Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
People power does not need to be monolithic state enterprises as Peter has rightly pointed out there are alternative routes to the same goal. I am absolutely in favour of ordinary people having a real say in how their energy and water suppliers act etc. something they do not get from either state control or private enterprise.
When organisations genuinely serve the people who own and control them then some sense of equity will creep into pricing policy etc.
But on here it seems to be a case of avoiding constructive debate about real alternatives and much more about blindly supporting ones sacred cow no matter how obnoxious, offensive, immoral or fatuous that may be and god forbid that the entrenched factions could ever acknowledge that someone outside their mindset has a valid or even reasonable position.
As Bern has pointed out without education and without the habit of freely thinking all we end up seeing is what the media and their political and industrial masters put in front of us.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 375...........now thats going in the right direction............have always thought water should not be a
financial football..........energy resources is another candidate........
# 370.....ridicule unfortunately makes some of us feel superiour.........a trait which sometimes has other problems.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ROSS;
I don't think theres a poster on here that hasn't said that the NHS is in need of serious reform, but with this it's always useful to bring along with you the health professionals, and the geneal public(this govt has neither)
om the utilities, i support peter in his views on these companies, at present these companies make decisions on profit and its shareholders rather than whats best for us all.
roll on people power
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith read what was said - once again you jumped in to stir without properly reading - that applies to your last two postings.
Ross - I believe in a capital owning democracy in which people buy equity ownership and through that participate. But in addition businesses need to deliver competitive value and service to their customers who can vote by taking their business elsewhere.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
BARRYW
I do share ross's view, but first it all has to be made to work.
what can't afford to do is get it wrong
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 381...................thats more like it............nearly......`We are all in it together`.
# 384...............is selective,as usual,for only a section of the public......not `all in it together`.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Why is that selective? Anyone who can afford £20 per month can participate in the equity ownership of businesses via pensions, ISAs or other forms of investment. That is a lot less than many unemployed, retired or disabled spend on cigarettes.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Barry, you are correct that share ownership is one method of ownership and participation, however it is almost impossible for the ordinary individual to have any real say in that scenario as pension funds, or ISA platform providers do not check what their policyholders want to do on votes at AGM's. Unless they are forced to contact their clients for their views on each and every AGM & EGM vote this is ownership without influence or control.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Alec Sheldon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 18 Aug 2008
- Posts: 1,037
Barry# 387. Why do you have to pick on the unemployed, retired and disabled.?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Not picking on them Alec, just making the point that it is affordable to invest and its mostly about the choices we make.
Ross - the fund management companies are sharholders and carry a lot of weight. Some of these are actively participating and it is possible to select such a manager who is aligned with your ethics and therefore is both selective in where he invests on that basis and active.
Anything else is pie in the sky apart from customer pressure.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Barry of course; it is due to the expense of actually engaging ones policyholders which would need to be met either by the fund or the policyholder via their annual fee. Yes you can pick managers on the basis their prior performance on voting matches your position - but of course past performance is not an indicator of future performance...
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL Ross.....
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Bonuses in the public sector under review..........
Danny Alexander says he wants to remove rewards for failure.....FTSE top 100 CEO`s pay increased by
13.7 % on average while the companies themselves grew only by 1.7 %.............
Alexander and Francis Maude have written to all government departments asking them to review their bonus
structure.
These moves come just in time as ``Olly``prepares to allow RBS to pay bonuses to its bankers totalling
more than £ 500 million this month................
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Reg yes there was some movement by Danny Alexander today..with yes Frances Maude too.
I had the following in from the PUBLIC SECTOR EXECUTIVE...
"
Public sector bonuses are under review, the Government has announced, following public anger over huge bonuses for chief executives.
Stephen Hester, chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, recently waived his bonus, worth £963,000, but many other senior bankers will still receive large payments.
Chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander and cabinet office minister Francis Maude have written to government departments asking to review their bonus structures.
This is likely to lead to fewer, smaller payments at bodies with some element of public ownership, including Channel 4, Royal Mail and the Met Office. The BBC could also be affected.
Alexander told the Telegraph: "The idea is to look at the levers government has, to make sure that the remuneration rules are fit for purpose and command public confidence.
"This is not about getting rid of performance pay. It is about making sure that performance pay is there for genuine excellence and not just run-of-the-mill performance."
The letter states: "The departments will need to apply their own judgment on which bodies to include in the audit but where in doubt, will need to include bodies that are likely to attract public comment."
"
So the uproar from Joe Public is having some effect...some, mostly for those organisations with a public ownership aspect. Im not sure if this initiative will have any impact on bankers bonuses though. Im stating the obvious here but it was the Fred Goodwin unholy and extravagant pay and bonus settlement rewarding sickening failure which began the backlash. Did you see the terms of his pension plan.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Yes.................we are all in this together........................
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
First Utility....energy minnow seeks big name as chairman to take on the `Big Six`
Morgan Stanley back First Utility and intend to crack the dominance....cartel?????....of the `Big Six` within
three years.
Morgan Stanley became a share holder of First Utility in 2010.....industry observers have noted that this was
the point that First Utility became determined to break the `Big Six` oligopoly.
Three years..................still they may beat Cameron`s effort................Morgan Stanley will carry the
`Ladbrook`hot money..........
Sorry Reg, can we have that again....?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just noticed this thread has over 5500 viewings and close on 400 posts in under 4 months, reg has certainly made his mark.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
So its ok to laud Morgan Stanley for backing First Utility because they are taking on the "Big 6" energy comapnies.
Yet isnt this the same Morgan Stanley that was roundly damned in 2008/9 for shorting stocks loosing apparently USD300m in one day and boorwed USD107bn from the Federal Reserve during the height of the global financial crisis - oh and still carried on paying bonuses.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
Further this is the same Morgan Stanley that was subject to all the following lawsuits and fines - because of course they are fine moral upstanding guys
In 2003, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay billions of dollars[vague] in order to settle its portion of various legal actions and investigations brought by Eliott Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, the National Association of Securities Dealers (now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC) and a number of state securities regulators, relating to fraud that was allegedly perpetrated upon retail investors by a dozen of the largest investment banking securities brokerage firms.
Morgan Stanley settled a sex discrimination suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $54 million on July 12, 2004.
The New York Stock Exchange imposed a $19 million fine on January 12, 2005 for alleged regulatory and supervisory lapses.
On May 16, 2005, a Florida jury found that Morgan Stanley failed to give adequate information to Ronald Perelman about Sunbeam thereby defrauding him and causing damages to him of $604 million. In addition, punitive damages were added for total damages of $1.450 billion. This verdict was directed by the judge as a sanction against Morgan Stanley after the firm's attorneys infuriated the court by failing and refusing to produce documents, and falsely telling the court that certain documents did not exist. The ruling was overturned on March 21, 2007 and Morgan Stanley was no longer required to pay the $1.57 billion verdict.
Morgan Stanley settled a class action lawsuit on March 2, 2006. It had been filed in California by both current and former Morgan Stanley employees for unfair labor practices instituted to those in the financial advisor training program. Employees of the program had claimed the firm expected trainees to clock overtime hours without additional pay and handle various administrative expenses as a result of their expected duties. A $42.5 million settlement was reached and Morgan Stanley admitted no fault.
On September 25, 2009, Citigroup Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, claiming its rival failed to pay $245 million due under a credit default swap agreement. The breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed in Manhattan federal court and seeks unspecified damages.
FINRA fine
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced a $12.5 million settlement with Morgan Stanley on September 27, 2007. This resolved charges that the firm's former affiliate, Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (MSDW), failed on numerous occasions to provide emails to claimants in arbitration proceedings as well as to regulators. The company had claimed that the destruction of the firm's email servers in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center resulted in the loss of all email before that date. In fact, the firm had millions of earlier emails that had been retrieved from backup copies stored in another location that was not destroyed in the attacks. Customers who had lost their arbitration cases against Morgan Stanley DW Inc. because of their inability to obtain these emails to demonstrate Morgan Stanley's misconduct received a token amount of money as a result of the settlement.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi