These are my links for November 27th:
- David Cameron could scrap final salary public sector pensions - Telegraph - How to win the support of the civil service
- Tax Justice Network: Forget tax havens - Well worth the read
- Growing concern over rise in 'going concern' notices - Accountancy Age - It's the auditors duty
It's the directors problem
Neither should hide it from those to whom they must report
Let's face reality
- FT.com / Companies / Retail & Consumer - Banks pull plug on Woolworths - The proverbial begins to hit the fan
The reality is going to hit home very soon
I feel very, very sorry for a lot of retail staff this morning
And those who will have to tell them that they are redundant. I once had to make a lot of people redundant in November - I felt terrible.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“How to win the support of the civil service”
Quite right too. The numbers working in the public sector have ballooned over the past decade, helpfully creating a client state which helps keep the governing party in power.
As for final salary schemes, they are virtually nowhere to be seen in the private sector thanks to GB’s pension raid. As Janet Street-Porter (hardly a disciple of the free market) said in the week, there is no social class system in this country anymore, the division is between the public sector, with gold-plated pensions underwritten by the taxpayer, and the private sector.
Woolworths
I have a dim recollection of a back story (behind how tough it is on the High Street). Google turns up reports of a row about how much debt Woolworths took from the demerger from Kingfisher but can’t find an answer to my question, which is was Woolies ever viable except in the context of rapidly rising property values? Does Richard or anyone lurking here have a view or links to where this has been explored?
On a closely related point, am I right in thinking that there are companies (pub chains come to mind) where the nominal business has been a sideline – petty cash in a good week – and the ‘real’ business has been borrowing against an appreciating property portfolio in order to trade financial derivatives?
Does this kind of thing (if it exists) need to be covered in whatever replaces ‘light touch’ collusion?
Andy
Pub groups like Laurel and Punch certainly relied on this
Not sure Woolies did – but rising property values have been key to many groups of late
The International Accounting Standards Board rules on fair value allowed this
Richard