Credit deflation and the reflation cycle to come (part 2)

[JMD]

1 hour ago, Democorruptcy said:

I would employ just one person if I could persuade them to do the work of three. The problem is there are a lot of hours to fill during the week, to keep a place open

Say an employer pays £19,500 for 39 hours, that's it for one worker

The governbankment want them to use 3 for 13 hours. Each costs £6,500 for hours worked and £4,290 as a subsidy. Governbankment also pays each £4,290 so employee gets £15,080 or 77%

The employer has to pay £32,370 for the 39 hours.

This excludes national insurance etc.

 

Democorruptcy, not disputing your example, its actually very interesting to see the figure work. However, it's not a requirement to reduce to one-third of former working hours is it? In fact, i'd suggest that it is a disincentive for all concerned to choose that option. So wouldn't it mostly be a mutual 'agreement' for say 2 part-time workers to replace the former 1 full-time position?

I think the government and the representative of the major employers will be working off a different (unpublished) script (what me cynical?). Isn't it also true that 2 part timers are more productive than 1 full time person? It's measurable across all sectors/job roles, where concentration, tiredness is no longer a factor in shorter working periods/shifts, etc.

And in terms of social harmony isn't this the best outcome that could be hoped for? ...though Keynes must be shouting why its taken so long for his predicted 3-day week to happen!

[Popuplights]

6 minutes ago, JMD said:

though Keynes must be shouting why its taken so long for his predicted 3-day week to happen!

We will all become TWATS.

Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I would take that if it was offered to me now.

[Democorruptcy]

1 hour ago, JMD said:

Democorruptcy, not disputing your example, its actually very interesting to see the figure work. However, it's not a requirement to reduce to one-third of former working hours is it? In fact, i'd suggest that it is a disincentive for all concerned to choose that option. So wouldn't it mostly be a mutual 'agreement' for say 2 part-time workers to replace the former 1 full-time position?

I think the government and the representative of the major employers will be working off a different (unpublished) script (what me cynical?). Isn't it also true that 2 part timers are more productive than 1 full time person? It's measurable across all sectors/job roles, where concentration, tiredness is no longer a factor in shorter working periods/shifts, etc.

And in terms of social harmony isn't this the best outcome that could be hoped for? ...though Keynes must be shouting why its taken so long for his predicted 3-day week to happen!

No it's not a requirement to reduce to one-third. I only did that example because prior to the announcement the suggestion was made that they would want 50% of hours worked. I wondered by going for 33% if they were thinking 3 workers rather than 2.

I used to be a bookie and there are too many hours to fill in a working week to just have one manager or just one cashier. Maybe the unintended consequence of this scheme is that some firms (not particularly bookies) reduce the hours they open, to cut staff they don't want to pay for.

My example was a yearly salary but the scheme is only until March. If it did end then the extra employer payment would be halved to £6k. If things have picked up by then maybe it's doable to retain decent staff and avoid firing and looking for new staff later. Maybe a bit of price inflation to cover it?

 

[Transistor Man]

 

[Harley]

5 hours ago, Popuplights said:

Sorry, was a bit pissed last night. What I mean was that EM are borrowing to pay the divi.

Do you have a link for background please as I was literally about to buy tonight?!

I did look at their cash flow on Investing.com though.  All quite tame for the financial year to 31/12/19 with $15bn divs and $9bn debt issuance (having retired debt in the preceding two financial years).  But then I looked at the quarterly data.  For the six months to 30/06/20 the figures were $7bn and.....$23bn!  Tell me all that debt issuance is for something more productive please!

However, their debt to equity ratio is shown as 39% versus and industry average of 67%.  But the "as at" date for those ratios is not detailed on Investing.com so I don't know if they are still doing OK on a comparative basis or that debt issuance has yet to flow through into the ratio.

I also note their (dividend) payout ratio is 231% versus and industry average (hell, any sane average!) of 77%.  That puts a question over the future dividend yield.  Not sure how the ratio was calculated though.  I get a different one based on the latest quarterly data.

[DurhamBorn]

1 hour ago, Transistor Man said:

 

Telcos and tobacco are very similar.If they all stopped expansion capex etc and simply spent enough to keep operations working telcos could probably pay back all debt and buy back all shares in 7 years.Tobacco probably 5 to 8 years.

Of course they cant do that,especially telcos,but they can probably cut capex and opex by a third.If they did and inflation hits 5% i expect Vod for instance can do the above in 7 or 8 years.I woudnt advise tobacco did it as dividends are crucial to their shareholders,but it is an interesting side.

[Popuplights]

2 hours ago, Harley said:

Do you have a link for background please as I was literally about to buy tonight?!

I did look at their cash flow on Investing.com though.  All quite tame for the financial year to 31/12/19 with $15bn divs and $9bn debt issuance (having retired debt in the preceding two financial years).  But then I looked at the quarterly data.  For the six months to 30/06/20 the figures were $7bn and.....$23bn!  Tell me all that debt issuance is for something more productive please!

However, their debt to equity ratio is shown as 39% versus and industry average of 67%.  But the "as at" date for those ratios is not detailed on Investing.com so I don't know if they are still doing OK on a comparative basis or that debt issuance has yet to flow through into the ratio.

I also note their (dividend) payout ratio is 231% versus and industry average (hell, any sane average!) of 77%.  That puts a question over the future dividend yield.  Not sure how the ratio was calculated though.  I get a different one based on the latest quarterly data.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/10/could-exxon-be-running-out-of-cash/

As you know I work for Exxon. This morning we had a online forum where a finance bod explained why keeping the shareholders happy is important. There have been a number of job cuts already.

So basically this bloke told the employees that the shareholders dividend was more important than their jobs. 

 

[leonardratso]

6 minutes ago, Popuplights said:

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/10/could-exxon-be-running-out-of-cash/

As you know I work for Exxon. This morning we had a online forum where a finance bod explained why keeping the shareholders happy is important. There have been a number of job cuts already.

So basically this bloke told the employees that the shareholders dividend was more important than their jobs. 

 

damn right, have to keep the grannies happy.

 

thats what they used to call shareholders isnt it, around the time the banks went tis up, im sure they called them grannies.

 

[leonardratso]

. duplicate.

[Popuplights]

5 minutes ago, leonardratso said:

damn right, have to keep the grannies happy.

 

thats what they used to call shareholders isnt it, around the time the banks went tis up, im sure they called them grannies.

 

Youre all heart.    😜

[Castlevania]

21 minutes ago, Popuplights said:

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/10/could-exxon-be-running-out-of-cash/

As you know I work for Exxon. This morning we had a online forum where a finance bod explained why keeping the shareholders happy is important. There have been a number of job cuts already.

So basically this bloke told the employees that the shareholders dividend was more important than their jobs. 

 

That’s the story of many a large company over the past ten years. If there’s no revenue growth the only thing you can do is cut costs and that invariably means cutting jobs.

[leonardratso]

13 minutes ago, Popuplights said:

Youre all heart.    😜

They should get the shareholders in to do the jobs, see how far it gets them.

[Chewing Grass]

I work for an American Company and literally the only thing the American management care about is the Company, the amount of utter shite they eagerly repeat is nauseating for a Brit.

[Popuplights]

Just now, Chewing Grass said:

I work for an American Company and literally the only thing the American management care about is the Company, the amount of utter shite they eagerly repeat is nauseating for a Brit.

Fucking tell me about it. I'm the wrong demographic too. Middle aged White man. Bottom of the identity pile!!

 

[Chewing Grass]

2 minutes ago, Popuplights said:

Fucking tell me about it. I'm the wrong demographic too. Middle aged White man. Bottom of the identity pile!!

 

Five to Six more years and I'm off and they can wallow in their new normal as they go out of business.

[leonardratso]

5 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

I work for an American Company and literally the only thing the American management care about is the Company, the amount of utter shite they eagerly repeat is nauseating for a Brit.

My place has become very woke (fake woke if you please), all they are bothered about is themselves and getting as much money for as long as possible out of the soon to be majority PE owned joint.

Its actually not too bad, ive been home and done practically shag all since march, i keep making excuses and kicking the can further down the road, just nodding and taking the money. Quality is pure shite, but im now just shrugging and ignoring it. Ive been there a while and i was there when the place was on its arse, a lot of the people there now havent. I know they can get very nasty very quickly when the money runs out.

[Popuplights]

3 minutes ago, leonardratso said:

My place has become very woke (fake woke if you please), all they are bothered about is themselves and getting as much money for as long as possible out of the soon to be majority PE owned joint.

Its actually not too bad, ive been home and done practically shag all since march, i keep making excuses and kicking the can further down the road, just nodding and taking the money. Quality is pure shite, but im now just shrugging and ignoring it. Ive been there a while and i was there when the place was on its arse, a lot of the people there now havent. I know they can get very nasty very quickly when the money runs out.

Amen to that. I also have fuck all to do. Not my fault, have been totally mismanaged on this project. If the company is stupid enough to keep paying me, who am I to argue?

[AWW]

11 minutes ago, Popuplights said:

Fucking tell me about it. I'm the wrong demographic too. Middle aged White man. Bottom of the identity pile!!

 

I’ve an interview next week at a UK based bank, with three blokes (or birds) called Gurjit, Harjiner and Wai-Chung. I can only assume that they’ve been told to make their team more diverse by hiring a middle-aged white bloke.

[Chewing Grass]

18 minutes ago, leonardratso said:

Its actually not too bad, ive been home and done practically shag all since march

 

13 minutes ago, Popuplights said:

I also have fuck all to do. Not my fault, have been totally mismanaged on this project. If the company is stupid enough to keep paying me, who am I to argue?

Double snap, its like bonkers, we work to what the management say, can't pre-empt work we are not allowed to start before they say so and the work we are supposed to be doing has a stupid amount of hours to be spent on it as dictated by the planners and project managers.

[JREWING]

Why is BP falling? 

Current SP , 7.5% yield.

Will it go lower in the coming weeks?

Will they cut the Div again.

Just seems to good to be true as a buy opportunity 

Better than Shell.

Wonder what tomorrow will bring. Never ever thought we'd see sub 2.35 again...

Odd times..

[Shamone]

8 hours ago, JMD said:

Democorruptcy, not disputing your example, its actually very interesting to see the figure work. However, it's not a requirement to reduce to one-third of former working hours is it? In fact, i'd suggest that it is a disincentive for all concerned to choose that option. So wouldn't it mostly be a mutual 'agreement' for say 2 part-time workers to replace the former 1 full-time position?

I think the government and the representative of the major employers will be working off a different (unpublished) script (what me cynical?). Isn't it also true that 2 part timers are more productive than 1 full time person? It's measurable across all sectors/job roles, where concentration, tiredness is no longer a factor in shorter working periods/shifts, etc.

And in terms of social harmony isn't this the best outcome that could be hoped for? ...though Keynes must be shouting why its taken so long for his predicted 3-day week to happen!

I recently started doing 5 half days instead of 3 full and I know I’m more productive. Also suits the employer since I can stay an extra hour or 2. It’s hard manually so they get the best of me.

[Shamone]

2 hours ago, AWW said:

I’ve an interview next week at a UK based bank, with three blokes (or birds) called Gurjit, Harjiner and Wai-Chung. I can only assume that they’ve been told to make their team more diverse by hiring a middle-aged white bloke.

Fucking state of this country.

[Popuplights]

4 hours ago, Cattle Prod said:

Aren't you lot ranked and decimated every year anyway? Thanks by the way, the geniuses at my place thought that was a great idea and decided to copy 😅

Well the yanks are any way. Fucking carnage this year. I'll let you know if I get canned when I get back to Fawley. 

It's the shittest system ever.

[CVG]

9 hours ago, Cattle Prod said:

Aren't you lot ranked and decimated every year anyway? Thanks by the way, the geniuses at my place thought that was a great idea and decided to copy 😅

Grow or go!

[Democorruptcy]

8 hours ago, Panda said:

Why is BP falling? 

Current SP , 7.5% yield.

Will it go lower in the coming weeks?

Will they cut the Div again.

Just seems to good to be true as a buy opportunity 

Better than Shell.

Wonder what tomorrow will bring. Never ever thought we'd see sub 2.35 again...

Odd times..

I assume it's fears of more covid woe reducing demand. UK has new lockdown measures. France new record of 16k infections in one day. Leads to more pressure on the dividend.