The Brexit Arms

[BrexitArmsLandlady]

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

The Brexit thread.

By Brexiters, for Brexiters.

Remainers welcome, but gobshites & goadyfuckers are encouraged to take their business elsewhere.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

I started Uni in 1984, and it was on JANET which was connected to ARPANET which eventually became the internet. Which is why I have a cite in an internet archive going back to 1986 (when I uploaded an amendment to a suite of applications in Sperry Assembler via Uni). Which predates some people I have worked with (and for).

To be honest it was more my DB than I that got online in 1993 when they were working on Linux. But in 1995 I was using Yahoo and Altavista to research issues with drugs in pregnancy, as DW was expecting DS, and some of her medications for MS were problematic.

My first Amazon order was a book on Java in 1995. I'm pretty certain I had to phone the payment details through ...

Returning to TRU et al, when Stewart Lee was riffing about stores going under, he touched on a very good point ... if you walk into a store and wonder "what exactly do they sell here ???" then it's business model is probably outdated. Woolworths being the perfect example.

That said, "The Works" appears to have made it their USP

The Works have just the right blend of staples, bargains, pocket money toys and stationary and unexpected finds, and their shops round me are sensible size and good locations. Waterstones have also got much better at this in a more upmarket style.

Looking forward, what's going to happen to all that free space now ?

How are the big companies that rent this land out recouping their losses ? (Obviously by screwing remaining tenants even more, but there must be a point at which no tenants=no rent=bankruptcy too )

Luxury flats anyone ? "City living" ?

Toys R Us has been bankrupted by the financing costs of a leveraged buyout twelve years ago.
The venture capital vultures extracted their cash
left it with up to $400m a year in debt servicing charges
and let it die.
Amazon and Brexit have little to do with it.
Leveraged buyouts have EVERYTHING to do with it.
(same goes for Maplin by the way )

Leveraged buyouts have EVERYTHING to do with it.

Cadburys ?

Yup
uk.reuters.com/article/us-kraft-loan/kraft-obtains-9-billion-loan-for-cadbury-bid-rlpc-idUSTRE5A300M20091104

Leveraged buyouts are unbelievably damaging and should be banned.

Many years ago. I stumbled on a little gem of a TV movie, with James Garner ... at the Gate [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarians_at_the_Gate:_The_Fall_of_RJR_Nabisco]]

This was the days before catch-up and +1 and all that jazz, so I missed the beginning. But I still remember a great quote, as James Garner tries a new cigarette ...

Great, so we made a cigarette that tastes like shit, and smells like a fart ...

In fact, because I am an acredited Google Master...

@TalkinPeace

12 years ago? The LBO would have long been repaid. Usually four to five years.

Possibly it was overgeared. By if there was any hope in keeping it alive the PE owners would have injected more cash.

Most LBOs actually do well.

Witness the great performance of leveraged loans through the crisis.

Don't know where you get your facts from?

Do LBOs always fail?

@LondonMum8

No. In fact the vast majority don't. The lev loan market is gigantic. It's been alive and well since the 1990s.

Don't know where you get your facts from?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43411051

Witness the great performance of leveraged loans through the crisis.
The loan does brilliantly.
The company saddled with it, less so.

The sooner IFRS rules are altered to stop negative balance sheet interest being tax deductible the better.

A bit of both. LBOs done properly are no more suspect than buying a home with a mortgage. Done badly they are more like multiple BTL with multiple equity release in an oversupplied falling market.

www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2017/09/20/toys-r-us-is-a-lesson-in-how-bad-assumptions-feed-bad-financial-planning-creating-failure/#30e120f858ea

DGR, that clip

Must watch the whole film.

@TalkinPeace

You don't know what you're talking about.

If the loan does well the company must too. You can't have a strongly performing loan and poor performance on the asset side. It's basic accounting : assets need to generate cash flow to repay the debt.

Fact is that well structured LBOs - the vast majority of which are - are beneficial to an economy. They strip out inefficiency.

Not sure how we got on this subject given a Brexshit subject.

And yes. There have been v few defaults in the lev loan market. Even with legacy loans pre crisis. Even so called cov light.

@TalkinPeace

Facts on one company going bad makes lev loans bad?

Well I hope you don't have a mortgage because there have been defaults in mortgages.

Especially those 95% LTV ones for first time buyers. 19x leverage for an individual should be outlawed.

We're allowed olivia cos it's a pub thread.

I do not have a mortgage.

My views on leveraged negative balance sheets are based on many, many years of reading the finance and accountancy press.

Brexit is not part of that topic.

Did you see the video of Chris Grayling on QT about Dover.
Bless him.
So clueless.

So, Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytica blatantly (i.e. visibly poorly) lied to the MP's about their use of Facebook data in order to manipulate the last US election, and about non-involvment with Russian entities. Will be also interesting to see if he lied about non-involvment in UK politics.

Fascinating inside info on that in today's Guardian.

Could Britain become the sick man of Europe again?

www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/07/1970s-show

Putin is crediting the UK with his re-election success. Useful idiots again then.

Just proves his guilt in that the idea that he wouldn't attack anyone before the election is rubbish. He was banking on him gaining votes in Russia.

I find this whole thing most peculiar; why are we so confident it is Russia?

We can't seem to supply them with the evidence they've requested in order to cooperate.

I'm no Corbyn fan but he seems to be the only one talking sense on this matter.

It's also happens to have very nicely diverted attention from Brexit and the fact we're supposed to have had some answers ready for this week.

I am completely agnostic on this question (except to say that those who claim that there is "nothing in it for Putin" are objectively wrong) but firstly, why would the government supply the evidence to Russia knowing what the response will be (denial regardless of the merits of the evidence) and secondly, do you really think that the government should be putting their evidence into the public domain?

That said, I do think Corbyn was set up on this issue both by the govt (which gave him only a limited briefing) and by the media.

Sad to see the left as keen to leap on a conspiracy theory as parts of the right wing. They do themselves no good making common cause with a kleptocrat.