread about the specifics of his "crimes" at BHS>
I accept you're not defending him - but then, who could on the face of what's happened to 11,000 of his ex-employees? Whilst the legal water may well be muddied, the moral water is crystal clear from any reasonable standpoint. What Green has been party to reveals him as an amoral, unprincipled t*sser. He can hide behind grey areas in the laws of the land but he'll never hide from the eyes of countless millions in the UK, even sat on his fat arse in Monaco.
<Let's be clear I'm not defending Green, whose tax avoidance strategies are highly visible and morally indefensible. But there's a real lack of clarity in this thread about the specifics of his "crimes" at BHS>
I accept you're not defending him - but then, who could on the face of what's happened to 11,000 of his ex-employees? Whilst the legal water may well be muddied, the moral water is crystal clear from any reasonable standpoint. What Green has been party to reveals him as an amoral, unprincipled t*sser. He can hide behind grey areas in the laws of the land but he'll never hide from the eyes of countless millions in the UK, even sat on his fat arse in Monaco.
2
In reply to neilh:
My guess is a bit of each but left it too late to bail out so panicked and sold it to a crook. But we don't know enough to be sure. Lots of questions to answer.
> My own observation is that the pension fund is a minor issue. The basic problem was BHS' s demise on the high street. When all said and done Geeen is a very good entrepreneurial retailer and property guy. He had simply given up on BH S and was focusing his time on Top Shop.
>
Yes, but then the question becomes what his motivation for buying BHS. Did he really think he could turn it around ? Was it a vanity purchase? Or did he see the opportunity to secure some juicy dividends for the missus and maybe not recognise what a dire condition it was in?>
My guess is a bit of each but left it too late to bail out so panicked and sold it to a crook. But we don't know enough to be sure. Lots of questions to answer.
Post edited at 11:07
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
And then you said, low rates are low rates regardless of accounting standards. So..... I pointed out low rates were a product of neoliberal policies. If that's not allowed, well..... Very strict and narrow debate rules you have! Perhaps typical of your ideologically defensive bent.
Sure. that's why my initial question to was an "if"
> No I didn't. I said pension accounting standards are not "neoliberal" , and that was the topic being discussed.
And then you said, low rates are low rates regardless of accounting standards. So..... I pointed out low rates were a product of neoliberal policies. If that's not allowed, well..... Very strict and narrow debate rules you have! Perhaps typical of your ideologically defensive bent.
> So, as BnB suggests, let's wait to find out instead of prejudging
Sure. that's why my initial question to was an "if"
1
In reply to neilh:
We are constantly fed a narrative that those at the top of business take huge financial risk and thereby earn their huge salaries (or dividends). This tends to disprove that narrative - both Green and Chappell made huge amounts of money out of abject failure, with the lowest paid suffering the harshest consequences.
We are constantly fed a narrative that those at the top of business take huge financial risk and thereby earn their huge salaries (or dividends). This tends to disprove that narrative - both Green and Chappell made huge amounts of money out of abject failure, with the lowest paid suffering the harshest consequences.
2
1
In reply to Donald82:
> And then you said, low rates are low rates regardless of accounting standards. So..... I pointed out low rates were a product of neoliberal policies. If that's not allowed, well..... Very strict and narrow debate rules you have! Perhaps typical of your ideologically defensive bent.
>
No, I didn't. I said that low rates would impact pension fund valuations even on the basis of 1970s accounting standards, before the developments in accounting standards post 1980. I was making a very specific point in reply to a very specific point and regard the broader economic angle as a hijacking. >
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
And if Ashley had bought it what would you have said then? "Ashley saviour of the high street and 11,000 jobs?"
Retailing is a vicious cut throat business undergoing a huge structural change with the growth of online selling. we consumers in the uk have jumped into it like ducks to water. That is the reason for BHS demise.
And if Ashley had bought it what would you have said then? "Ashley saviour of the high street and 11,000 jobs?"
Retailing is a vicious cut throat business undergoing a huge structural change with the growth of online selling. we consumers in the uk have jumped into it like ducks to water. That is the reason for BHS demise.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Cannot remember was it not part of his debenhams deal.
I agree he has questions to answer. Nevertheless it was a failing business .
The pensions liability one is a problem for most large failing big businesses. I would not like to manage one , you would not know which way to turn.
Cannot remember was it not part of his debenhams deal.
I agree he has questions to answer. Nevertheless it was a failing business .
The pensions liability one is a problem for most large failing big businesses. I would not like to manage one , you would not know which way to turn.
In reply to Postmanpat:
You simply dont know that. The better state of the pension valuations under earlier rules would always have improved chances of a rescue or a better quality of buyer.
On another point it was never the accounting practices that were neo-liberal, it was neoliberal control that led to these unfair rules. Neoliberals are good cake and eat it folks... talk up the free market when it suits you but regulate heavily when it doesn't (anyone thinking the US was a free market under Bush must be in cloud cookoo land). If modern corporate governance was treated with the same level of caution to risk as DB pensions, these terrible owners would never have been allowed to wreck such damage on companies like BHS and more importantly the 2008 crash wouldnt have happened. We live in a mad world when the riskiest areas to the economy are the most under regulated and vice versa.
As for thread hijacks they are normal here and you are sometimes guilty. You're also guilty of overly fixed positions.. DB pensions being unsustainable for instance is a complete nonsense...ensuring sustainability is the whole point of actuarial control, whatever the rules: when the pot is in deficit, employers and employees have to pay more ( or future pensioners get less) and if that looks impossible there are tougher arrangements required...
You simply dont know that. The better state of the pension valuations under earlier rules would always have improved chances of a rescue or a better quality of buyer.
On another point it was never the accounting practices that were neo-liberal, it was neoliberal control that led to these unfair rules. Neoliberals are good cake and eat it folks... talk up the free market when it suits you but regulate heavily when it doesn't (anyone thinking the US was a free market under Bush must be in cloud cookoo land). If modern corporate governance was treated with the same level of caution to risk as DB pensions, these terrible owners would never have been allowed to wreck such damage on companies like BHS and more importantly the 2008 crash wouldnt have happened. We live in a mad world when the riskiest areas to the economy are the most under regulated and vice versa.
As for thread hijacks they are normal here and you are sometimes guilty. You're also guilty of overly fixed positions.. DB pensions being unsustainable for instance is a complete nonsense...ensuring sustainability is the whole point of actuarial control, whatever the rules: when the pot is in deficit, employers and employees have to pay more ( or future pensioners get less) and if that looks impossible there are tougher arrangements required...
Post edited at 11:56
1
In reply to neilh:
Ashley didn't buy it, apparently because Green vetoed it (how, I don't know). If he had bought it, it may have succeeded or failed but even if it had failed it would have paid 11,000 people a wage for a period of time significant to them. And if Green and Chappell hadn't taken millions out of the business for running it into the ground, that money would have been available to plug the hole in the pension fund.
Can you explain to me how it's possible to buy a business for a pound, take millions from it, bankrupt it and just move on? It's simply rotten.
Ashley didn't buy it, apparently because Green vetoed it (how, I don't know). If he had bought it, it may have succeeded or failed but even if it had failed it would have paid 11,000 people a wage for a period of time significant to them. And if Green and Chappell hadn't taken millions out of the business for running it into the ground, that money would have been available to plug the hole in the pension fund.
Can you explain to me how it's possible to buy a business for a pound, take millions from it, bankrupt it and just move on? It's simply rotten.
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
That is for Chappell to explain.
It is of course interesting to see that there were not queues of people willing to buy the business .green could not find a buyer a year ago . The liquidator was unable to get a buyer for the existing concern. Says it all really.
That is for Chappell to explain.
It is of course interesting to see that there were not queues of people willing to buy the business .green could not find a buyer a year ago . The liquidator was unable to get a buyer for the existing concern. Says it all really.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
er.. That's what I'm saying you said. But you said it in response to a point blaming neoliberal accounting standards. So...... I think most people would agree pointing out that low rates were a result of neoliberal policies is a reasonable thing to chip in. Rather than entirely random, or a high jacking.
A reasonable man might have simply said, yeah that's true. Or that they're not sure/disagree but can't be bothered to get into it. Instead we have this weird defensive thing that you like to do.
> No, I didn't. I said that low rates would impact pension fund valuations even on the basis of 1970s accounting standards, before the developments in accounting standards post 1980.
er.. That's what I'm saying you said. But you said it in response to a point blaming neoliberal accounting standards. So...... I think most people would agree pointing out that low rates were a result of neoliberal policies is a reasonable thing to chip in. Rather than entirely random, or a high jacking.
A reasonable man might have simply said, yeah that's true. Or that they're not sure/disagree but can't be bothered to get into it. Instead we have this weird defensive thing that you like to do.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
The problem if people can pick their own discount rate based on what they reckon they can earn is that there's an obvious incentive to assume optimistically, make the size of the liabilities smaller, and therefore fund the scheme less now and run the risk of shortfalls in the future when you fail to achieve. I take the point that low valuation yields can make the scheme look unsustainably expensive and increase the pressure to close it, but on the other hand they also act as pressure to get money into the scheme now rather than later.
To be fair, most schemes have a funding basis as well as the accounting basis, and the former can be more closely linked to what the scheme thinks it can earn. The maturity of the scheme determines the likely investment profile and you would expect more bond and gilt investment were the scheme to be fairly mature and with a large proportion of members being pensioners rather than still in accumulation (ie it will vary scheme to scheme - I've no idea about the balance of the scheme in question)
The problem if people can pick their own discount rate based on what they reckon they can earn is that there's an obvious incentive to assume optimistically, make the size of the liabilities smaller, and therefore fund the scheme less now and run the risk of shortfalls in the future when you fail to achieve. I take the point that low valuation yields can make the scheme look unsustainably expensive and increase the pressure to close it, but on the other hand they also act as pressure to get money into the scheme now rather than later.
To be fair, most schemes have a funding basis as well as the accounting basis, and the former can be more closely linked to what the scheme thinks it can earn. The maturity of the scheme determines the likely investment profile and you would expect more bond and gilt investment were the scheme to be fairly mature and with a large proportion of members being pensioners rather than still in accumulation (ie it will vary scheme to scheme - I've no idea about the balance of the scheme in question)
In reply to Donald82:
Probably i should have done but given your history of being on the offensive on this topic and not wanting to reopen it the natural reaction was to bat it aside.
> A reasonable man might have simply said, yeah that's true. Or that they're not sure/disagree but can't be bothered to get into it. Instead we have this weird defensive thing that you like to do.
Probably i should have done but given your history of being on the offensive on this topic and not wanting to reopen it the natural reaction was to bat it aside.
Post edited at 16:38
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
"it was never the accounting practices that were neo-liberal, it was neoliberal control that led to these unfair rules."
I dont really know what you are getting at. What is the neoliberal connection that you are making?
There is a link between efficient markets theory,which i guess could be argued as part of neoliberalism, and modern asset valuation techniques (is this your point?)but it seems weird to apparently regard this as some sort evil as opposed to an honest attempt to develop long existing techniques of valuation to provide some form of consistency.
"it was never the accounting practices that were neo-liberal, it was neoliberal control that led to these unfair rules."
I dont really know what you are getting at. What is the neoliberal connection that you are making?
There is a link between efficient markets theory,which i guess could be argued as part of neoliberalism, and modern asset valuation techniques (is this your point?)but it seems weird to apparently regard this as some sort evil as opposed to an honest attempt to develop long existing techniques of valuation to provide some form of consistency.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
The rules were not designed independently, openly and honesty based on best economic research. Saying the rules have been stacked against DB pensions is just recognising the duck.
The rules were not designed independently, openly and honesty based on best economic research. Saying the rules have been stacked against DB pensions is just recognising the duck.
Post edited at 08:53
1
In reply to Offwidth:
What "power" and process by which the rules were made are you referring to?
> The rules were designed by power based on the orthodoxy of that power, not independently, openly and honesty based on best economic research.
>What "power" and process by which the rules were made are you referring to?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I changed that as I knew you would smell conspiracy again (rather than cynicism): in the real world governments set laws and rules that are not always consitent nor meet best research practice. Political influences from ideology (in the face of clear opposing evidence) to lobbying, to the practicalities of winning enough support to get laws through, result in laws that are not always fair or honest.
I changed that as I knew you would smell conspiracy again (rather than cynicism): in the real world governments set laws and rules that are not always consitent nor meet best research practice. Political influences from ideology (in the face of clear opposing evidence) to lobbying, to the practicalities of winning enough support to get laws through, result in laws that are not always fair or honest.
In reply to Offwidth:
Well I don't what you changed it from.
You are making a general observation but not explaining what makes you so sure that it applies to the development of actuarial standards applied to pension funds. You are, it seems, ignoring the wealth of academic work underpinning the current standards-which are really just the application of established theories for valuing most asset classes to to the assets and liabilities of pension funds. I don't doubt their are academics and others who are critical of the standards and methodology just as there are many accountants who critical of accounting standards and lawyers who are critical of the law. But this does not demonstrate that the standards are imposed for political ends, just that there is room for disagreement.
My interpretation is that you are a disgruntled USS pensioner whose benefits have been cut, have read articles critical of the USS valuation methodology (which is controversial) and got hold of some argument that what was true of USS was true for the whole industry and that this was all a function of the desire of the State or somebody to kill of off DB pensions. But I'm guessing because you won't say.
> I changed that as I knew you would smell conspiracy again (rather than cynicism): in the real world governments set laws and rules that are not always consitent nor meet best research practice. Political influences from ideology (in the face of clear opposing evidence) to lobbying, to the practicalities of winning enough support to get laws through, result in laws that are not always fair or honest.
Well I don't what you changed it from.
You are making a general observation but not explaining what makes you so sure that it applies to the development of actuarial standards applied to pension funds. You are, it seems, ignoring the wealth of academic work underpinning the current standards-which are really just the application of established theories for valuing most asset classes to to the assets and liabilities of pension funds. I don't doubt their are academics and others who are critical of the standards and methodology just as there are many accountants who critical of accounting standards and lawyers who are critical of the law. But this does not demonstrate that the standards are imposed for political ends, just that there is room for disagreement.
My interpretation is that you are a disgruntled USS pensioner whose benefits have been cut, have read articles critical of the USS valuation methodology (which is controversial) and got hold of some argument that what was true of USS was true for the whole industry and that this was all a function of the desire of the State or somebody to kill of off DB pensions. But I'm guessing because you won't say.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I am not part of USS.
When the difference in the USS methodology growth predictor and the actual pay growth reaches 25% since 2009 we have gone a bit beyond academic arguments and safety margins. As for these minority critics, Warren Buffett has been 'banging on' about these 'accepted theories' for some time, as according to the theory he shoudn't exist as a successful investor. Some theories get picked up as "orthodoxy" by governments and others get ignored depending on what suits their particular ideology. When the orthodoxy gets things as wrong as it has, post crash, then anyone who is in or might be interested in a DB scheme should take note. This is very much the stuff of politics before dry theoretical squabble.
I am not part of USS.
When the difference in the USS methodology growth predictor and the actual pay growth reaches 25% since 2009 we have gone a bit beyond academic arguments and safety margins. As for these minority critics, Warren Buffett has been 'banging on' about these 'accepted theories' for some time, as according to the theory he shoudn't exist as a successful investor. Some theories get picked up as "orthodoxy" by governments and others get ignored depending on what suits their particular ideology. When the orthodoxy gets things as wrong as it has, post crash, then anyone who is in or might be interested in a DB scheme should take note. This is very much the stuff of politics before dry theoretical squabble.
Post edited at 17:54
In reply to BnB:
I was corrected in that it is Greens wife's company, although the same 'tax efficient' mechanisms may also apply.
> He can say that because dividends are paid out of accumulated retained profits (from any number of years) and rarely out of profits for the year in which the dividend is made as these are usually tied up in working capital until freed up by the succeeding year's profits.
I was corrected in that it is Greens wife's company, although the same 'tax efficient' mechanisms may also apply.
In reply to Offwidth:
USs made a series of bad investment decisions and probably chose inappropriate discounting rates. That is doesnt mean they are representative of a systemic problem.
As an old school investor i think Buffet has a point but you havent produced anything to show that this was a government problem or a neoliberal ideology as opposed to an actuarial and financial industry problem. I can bore you with academic papers justifying the rationale on the basis of trying to achirve transparency and consistency if you like.
> I am not part of USS.
> When the difference in the USS methodology growth predictor and the actual pay growth reaches 25% since 2009 we have gone a bit beyond academic arguments and safety margins. As for these minority critics, Warren Buffett has been 'banging on' about these 'accepted theories' for some time, as according to the theory he shoudn't exist as a successful investor. Some theories get picked up as "orthodoxy" by governments and others get ignored depending on what suits their particular ideology. When the orthodoxy gets things as wrong as it has, post crash, then anyone who is in or might be interested in a DB scheme should take note. This is very much the stuff of politics before dry theoretical squabble.
USs made a series of bad investment decisions and probably chose inappropriate discounting rates. That is doesnt mean they are representative of a systemic problem.
As an old school investor i think Buffet has a point but you havent produced anything to show that this was a government problem or a neoliberal ideology as opposed to an actuarial and financial industry problem. I can bore you with academic papers justifying the rationale on the basis of trying to achirve transparency and consistency if you like.
In reply to Postmanpat:
USS were consistently one of the most successful DB schemes and if we flipped back to the old rules there would be no deficit now contribution changes and the move to CARE are made to deal with longevity predictions. The changes in the scheme didn't happen in isolation and later on, post crash, the government rather publicly pressured more cross-sector schemes changes i(ncluding extra contributions in schemes like USS that they don't directly control) and similar pressures continues to this day. Being a scientist I produce articles to support difficult ideas that are not well known, not the bleeding obvious. The bit that most scheme members remain unaware of is just how much the new rules are themselves subtracting from the likely real value in such schemes. Why don't you show me some academic links that there is any faint possiblility the government were and are still not involved nor biased to the theories that generated the problematic rules.
USS were consistently one of the most successful DB schemes and if we flipped back to the old rules there would be no deficit now contribution changes and the move to CARE are made to deal with longevity predictions. The changes in the scheme didn't happen in isolation and later on, post crash, the government rather publicly pressured more cross-sector schemes changes i(ncluding extra contributions in schemes like USS that they don't directly control) and similar pressures continues to this day. Being a scientist I produce articles to support difficult ideas that are not well known, not the bleeding obvious. The bit that most scheme members remain unaware of is just how much the new rules are themselves subtracting from the likely real value in such schemes. Why don't you show me some academic links that there is any faint possiblility the government were and are still not involved nor biased to the theories that generated the problematic rules.
In reply to Offwidth:
Having spent yesterday afternoon arguing discount rates, it's fair to say they are like cheese- a wide variety, many stink and everybody has their favourite one.
Having spent yesterday afternoon arguing discount rates, it's fair to say they are like cheese- a wide variety, many stink and everybody has their favourite one.
In reply to Offwidth:
The actuaries who devised the schemes would presumably argue that the new rules reflect the real value of the schemes. It is commonly understood that whatever discount rate you use, if interest rates are near zero there is going to be the appearance of underfunding.
What you have asserted but made no effort to demonstrate is that the changes were part of a neoliberal government policy which you seem to think was designed to hurt DB pensions. To be honest it's a completely new take to me and I can find no evidence to support it. My understanding, which is supported by people in the industry and reading around it is that the changes were "bottom up"in the sense that the actuarial profession was looking for better ways to value funds, embraced the methodologies developed to value other financial assets (many of the principles of which are hundreds of years old) , and worked with the regulators to implement these methodologies.
I can't provide a link but the "EMA" 1997 paper "The Financial Theory of Defined Benefit Pension Schemes" was the key paper, produced in 1997, followed by "Pension Fund Valuations and Market Values" in 1999. They are both easily accessible as PDFs on line.
> USS were consistently one of the most successful DB schemes and if we flipped back to the old rules there would be no deficit now contribution changes and the move to CARE are made to deal with longevity predictions. The changes in the scheme didn't happen in isolation and later on, post crash, the government rather publicly pressured more cross-sector schemes changes i(ncluding extra contributions in schemes like USS that they don't directly control) and similar pressures continues to this day. Being a scientist I produce articles to support difficult ideas that are not well known, not the bleeding obvious. The bit that most scheme members remain unaware of is just how much the new rules are themselves subtracting from the likely real value in such schemes. Why don't you show me some academic links that there is any faint possiblility the government were and are still not involved nor biased to the theories that generated the problematic rules.
The actuaries who devised the schemes would presumably argue that the new rules reflect the real value of the schemes. It is commonly understood that whatever discount rate you use, if interest rates are near zero there is going to be the appearance of underfunding.
What you have asserted but made no effort to demonstrate is that the changes were part of a neoliberal government policy which you seem to think was designed to hurt DB pensions. To be honest it's a completely new take to me and I can find no evidence to support it. My understanding, which is supported by people in the industry and reading around it is that the changes were "bottom up"in the sense that the actuarial profession was looking for better ways to value funds, embraced the methodologies developed to value other financial assets (many of the principles of which are hundreds of years old) , and worked with the regulators to implement these methodologies.
I can't provide a link but the "EMA" 1997 paper "The Financial Theory of Defined Benefit Pension Schemes" was the key paper, produced in 1997, followed by "Pension Fund Valuations and Market Values" in 1999. They are both easily accessible as PDFs on line.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
What are the views on SPG's performance in front of the Select Committee?
Any revisions on the views expressed in this thread?
What are the views on SPG's performance in front of the Select Committee?
Any revisions on the views expressed in this thread?
Post edited at 13:48
In reply to Greenbanks:
I haven't had time to digest it. It appears he was very keen to exert his control over proceedings, and one of the MPs who questioned him was on the radio, and while measured in his words about Green's evidence was hardly glowing about him.
> What are the views on SPG's performance in front of the Select Committee?
> Any revisions on the views expressed in this thread?
I haven't had time to digest it. It appears he was very keen to exert his control over proceedings, and one of the MPs who questioned him was on the radio, and while measured in his words about Green's evidence was hardly glowing about him.
In reply to Greenbanks:
I read that he didn't like being stared at. Which is a bit odd...
I'm not sure if he found this intimidating, or whether he simply doesn't think that mere mortals should be allowed to look upon his Glorious Countenance directly...
I confess that when someone is talking, I do tend to look at them. Staring off into the distance is a bit rude, suggesting that you're not really paying attention...
> Any revisions on the views expressed in this thread?
I read that he didn't like being stared at. Which is a bit odd...
I'm not sure if he found this intimidating, or whether he simply doesn't think that mere mortals should be allowed to look upon his Glorious Countenance directly...
I confess that when someone is talking, I do tend to look at them. Staring off into the distance is a bit rude, suggesting that you're not really paying attention...
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...