Tag Archives: Sir Philip Green

The mental delay

There is a mental delay; we all have it, the moment between the realisation that things are wrong and the rest of the media finally willing to confess to the wrongful parts after they had been milked to the maximum. This is where I believe the UK is when I see: ‘Poll surge for Farage sparks panic among Tories and Labour‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/11/poll-surge-for-farage-panic-conservatives-and-labour). The situation is given through “Support for the Conservatives at the European elections slumps to 11%, less than a third of what the Brexit party is polling“. From my point of view, it is not really a surprise. The people have had enough of the ECB and their lack of control and accountability. The people in Europe are down 3 trillion euro through ill-conceived plans, it gets to be even worse when we consider the march news from the Financial Times ‘ECB unveils fresh bank stimulus amid rising Eurozone gloom‘, a setting that is not unlike irresponsible children using a credit card for which they do not have to pay the bill, the people have had enough. It is emphasized by other media giving us quotes like “Even if we stipulate that Greece’s government is, in fact, as creditworthy as the U.S. government, why would investors accept a lower yield on the Greek bond? And why are they willing to accept the even lower yields on the bonds of other Eurozone governments?“, as well as “Despite the low Eurozone bond yields, investors may expect eventually to boost their returns by selling the expensive euros and buying cheaper dollars and other currencies. Indeed, there is some basis for such a strategy. As of late April, the consensus among analysts was that the euro will appreciate significantly over the next couple of years, and more modestly thereafter; forward markets (where buyers and sellers settle the price of a future transaction in advance) support this consensus view.” Source: MarketWatch.

My issue is that the writing has been on the wall for a while and whilst we are given “The poll suggests the Brexit party, launched only last month, is now on course for a thumping victory that Farage will, MPs fear, use to back his argument that the UK must leave the EU immediately without a deal“, it was a risk that had been 3 years in the making and now that the time is over, we see panic on a few levels. The need for Status Quo as well as the continued Gravy train is now at a stage that the UK and others have had enough, a stage where the large four are pulling a cart where 20 others have not been doing their bit, not even to the smallest degree. From my personal view, the biggest loser is Tony Blair when we consider: “Writing for the Observer online, the former prime minister Tony Blair says it is vital that Labour supporters go to the polls, even if they choose a party more clearly in favour of Remain than Labour“, in a stage where the ECB does as it pleases, the people have largely lost faith, with the economic anchors Greece and Italy still firmly in place things will not get better, not in a Bremain stage of mind. Even as we accept that things will get worse, there is enough indication that it will be relatively short term, without the anchors, the 15 smallest EU nations will unite against the UK, only to find that the setback will increase, a voice without money is worth the value of the empty wallet at best. The IMF report makes it merely worse, the stage where the three largest EU economies are Germany, France and Italy and their prospects are in the basement for this year, led by Italy with a forecast that is somewhere between 10% and 25 % of last year, and as I took the UK out of this, we will see that as the others slide faster, the UK will suddenly become the place to be, a nation in repair. Then MarketWatch gives us a part that I have been claiming for over 2 years: “Policy makers also underplay the financial risks. They emphasize the decline in government debt ratios and banks’ nonperforming loans from their peaks reached during the euro-area crisis. They fail to note, however, that these vulnerabilities are at present distinctly higher than they were in mid-2007 for virtually all Eurozone countries“, whatever options they thought they had was squandered away by the ECB stimulus plans that did not work twice around and now they are giving us an attempt at option three, with no evidence that the third time has any chance of being a charm.

So when I see “‘northern’ Eurozone governments worry that the ECB may be left holding debt that may never be repaid“, which is nice, but I told that the people close to two years ago. It is nice for others to catch up this late. All this is before we give consideration to ‘Italy budget deficit forecast to smash EU fiscal rules‘ (at https://www.ft.com/content/e3b662d2-70ac-11e9-bf5c-6eeb837566c5) all thanks (in part) to an ECB that cannot restrain itself or its members, the UK is much better out and the sooner they do this, the better it is for all. The problem is not merely the deficit, the economy downturn will hit jobs soon thereafter, so before the end of the year. As such the unemployment rate that was merely a stitch below 11% in February 2019 could hit 14% by October, and with one out of three Italian youths without a job, that situation will worsen. It is already worse than Spain, but it will worsen still, that is merely one of the 4 large economies, whilst the ECB was too worried on the next bonus spreadsheet, we will now end up having spreadsheets where the dominant colour is red, on pretty much every page.

Even as we accept the Financial Times words “The forecasts play down the risks of a no-deal Brexit, saying that it “would dampen economic growth, particularly in the UK but also in the EU27, though to a minor extent”“, the part that I see missing is that the UK economy will recover, the remaining EU27 players a lot less so, which is also why we have seen the fuelled anti-Brexit sentiment all over Europe, not because they lose what they call an ‘economic ally‘, but because their own mess becomes centre stage for everyone to watch soon thereafter.

The other part is that the Northern economies are seemingly slowing down, the Local Sweden gives us: “The Swedish economic boom has reached its peak and the economy is approaching a slowdown, the country’s Fiscal Policy Council wrote in its annual report“, I do not believe that to be correct, you see Ericsson is one of a few having a decent 5G solution, together with Nokia they are the only ones who have a decently advanced 5G solution, they are the only ones who are considered in several nations because those nations are narrow-minded and loudly anti Huawei, so these two profit to a larger degrees. When 3G was starting Nokia broke all records, these two will in similar drive 5G, even if there is a slowdown, it is likely to be a very short one, unless the US stops its Huawei smear policy, these two will propel the Nordic economies to a much larger degree.

So when I see Justine Greening, Sam Gyimah, Alistair Burt, all conservatives, all pushing for a Bremain, a second referendum, or some ill-conceived idea that Brexit needs to be acknowledged, the voters have all realised that it is too late, the EU wanted to keep on playing games and leaving the game at whatever point is to be preferred over more and more unacceptable spending.

Yet the one part that is not pushed for is that the Brexit Party and Ukip are approaching a majority, if they can strike a deal with the greens and the Liberal Democrats (they tend to be great followers), we see a new government with the Labor party and conservatives sitting next to one another in the opposition. A historic first, the entire House of Commons for too long in indecision and the people have had enough, I cannot blame them. So when they want to play the blame game, a lot of politicians merely need to look into a mirror to see the guilty party.

I personally belief that the people are seeing the dangers of non-decisions as well as the added media pressures with non-stop incriminations and a total lack of explanation; It is driving the ‘better out than in‘ mood that seems to be exploding all over the UK. The fact that sources are claiming that Brexit might not happen, or that there is a 20%-30% that it will not happen has the people riled, in the end there was a referendum and the complacent and lazy Bremainers were all in a stage ‘it will never happen’, just like that popular claim ‘too big to fail’, so as that went the wrong way the people have been hit with media after media going wild in allegations and all kinds of managed bad news reports like ‘we could lose everything‘, or ‘you’ll get nationally evicted‘, exponential levels of fear mongering for too long, the people are fed up and the Brexit party is gaining more and more momentum. In France far right Marine Le Pen is again in the lead, the Dutch ‘Forum for Democracy (FvD) party’ is equally pushing forward, is that the Europe that the UK wants to be part of? The extreme right parties are gaining momentum more and more and I personally believe that not having a handle on the ECB was a first step, then we still have Mario Draghi being a member of an elite banking group and the fact that no one was holding him to account is still a factor that the few are disregarding, whilst the 3 trillion of bad conceived spending was never up for debate.

There has been a mental delay with the voters, but the facts are out in the open for too much and the facts are too visible, it has angered the people, so as the news thought it was fun to give the readers the news through “The Hinduja brothers, Gopichand and Srichand, have reclaimed their crown as the UK’s wealthiest people, according to the annual Rich List survey. The Indian-born, London-based industrialists are estimated to be worth £22bn, up £1.35bn on last year’s list“, so yes that was a nice part, as the people cannot pay their bills, have to deal with unaffordable living, someone made an additional £1,335 million pounds extra, all that whilst we get “The list reveals that retailer Sir Philip Green has lost his billionaire status; his fortune is believed to have halved in a year because of a pension black hole in his Arcadia empire. The Sunday Times Rich List has Green’s total wealth free-falling £1.05bn in a year to £950m“, when I lose 50% of my wealth, I go from £1,500 to £750, so where is the ‘half’ and the mere decline of10% illustrating going from £1,05B to £950M? It seems to me that he wealthy people are taxed differently on fortunes having to be halved.

Are you still wondering whilst millions of Britons are in anger and are you wondering why the Brexit party is gaining momentum? Farage has the charisma to exploit the silly news items that are seemingly fun to read for some, but in light of all that has happened, it is infuriating a lot more people in the UK than the media should be happy about. And as we saw Tony Blair, yesterday in his opinion piece ‘Farage cannot be allowed to dictate Britain’s future. He must be thwarted‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/11/farage-cannot-be-allowed-to-dictate-britains-future-he-must-be-thwarted) we are given “This is not a vote to choose a prime minister or a government. It is a vote for the Farage Brexit – or against it“. There I respectfully disagree; it has gone way beyond that. It has been about the unacceptable acts of the ECB and the overpaid EU gravy train riders for a much longer time and if Tony Blair had done something about when he was in charge from 1997 to 2007, or perhaps Gordon Brown in the three years that followed, the mess would not be there, in that same light the Conservatives after that did not achieve any significant push to make the ECB come to its senses, and now the people have had enough; they are willing to let Nigel Farage try. Tony should have done a few more things a decade ago and that was never the case. That is why the Brexit party is growing to the degree it is. The lack of kept promises, and the Italian government is merely throwing petrol on that fire, as such the Dutch are finding a person like Thierry Baudet more acceptable than ever before. A status quo play was the worst one to have, but the non-elected officials needed status quo for their wealth and now the gig is up in more than one way.

Tony Blair needs to realise that the Brexit party is not the downfall for either the Labor party or the Conservatives, facilitating to big business was and that is an important elements that none are touching on, the bulk of the politicians are tainted, tainted to the degree that they will stand out in every limelight and their denial in that is just staggering.

The mental delay has passed and now the people are in a phase where they are considering every other solution, except the ones that labour and conservatives offer. It is interesting that no one went on those tracks, the signals and indicators are clearly pushing in that direction.

 

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The promised example

In light of all the outsourcing we saw yesterday, it is time to show you just how lucrative it can be to set the outsourcing stage. In this example I will go with a software example, as I have seen this myself. You see, sometimes a place is profitable for the mother company no matter how you slice it and with this example we see this in action.

Let’s take a software vendor, selling some software solution. Normally that entire path will set you back $7,000. The software, training, installation and personalising the solution. At this point you might think, well, it is all tax deductible for the company, so what gives?

Well, some of these players still have budgets to adhere to (unless you are in Italy), and when we look at that the procurement department will state that it is too expensive. So, the sales team has an idea. They say: ‘You know what! We can (if you take all three) the entire as a package for $5250, and that is a nice discount‘. So the company takes all this and accepts the deal. So the software is bought, there was a trainer on the spot educating the staff for 2 days and they set up whatever needed to be set up and the entire delivery is complete.

It all seems straight forward. Yet, it is not to be. You see that outsourcers often have a main office outside of that country and they want their franchise fee, which could be 70% of the software, yet they will always get FULL PRICE. So they will get 70% of $3,000, no matter what the discounted invoice was. Now that company has to make due with $3,150 for training, training materials, travel expenses, training hardware and staff. And for every deal they make the cost remain high, yet the revenue has been siphoned off and the cream went somewhere else. Now we get the stage where there was still a profit, yet the staff members are still costing thousands of dollars, as is the office and all other goods. There is not taxation as the revenue was too low and this is where we see the problems for a lot of these companies. They are now in debt, governments having to make deals and I cannot vouch for Interserve, Carillion, Serco Group Plc and Capita Plc, because where I know it was happening was not one of these. Yet I feel certain that others have been playing similar games and it has been going on for over 20 years that I am aware of that tactic.

So does the entire Interserve part now make sense? A debt of well over half a billion and its board members are still up for millions in bonus? I cannot tell what the reason is for the entire Interserve issue, yet what I have seen in the past, we should take a long hard look at what some consider to be debt and what some consider to be an optional approach to deferred invoicing.

We might see partial support when we see the article in the Morningstar (at http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1542962437936788100/interserve-expects-higher-operating-profit-despite-construction-loss.aspx). Here we see: “Interserve posted a pre-tax loss of GBP244.4 million on revenue of GBP3.25 billion in 2017. It then recorded a pre-tax loss of GBP6.0 million on GBP1.67 billion in revenue in the first half of 2018“, others sources had a similar setting, yet here we also see the headline ‘News Interserve Expects Higher Operating Profit Despite Construction Loss‘, now we see operating profits versus construction loss? Does it now seem more and more that we are given a half a billion birdie, whilst some are showing to be receiving massive bonus payments? How is this not tackled? How come that for 20 years we have seen the impact of creative bookkeeping, whilst the European governments have been unable to fix anything?

When we see the Financial Times (at https://www.ft.com/content/b2c9fdd2-eeed-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57) giving us: “Interserve employs 80,000 people worldwide — 25,000 in the UK — in jobs that range from cleaning the London Underground to maintaining army bases and building a shopping centre in Dubai.” Giving me the speculative thought ‘How long until we see the Dubai part sold off (including equipment) at roughly 5 pennies to the pound? How would that screw over the 25,000 staff in the UK when Interserve folds? We will not know until the Interserve lawyers and accountants finalise they optimised plan in 2019, but I fear that the impact of outsourcing is going to be felt on a very large area. You see, outsourcing growth is through the roof and it is growing in a sphere of influence that has not been seen before. Fintech, Meditech, Pharmaceutics. It seems like the golden calf, yet it is a treacherous field. It might be a temporary field at best. I think that the construction companies have good weather now, yet the crash of the 80’s is still with them, Communications is all about outsourcing, yet when those outsourcers do not finance the training of staff, their usefulness will decline in 3-4 years as the companies are focussing on 5G. In that same light, we see a pharmaceutical growth, yet the setting is that many patents will fall over in the next 5 years. At that point these companies outsourcing can discontinue the renewal of contracts and the staff issue will not be their problem, it will be the problem of the outsourced company and that is starting to push a wave to a much larger degree than we have seen before.

So as we return to the Financial Times article we get “Interserve said profit growth for the year so far had been as expected, and it anticipated “a significant operating profit improvement” for the full year. The group, which swung to a loss in the half-year, did not provide figures“, we knew that, many sources had it. Yet we also get “It has revenues of £3.25bn but is valued by the stock market at just £75m and is already under close watch by the British government in case of collapse“, when a 3 billion revenue company is merely valued at merely 2% of that, there is a lot more going on than mere sneaky keeping of books and that needs to be seen as well. So when we consider: “Interserve’s update attempted to “sugar coat” the increase in net debt and “to deflect from the news” that the Cabinet Office is making sure it has alternative suppliers to take the place of Interserve should it fail. “The operational developments are not good reading either,” he added“, a part given to us by the independent analyst Stephen Rawlinson, we need to look deeper. You see, if the UK does get confronted with: “alternative suppliers“, we need to accept that for a chunk of those 25,000 British workers it will not spell good news, even more so, there is every chance that it gives a larger level of turmoil to those people whilst some board members end up going home with a payout that is between £380K and £2.25M, making sure that they can live in a sea of porn and Netflix for the longest of times, possibly even until the day they die.

Is it that bad?

Well, that is not certain, yet the issue that the UK accounting watchdog had to quit over criticism regarding Carillion (source: the Guardian), they give us the quote: “Stephen Haddrill will depart after nine years in charge of the Financial Reporting Council, which is subject to multiple inquiries into its effectiveness and independence” we get one thought, yet in light of “a committee of MPs described the FRC as “chronically passive” in an excoriating report into the construction group’s failure, condemning the regulator as “too timid to make effective use of the powers they have”” we should consider that there is every chance that Interserve might have been on that same side of the page making the issue larger and more critical. Is it not interesting that too often we see terms like ‘too timid‘ when it comes to dealing with the rich? The entire Sir Philip Green’s £1 sale of BHS is a nice example to keep in mind. The setting where the people behind BHS are apparently not in prison in a stage where “the settlement will not fully restore the retirement income they had been promised by BHS” (source: Financial Times). One of many failings where we see the creativity of applied accountancy and the improper use of non-committal prison sentences to those employing these fast and loose solutions. At present there is a speculative chance that Interserve might be on a similar track, but that is pure speculation, we will not know until the solution is offered, which according to the papers will not happen until somewhere in 2019, until that point arrives thousands of employees at Interserve will likely be in a state of stress. It is one hell of a way to approach Christmas.

Humbug!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

As the costs come

There is an issue that we see floating at Pressnet. Actually it’s an issue that started last week. I got the news from Retail Week (at https://www.retail-week.com/companies/bhs/bhs-admin-costs-spiral-as-mps-demand-answers/7017777.article), yet it came from several directions, so there is ample visibility. Yet, what is going on? This is an important part and even as there is great benefit to anyone’s soul to blame PwC for this, yet is that fair? The question becomes, is it in the books? When we look at the previous audits, was the quote “BHS administration costs have come in at £1.3m more than expected as MPs question a £35m ‘floating charge’ paid by Arcadia” a fair question? In all this, are these floating costs in the books? I actually do not know, yet I equally question why certain parties aren’t openly asking these questions at the PwC desk. Is that not equally odd?

The two quotes that matter are “If it was such a completely standard move, as Duff & Phelps claim, one wonders why it was reversed by the co-administrators as one of their first acts upon being appointed, and why the PPF seems to take a rather different view.” and “Meanwhile, Field questioned the transference of a “floating charge”, put in place at BHS by Green’s Arcadia Group. Duff & Phelps transferred the charge to Linklaters last October“, this now gives us the parts:

  1. If we accept the bankruptcy announcements of April 2016, how come that this is done in October 2016?
  2. If we accept that a floating charge is ‘a liability to a creditor which relates to the company’s assets as a whole‘, than the part that this is a credit to the Arcadia group should be in the books, and should have been in there for some time I gather, so why are there no questions asked at the address of PwC, in addition, why are MP’s not asking certain questions from Linklaters? Now, we should accept that Linklaters cannot divulge too much (read: any) information, yet when this was all set up could be seen as mere administration and that needs to be logged, which means that either Arcadia or BHS could release that information, if they choose not to do that, the question that follows should be a lot more serious and we need to wonder what else is in play.
  3. When we look at the quote “If it was such a completely standard move, as Duff & Phelps claim, one wonders why it was reversed by the co-administrators as one of their first acts upon being appointed, and why the PPF seems to take a rather different view“. In that I look at another issue, the quote found in Professional Pensions gives us “A spokesman for FRP Advisory declined to comment, adding all that needs to be said is covered in creditor reports“, yet if it is there, should it not also be in the accountancy audit? That is an assumption from my side, and I could be wrong, yet the amount of £35m moved via Linklater in April 2016, if none of the audits has this on paper, questions should be asked, if it is there, questions should still be asked, yet it seems that questions are asked in such a late stage. In all this, City A.M. gives us: “Tension has been building between the PPF and Duff & Phelps throughout the administrative process. In November, the PPF voted against Duff & Phelps’ request to increase its fee. Malcolm Weir, head of restructuring at the PPF, said BHS pension scheme members deserved “value for money”“, which sounds fair enough, yet in all this, even if Arcadia hasn’t received the funds at present, the fact that we see “The £35m was never paid to Arcadia. It was always held in an account to our order. Our legal advisers have confirmed that the floating charge is valid. However, I understand that the liquidators and their legal advisers have made comments concerning its validity, but, I nor my legal advisers, have received any evidence to support their view.” In that regard, we now see that legal advisors are on opposite sides and both sides claim their version of validity, as legal advisors would. This is not in question at present, what is interesting is that the media at large have not included PwC in any of this, as they have been seen as the auditor of BHS. Oh, and there was a reason for me mentioning: “if none of the audits has this on paper, questions should be asked”, be aware that I have no experience on corporate taxation. However, would it not make sense that a £35m invoice would impact next year’s taxation significantly and as such, should it not be mentioned?

In this let me take you back to the previous article, where I discussed the Financial Times (at https://www.ft.com/content/4c3965f2-3c4e-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a). Here we see “The Financial Reporting Council said its investigation related to PwC’s audit of BHS accounts in the year before the retailer was sold by Sir Philip Green’s Arcadia Group, in a deal that wrote off £215m of debts“, which is fair enough. In addition we see “At a committee session in May, PwC partner Steve Denison was asked by MPs to explain why the firm was prepared to sign off BHS as a “going concern” just days before its sale for £1“, which is fine too, yet where in all this is the £35m transfer to Linklater for the Arcadia group? If Duff & Phelps took control in April, would the accountant not have been aware of the thirty-five million, as such should PwC have been aware? (Read: not implied, yet questioned).

Let’s not forget that the Financial Times article was from June 27th, which means that the £35m should have been on many minds at that time, yet for the longest time there was little to no mention. I would think that if a firm is sold for the price of a mere Tesco Sliced Wholemeal Batch Loaf, would a question not be ‘What else needs to be paid for?‘ at that point the entire £35m transfer should be on the top of everyone’s mind, especially as there was a decadent pension gap issue many times that size? Perhaps it is just me, but that would be on my ‘media’ mind. Not just the actual newspapers, a few other publications (like TV and morning shows) would have had a field day with the mention that pensions will remain short, but the bosses will get squared for that thirty-five million. Emotions would be running high that day, let me guarantee you that emotions will run high on that topic!

In that regard, some MP’s are starting to ask additional questions as we see a fees increase £500,000 for Duff & Phelps’s. I wonder how many additional man years of work have been spent that warrants a £500K increase. The week gave the quote: “When they were appointed last April, initially at the behest of Green and then approved by the BHS board, the company estimated its costs would be around £3.5m“, now I imagine that an insolvency comes with all kinds of complications, but how much work, how many months of full day activities warrants £3.5M? I do not know, I am merely asking, especially as the pensions have been for the most unpaid for years now. The site this is money gives additional connections in the shape of Goldman Sachs, where among the top earners at the investment bank’s London office will be the former co-chief Mike Sherwood, who faced questioning from MPs last year over the bank’s role in the BHS scandal. He landed a $21 million pay and bonus package last year, worth £15 million at the time (at http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4120336/Now-bankers-bonus-Brexit-Goldman-staff-BHS-probe-donate-pension-fund-says-MP.html).

Now a lot of this news is between 1-2 weeks old and a few items are merely days old. Yet in all this we see a massive drain to less than a dozen people, where including Arcadia a syphoning through invoicing has surpassed £50M if we include the Arcadia bound payment, yet all is not well as several sources give large payments in their report, yet the exact part of what represents BHS is not given, but implied to be a large part. As such Mike Sherwood might have ended up with 21 million dollars, yet what part is though or because of BHS is not given, in his position, with his amount of accounts, the BHS part could be less than 1%, and as there is no clarity, the Week who gives us in addition “Huge payments to bankers who worked on the BHS deal could prove particularly controversial“, only if the bulk of these payments were regarding BHS, but that is not a given, I would add, it is exceptionally unlikely. By the way, those people did not really bother reporting that when Greece got back onto the markets In April 2014. In my article ‘Are we getting played?‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/05/18/are-we-getting-played/), where we saw the disastrous act of Greece getting back on the bonds field selling 5 billion in bonds. Yet the media at large was very very eager not to mention that the few bankers connected to this ended up with a total bonus of $50 million for what amounts to 3 days of work. So on one side they refuse to give the info, now we see incorrect (or at least incomplete info), with a reference of 21 million, the package of Mike Sherwood.

Yet there is more, the part I find hilarious is “Frank Field MP, chairman of the Work and Pensions Select Committee which quizzed the Goldman bankers on the deal, said: ‘This gives them an ideal opportunity to donate something to the pension funds, to make partial amends for the failure to give effective advice“, you see in that, he didn’t make any such reference to PwC. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, has been seen on the minds of a few as we see (in the Telegraph of all places) “select committees have also said that they have welcomed the Financial Reporting Council’s investigation into why PwC audited BHS’s accounts as a going concern when it was evident the high street chain was dependent on support from Arcadia Group, Sir Philip’s empire which includes Topshop, Dorothy Perkins, Miss Selfridge and Burton” in that the red flags of pension deficits we see a £571m pension deficit and kindly audited by PwC, so who else are they auditing in the Empire that is (or was) part of Philip Green?

Yet in all this, at present there is, just like with Tesco very little noise regarding the Financial Reporting Council and PwC, it seems like the press walks away when these two are mentioned in one sentence. After June 2016 there is abysmal little to see, which after Tesco and BHS that should be a little weird. Even when we look at the BHS elements now, overall the Auditor is left unseen in more serious ways, other than that Tesco is now hiring PwC again for other services, which after the shortfall and the DeLoitte results is a little bit weird to say the least.

You see, last year Aditya Chakrabortty in an opinion piece wrote: “Cameron warned of “the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations”. He was right. It’s just that it’s been led by those at the top – the ones at the boardroom tables, their expensive helpers – and their mates and supporters in politics using taxpayer money to wave them on” is not a wrong view, it comes three years after I made pretty much the same claim, so we can see that some players are a little late to the party. What is linked that when it comes to the matters as happened with BHS, crime literally does pay. It does for the auditor, the business men who own the place and sell it for £1 as well as the politicians who threaten with a £1,000,000,000 fine which will never happen (that pesky thing called the law gets in the way). You see, for many of us and for the victims it is a crime, yet from a legislation point of view that is not certain and it seems that no crime took place, because the people are not in jail, not in the dock and not in court. They are refurbishing their £10 million estates, whilst the working victims cannot make ends meet and where the auditor gets rehired by those they seemingly wronged for even more high priced consultancy.

As the costs are handed to the corporations in the shape of invoices, we see that crime seems to pay and it does so at a lower tax bracket than normal incomes. It can be stopped, you could be on the other side of the equation. You only have to be willing to do the one thing others did not anticipate and you have to be willing to be utterly ruthless. Basically you have to become a businessman like Sir Philip Nigel Ross Green and hire and firm like Pricewaterhouse Coopers to advice on your endeavour and audit it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics