Member Info for TheTrotsky

Joncl, You are still missing the point. She didn't say that she ONLY signed off senior management appointments of white males. I would be very surprised indeed if she doesn't sign off on ALL senior management appointments (because the buck stops with her). However, she was responding to questions from a parliamentary committee looking into sexism. If she, or any other male CEO for that matter, simply said that they signed off on all senior managements appointments it would have been an empty gesture. What does that do to try and prevent sexism in the workplace?

Saying that she signed off all white, male, senior management appointments would have resonated with the aims of the committee; evidencing that both she and Aviva are taking the (perceived) problem seriously and trying to put past practises in the past, where they belong. She might have limited the comment to males, as opposed to white males, but historically (in the City) it's been white males that have predominantly benefited from nepotism and the old school tie and, more often than not, white males who have courted claims of sexism (because the City was a white male bastion for so long, although things started to change from the 2000s onwards). The reality is that sexism is not just limited to white males but, in the City, they have historically been the primary culprits.

It's horses for courses. The comment has to be seen in the context of who she was talking to and why.

PS. Report away. It's a free country.

If you don't mind me asking, struggling how? I'm sure there are plenty of posters on here who've had their fair share of struggles (in some shape or form) and sometimes it can help to share. If you want to talk, some of us will listen.

AceofClubs, I was clearly wrong about you. That comment is beneath comtempt.

Joncl, You've got the wrong end of the stick. Blanc isn't trying to filter out white males. On the contrary, she is verifying that they meet all the necessary job criteria, thus avoiding any potential disputes down the road. I think it's beyond dispute that sexism and the "old boy network" are part of the City's historic fabric (we can argue about degree but only a complete fool would argue that they don't and never have existed) and this has historically favoured white males.

All that Blanc has said (to a parliamentary committee looking into sexism in the City) is that AV are seeking to pro-actively exclude canditates whose primary (perhaps only) qualifications for the job are simply white male and old school tie. That doesn't rule out white males (who just happen to have old school ties); it just means that those white males are selected on merit alone.

The reality is that without some positive discrimination it's unlikely that you'll ever achieve equality or diversity (that's even assuming that all candidates have equal competentcy). It's the "experience conundrum" i.e. where a job description calls for potential candidates to have past experience in a given role (it's the chicken and egg if you will). If that requirement had been strictly adhered to few, if any, women or racial minorities would ever have been promoted to senior management. I'm not suggesting that AV should ever make "token" appointments but it does need to apply some latitude to counteract past biases.

Because I'm sick and tired of these misogynists who look for any excuse to run down Amanda Blanc.

They continue to blame her for the company's decline when it was her (male) predecessors who actually failed to deliver on their acquisition driven expansion. She took decisive action when she became CEO, she sold the underperforming overseas businesses (who in their right mind would ever have bought the French subsidiary with its arbitrage contracts), re-focused the remaining businesses, repaid debt, returned capital and set the business on a new, more profitable path, all within two years. It's not all been plain sailing and Brexit hasn't helped (Brexit has created some specific problems for ex-pats in the EU whose insurance policies have had to be cancelled) but, in the round, the business is now progressing positively.

Likewise, during the turmoil caused by the 2022 mini-budget and the knock-on effect on the UK bond markets, these same people were screaming blue murder, accusing her of being out of her depth, when she chose, unlike her male counterparts at other insurance companies, not to panic and trot out an RNS to the effect that there was no reason for concern. Blanc, rightly IMHO, chose to make no comment because "no news" isn't news.

I'm sure that Blanc will make mistakes (no CEO is perfect) but I trust her to tell us straight and to issue RNS only when there is material information to divulge.

Utter tripe.

Are you implying that Amanda is paid more than she's worth (because she's a woman)? Why don't you go and take a crack at the 90+ males CEOs of other FTSE100 companies for their pay? She was asked to appear before a parliamentary enquiry on sexism and her comments were totally pertinent to the limited purview of the committee. Rather than denigrating white males she was actually underlining the fact that every white male appointed to a senior role at Aviva under her stewardship was on merit, not nepotism or old school tie.

It doesn't surprise me that this was a lead story in the Telegraph's business section but wasn't considered worthy of further comment or discussion in the Times.

Why don't you, and all the other misogynists, crawl back under the rock where you came from.

Well spotted. I had mistakenly thought it was tomorrow and was thinking that it was just typical that the sp should drop today when most every other share is in the blue. That said, 99p is a joke. This company is seriously undervalued.

"Parlimentary committes are for the amusement of those who particpate in them"

That's a bit unfair. Appearance at these committees is rarely "voluntary". People are asked to attend. You might be able to decline but, given the nature of this particular inquiry, that might send out the wrong message (that Aviva doesn't take the issues of sexism and diversity seriously). As Amanda has found, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think journalists reporting her comments have paid too much attention to the words and too little attention to the context (she was giving a narrow response to a narrow line of enquiry).

Amanda could have simply said that she reviews and signs off all senior management appointments (which she really ought to do) but would that have evidenced that Aviva is addressing sexism? Would that statement have sufficed for a male CEO? I think not. So why should Amanda be any different? A male CEO (and Amanda) would need to show that they were going the extra mile and taking positive action to ensure that all white male senior management appointments were based on merit, not nepotism or old school tie.

She didn't actually say that she ONLY signed off the appointment of senior white males. The commitee was only interested to hear what affirmative steps Aviva was taking against sexism (against women) in the workplace and her response has to be considered in that light.

The main reason that white males are being particularly singled out for attention is because of the City's historical (male) nepotism and old school tie bias (there are a few additional hurdles to consider when it comes to the appointemnt of white males that wouldn't, necessarily, apply to other candidates) and Amanda was as at pains to underline that (in effect) white males were being appointed based solely on ability.

One would hope that Amanda actually signs off all senior management appointments because, as CEO, she is ultimately responsible for trying to improve the equality and diversity of Aviva's senior management and is publically accountable for that.

Cannot believe some of the bile that has been written about Amanda's comments yesterday to a parliamentary committee that has a very narrow purview. People have completely ignored the context of her comments; she was being asked about how Aviva was addressing sexism against women. We're only having this debate because some blokes can't keep it in their pants!

Caddy1, your entitled to your opinion but, from where I'm sitting, Aviva's business performance has improved every year since Amanda has taken charge and I have absolutely no issue with her leadership. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

If Amanda was a bloke she wouldn't get even half the strife and the actions and words of some shareholders are simply misogynitisc.

Has DEC actually been admitted to and commenced trading on the NYSE yet? Will we get an RNS when it does?

I'm assuming that DECPD on the OTC isn't it. If so I wouldn't be holding my breath for any price support from that neck of the woods; the daily trading volume is paltry.

Personally, I think that VOD is under capitalised. When it sold its stake in Verizon it paid out too much to its shareholders and as a result it has left itself with a debt mountain that it can maintain but can't meaningfully reduce YoY despite recent asset sales. VOD could probably do with a capital injection of c£10bn to get its debt "over the hump" so to speak. Its gearing is too high and without a capital injection its business will continue to stagnate YoY because its primary focus is on meeting its debt obligations rather than growing and expanding its business; it's on a treadmill going slowly downhill that it can't afford to step off.

A pretty positive presentation I thought. Given the current UK economic backdrop, the growth in sales and GP margins in October & November was good.

I'm also (generally always) impressed with the executive team. They seem to have their heads screwed on straight. They're not going to expand their planned retail estate unless each site meets their stringent criteria. Also, they're not going to just plunge into the US retail market. Instead, they plan to take on board their learning experiences in Australia and Canada first, and carefully select who they are going to partner with in the US when they do eventually launch.

As ASOS has seen, sales growth in the US can be a two-edged sword; simply rolling out your tried and tested UK operational model can be a recipe for disaster. The US is about 40x the area of the UK and the UK's population density is about 8x the US's; it's a totally different logistical challenge. Discounters aside, the US has far fewer national retailers than people might otherwsie expect, and I seriously doubt that SOS would want to consider partnering with the likes of Amazon, Target, Wal-Mart etc. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see SOS eventually partner with retailers, such as Kroger and Macy's, who have a strong presence in certain large US markets e.g. California, Florida, Illinois, Texas and the North Eastern seaboard.

I think it's also quite impressive that SOS is already generating c2% of its turnover from overseas without any advertising or promotion.

It all bodes well for the future IMHO.

Probably off-market trades between MMs (such large on-market trades would definitely have moved the share price)

Ripley94, it's my recollection too that there was indeed a maintenance company called Conaught that went bust but there was also (an unrelated) Connaught Income Fund Series 1 which appears to have been missold by a financial adviser where the FCA stepped in to try to recoup losses for investors. The former wouldn't have been covered by the FSCS but the latter may have been. I'm not sure whether the FCA actually had to pay any compensation but I did find a document online which indicated the FCA interceded on investors behalf to force Capita Financial Managers Ltd and Blue Gate Capital to reimburse investors c£58m. Wouldn't have minded if the FCA had interceded on my behalf on some of my dog shares (DVRG comes to mind) but no such luck ;-)

In layman's terms, the company has consolidated its shares (replacing every 20 old shares with 1 new share). If you hold old shares in paper form, a new share certificate will be issued in due course. Shareholdings held in nominee accounts should be updated by your broker over the next couple of days (if they've not already done so). Any fractional holdings will be sold by the company on your behalf and the proceeds paid back to you i.e where your original holding wasn't perfectly divisible by 20.

There is a business rationale for the consolidation, as pickedpeck has explained, but that is not relevant to understanding the mechanics of what's happened today.

Does anybody know what's currently happening? I note that the strike-off action against Deepverge plc was discontinued on 10th October but that the subsequent strike-off actions against Integumen Ltd and Modern Water Holdings Ltd are still ongoing.

Was this simply a procedural matter (trying to strike-off the ultimate holding company before striking off the subsidiaries) or has somebody contested the strike-off action? The fact that a listed company can be allowed to be struck off without the chairman/CEO being legally obliged to provide a full explanation of the actions of the directors to shareholders (particularly with regards to the company's demise, the false and misleading statements issued to the markets, and the attempts made to realise the company's assets) is a terrible indictment of the current system.

The rules need to change. The directors, particularly GB, should have been automatically banned by the FCA from holding office in the UK in any shape or form as a result of the false and misleading statements made to the market . It should then be for the directors to have to go to court, in their personal capacity, and explain their actions if they want their ban lifted; at least that way the shareholders could gain an insight into what has happened and/or future debacles might be avoided. The law is too lenient on rogue directors.

Bankrupty, the nominee has always been the legal owner but they hold the shares on trust for the beneficiaries (namely you and I). It's the bedrock of paperless share trading.

ripley94, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Losses on the Connaught Income Fund have nothing to do with shares held in nominee accounts that I'm aware.

As far as I'm aware, the £85k FSCS protection only applies if, having taken advice from an authorised financial adviser, you invest in certain financial products (I'm not sure whether a portfolio of listed shares would constitute a financial product for this purpose), the adviser subsequently goes out of business and you have lost money because of the negligent advice you received. Such protection would not apply to execution only brokers (they don't provide advice).