How Much is a Corbyn?

Generali

martinsurrey wrote: »

failure in that article is NOT destroying shareholder value, which is what we are discussing.

if I say I will buy something and give you a return of 900% but only deliver 800% that would be defined in the above article as a failure, even if by buying it I doubled shareholder value (because I forecast I would triple it).

the devil is in the detail.

Why not go and find some peer reviewed studies that show that shareholder value is increased through M&A?

I see no reason to do the legwork to show what is a truism.

You could instead try to address the central point of the thread which is that Mr Corbyn proposes to spend huge sums of money on a frivolous ideological fancy.

cells

michaels wrote: »

Plus there are lots of regulatory powers which would make the uk operations of these groups negative so he simply needs to enact a price cap at 25% below wholesale prices and then offer to take them over for a nominal sum.

And after all if socializing the economy works so well in Venezuela why shouldn't it work here?

What if they refuse to sell and stop generating power?

Is he is going to have 3-5 years worth of no electricity and no economy while he builds new power stations for corybn powrr group?

also the past shows us that when people are passed off they will sabotage their own buildings to make sure the 'theif' isn't able to make use of them. Be they union members breaking vital bits of machinery to teach the bosses lessons or fleeing businessmen destroying their factories

setmefree2

New polling gives Jeremy Corbyn the support of more than half of those with a vote, while the leftwinger hints at closer ties with Russia

Mr Corbyn's odds for victory have been slashed by bookmakers Ladbrokes following the new poll. He is now priced at 1/2, with Andy Burnham at 3/1, Yvette Cooper on 4/1 and Liz Kendall trailing at 100/1.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11795420/Jeremy-Corbyn-surges-ahead-in-Labour-leadership.html

martinsurrey

Generali wrote: »

Why not go and find some peer reviewed studies that show that shareholder value is increased through M&A?

again, I'm not stating they are, you are the one claiming a truth

Generali wrote: »

I see no reason to do the legwork to show what is a truism.

if it was a truism, then every director who has ever done an M&A would be in court, as they would have been acting against their fiduciary duty as a director (promoting the success of the company).

Generali wrote: »

You could instead try to address the central point of the thread which is that Mr Corbyn proposes to spend huge sums of money on a frivolous ideological fancy.

I agree with this, it is utter madness.

(can we agree to disagree, I'm sure we both don't want to carry on what was a side discussion on what is a minor point, but i did enjoy the sparring :-))

BobQ

cells wrote: »

What if they refuse to sell and stop generating power?

Is he is going to have 3-5 years worth of no electricity and no economy while he builds new power stations for corybn powrr group?

also the past shows us that when people are passed off they will sabotage their own buildings to make sure the 'theif' isn't able to make use of them. Be they union members breaking vital bits of machinery to teach the bosses lessons or fleeing businessmen destroying their factories

This is Britain, they would probably be charged with some form of Treason for undermining the will of Parliament.

You think the workers would damage the power stations at the prospect of being TUPEd into a public sector job?

MS1950

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11795420/Jeremy-Corbyn-surges-ahead-in-Labour-leadership.html

What next - a new 'Zinoviev letter'.....?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/official-zinoviev-letter-was-forged-1068600.html

Generali

martinsurrey wrote: »

again, I'm not stating they are, you are the one claiming a truth



if it was a truism, then every director who has ever done an M&A would be in court, as they would have been acting against their fiduciary duty as a director (promoting the success of the company).



I agree with this, it is utter madness.

(can we agree to disagree, I'm sure we both don't want to carry on what was a side discussion on what is a minor point, but i did enjoy the sparring :-))

me too.

Not every M&A destroys value, just most.

cells

BobQ wrote: »

This is Britain, they would probably be charged with some form of Treason for undermining the will of Parliament.

You think the workers would damage the power stations at the prospect of being TUPEd into a public sector job?

I dont expect it to happen but if the state was to try and steal assets the owners of the assets quite naturally will try to minimise their losses.

Were I told 5 years in advance that my business was going to be forcefully nationalised (rather than bought out at a price I was happy with) what I would do is stop all but critical maintenance and investment so what they get is a run down plant. I would also put prices up if that were possible and it likely would be.

however consider that a lot of the big companies are heavy on debt probably to minimise this sort of risk. so i dont see how corybn or anyone else could pay little to nothing for the assests as say the £100B worth of assets have £50B of loans on them. That means the banks would need to write down £50B and the rest of the economy would suffer with a banking crisis or recession

martinsurrey

cells wrote: »

I dont expect it to happen but if the state was to try and steal assets the owners of the assets quite naturally will try to minimise their losses.

Were I told 5 years in advance that my business was going to be forcefully nationalised (rather than bought out at a price I was happy with) what I would do is stop all but critical maintenance and investment so what they get is a run down plant. I would also put prices up if that were possible and it likely would be.

however consider that a lot of the big companies are heavy on debt probably to minimise this sort of risk. so i dont see how corybn or anyone else could pay little to nothing for the assests as say the £100B worth of assets have £50B of loans on them. That means the banks would need to write down £50B and the rest of the economy would suffer with a banking crisis or recession

Also, by hook or by crook, we take a £20b company off the French, do you think they are just going to shake their fist and laugh or do you think we might find £20b of UK company assets in France nationalised by them, who pays for that, UK workers and shareholders (many of which are pension funds).

then Airbus, pulls out of the UK, taking 10,000 direct jobs and 100,000 inderect jobs and £500m of R&D a year (why would they stay if the UK Gov is in the business of just taking what it wants?)

it all gets very messy if you don't play nice.

vivatifosi

Alistair Campbell was on R4 yesterday. He said the problem with Corbyn is not so much where he stands on things economically, but the fact that he will have to lead a party in which he is known as a rebel. How can you force people to follow a whip when it's something you consistently didn't do yourself? Which goes back to Gen's point about voting against the party over 500 times.