BHS 'could file for administration' threatening 11,000 jobs on Monday

theblagger

Mistermeaner wrote: »

And your proposed solution is..... ???

If you have to ask that....maybe you need to read the comment again

chewmylegoff

theblagger wrote: »

Welcome to the 21st century. The century where asset strippers are celebrated and workers queue up for pay day loans. Where obscene amounts of money are moved offshore by Captains of industry and zero hour contracts are presented as a "lifestyle choice".
We have become a country where it is acceptable for huge corporations to counteract a modest rise in the mininum wage by cutting hours and removing the pathetically small perks from the most vulnerable in their workforce.
Foodbanks and fraud just about sums us up these days.

What actually happened is that people (including, I suspect, you) didn't buy enough stuff from BHS so it made large losses and ran out of money and is now going to close because no-one wants to spend millions of pounds of their money each year to keep it going. The fact that it paid dividends in the past when it was profitable is pretty much irrelevant.

!!!!!! businesses which don't sell what people want to buy close all the time. The ones that do sell what people want to buy tend to carry on trading.

bluelass

I am very sad this has happened. I really like BHS and my local Manchester store has a really good cafe which I used pretty often.
The light shades in my hallway and landing came from there too and everyone who comes to ours asks where we got them from.
My standard lamp in the lounge was bought for £35 in a sale 4 years ago. Great value considering its chrome with crystal effect swirls on the base and middle also a silk shade.
I really liked the Christmas food items too especially the mugs with chocolates or marshmallows in them used to buy them for presents.

Moby

chewmylegoff wrote: »

What actually happened is that people (including, I suspect, you) didn't buy enough stuff from BHS so it made large losses and ran out of money and is now going to close because no-one wants to spend millions of pounds of their money each year to keep it going. The fact that it paid dividends in the past when it was profitable is pretty much irrelevant.

!!!!!! businesses which don't sell what people want to buy close all the time. The ones that do sell what people want to buy tend to carry on trading.

Im sure the staff and pensioners concerned will be comforted by your insight.

chewmylegoff

Moby wrote: »

Im sure the staff and pensioners concerned will be comforted by your insight.

They may not be but so what? businesses are run for profit not to provide people with employment or pensions. When they cease to be profitable in a structural manner which suggests they will be unlikely to ever make a profit again then closure is inevitable.

If you expect people to continue to bankroll businesses once they become spectacularly loss making then you will also lose the benefit of job creation of other businesses as no one will provide risk capital if they have unlimited downside risk. Jobs are constantly being lost and created in the y/e March 2015 the private sector created 2.5 million jobs whilst 1.8 million were lost in the same period. It's all just part of the cycle.

Mistermeaner

theblagger wrote: »

If you have to ask that....maybe you need to read the comment again

So you would:

- not allow businesses and their owners to sell the assets of their businesses
- ban payday loans
-introduce capital controls ala China
- outlaw zero hour contracts
- ban huge corporations from altering the hours staff works and other conditions (in addition to the current law)


What effects do you think the above might have?

vivatifosi

A couple of papers now reporting that the Pensions Regulator is after Philip Green for part of the shortfall. That's the right thing to do. If he meets £300m to £400m of the shortfall, then some of the other shortfall problems will be addressed by the PPF itself: deferred members will be capped at 90%. I believe that it is also the case that future projections for deferred members will be calculated in CPI rather than RPI. Also, the maximum payable by the fund is capped, which will likely affect some senior members.

This is a big test of the PPF. It has to show its teeth to avoid attempts at asset stripping in the future.

There could be some angry senior execs willing to spill the beans once they realise what they are going to retire on.

Articles:

https://next.ft.com/content/3b390862-0ad9-11e6-9456-444ab5211a2f

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3558823/Sir-Philip-Green-facing-demands-300m-cover-gaping-hole-BHS-pension-fund-regulator-confirms-investigating-scheme-571m-debt.html

Enterprise_1701C

The fact is there is too little money to go around.

The government is desperately trying to slow down spending but is not allowed to because the EU dictate to us what we should pay to who.=, but that is for another debate.

Captains of industry earn more because they are captains of industry. People are turning against "rich" people, but at the same time expect them to pay out more and more in salaries If people were not allowed to earn good money by running businesses then you would get no-one willing to run businesses, they would just go to another country where their skills would be appreciated.

If a business is not making money then it should go under. Look at when Woollies went under, Wilkinsons has grown out of that, something will be along to replace BHS, it is sad but it is life.

You cannot have a world where everything remains successful forever, as much as you cannot expect the government to bail out everyone.

mwpt

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The fact is there is too little money to go around.

The government is desperately trying to slow down spending but is not allowed to because the EU dictate to us what we should pay to who.=, but that is for another debate.

No, we could debate it here. What exactly has the EU dictated, I assume you mean the equal treatment of all EU citizens? How much do we spend on EU benefits claimants as a percentage, vs how much they put in? And as a percentage vs local UK population? These figures should prove your point if you can quote them. If not, your comment is random rhetoric, not something on which to base a critically important decision that impacts all your fellow countrymen.

tincans6

antrobus wrote: »

I have the FT telling me that Green acquired BHS in 2000, and received dividends of £164.5m in 2002 and £40m in 2004.



The biggie was the £1.2 billion in 2005. Tina got that one.



Thames Water and Macquarie springs to mind.

You missed the £214m dividend paid by BHS group Ltd in 2003