Affected By Carrilion?

[eggsarascal]

I've seen outsourcing in a big company with my own eyes. It didn't work, I'm not saying it can't work mind. It's how I got into the local water authority, I was subbing to a major contractor. Other lads were being subbed in by a company called Atlantic Power. Atlantic Power got the work but couldn't fulfil the emergency work when shit tankers are coming in from all directions.

 

The water authority (read me and you) paid for the tankers even though AP had the contract.

 

may have tainted my vision a little.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by eggsarascal

[Woodworks]

13 hours ago, aspenarb said:

I would say its the stockmarket and banks, Carillion had annual revenue of over £5billion and the banks/shareholders  enjoyed healthy returns until Carillion made reference to an £850 ish million  impairment charge inJuly of last year ( writing off dosh owed to the company)  . Chicken feed in the grand scheme of things but enough for the fairweather bankers and stock market to finish them off .

 

Bob

Bob you seem to have a head for these things so can you explain to a simpleton how any business that sells shares operates? The way I see it is shareholders will expect dividends every year preferably bigger ones. This forces the business to grow year on year until the inevitable happens that they get so big that management looses a grip of what going on on the ground.

 

Can a floated business stay the same size and survive?

[donnk]

on the radio it just said they were operting these projects on a 3% profit margin. 

 

Doesnt take a whole lot to go wrong and you make nothing.

[monkeybusiness]

2 hours ago, donnk said:

on the radio it just said they were operting these projects on a 3% profit margin. 

 

Doesnt take a whole lot to go wrong and you make nothing.

What is relevant is the amount of ‘cream’ skimmed off the top before the 3% is calculated. There are offices full of big salaries not actually generating any money for the firm - it’s the guys at the bottom doing the work that bring the money in. When the work they do brings in less than everyone above them costs it can only go one way. Working capital is squeezed out of with-held retentions, extending suppliers’ payment terms etc. The business grows and grows and will inevitably pop as it has already spunked the money it owes the revenue generators for last quarter’s work on expanding further and paying off the city boys and shareholders. 

People should go to prison for this, it absolutely stinks to me.

[difflock]

The only  business model that really works is a family owned business, regardless of size, or field of operations (and refer Liebherr, Class, BMW?, and an absolute multitude of other, especially German businesses, apparently)

The owner/managers of whom are neither chasing massive salaries, or golden parachute leaving deals or maximizing shareholder return,

instead being totally focussed on leaving a sound business for their future families, and employees and families.

And very simply being motivated by pride, in the best possible way.

Any fornicating nutter that thinks a "Council" owned and run firm, can ever be efficient, is proper away with the fairies.

Council managers are masters of the hidden subsidy(s), and they tend to employ managers who can talk, first across the interview table, then in the tea-room, Committee room, or the  Golf Club, especially about football etc. etc., rather than make decisions, well leastwise the hard decisions.

I am not saying there is not the odd good manager, but v few, and they can achieve v little within Council constraints, ergo  most likely to flee to the sanity of a properly run private  firm.

Fact.

Ditto for vast multinational  organisations, unless they are selling to the various world Militaries, & generally "selling" on the back of substantial bribes.

Tough, but true.

Marcus

 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by difflock

[wicklamulla]

On 1/16/2018 at 13:08, difflock said:

The only  business model that really works is a family owned business, regardless of size, or field of operations (and refer Liebherr, Class, BMW?, and an absolute multitude of other, especially German businesses, apparently)

The owner/managers of whom are neither chasing massive salaries, or golden parachute leaving deals or maximizing shareholder return,

instead being totally focussed on leaving a sound business for their future families, and employees and families.

And very simply being motivated by pride, in the best possible way.

Any fornicating nutter that thinks a "Council" owned and run firm, can ever be efficient, is proper away with the fairies.

Council managers are masters of the hidden subsidy(s), and they tend to employ managers who can talk, first across the interview table, then in the tea-room, Committee room, or the  Golf Club, especially about football etc. etc., rather than make decisions, well leastwise the hard decisions.

I am not saying there is not the odd good manager, but v few, and they can achieve v little within Council constraints, ergo  most likely to flee to the sanity of a properly run private  firm.

Fact.

Ditto for vast multinational  organisations, unless they are selling to the various world Militaries, & generally "selling" on the back of substantial bribes.

Tough, but true.

Marcus

 

 

How ya Marcus,  i thought you'd fallen off the planet!

[the village idiot]

On 1/16/2018 at 13:08, difflock said:

The only  business model that really works is a family owned business, regardless of size, or field of operations (and refer Liebherr, Class, BMW?, and an absolute multitude of other, especially German businesses, apparently)

The owner/managers of whom are neither chasing massive salaries, or golden parachute leaving deals or maximizing shareholder return,

instead being totally focussed on leaving a sound business for their future families, and employees and families.

And very simply being motivated by pride, in the best possible way.

Any fornicating nutter that thinks a "Council" owned and run firm, can ever be efficient, is proper away with the fairies.

Council managers are masters of the hidden subsidy(s), and they tend to employ managers who can talk, first across the interview table, then in the tea-room, Committee room, or the  Golf Club, especially about football etc. etc., rather than make decisions, well leastwise the hard decisions.

I am not saying there is not the odd good manager, but v few, and they can achieve v little within Council constraints, ergo  most likely to flee to the sanity of a properly run private  firm.

Fact.

Ditto for vast multinational  organisations, unless they are selling to the various world Militaries, & generally "selling" on the back of substantial bribes.

Tough, but true.

Marcus

 

 

Not sure I agree with that Marcus.

 

I can see how family businesses can sometimes be wholly effective, but I don't agree that it is the only model that really works.

 

What matters I think is your ethics towards the world as a whole, how you view your customers and your emloyees regardless of whether any of them are family or not.

 

I run a very small business. I provide an income for two people (myself, and another who is not family). Together, and with the blessing of the woodland owner (also not related) we are creating a more biologically thriving woodland. By any realistic measure we are doing no harm, we are doing good, and we are successful. I could choose to employ my sister instead but this would be a disaster!

 

I have no children to pass the business down too, it is enough for me to hope to find someone similar to carry on the work. I may well have already found this person. Mine is not in any way a family business.

 

There is also the point that many family businesses could well be argued to not be working optimally for all those associated with the business. That is to say that the business could produce much more net 'good' if it were structured differently. Families often do well financially in family businesses, but this doesn't always trickle down through the business as a whole, especially when nepotism dictates that an offspring takes on control who may not share the ethics of their parent.

 

My apprentice earns more than me, he needs to. Many would see this as a bad business structure but it really isn't. I am lucky enough to have found a job I enjoy. My circumstances are such that I need less income than my trainee. We are still successful, everyone involved in the venture is happy. You don't necessarily need to structure your business in one particular way to materialise success.

 

I'm not arguing that family businesses don't work, just questioning the fact that they are the only types that really can.

 

I am also sceptical about pride being the prime motivator and driver for business success. Pride can result in good outcomes but it can also go badly astray. Pride is certainly motivating but it needs to be constantly calibrated.

 

I guess that one's position on this differs greatly in how one defines success, and how far you extend that definition through the company as a whole. A company may well last longer if it is a 'family business', and I suppose that could be measured as an indicator of success, but I don't think it is a true holistic measure.

 

I don't know the facts on this. Maybe, on average, family businesses work better than non family businesses. This could very well be the case, but I don't think it's as black and white as you are suggesting. Naming some family firms that have been successful isn't enough to prove the point.

 

I certainly agree with you on the 'maximising shareholder return' point. This can be a very damaging function of the system. As is stock trading. I personally think that whenever somebody buys stock they should also be obligated to take delivery of it. This would instantly stop the volatility and craziness. The average amount of time that stock is held for is 22 seconds! I obviously don't understand the full intricacies of the system, but surely this is crazy, and dangerously far removed from how the real world actually functions?

[difflock]

(i) Wickamulla,

You I hope, do realize the Earth is not flat  .  .  .

ergo rather hard to fall off!

 

(ii) TVI, As an individual on this forum, I quickly and sustainably, "bought into" your non-selfish approach to life, and opinions.

 

And, Yes, I realize that many family businesses are badly run, but unless the owner, mostly  singular, occassionally siblings, or manager has actual ownership, how can Senior Management really care?

Otherwise it is essentially the tragedy of the commons, as each individual strives to get his maximum share, at each and every level, especially if they observe, or form the opinion, that that is what those at a more senior level are doing.

 

Seriously, what other business model can you offer, that really works, down through succeeding generations.

 

I suppose my opinion is in someway formed by a knowledge of the N Ireland farming community, where the land is family owned, and by and large, each generation will scrape by, if need be, in order to leave it to the next generation.

Rather than simply flog it and live high on the hog, which they could, and well know they could, but they dont.

Probably motivated by self-respect, possibly could be called pride I suppose.

 

P.S.

Listened to a good snippet on RTE lyric FM, this morning, a guy explaining how the USA was essentially fornicated, every which way, not because of the pursuit of happiness, 

but due to the pursuit of pleasure,

often mistaken for happiness.

Happiness= serotonin firing up the nurons, and on repeated occassions the same dose will create the same happiness.

Pleasure = dopamine firing up the nurons, but on repeated occassions, a ever increasing  larger dose is required to achieve the same level of pleasure.

Heroin was quoted as the classic example.

 

Best regards,

marcus

btw.

Creating a larger pond/lake, purely for the wildlife , and entirely out of my own pocket, ditto bringing on the naturally seeded Oak and Beech "up the Moss", while driving a 7 year old, 120,000 mile Skoda, as the main car.

Give me more happiness than driving a Merc or BMW, and/or propping up a bar at the Rugby or Golf Club, while screwing every last £ out of the ground we own=are responsible for.

 

I would be interested in leaving it as a "Community Woodland" except, unfortunately, after 32 years in Local Government, I know all too well, the useless money squandering types that would be over-managing it or working it.

 

I strive to be content, not to pursue pleasure, well except the odd, & well earned, pint of Guinness.

Edited January 17, 2018 by difflock