FT.com / Media – Clasper named senior ITV independent director.

Mike Clasper is chairman of HM Revenue & Customs.

Now he is to be senior independent director of ITV.

Dos this make sense?

Is it really possible to combine these roles?

Personally I doubt it.

Even though I have worked in more than one role at a time since I was 26 I have real problems with someone who should, I think, be a senior civil servant working for a major private sector broadcaster. Instinctively that creates conflicts of interest about which I have concern.

 

FT.com / UK / Politics & policy – Commons set for departure of 120 MPs.

Cut all the comment s on expenses and the like: the reality is they’re quitting becasue a) they’ve had enough and b) this is a grotty job.

If MPs had more power. If select committees had budgets to do real research. If whipping were less significaqnt then maybe this would be a job worth doing.

As it is being a backbencher is no fun at all as far as I can see. And as several have told me: I have more influence as a blogger.

Parliament needs reform, badly. But those at the to have to want it, and I don’t see that happening.

 

FT.com / Lex / Macroeconomics & markets – Valuation fundamentals .

Lex says:

Then there are equity markets. Here it is best to use long-run, adjusted earnings based valuations, or methodologies comparing prices to real assets, such as replacement ratios. On such measures, US stocks are now almost 50 per cent overvalued, according to Smithers & Co. Unfortunately historical data are less reliable for other equity markets, but most also look expensive on this basis, albeit to a lesser extent.

I agree. I have said so for a long time. As a write the market is at 5,340 – near the 2009 high. Put it 50% over valued and it should be 3,560.

I suggested even lower was right a while back – at around 2,900. Maybe I was a little cautious, but those pinning on their hopes on equities right now are simply heading to be losers in the next financial collapse.

And it won’t be far off coming.

Dec 222009
 

Justice in pay packets starts at the top. Across the board | Polly Toynbee | Comment is free | The Guardian .

Polly Toynbee is on form on the issue of a High Pay Commission this morning. I warmly endorse the idea, and what she has to say:

At last! The House of Commons public administration select committeeyesterday called for a top pay commission. About time, you might think, to restrain out-of-control salaries that rocket-propel national inequality. The new commission would issue top pay guidelines, naming and shaming organisations that can’t justify excessive salaries. Good.

Except it leaves a great gaping hole. This top pay commission would only cover the public sector, not the private sector where the problem originates. … One sector can’t be tackled without reining in the other.

Public jobs are tough. Running a local authority, or a beacon comprehensive or teaching hospital in a hard-pressed borough, takes more managerial talent than running any company. Selling food or cars has just one target – the bottom line. Compare that with a public manager’s multiple goals. A happy and well-educated child or a recovered hip-fracture patient returned safely to their home require skills no investment banker has. That is why it’s one-way traffic: no one asks retail managers to run schools, hospitals or councils. They might find the responsibility for other people’s lives hair-raising – and the pay would be too low.

I think that last paragraph especially true. And it needs to be said time and again.

As for private sector managers: I give you BA and Eurostar, the East Coast rail route – and that’s just private sector transport mess ups of late.

Anyone noticed the mess bankers created?

Or the inability of auditors to audit?

One could go on. But unless we ask two questions, the first being have we made things too complex to manage? and the second, why do people need so much to be incompetent? if they claim they can manage we fail to make any progress at all.

 

FT.com / Columnists / Philip Stephens – It’s too late to take the politics out of banking.

The storm may be raging about them, but bankers have been locked in a contest to say something truly silly.

Until a few days ago Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs looked certain to take the prize. Mr Blankfein, readers will recall, declared that we must not be too hard on bankers because they were doing “God’s work”.

Now Stephen Hester, chief executive of Britain’s Royal Bank of Scotland, has mounted a late bid for the trophy. The politicians who rescued the financial services industry, Mr Hester remarked the other day, should now hand it all back to those who caused the mess.

Even the FT realises how absurd all this is. As is noted:

The banks say the result of political interference is likely to be a smaller financial sector, with many of the “best and brightest” leaving London for less interfering regulators and friendlier tax regimes. They may be right. But would the British economy really be the loser if some in the industry decide to migrate to tax-efficient obscurity?

Britain has learnt during the past year that an over-mighty and under-regulated financial services sector carries its own heavy costs. As the Bank of England said the other day, a smaller industry may be the price worth paying for a stable economy.

As for “interference”, the politicians, of course, have their own reputational troubles. But they are better trusted than the bankers.

Although I suspect George Osborne is planning to do something about that when he sets to and seeks to raise unemployment to 4 million plus.

 

re: The Auditors ¬ª Blog Archive ¬ª EY Settles SEC Charges Re: Bally’s Fraud-Lives To Audit Another Day .

Ernst & Young picks up yet more penalties and Francine McKenna asks an apposite question: how many strikes does a firm get before it’s out?

Quite a lot, she suggests, if you’re on the regulatory body.

 

Earlier this year I reviewed Google’s accounts for the Sunday Times using 2007 data.

They updated their story using 2008 data (and get it wrong in the process – it pays to ask) this weekend. The Guardian quoted me on it today.

Today I wrote a piece for SkyNews on this. The planned television coverage did not happen – their outside broadcast truck got stuck trying to get to me!. This is their article:

Recently filed accounts show that Google managed to legally avoid paying millions of pounds in corporation tax by channelling its earnings through its Irish subsidiary.

Google has based its European headquarters in Dublin.

Tax expert Richard Murphy has been looking at the figures for Sky News Online:

Google Inc has the motto "don’t be evil". Maybe it should add "and pay no tax outside the USA".

Google is a profitable company. In 2008 it made worldwide sales of $21,795m (£11,774m).

On that it made profits in 2008 of $5,853m (£3,161m). That is a 26.8% profit rate, which puts it in the same league as banks in terms of its ability to generate cash.

The UK tax rate for that year would have been 28.5%. But Google is not a UK company, it is a US company and tax rates there are much higher than here.

The US company tax rate is 35% and added on to that are state taxes.

Combined and if charged at full rate Google would have paid $2,311m in US taxes in 2008.

Actually, it reduced that bill to $1,815m through adjustments. Meanwhile, its total tax bill outside the USA was just $91 million.

Google has always said it believes it can make money ‘without being evil’

That bill outside the USA would not be odd if Google was just a US company, but it is not – 14% of Google’s sales are in the UK according to its accounts – that’s £1,648m.

The vast majority of its sales outside the USA are actually made from Ireland which had 91% of its non-US market in 2007.

Latest accounts for Google in the UK are reported to show that it paid just £141,000 in tax on its profits in the UK in 2008.

That’s much the same as the year before. Which is very, very little indeed on UK sales of £1,648m.

Even stranger still, the accounts for Google in Ireland show it only paid €7.5m (£6.7m) of Irish tax on profits in 2008.

Ireland has a lower tax than the UK, at 12.5%, but this implies the Irish company – which bills almost half of all Google’s worldwide revenues – made a profit of £53m – which is less than a fiftieth of Google’s worldwide profits.

We’re now into the world of guesswork, but the guesswork may be helped by clues given in the ownership of Google’s Irish company.

It is owned by a company in Bermuda, which is a secretive tax haven where no tax need be paid on corporate profits.

How does the profit get there? I suspect that Google Ireland pays Google Bermuda for use of Google’s technology.

That’s fair enough – clearly Google has created something very clever. But two questions remain.

Is that technology so good that charges for it are enough to ensure no significant amounts of tax are paid in the UK or Ireland?

And is it right that Google should seem to avoid paying tax on the vast majority of its profits outside the USA as a result? Those are questions for Google to answer.

What I know is that if Google had made profit in the UK at the same rate that it made profit in the USA about £125m of tax would have been paid by it in 2008 on its UK profits.

There’s a lot we don’t know about Google’s finances and I’ll be candid, I don’t think that can be justified.

We need to make sure every multinational corporation is accountable in every place where it operates so we know where it makes its sales, where it records its profit and where it pays its taxes.

So, if doing no evil means being responsible I wonder if Google is really living up to its own proclaimed standards.

What is curious is this: Google implicitly seems to be acknowledging the power of unitary taxation in its tax reporting. It seems to report profits in proportion to sales in the US. But it seems to avoid doing so elsewhere.

Country-by-country reporting would solve this: the lost tax would be obvious under country-by-country reporting.Isn’t it worth £125 million to HM Treasury to check this out?

 

Tory tax allies ‘subsidised’ by the taxpayer | Politics | The Guardian .

As they might say “This is an outrageous waste of taxpayer money.”

Of course they might add “These are funds being routed through an unaccountable quango to be used for an unaccountable purpose.”

But I would not possibly do that.

 

FT.com / Global Economy – Business chiefs hit at climate agreement.

Global energy businesses are disappointed and confused by the climate deal agreed in Copenhagen, saying it does not provide enough certainty to justify the huge investments needed to cut carbon emissions.

That’s the nub of it: world leaders failed to give the one industry that really needed a stimulus the incentives needed to address a real need.

So we’ll go on consuming to an early grave instead.

© 2005 - 2011 Tax Research UK.
Some rights reserved. Creative Commons License
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha