How Much is a Corbyn?

kabayiri

I'm not sure on this quote of £120-£150bn as the real cost. It would end up higher.

One of the benefits of privatisation of energy was for the government to effectively wash it's hands of the billions we will need to spend upgrading the national grid and meeting future regulatory emissions targets.

These costs are branded as "necessary investment" by the energy companies, and generally the public seem to buy this argument, as long as perceived profits aren't too large.

State controlled Corbyn Energy would be in the news every time they asked for yet another few billion for upgrades.

MS1950

antrobus wrote: »

I am aware of the 'New Economics Foundation'. They bring new meaning to the phrase 'economically illiterate'.

Ah yes, Sidney Webb, delightful man, wanted to lock the poor up in Reformatory Detention Colonies in order to 'reform' their characters. Very pro-Stalinist, and very keen on eugenics. I wouldn't drag up that black sheep, if I were you.:)

I wouldn't waste your time.

I'm fully aware of Webb's very doubtful ideas and associations but I mentioned his authorship of 'Clause IV' as a counterpoint to the media hysteria over Corbyn's fairly anodyne statement below:

'Asked if he wanted to restore the clause to the party’s constitution, Mr Corbyn said: “I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring Clause Four as it was originally written or it’s a different one.”'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-bring-back-clause-four-contender-pledges-to-bury-new-labour-with-commitment-to-public-ownership-of-industry-10446982.html

I posted the link to the 'New Economics Foundation' in the hope of a more informed discussion of some of the things Corbyn has proposed – so maybe you can expand on your views (hopefully citing some sources)?

martinsurrey

Generali wrote: »

Oh you mean apart from 20 years in the industry.

https://wwz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/wwz/redaktion/Summer_School/2013/Yermack/Lys___Vincent_1995.pdf

http://www.nber.org/digest/aug03/w9523.html

https://www.eurofidai.org/Powell_2010.pdf

You could, of course, take a CFA or CA and find out for yourself but I'm sure that a terse 'source please' is a far easier way of finding out.

Now if you disagree, rather than just being a contrary annoyance, can you demonstrate how M&A adds value other than to the IBs and BoDs concerned please?

My guess is that you can't because only VIs can show added value and that's because they're justifying the value added to them.

I'd be happy to understand your theory of how M&A adds value for shareholders because I could make a fortune as a result. Seriously a mozza. Please help me be rich.

I am a Chartered accountant.

https://wwz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/wwz/redaktion/Summer_School/2013/Yermack/Lys___Vincent_1995.pdf

is a study of a single takeover

http://www.nber.org/digest/aug03/w9523.html

is a limited look at the 3 days after an acquisition is announced it even says that this is a limit in the study, but is not quantified.

"It is also possible that when large firms make acquisitions, they signal that they have exhausted internal growth opportunities. In that case, even when the takeover is a project with positive net present value, a negative return may be observed when looking at the share price following the transaction."

https://www.eurofidai.org/Powell_2010.pdf

is a study of entrenched managers (which are defined in the study as managers in company's with a high number of takeover provisions)

so you quoted a number with no back up and then when challenged on that number, linked a sample of random studies that are only loosely related to your point.

I for one don't have an answer, but I don't claim to have one either, if I did, I would source it

martinsurrey

Generali wrote: »

It's easy to knock someone else but what do you think will happen and why?

I'm not knocking anyone, its just that quote has been used by a fair few people as a sign that we should all go green and that oil is done for, when in context it just means we'll move onto bigger and better things (the likes of which are beyond imagination, just like a skyscraper would have been to a cave man), but oil will still be used, just like steel replaced stone, but stone is still used.

Generali

martinsurrey wrote: »

I'm not knocking anyone, its just that quote has been used by a fair few people as a sign that we should all go green and that oil is done for, when in context it just means we'll move onto bigger and better things (the likes of which are beyond imagination, just like a skyscraper would have been to a cave man), but oil will still be used, just like steel replaced stone, but stone is still used.

I think I haven't expressed myself well.

I'm saying that M&A destroys value as a rule. If you don't believe it then there really are a gazillion articles showing it.

If you look at the share prices of two companies where one wants to buy another the bought increases in price and the buyer falls almost every time.

Nothing about oil and gas. I'm talking about the economics of mergers and acquisitions.

My signature is another thing entirely and there is a thread devoted to how I'm wrong. Better to discuss that there I think.

martinsurrey

Generali wrote: »

I think I haven't expressed myself well.

I'm saying that M&A destroys value as a rule. If you don't believe it then there really are a gazillion articles showing it.

If you look at the share prices of two companies where one wants to buy another the bought increases in price and the buyer falls almost every time.

Nothing about oil and gas. I'm talking about the economics of mergers and acquisitions.

My signature is another thing entirely and there is a thread devoted to how I'm wrong. Better to discuss that there I think.

Generali wrote: »

I disagree with that quite fundamentally.

The reason why the Board of Directors is prepared to pay a premium for another company is because the larger the company the more the board is paid for running it.

About 65% of mergers and takeovers destroy value for shareholders of the buying company. More than that (can't recall the proportion though) result in the remaining directors earning more.

This is the point I am asking for info on, you stated something as fact. If its so clear cut and there are gazillions of articles, there should be a study you can link that will demonstrate and corroborate your point, as unless you have done a study which demonstrates this you must have got it from somewhere (which is that M&A are done to increase director remuneration, and that 65% of M&A destroy shareholder value).

I offer nothing, as I don't claim to offer anything, and I ask for your source as you are the one asserting something, which is a perfectly normal thing to do in a debate or discussion.

I am more than happy to accept your claim, if it can be substantiated in a decent peer reviewed study.

antrobus

MS1950 wrote: »

I'm fully aware of Webb's very doubtful ideas and associations but I mentioned his authorship of 'Clause IV' as a counterpoint to the media hysteria over Corbyn's fairly anodyne statement below....

What media hysteria?

All that media has done is report what Corbyn said in his interview with the IoS, and that the likes of Kendall and Cooper have accused him of wanting to turn the clock back.

MS1950 wrote: »

...I posted the link to the 'New Economics Foundation' in the hope of a more informed discussion of some of the things Corbyn has proposed – so maybe you can expand on your views (hopefully citing some sources)?

Don't be so bl00dy lazy!:)

If you want a more "informed discussion" of the NEF's ideas, go read them for youself, and expand on your views (hopefully citing some sources).

antrobus

martinsurrey wrote: »

...I am more than happy to accept your claim, if it can be substantiated in a decent peer reviewed study.

Yet study after study puts the failure rate of mergers and acquisitions somewhere between 70% and 90%.

https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-big-idea-the-new-ma-playbook

martinsurrey

antrobus wrote: »

Yet study after study puts the failure rate of mergers and acquisitions somewhere between 70% and 90%.

https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-big-idea-the-new-ma-playbook

a subjective article about "failure" of an acquisition, without defining what they mean by failure.

but they do say they are looking at acquisitions that fall short of expectations. Which is a long way from destroying shareholder value.

next...?

MS1950

antrobus wrote: »

What media hysteria?

All that media has done is report what Corbyn said in his interview with the IoS, and that the likes of Kendall and Cooper have accused him of wanting to turn the clock back.

Don't be so bl00dy lazy!:)

If you want a more "informed discussion" of the NEF's ideas, go read them for youself, and expand on your views (hopefully citing some sources).

You're right – I was looking for some 'critical pointers' to frame any reading of the NEF stuff, and as you said you were “aware of the 'New Economics Foundation'" I thought you could help.

Nevertheless, as I said in my original post, I think any serious discussion of 'Corbynomics' has got to address the NEF source of his ideas rather than simply accusing him of of “wanting to turn the clock back”.