Royal Mail bonuses smack of private sector excess

[cloherty1976]

Well said brain fury agree wih you totally

[UnhappyGremlin]

Well said brain fury agree wih you totally

I don't.
He is just spreading propaganda.
He does make a couple of good points, but he has worse tunnel vision than Cable and Fallon.

[cloherty1976]

I don't think it's propaganda so what do you disagree with gremlin ?

[fishtank]

However won't borrowing from the Government increase public sector borrowing? That's almost certainly not an option the Government would support. Don't think we can borrow from the financial markets while we're Government owned can we?

That's why Network Rail was mentioned,not because it's a good example of management but because of the structure of its borrowing none of the £27 Billion it has borrowed has increased the public debt.
It is perfectly possible for us to continue to borrow from government as long as it's structured as a commercial loan,there is no conflict with schools and hospitals since any loan to us would be both a liability and an asset and therefore balance sheet neutral.

That brings me to the next problem,how much debt can a company valued at only £3 Billion safely carry?
If it's more than £500 million you start to worry about leveraging,If it's less than £500 million you start to wonder why a company with a turnover of £9 billion making profits of £400 million needs to go to the trouble of selling itself just to borrow the equivalent of 15 months profit.

The borrowing/investment argument just doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

[cloherty1976]

Fish tank £400,000,000 was a one off and over my life on the post this does not happen to often. If you took the last say 20 years would we be in profit or deficit ?

[UnhappyGremlin]

I don't think it's propaganda so what do you disagree with gremlin ?

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.

[Brain Fury]

I don't think it's propaganda so what do you disagree with gremlin ?

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.

We're not still talking about the vans are we?

[cloherty1976]

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.[fair point agree with clever accounting but this has for years but you could also say all profits are not genuine too]

[UnhappyGremlin]

I don't think it's propaganda so what do you disagree with gremlin ?

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.

We're not still talking about the vans are we?

Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of irrelevant. Accounts can be made to show what the company wants, and they have been for years.

[UnhappyGremlin]

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.[fair point agree with clever accounting but this has for years but you could also say all profits are not genuine too]

On that I agree with you. It's a bit convenient that a huge profit has been announced a month or two prior to the announcement of the intended IPO.
As I said elsewhere, the accounts show what the company want them to, it depends what they want to achieve in the following times.

[Brain Fury]

I don't think it's propaganda so what do you disagree with gremlin ?

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.

We're not still talking about the vans are we?

Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of irrelevant. Accounts can be made to show what the company wants, and they have been for years.

Ernst & Young?

Actually if you are using the purchase of vans for DM as an example of creative accounting it is kind of irrelevant because it's just plain wrong

[UnhappyGremlin]

I don't think it's propaganda so what do you disagree with gremlin ?

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.

We're not still talking about the vans are we?

Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of irrelevant. Accounts can be made to show what the company wants, and they have been for years.

Ernst & Young?

Mills and Boon.

[Brain Fury]

I don't think it's propaganda so what do you disagree with gremlin ?

His insistence that all RM's posted losses are genuine. They aren't. Whilst the assets are there to be seen, they can still be used in a manner to show a loss, when in reality there really wasn't one. It's clever accounting, top to bottom, to provide the view they need to get privatisation in.
Privatisation seems to be the only answer, trouble is, they haven't explained the question.
If it is genuinely all about availability for borrowing, then the Government can arrange it much cheaper. RM has been run independently of the Government for years, and whatever they borrow can be repaid to them, and then they get the interest payments, instead of one of their banker mates.
Apparently they want an availability of about £1.5bn, to access as and when required. It isn't a lot compared to RM's turnover, and is about double the last two years profits. They seem to want to mortgage the company to the hilt in order to access very little money, and then pay excessive interest for the privilege. It's nonsense.
I think there is an ulterior motive, maybe lining the pockets of their rich mates, that they aren't telling us.

We're not still talking about the vans are we?

Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of irrelevant. Accounts can be made to show what the company wants, and they have been for years.

Ernst & Young?

Mills and Boon.

That's what I thought

[UnhappyGremlin]

Fish tank £400,000,000 was a one off and over my life on the post this does not happen to often. If you took the last say 20 years would we be in profit or deficit ?

Pretty sure RM have posted profits far in excess of this figure in the past.

[fishtank]

If you are selling property it's easy to manipulate your accounts from one year to the next,you simply manipulate the completion date of the sale,It's also easy to get 100% tax relief on any capital spending that a company undertakes - its called the Annual Investment Allowance.
When was the last time RM paid any meaningful tax.

There are many ways to sweeten a set of accounts but the big one this year for RM has been completely legitimate.
They no longer have to finance the pension deficit to the tune of £250 million.