farepak what i dont understand..

[desprateseagull]

if their bakers (HBOS) have recovered most of the 'lost' money, how come savers are only likely to get a few pence in the pound..?

 

[ditchy]

fees !!

 

[Timbo]

if their bakers (HBOS) have recovered most of the 'lost' money, how come savers are only likely to get a few pence in the pound..?

First Forfars and now this lot! These bakers are all the same.

 

[ditchy]

Theres me thinking they made butter

 

[Gazwag]

if their bakers (HBOS) have recovered most of the 'lost' money, how come savers are only likely to get a few pence in the pound..?

have the bankers only recovered the overdraft/loans etc, therefore leaving the company with nothing, therefore nothing to give back, the bank may have been a preferential creditor where as everybody else (suppliers/customers) get whats left.

Only guessing though

 

[Gwylan]

Banks are always preferential creditors (although I think they're behind the taxman), customers are low down the food chain. It's a system that stinks.

 

[El Presidente]

Banks normally have a fixed or floating charge (i.e a mortgage) over the assets of a company.

This means that they are paid before the unsecured creditors such as suppliers and people who deposit money with the company.

Employees are preferential creditors, the Crown (tax authorities) are now unsecured following recent changes to legislation.

What is worrying is that Farepak's activities were not covered by the Financial Securities Act, which would have given the depositors greater protection.

After all MP's were asked to donate a days salary to the Farepak fund. Only 70 out of 646 have responded positively.

Happy Birthday MAX BTW

 

[Buzzer]

Banks normally have a fixed or floating charge (i.e a mortgage) over the assets of a company.

This means that they are paid before the unsecured creditors such as suppliers and people who deposit money with the company.

Employees are preferential creditors, the Crown (tax authorities) are now unsecured following recent changes to legislation.

What is worrying is that Farepak's activities were not covered by the Financial Securities Act, which would have given the depositors greater protection.

After all MP's were asked to donate a days salary to the Farepak fund. Only 70 out of 646 have responded positively.

Happy Birthday MAX BTW

but why should MPs donate?

Yes, it should be regulated but it's no worse than a pension scheme in huge deficit or a builder going under because the company who owes him money has folded.

 

[El Presidente]

but why should MPs donate?

Legally they have no duty to do so, morally it could be argued that their failure to pass legislation protecting those who are disadvantaged in society (such as Farepak savers) means that a token contribution would be a sign of their humanity.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Why should MPs donate whilst the virtual monopoly that is Tesco is making a million a minute or whatever ridiculous amount it is?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

but why should MPs donate?

Yes, it should be regulated but it's no worse than a pension scheme in huge deficit or a builder going under because the company who owes him money has folded.

Exactly.

The only difference here between this and other company failures is that the "investors" in this particular scheme, in the main, are poor and mainly female who are forced to "save" in this way, often so the feckless men in their lives would otherwise probably drink the money.

It is deeply unfortunate that it has happened, and makes a great Christmas story for the tabloids who inevitably show some poor cow in a council flat with 4 kids looking at no Christmas because the nasty men at Farepack "stole" their money.

Even the more reliable news sources like Newsnight have gone down this route, hounding the guy in charge because he dared to continue taking a salary even when he was aware the business was in shtuck, have to ask, when did corporations develop a conscience? these guys were trying to stay in business in the hope that they could get out of trouble, and thereby stay in employment, not necessarily because they wanted to rip off their customers.

It is emotive and the media have chosen to play this as a nice bit of Christmas misery to make us all feel obligated to give Christmas to these poor souls... I dont mind if Tescos,Sainsburys etc. choose to step in for PR purposes, but no one should be trading on raw emotion to force businesses that run well into bailing out those that dont.

 

[adrian29uk]

The money has gone. These poor people will never ever see it again, no matter how much screaming and shouting they do.

Unfortunately this is how the system works wrong as it is.

I should imagine the Factory will be sold as well as all the machinery inside.

The bank takes back what is owed to them.

The liquidators take their cut.

The solicitors and legal department take their cut.

The goverment take another cut.

The companies associated with Farepak take their cut.

The employees get their wages but not all of it.

The customers get f*** all because there is nothing left in the pot.

 

[withdeanwombat]

What's most worrying is that people use these swindles.The money would be better off in a cash only ISA,or in a sock under the bed.It is not as if these firms give interest,so they have your money,and you have their word.

Good Luck!

 

[El Presidente]

Exactly.

The only difference here between this and other company failures is that the "investors" in this particular scheme, in the main, are poor and mainly female who are forced to "save" in this way, often so the feckless men in their lives would otherwise probably drink the money.

It is deeply unfortunate that it has happened, and makes a great Christmas story for the tabloids who inevitably show some poor cow in a council flat with 4 kids looking at no Christmas because the nasty men at Farepack "stole" their money.

Even the more reliable news sources like Newsnight have gone down this route, hounding the guy in charge because he dared to continue taking a salary even when he was aware the business was in shtuck, have to ask, when did corporations develop a conscience? these guys were trying to stay in business in the hope that they could get out of trouble, and thereby stay in employment, not necessarily because they wanted to rip off their customers.

It is emotive and the media have chosen to play this as a nice bit of Christmas misery to make us all feel obligated to give Christmas to these poor souls... I dont mind if Tescos,Sainsburys etc. choose to step in for PR purposes, but no one should be trading on raw emotion to force businesses that run well into bailing out those that dont.

Fair point, but the principle of charity is the idea of helping those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Fair point, but the principle of charity is the idea of helping those who are less fortunate than ourselves.

No argument EP, like I said, if other companies want to help out because,make no mistake, they want the positive PR then OK.

If I even knew how to help out individually, I might do that.

What I dont like is being told by the media that someone HAS to help these families, like it is some sort of holy order.

It is everywhere these days, turn on the TV and you are shown pleading charities showing highly emotive pictures of starving animals, beaten children and fly covered Biafrans, these "Charities" employ highly paid PR and Marketing agencies to twist our arms using horrific images, and true, some of the money they rake in goes to somebody in need, but not before they have all taken a decent screw out of it...and now we get the same thing from our news media!

It is not your fault or mine that these poor people have been affected by a business failure, but by God, the media want us to think it is.

Crikey, I sound very Scroogey, just dont like being manipulated by some T**t is Wardour Street or Broadcasting house

 

[bhafc99]

What's most worrying is that people use these swindles.The money would be better off in a cash only ISA,or in a sock under the bed.It is not as if these firms give interest,so they have your money,and you have their word.

Good Luck!

I agree. I know most of the customers are poor and largely financially-unaware, but what kind of person still thinks Farepack was a good deal?

"Give us £50 a month, every month, and we'll give you... £50 a month back. And, er, that's it. By the way we're just a business, we're not a bank or anything that's trustworthy or protected. So it could all go tits up."

Even the most hopeless high street bank account pays a tiny bit of interest, and with a bit of looking around they coould have got themselves a regular savings scheme that might have a) earnt some interest for them b) safeguarded their money.

And if they're truly so credit-blacklisted that they can't open even the most basic bank account, then yeah, a sock under the bed would've done the same job as Farepack. And probably been safer.

 

[El Presidente]

Crikey, I sound very Scroogey, just dont like being manipulated by some T**t is Wardour Street or Broadcasting house

With you 100% squire. I always thought that Wardour Street was in Soho where I got all my rare porn mags from though.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I know it shouldn't but my sympathy for these people took a slight knock this morning when I saw one of them saying that Christmas would be OK anyway because she'd just been out and bought all the stuff on her credit cards instead - "I couldn't have moi kids comin' down thinkin' Santa ain't been for them". Silly Vicky Pollard-lookalike cow.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

With you 100% squire. I always thought that Wardour Street was in Soho where I got all my rare porn mags from though.

 

[Buzzer]

No argument EP, like I said, if other companies want to help out because,make no mistake, they want the positive PR then OK.

If I even knew how to help out individually, I might do that.

What I dont like is being told by the media that someone HAS to help these families, like it is some sort of holy order.

It is everywhere these days, turn on the TV and you are shown pleading charities showing highly emotive pictures of starving animals, beaten children and fly covered Biafrans, these "Charities" employ highly paid PR and Marketing agencies to twist our arms using horrific images, and true, some of the money they rake in goes to somebody in need, but not before they have all taken a decent screw out of it...and now we get the same thing from our news media!

It is not your fault or mine that these poor people have been affected by a business failure, but by God, the media want us to think it is.

Crikey, I sound very Scroogey, just dont like being manipulated by some T**t is Wardour Street or Broadcasting house

I'm with you 100% on this, BH.