London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

"I will leave you to your nonsense ... and your obvious keyboard warrior belief you know Retail and how to run British companies ....clearly you don’t"

The comments I wrote have very obviously hit a nerve. A practitioner?

Look at the history of UK commercial collapses in recent years. Look at retail, how many names have gone, senior management simply marching off the cliff in blind group-think?

Look around you. Look at the stories newspapers are filled with day after day. NHS trusts that spend more on maternity care liability claim payments than they do on the actual service, the Post Office scandal, the Grenfell tower disaster, what do the senior managers universally say when having to justify the terrible actions of organisation they received a fortune for allegedly managing? Grenfell was awesome in its scope. From sales operations of commercial organisations constructing misleading advertising material, through arm's length regulators, commercial architect practices, to even the fire brigade, across them all, it always boils down to "nobody told me". Remarkably incurious about the affairs of the organisation they are paid to manage, they simply relied on reports from individuals looking for favour with the aim of being promoted. In many cases simply ignoring basic, fundamental knowledge; in the case of Grenfell simply ignoring basic GCSE science, to follow group-think.

I believe Lord Weinstock holds a palmares you would defer to. The 8pm evening call to home...... I am confident he would side the comments I wrote.

I believe Pets at Home is very well positioned strategically, due to wise historic decisions. I sincerely hope the contemporary tactical execution takes advantage of this.

Great post Oliverthehardy. A common failing, instead of management thinking what is the value of this role to the company so what will we pay to achieve that function, lazy senior management default to minimum wage. A few good staff over-perform and senior management absolve themselves with "if only the middle management selected and managed their staff better all would be good - is is not my fault, I'll just send another email, that's my backside covered". Experience in my local Halfords is that. I had cause to complain about an yet another online order I could not pick up because their stock record did not match store stock and was then given lie, followed by lie, followed by lie, by some girl, weeks into her first job. I ended up with the store manager and he shared that he was actually sent in to turn the store around because its performance was a dire outlier. He sorted it out and it was ok for a few months. Then, back to few customers and surly, resentful, young staff soon after. The place is virtually deserted. In retail, senior management just have to do unannounced store visits- all the time they are in post. Official visits sure, but walking in on a wet Thursday night 20 mins before closing. What greeting does mum and her kid with a sick kitten get? It's not complicated.

Mofwiw is that HR selection functions have prejudiced the recruitment process to senior management to not put forward those candidates with the bottle to take action necessary for the business to prosper, as a result of unannounced store visits, and so such visits are rarely undertaken because senior management are too scared to deal with what they might find.

It's my money, I'm a shareholder I want that mum and kid to be greeted straight away and not roam around the store hunting for someone to speak to whilst the staff hide and debate who is going to take their coat off and go out and tell them, in a totally negative manner, to call back tomorrow and see if they can book a slot with a vet. "This job would be so much better without the customers. Shelf stacking is so much easier." Good front of house and good discipline within the back up staff and you will have a store customers return to.

This business has the profile to be superb. It just needs management with the will to manage.

The USA and UK platfom system I have investigated. The summary, if you fear a modest or major system collapse, get your money out of shares being held via platforms. Iinstead use a broker that will make the share purchase on your behalf and advise you of the share certificate details. Brokers who do this have significantly higher charges than the various platforms.

The chain of custody for platforms is deliberately long and obtuse, with simple vouchers being held, once away from the first, or sometimes seconds step. Legal liability to elements of this chain is limited not to absolute loss but loss as a result of a failure to safeguard or improper behaviour.

To understand how this will not transmit your loss to the source of liability, one needs to understand the nature of the chain. Major original holders of shares have independent subsidiaries, with carefully constructed legal frameworks, that offer very limited liability. These are not in place in the custody chain adjacent to themselves but at a 4th position or a point distant from themselves.

Say you have "purchased" shares in company A and the chain of custody is short, say only 6 different exchange houses. Say there is a collapse in the market and many share prices drop. This results in the opaque entity which is in position 3 in the chain becoming insolvent.

You feel content, although there has been a general market collapse, company A shares have been less seriously affected and have lost only 20% of their value.

Your platform then advise that your holding is lost and of no value. They are No 6 in the chain and they have been advised by Nos 4 & 5 that you holding is lost because 3 became insolvent.

Your claim for liability is with the platform you dealt with, No 6. To defend their liability for the loss you have suffered they simply have to prove that they have acted properly in all matters. Did they do due diligence according to accepted industry standards, did they hold all the correct certificates and recent tests of authenticity and verification? Oh yes, No 6 will have all that with No 5 and No 5 will have all that with No 4.

So who is going to pursue your loss, because certainly Nos, 6, 5 & 4 have suffered no loss as a result of the collapse of No 3, they have simply written off their liability for their holdings against yourself? Yes, look in the mirror, there is the only individual interested in holding anyone to account for this state of affairs, and to do that you will be seeking details and records from opaque entities for whom your loss is irrelevant to them and assisting you with details of records and transactions is in fact a financial burden. They will not co-operate voluntarily. You may well be able to legally enforce co-operation but that requires that only a single element in a long chain has become insolvent and has lost its records & will be prohibitively costly to yourself.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Tony1957

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)