LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
LLoyds bank post-merger with TSB cut 1/2 its staff over 3-5 years.Jezyboy said:How many of the unicorns have a large (perhaps unhealthy) degree of hype around them?
Many of the tech companies are frankly ****ing weird organizations. Twitter got rid of 80% of it's staff, in a year, and is basically still a functioning company. Imagine if a traditional consumer goods or manufacturing company had done that. It would be expected to have a far higher impact on the companies productivity.0 -
50% over 3/5 years, after a merger (which presumably involved a lot of duplicate roles) is a different scale from 80% in a year where there's not been a merger though?shirley_basso said:
LLoyds bank post-merger with TSB cut 1/2 its staff over 3-5 years.Jezyboy said:How many of the unicorns have a large (perhaps unhealthy) degree of hype around them?
Many of the tech companies are frankly ****ing weird organizations. Twitter got rid of 80% of it's staff, in a year, and is basically still a functioning company. Imagine if a traditional consumer goods or manufacturing company had done that. It would be expected to have a far higher impact on the companies productivity.0 -
I dunno, the EU market's pretty big.surrey_commuter said:
surely market size is an issue.rick_chasey said:The bigger challenge is the 3 of the 5 firms that are generating the main public market returns in the US, none existed before 1990. The only big UK stocks are mining&drilling companies. a very old, very boring bank and one pharma firm that's so out of touch all its new developments occur outside the firm and they then acquire them, rather than developing them in house.
The bridge from VC to big behemoth company is where the UK is struggling, and apparently that's one of the major components to the productivity puzzle.
There must also be a mentality problem - if I had a little company and Google offered me £20m I would bite their hand off0 -
so about that....rick_chasey said:
I dunno, the EU market's pretty big.surrey_commuter said:
surely market size is an issue.rick_chasey said:The bigger challenge is the 3 of the 5 firms that are generating the main public market returns in the US, none existed before 1990. The only big UK stocks are mining&drilling companies. a very old, very boring bank and one pharma firm that's so out of touch all its new developments occur outside the firm and they then acquire them, rather than developing them in house.
The bridge from VC to big behemoth company is where the UK is struggling, and apparently that's one of the major components to the productivity puzzle.
There must also be a mentality problem - if I had a little company and Google offered me £20m I would bite their hand off1 -
i think theres a misunderstanding of VC/PE and the risks.surrey_commuter said:
That really annoys me that the market deems something too risky so the Govt is going to invest some poor sod's pension fund in it instead.rick_chasey said:
This is really annoying me as it's totally wrong.focuszing723 said:
I would argue we don't get the venture capitalists akin to the US. That's how Musk was able to kick start his business. I did say help.rick_chasey said:
UK doesn’t have an entrepreneur problem. In fact it’s one of its strengths. Cambridge is one of the world leaders in turning research into business opportunities.focuszing723 said:How can we encourage/help our top Universities to create more tech/business entrepreneurs?
UK has a scaling problem. They don’t often get to that big size; they stay SMEs.
I'm happy to slate the UK, but the UK has continent leading entrepreneurship (almost double Germany!) and the most mature PE and VC ecosystem in the continent too.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/06/21/britain-is-a-great-place-to-start-a-company-but-a-bad-one-to-scale-it-up
This article covers it well.Britain is a great place to start a company, but a bad one to scale it upis the title.
It's a combo of struggling to get to the first round of funding, which the UK suffers more from than any other western country, and even those that do, they really struggle to get access to capital.
That is partly why the govt is eyeing up those pension investment reforms that @surrey_commuter is so against > big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
If the cvnts had funded public sector DB schemes they could use that.
I'd agree that unicorn building comes with risk, but well managed VCT funds perform quite well.
The UK ecosystem is very naive though on the founder side. hence...people0 -
I don't disagree that these are good long term investments for the right people. I just don't think a % of a DC fund should be hived off into it.shirley_basso said:
i think theres a misunderstanding of VC/PE and the risks.surrey_commuter said:
That really annoys me that the market deems something too risky so the Govt is going to invest some poor sod's pension fund in it instead.rick_chasey said:
This is really annoying me as it's totally wrong.focuszing723 said:
I would argue we don't get the venture capitalists akin to the US. That's how Musk was able to kick start his business. I did say help.rick_chasey said:
UK doesn’t have an entrepreneur problem. In fact it’s one of its strengths. Cambridge is one of the world leaders in turning research into business opportunities.focuszing723 said:How can we encourage/help our top Universities to create more tech/business entrepreneurs?
UK has a scaling problem. They don’t often get to that big size; they stay SMEs.
I'm happy to slate the UK, but the UK has continent leading entrepreneurship (almost double Germany!) and the most mature PE and VC ecosystem in the continent too.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/06/21/britain-is-a-great-place-to-start-a-company-but-a-bad-one-to-scale-it-up
This article covers it well.Britain is a great place to start a company, but a bad one to scale it upis the title.
It's a combo of struggling to get to the first round of funding, which the UK suffers more from than any other western country, and even those that do, they really struggle to get access to capital.
That is partly why the govt is eyeing up those pension investment reforms that @surrey_commuter is so against > big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
If the cvnts had funded public sector DB schemes they could use that.
I'd agree that unicorn building comes with risk, but well managed VCT funds perform quite well.
The UK ecosystem is very naive though on the founder side. hence...people
In the UK most DB schemes have been shut for 20 years so are in run off so should not be investing in these sorts of areas.
For decades we had a truly world class private sector pension provision. The Govt killed it. Now the Govt has spent decades setting up a new private sector provision which has proved to be effective. And now they want to get their grubby ignorant hands on it to fund their latest idea.
The averaage Joe does not understand pensions, this idea risks breaking the trust that you inherently need for people to invest for the long term.
I rarely get emotional about politics but the Govt compelling the most amateur of investors to direct their pension savings into areas that the professional investors have steered clear of is stupid and immoral.1 -
Hasn’t X lost a shedload of value?Jezyboy said:
50% over 3/5 years, after a merger (which presumably involved a lot of duplicate roles) is a different scale from 80% in a year where there's not been a merger though?shirley_basso said:
LLoyds bank post-merger with TSB cut 1/2 its staff over 3-5 years.Jezyboy said:How many of the unicorns have a large (perhaps unhealthy) degree of hype around them?
Many of the tech companies are frankly ****ing weird organizations. Twitter got rid of 80% of it's staff, in a year, and is basically still a functioning company. Imagine if a traditional consumer goods or manufacturing company had done that. It would be expected to have a far higher impact on the companies productivity.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
that is because he has lost an enormous amount of ad revenue, but that is why he has cut costspblakeney said:
Hasn’t X lost a shedload of value?Jezyboy said:
50% over 3/5 years, after a merger (which presumably involved a lot of duplicate roles) is a different scale from 80% in a year where there's not been a merger though?shirley_basso said:
LLoyds bank post-merger with TSB cut 1/2 its staff over 3-5 years.Jezyboy said:How many of the unicorns have a large (perhaps unhealthy) degree of hype around them?
Many of the tech companies are frankly ****ing weird organizations. Twitter got rid of 80% of it's staff, in a year, and is basically still a functioning company. Imagine if a traditional consumer goods or manufacturing company had done that. It would be expected to have a far higher impact on the companies productivity.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
that is because he has lost an enormous amount of ad revenue, but that is why he has cut costspblakeney said:
Hasn’t X lost a shedload of value?Jezyboy said:
50% over 3/5 years, after a merger (which presumably involved a lot of duplicate roles) is a different scale from 80% in a year where there's not been a merger though?shirley_basso said:
LLoyds bank post-merger with TSB cut 1/2 its staff over 3-5 years.Jezyboy said:How many of the unicorns have a large (perhaps unhealthy) degree of hype around them?
Many of the tech companies are frankly ****ing weird organizations. Twitter got rid of 80% of it's staff, in a year, and is basically still a functioning company. Imagine if a traditional consumer goods or manufacturing company had done that. It would be expected to have a far higher impact on the companies productivity.
It could be argued that he has lost a shedload of revenue because with so few staff Xitter is unable to persuade advertisers it's a safe place to advertise. OK, I grant you it might also be because Musk is turning into a right-wing conspiracy theory troll...0 -
Lol. They could both start by understanding misinformation before they worry about AI.kingstongraham said:Are we pretending that Elon has improved twitter and that's a great logo to put on Number 10?
Maybe he could ask him about Ukraine.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
0 -
rjsterry said:
Lol. They could both start by understanding misinformation before they worry about AI.kingstongraham said:Are we pretending that Elon has improved twitter and that's a great logo to put on Number 10?
Maybe he could ask him about Ukraine.
I think they both understand it perfectly well, and how to deploy it.0 -
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
0 -
He appears to believe all sorts of obviously made up bollox.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Lol. They could both start by understanding misinformation before they worry about AI.kingstongraham said:Are we pretending that Elon has improved twitter and that's a great logo to put on Number 10?
Maybe he could ask him about Ukraine.
I think they both understand it perfectly well, and how to deploy it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
He appears to believe all sorts of obviously made up bollox.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Lol. They could both start by understanding misinformation before they worry about AI.kingstongraham said:Are we pretending that Elon has improved twitter and that's a great logo to put on Number 10?
Maybe he could ask him about Ukraine.
I think they both understand it perfectly well, and how to deploy it.
Who, Musk?
Dunno. Is he like all the Republicans in Congress saying how clever Trump is all the while knowing he's a complete loon. I'm not sure what Musk believes, because I think he uses all the disinfo (whether he actually believes it or not) because it 'winds up the libs'.
My suspicion is that it's a bit like drugs that people start using believing that *they* will be able to stop at any time (unlike all the other addicts), but somewhere along the line the disinfo rots their brains and self awareness. I genuinely don't know how far along that line Musk is. I think that Sunak and the Tories still (mostly) do it very knowingly and cynically, given their scripted evasions (e.g. "I don't accept that" and "I don't recognise those figures") when questioned about their lies.0 -
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
0 -
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.1 -
True story, I once had Neil Woodford call me back, and he rather thoughtfully called through the switchboard so the whole office heard the EA announce that "Neil Woodford is on the phone for you". (Pre blow up I should add, when he was still the Oracle of Oxford).surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
Can I just say I didn't actually propose this, nor have I even said I back it. All I have done is noted that UK firms do not have a local institutional investor sector to draw capital from and that is hurting the UK economy.0 -
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
0 -
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
Surely loosening the regs on where institutional investors can invest will just allow for better discovery.
If it turns out they don't like the risk premium so no-one invests in that part of the market then great, we've got a good efficient allocation of resources and the VC stage companies need to do better.0 -
Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.0
-
Let them carry on, makes a refreshing change from endless moaning about the nasty Tories.focuszing723 said:Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This guy?focuszing723 said:Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.
0 -
Yes, that is refreshing come to think of it.Stevo_666 said:
Let them carry on, makes a refreshing change from endless moaning about the nasty Tories.focuszing723 said:Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.
0 -
The former chief advisor to the Conservative PM seems to be doing that job today.Stevo_666 said:
Let them carry on, makes a refreshing change from endless moaning about the nasty Tories.focuszing723 said:Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.
0 -
US debt is at thirty three and a half trillion. Elon Musk gave Ukraine access to StarLink.kingstongraham said:
This guy?focuszing723 said:Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.
0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biographyfocuszing723 said:
US debt is at thirty three and a half trillion. Elon Musk gave Ukraine access to StarLink.kingstongraham said:
This guy?focuszing723 said:Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.
0 -
kingstongraham said:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biographyfocuszing723 said:
US debt is at thirty three and a half trillion. Elon Musk gave Ukraine access to StarLink.kingstongraham said:
This guy?focuszing723 said:Look, can't we just all agree on Elon Musk's greatness and leave it that.
This article was amended on 14 September 2023 to add an update to the subheading. As the Guardian reported on 12 September 2023, following the publication of this article, Walter Isaacson retracted the claim in his biography of Elon Musk that the SpaceX CEO had secretly told engineers to switch off Starlink coverage of the Crimean coast.https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk-ordered-starlink-turned-off-ukraine-offensive-biography0
