The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
To be fair Ddraig, I became a (paper) millionaire whilst holding 88e shares* and the highlight of my life at the moment is a trip to the local Co-op.
*I was hoping when I built up my holding that it would hasten the process, the reality was 'despite investing in 88e' lol.
We have ended up with one of the most, if not the most, complex tax systems in the world. Every chancellor creating wrinkles and stealth raids in every budget. I no longer have employees, but a quick Google about the starting point of NI, and that it won't raise much from all the low paid as raised by Pmoran shows, as of this tax year, there is a separate lower starting point for the 13.8% employer NI, so even though some part time employees would have paid no NI, the employer would have started paying 'payroll tax'. There's not a great deal of difference but Rishi must have thought ever little helped.
An online sales tax can only really cover the lost business rates, and perhaps the lost employer NI otherwise it will be decried as a VAT hike by stealth and a rather luddite way of actively impeding the consumers preference for buying more goods online. The high street will have to sink or swim in the long term on its own merits.
You can't just bat that issue away BruceJamieson, Arcadia will have paid much more employer NI on 12,000 staff and VAT is pretty irrelevant as the rate is 20% across the board for bricks and mortar and online. Part of the reason so much of the high street is in administration is the list of taxes just doesn't stack up.
That said, if an online sales tax is brought in it will add perhaps be 2% to the sale price of goods, it will apply to our competitors too (meaning it can be passed to the customer). In other words it is not something to worry about, and not something to bat away with facts that don't make any form of case against the idea.
bistable, a quick Google claimed Gamestop was 139% short sold (more shares than exist it would seem so many must be 'naked').
Out of interest, what percentage of 88e shares do you think is physically short sold? (as opposed to spread bets). Any short positions above 0.5% have to be disclosed for UK traded shares.
Dangerous games being played with Gamestop IMO, it's alright Elon Musk egging the squeeze on (he hates shorters, and they did get very badly burned on Tesla's rise) but some little people are bound to get fried alive, if they haven't already.
2febe, there's been quite a lot of discussion about the need to protect the 'young' brands from any negative association with legacy brands we pick up.
However, when it comes to ownership, there is nothing unusual in a clothing company wanting to cover the entire age range, we obviously can't make any money from the majority of the population over 30 if we have no brands to cater
Again, back to the car example, Anyone buying a new Audi, Seat, Skoda, VW, Porsche, Bentley or Lamborghini plus a few more obscure ones are basically buying from Volkswagen Group - the secret is not parking them side by side in the same showroom.
18:35, you ascribe the rise of boo and ASOS to pandemic factors. However we have bagged Debenhams and ASOS are perceived to be the new owners of Topshop so it's quite hard to call the apportionment of acquisition/pandemic IMO.
Slipperz 09:44, without meaning to sound like PP1 MK2, I suggest you read up on what holding the equity (shares) of a company means.
Debenhams, like Arcadia, is in administration, that means assets do not cover liabilities and it is therefore not a going concern. Whilst shareholders 'own' a company and benefit from surpluses above the cost of operation in the good times, the flip side is they are more or less at the end of the line if it fails. If there was any value in the equity, they wouldn't be in administration in the first place.
chrisev1, When was the last time any share on AIM had a trading halt for price sensitive news? DW would have no power to request something that isn't done on AIM. Comes down to either accepting this aspect of dual listing or not holding the share as I see I it.
You have to look at the history of piping gas to each home. Widespread in Victorian times for lighting, heating and cooking was by coal, then gas cooking and heating introduced as homes also had connection to mains electricity (c1900 to as late as 1930 in some areas). North sea 'natural' gas around fifty years ago was a break through - it was cheap energy in an era when the concern was a possible next ice age, not global warming. Fast forward to today, yes gas is about one third the price of electricity per kWh but it's not really cheap in a historical sense (and if natural gas was replaced with manufactured hydrogen that comparison to electricity would be history - I imagine there will be quite a bit of costly 'green' electricity needed to make the hydrogen, so factored into its price.
With the option of ground and air source heating for homes, together with electric (and don't forget the focus is going to be on greater energy efficient homes - needing less heat) I don't see the logic of manufacturing a gas to send to each home as a sustainable long term option. I haven't heard anything to say changing to hydrogen is on the cards anytime soon so it's not really relevant if current gas boilers can be converted, they only have a typical economic lifespan of fifteen years or so. ( As a landlord I have multiple properties and obviously take an interest in the financial implications of future energy policy).
15:15, whichever way any share moves and irrespective of the price it ends up at, anyone who uses the word GUARANTEED is always wrong. It is about the least applicable trait to the equity of a company and anyone using it is either extremely ignorant or extremely disingenuous... take your pick. Then after using the word, to proclaim on a bulletin board you have a mission to protect the unwary is risible (and somewhat delusional). Now filtered.
Jongle, broken clock is far too kind an epithet for Malice. I called the clown out for announcing a 'guarantee' that this would do 10% in a single day in the week before the 14th. The filter has saved me from further irritation.
Following the earlier discussion re Arcadia pension liabilities, I have just had a look at the PPF website. They publish a full list of schemes they have taken responsibility for or are assessing.... "Arcadia Group Pension Scheme, In Assessment, date 30/11/2020." There is also a similar entry for the Executive scheme.
I'm also thinking there may be a difference in the order of preference between Contributions due to the scheme (from workers pay or the agreed employer contributions) that are outstanding at administration, and the deficit that has arisen due to actuarial or investment conditions over recent years. The latter adversely affecting many DB schemes hence their rarity nowadays.
Pp1, if it's the case that the pension fund is at or near the top then yes, that is significant and supports dan's point as well. I have not been able to find a succinct source to clearly state the order.
You will note I was not claiming some automatic default into the PPF, of course if there is value to realise and distribute, but there is no guarantee of raising £350m. (The £850m 'recent' valuation you were quoting...what a difference a year makes, if it's the same quote I've seen it was Pre- Covid so the 'recent' part has little currency. If the value of the assets doesn't meet the level of the pension liability, do I understand you right peoplepower that the pensioners will not be afforded protection by the PPF. I thought the whole point of its existence was to cover situations where companies fell into administration with insufficient assets.
When BHS was sold for £1, there was no eligibility for the PPF at that point. It effectively became insolvent again under its new owner, we all know the tale of PGs culpability.
dan, but that's the point, it's the order of preference for the 'pot'. Basically, if a creditor is above the pension fund in the order, which is set out in legislation, then there is no way that giving away value to someone below you, ie the pension fund, will be to that creditors advantage.
My understanding is that HMRC, and obviously secured creditors are at the top of the list and redundancy payments will be ahead of the pension fund.
If the pension fund was at or near the top of the list then yes, £350m removed from the liabilities would be a plus for the other creditors, but judging from the number of funds that fall under the PPF it would seem that this doesn't seem to happen.