So the private lenders have agreed to accept a 50% haircut. Seems to have been agreed nicely behind the scenes. Why should a private lender agree to shoulder the brunt of the pain? Is there a secret agenda here? Sweeteners and incentives behind the scenes from governments to certain individuals who represent the lenders or is this sounding like a conspiracy theory….
So Vince Cable slipped up. Is there a story here or not? That is the issue, not the fact that he made the error. He has paid the penalty like anybody else would – there was no preferential treatment. He probably didn’t even realise he reached the threshold for registration and like many busy people leaves these things to his accountant.
Anybody who tries to make it trading online, selling via eBay or Amazon will testify that by the time you strip out fees and VAT there’s no icing left on the cake and sometimes there’s so little cake you wonder who’s really profiting. Why aren’t we seeing an OFT enquiry into online fees and charges levied by this duopoly? And what about HMRC enquiring into the invisible traders selling online out of their bedroom? Let’s give those who are properly registered businesses the best chance of fair competition with transparent pricing. I declare an interest as I am a partner in two online trading companies – and yes they are both legit and operate from a warehouse not a bedroom.
Sainsburys are price matching. If this leads to a downwards drift in the cost of the weekly shop will we hear renewed talk of deflation? Or is this good old cut throat competition as a result of consumers being squeezed – or is there no difference between the two? In good times the economists would tell us they are chasing market share. In bad times it is deflation. Surely deflation is where people put of buying today because tomorrow it will be cheaper – how long can one wait t purchase a box of cornflakes when the larder is bare?
What exactly do ratings agencies do that any financially savvy professional investors can’t do themselves? All the information required should be in the marketplace or do these agencies have access to information that other do not. What would have happened in the markets had these agencies not been around to pronounce their sage opinions? Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.
Understandably, 65 is too young these days, but why was it not upped to something like 70 for example? Some of my most conscientious staff over the years have been “older workers” and currently around a third of my workers are 60 or over, so I certainly have no problem with age. What has not been addressed properly is what to do with somebody who is failing to perform due to age related matters. Apart form the burden on the business are the directors supposed to have a performance review in order to flag the issues and then make them feel like total failures? Would it not be so much more humane and kind to older people to avoid having to go through such an ordeal. Once again political correctness wins through over common sense. Thanks Old Labour for the legacy.
