O/F'ing/T Carillion

[KerrAvon]

So are you saying that by your definition, capitalism always has, to some extent, some kind of regulatory control? And that it's just a case of to what extent that control exists?

I'd probably agree with that.

But loosely, within that definition, isn't there a range of ideologies to the extent that regulatory controls exist - some of whom like there to be a range of quite tight government controls and others who would like to see as few controls as possible? And wouldn't that be the difference between the centre right and far right?

Of course there is regulation within economies run upon Capitalist principles. Do you believe that the Carillion collapse could have been averted by more regulation though? If so, what would the nature of that regulation be?

[millertop]

Some smaller companies could go bust, workers worried they’ll be out of work, delays in ongoing works.

Let’s hope someone can come in to sort the mess out

[millmoormagic]

All this, once again, points to the inability and absolute inanity of contracting public services to private companies. Time and time again these company's have proved to be at best inept, at worst corrupt, and they have no regard for the taxpayer's pound unless it's going into their bank accounts (offshore, no doubt)

We're seeing the same with the railways, where the taxpayer is bailing out several well known private companies.

Time for change, time to stop the parasites skimming the taxpayer's money when profits are to be made, then squealing and squirmng when through their own incompetence they get in financial trouble.

You can argue ideologies all day if you like, but if anyone thinks the current way of doings things is good for the country as a whole then you're a selfish delusionist..

[KerrAvon]

All this, once again, points to the inability and absolute inanity of contracting public services to private companies. Time and time again these company's have proved to be at best inept, at worst corrupt, and they have no regard for the taxpayer's pound unless it's going into their bank accounts (offshore, no doubt)

We're seeing the same with the railways, where the taxpayer is bailing out several well known private companies.

Time for change, time to stop the parasites skimming the taxpayer's money when profits are to be made, then squealing and squirmng when through their own incompetence they get in financial trouble.

You can argue ideologies all day if you like, but if anyone thinks the current way of doings things is good for the country as a whole then you're a selfish delusionist..

In what way do you say that the Carrilion collapse 'points to the inability and absolute inanity of contracting public services to private companies'?

The imperative to try to create a profit drives efficiencies when a private company is engaged to deliver public services. Compare that to directly managed government projects where the lack of any such pressure results in flabby over manned operations that invariably deliver late and many times over budget. The outsourcing of public services is certainly not without issues, but I think it infinitely preferable to a return to the bad old days.

[millmoormagic]

In what way do you say that the Carrilion collapse 'points to the inability and absolute inanity of contracting public services to private companies'?

The imperative to try to create a profit drives efficiencies when a private company is engaged to deliver public services. Compare that to directly managed government projects where the lack of any such pressure results in flabby over manned operations that invariably deliver late and many times over budget. The outsourcing of public services is certainly not without issues, but I think it infinitely preferable to a return to the bad old days.

Nothing wrong with making a profit, lining your pockets though is a totally different matter, this company has paid out hundreds of millions in dividends, on top of exhorbitant salaries for those at the top (who recently moved to protect millions of pounds in bonuses despite the company's financial struggles) Now, a decent, well run company would've had systems in place to be able to manage it's debts, surely to god that's common sense? Not in the corporate world though, is it Kerr, grab what you can, screw the taxpayer over time and again, and shove your ill-gained profits into off shore accounts never to be used in the UK again.

[KerrAvon]

Nothing wrong with making a profit, lining your pockets though is a totally different matter, this company has paid out hundreds of millions in dividends, on top of exhorbitant salaries for those at the top (who recently moved to protect millions of pounds in bonuses despite the company's financial struggles) Now, a decent, well run company would've had systems in place to be able to manage it's debts, surely to god that's common sense? Not in the corporate world though, is it Kerr, grab what you can, screw the taxpayer over time and again, and shove your ill-gained profits into off shore accounts never to be used in the UK again.

The company paid out dividends to its shareholders, 16% of which were retail investors (ouch – never try to catch a falling knife, as they say). They will have lost most if not all of their investment, which is the risk that they accepted when they bought their holdings. The senior members of staff at such a large company will have been paid generously. If they breached their fiduciary duties in relation to their shareholders and creditors they may well be called upon to answer for that.

The operation of every company, well run or not, involves an element of risk. As I understand it Carillion were operating on profit margins of around 3% on their UK construction projects and 5% on their Facilities Management contracts. What that means is that any unexpected increase in costs that exceeded 3% for the former and 5% for the latter would render those contracts loss making. That is exactly what happened and at a time when the company was having difficult in obtaining payment for work they had undertaken in the Middle East. Whether either of those eventualities could have been anticipated remains to be seen in the inevitable post mortems that will be held.

You seem to have a bit of an obsession with offshore accounts. As I mentioned above 16% of shares were held by retail investors. Amongst other big investors are the likes of Standard Life.

[ragingpup]

No thats what you are saying due to lack of economic comprehension

You may well be right there! Or you could just be talking bollo! 😀

[gm_gm]

You may well be right there! Or you could just be talking bollo! ��

Or I could have taken, passed exams in banking, economics and finance

[animallittle3]

The Tories have refused to bail Carillion out - quite right too. It's a business.
They have, however, moved to ensure that the smaller companies are protected to some extent. The banks are the ones who will suffer most - they will lose the money they lent to Carillion - unwisely. The shareholders of Carillion will lose out - they speculated they got it wrong - they decided to risk their money. The shareholders in banks will suffer but they also should check who the banks that they partly own are lending money to.
Unfortunately Carillion employees will also suffer but the Government are doing what they can to safeguard those working oversees.
All in all - a measured response from the Government - helping those that they can who through no fault of their own are exposed and leaving the money people to fend for themselves.
poorly run and inefficient companies need to go to the wall - many other better run companies will now step forward and get extra work filling the void left by Carillion - in fact many of the Carillion employees will carry on doing the same job but with the new company that steps in.
Maybe, just maybe, the banks will start to learn that the smart people who work for them just aren't that smart at all - they just make deals that give themselves the largest bonuses.
Interesting that we always get a different viewpoint when it's the mining or steel industry that is threatened (I know mining is all but gone) - the Government should always bail them out - I have never understood why.

Funny I don't remember the nationalised NCB siphoning off public money to line the pockets of directors and shareholders and then screaming " bail me out guv " .

The market fell out of the coal industry , yes we fought for our jobs and communities , this seems to be a crime in some quarters , mainly by people who have never had a backbone .

I think the one thing you will find is that Carillion were hardly short of work or future projects and yet still couldn't remain in business .

The efficiency of the private sector !!! , places in a box with the finance industry rail companies and the utilities .

[KerrAvon]

Funny I don't remember the nationalised NCB siphoning off public money to line the pockets of directors and shareholders and then screaming " bail me out guv " .

The market fell out of the coal industry , yes we fought for our jobs and communities , this seems to be a crime in some quarters , mainly by people who have never had a backbone .

I think the one thing you will find is that Carillion were hardly short of work or future projects and yet still couldn't remain in business .

The efficiency of the private sector !!! , places in a box with the finance industry rail companies and the utilities .

The NCB was a bottomless pit (no pun intended) down which to throw taxpayer's money.

Whatever your personal motivation, you and others opposed the will of a democratically elected government and ignored the rights of NUM members to have their say in a national ballot before seeking to demand that those subsidies for uneconomic pits continue. Irrespective of whether the NCB was publically or privately owned, I have to agree with galant that it is hard to square your views on the coal industry with those on Carillion, where your position on this thread appears to be that Carillion employees can get stuffed.