Azure Global

Sunday, 24 November 2013

Top five UK bankruptcy blackspots all on coast

Survey finds Torbay has highest insolvency rates as seaside towns and cities get trapped in 'vicious cycle' of decline

Coastal towns and cities account for the five worst places in Britain for personal bankruptcies, and 21 in the worst 50, according to an analysis highlighting the speed at which seaside resorts and ports are falling behind the rest of the country economically.

They include Hull, newly crowned city of culture, which is said to have the fifth-highest rate of insolvencies. The findings are based on 2012 figures, well before the recent announcement by BAE Systems that there will be no more shipbuilding in Portsmouth, costing 940 jobs.

The highest numbers were in Torbay, Devon, with 54 new cases of insolvency per 10,000 population, compared with a national average of 25, said accountants Wilkins Kennedy. The town was followed by the Rhyl and Prestatyn area in north Wales, with 53; Scarborough and Blackpool, with 48; and Hull, with 44. Other coastal areas featuring prominently included Runcorn and Widnes, Cheshire, in eighth place and Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, in 10th.

Stoke-on-Trent and Tamworth, in Staffordshire, and Mansfield, in Nottinghamshire, took up the other places among the worst bankruptcy rates. Figures include bankruptcy orders, individual voluntary arrangements and debt relief orders.

Anthony Cork, partner at Wilkins Kennedy, said: "Many of our coastal towns have been suffering a slow decline for many years, as tourism struggles to compete with cheap overseas travel, fishing quotas are slashed and other maritime industry has all but died off. These figures highlight how desperate their plight still is – with even traditionally popular tourist destinations suffering severe pain.

"Within just the top five of the personal bankruptcy league table, you can see a pretty broad cross-section of the UK's picture-postcard seaside economy failing. Many will be surprised to see places like Torbay, with its reputation for luring genteel, affluent holidaymakers to the 'English Riviera', sitting right at the top alongside Blackpool, the UK's answer to Las Vegas, and more traditional bucket-and-spade resorts like Rhyl and Scarborough."

Although there were exceptions in the south of England, such as Brighton or Bournemouth, which had diversified, the vast majority of towns relying on the seasonal tourist trade were struggling badly. "The recession has hit hard despite the temptation for more people to stay and holiday in the UK instead of going abroad," said Cork. "For every hot-spot like Newquay or Padstow, there are many more places where flagging tourism plus the lack of permanent, well-paid employment are taking their toll."

Cork said the government's £29m coastal communities fund was a step in the right direction but that such investment was unlikely to go very far.

He added: "Students and graduates with high levels of debt will find it hard to return to their home towns if they can't find a decent job, but unless young talent can be persuaded to stay, it's difficult for businesses to invest, creating a vicious cycle.

"Funding for small businesses remains very tight at the moment, particularly where trade is seasonal, putting a huge strain on the self-employed, who may have ploughed a substantial proportion of their personal assets into their businesses or put them up as security."

Article Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk
Azure Global’s vision is to be widely recognized as a reputed firm of financial business advisors, achieving real growth for ambitious companies and to become the first choice for F&A outsourcing for accountancy practices and businesses alike and if u want to Setup ur business in United Kingdom then its not difficult in this modern age for more info visit our site Azure Global and join us also On Facebook

Switzerland votes against cap on executive pay

Referendum on limiting bosses' pay to 12 times that of lowest-paid staff follows vote on 'golden hellos and goodbyes'

Swiss voters on Sunday decisively rejected a proposal to cap "fat cat" pay, in a ground-breaking referendum on the issue.

Final results showed that votes against carried the day by 65.3% to 34.7% in favour. David Roth, the president of Switzerland's Young Socialists and the referendum's leading sponsor, said: "We're disappointed [we] lost today."

His proposal would have meant executives would have been unable to earn more in a month than their lowest-paid workers in a year. The so-called 1:12 referendum was the second ballot this year in traditionally conservative and business-friendly Switzerland on the subject of executive remuneration.

In March, voters approved a measure that boosted shareholders' power over managerial salaries and banned one-off bonuses – so-called "golden hellos" and "golden goodbyes".

Roth blamed Sunday's defeat on "scare tactics" by his opponents. Employers had mounted a vigorous counterattack, claiming approval of the initiative would undermine Switzerland's competitiveness, slash tax revenues and breach a taboo on giving the state a role in relations between employers and employees.

Christian Keuschnigg, professor of public economics at the university of St Gallen, said a study he had carried out for the employers found the cost to the state would have ranged from "close to zero to as much as Sfr4bn [£2.7bn]", depending on the reaction of business. The proponents of the scheme, backed by the Socialists and Greens, argued that the savings in top executive pay would be redistributed among the lower paid.

But, said Keuschnigg, companies might have increased their dividends or relocated to other countries. "Multinational corporations could easily switch their headquarters elsewhere," he told the Guardian. "That danger in our view was quite real."

Both the government and parliament had called for a "no" vote.

Claude Longchamp, head of the polling group gfs.bern, said that, unlike the sponsors of the March referendum, "the Young Socialists were unable to convince older voters".

Deborah Warburton, a partner in London-based executive search firm Hedley May, highlighted the radicalism of what voters had been asked to endorse.

"The Swiss proposal was much stricter even than the 20 times ratio that the TUC is calling for in the UK, so it's perhaps not surprising that it was rejected," she said. "Even though it was a 'no' vote, the question of how to make executive pay fairer is still very much a live issue, with the UK having implemented a law giving shareholders a binding vote on executive pay only last month, France and Germany also considering such measures, and the EU working on potential draft legislation to give shareholders voting rights over executive pay."

Nor will Sunday's verdict dispel concerns over pay imbalances in Switzerland. A separate initiative by the trade unions, aimed at the introduction of a minimum wage, is expected to go to a national vote next year.

Roth said: "Our fight will continue against 'fat cat' salaries and an unfair pay system. This system has no future. We succeeded in mobilising many people and launching a broad debate."

The issue leapt into the headlines earlier this year after the Swiss drug group Novartis agreed to pay its outgoing chairman Daniel Vasella SFr72m (£49m). The payment, which the firm scrapped, was aimed at preventing Vasella from using his knowledge to help rival pharmaceutical firms.

The young Socialists claimed during the 1:12 campaign that the ratio of the average salary among Swiss CEOs to the average wage had leapt from six to one in 1984 to 43 to one in 2011. Calculations based on figures compiled by the trade union Travailsuisse indicate that the biggest pay imbalance is at another drug company, Roche, where the salary of the best-paid executive is 236 times that of the lowest-paid worker.

Other firms where the ratio was in excess of 200 to one were ABB, Novartis and Credit Suisse. They were followed by Nestlé, UBS and Lindt & Sprungli.

Britain's oldest manufacturing firm rings in changes with online launch

Whitechapel Bell Foundry launches first online store, selling handbells and doorbells direct via Swedish service Tictail

It has cast and sold bells to Britain and beyond since 1570, but now the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, Britain's oldest manufacturing company, is ringing in the changes by launching its first online store, selling handbells and doorbells direct to the consumer.

The east London foundry has set up a store using the Swedish service Tictail, a startup that began 18 months ago in Stockholm and already runs 30,000 stores worldwide, with the UK the site's fastest-growing market. The company, which Wired magazine called "Tumblr for e-commerce", lets business owners set up online shops free of charge.

Kathryn Hughes, a director of the family-run foundry, says she and her husband had discussed setting up an online store many times over the years but had no idea how to go about it. "Tictail approached us and said they were a new, free online shop, and I thought 'nothing to lose really'," she said. "The sort of things we're selling start with our smallest bell, which can be used for ringing for tea, that sort of thing. Then there's our table bell, our bracket bells – the sort used in school playgrounds – and doorbells. People are into doorbells at the moment, real ones, not buzzy ones."

Tictail operates on a "freemium" model, not taking a cut on sales, but selling functionality such as voucher codes, mailing lists and analytical tools.

"Our mission as a company is to democratise selling online," says the company's co-founder, Carl Waldekranz. "To make it available for people who don't care about e-commerce but just want to sell the best thing they can.

"There's so many things about the UK market that's right for Tictail, and one of them is that Napoleon was right: it's a nation of shopkeepers, and it fits us really well."

When the foundry was established in Whitechapel in 1570, Elizabeth I was on the throne. In 1752, it cast the Liberty Bell, an icon of American independence, and in 1856 it cast Big Ben, although the bell cracked while being tested and had to be recast in 1858. Specialist sales, largely church bells and musical handbells make up the majority of its turnover, but Hughes hopes that will change once the store goes live.

RBS accused of pushing small businesses to the edge to boost profits

Dossier claims business assets were seized cheaply amid call to end turnaround arm's 'conflict of interests'

City regulators have been handed a dossier of evidence compiled by an adviser to Vince Cable which claims that Royal Bank of Scotland was deliberately wrecking viable small businesses to make profits for the bailed out bank.

The business secretary – a long-time critic of the banking industry's lending practices – said some of the allegations were so serious that he had handed the report, compiled by businessman Lawrence Tomlinson, to the regulators and the bank. It has also been given to Sir Andrew Large, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, whose report on lending failures by RBS will also be released on Monday.

Tomlinson, appointed by Cable as "entrepreneur in residence", has compiled evidence from hundreds of businesses which have approached him after ending up in the bank's global restructuring group (GRG), and subsequently had their properties sold to its specialist property arm, West Register.

"There are many devastating stories of how RBS has wrecked good businesses and the ruinous impact this has on the lives of the business owners," said Tomlinson.

His redacted report, which removes the names of the businesses, also calls for RBS and Lloyds Banking Group to be broken up into six banks with a 10% market share to foster competition on the high street.

The accusations centre on the reasons businesses are referred to the GRG arm, run by the veteran banker Derek Sach, and the process by which West Register ends up taking control of some of the properties.

RBS argues that most of the businesses that end up in GRG are successfully turned around. It has promised to review the allegations made by customers.

Tomlinson, who initially posted requests for ideas on lending on the professional networking site Linked-In, cited "shocking examples of business owners being confronted with last minute demands for information and money" that forced businesses into financial difficulty. One business said dealing with GRG had cost them £256,000 while another claims it had to hand over £40,000 immediately to carry on borrowing from the bank.

These claims have yet to be confirmed. Businesses found themselves referred to GRG because the bank considered the value of their property had fallen or because of technical breaches of loan terms, such as late filing of information.

"The profit-making nature of GRG significantly undermines its position as a turnaround division, in which good businesses should be restructured and returned to normal banking. The temptation to get hold of assets and take additional profit from these businesses to boost GRG's balance sheet is clear," said Tomlinson, a Leed-based entrepreneur.

"From the cases I have heard, it is clear that a perception has arisen that the intention is to purposefully distress businesses to put them in GRG and subsequently take their assets for the West Register at a discounted price. This needs to be addressed and the conflict of interest removed," he said.

Cable, who did not commission the report, said: "Some of these allegations are very serious and I am waiting for an urgent response as to what actions have been taken. I am however confident that the new management of RBS is aware of this history and is determined to turn RBS into a bank that will support the growth of small and medium sized businesses."

Stephen Hester, who ran the bank for almost five years after its £45bn bailout, left in October and was replaced by New Zealander Ross McEwan. The bank said on Sunday: "In the boom years leading up to the financial crisis, the over-heated property development market became a major threat to the UK economy RBS did more than its fair share to fuel this and commercial property lending was one of the key drivers of our near collapse as valuations rapidly plummeted."

Friday, 22 November 2013

Co-op demands £31,000 back from Paul Flowers as next payout is halted

'No further payments' for disgraced bank chairman
Pressure mounts on Balls as Labour attacks 'smears'

The Co-operative Group last night wrote to the former chairman of its bank, Paul Flowers, to demand he return his £31,000 payoff when he left the business in June.

The 63-year-old Methodist minister, who was videoed handing over cash apparently to buy drugs, was in line to receive another £124,000. However, the Co-op said it decided last weekend, when the revelations about Flowers's private life emerged, not to make any further payments.

They were to cover his role as deputy chairman of the Co-operative Group. Flowers was elected to the position and due to remain in it until 2014.

In 2012 he was paid £132,000 to cover his role as chairman of the bank and his position on the group board. That sum also covered a company car.

Flowers, who has been suspended indefinitely by the Methodist church, resigned to take responsibility for the problems at the Co-op bank, which is racing to plug a £1.5bn shortfall in its capital identified by the Bank of the England.

The bank is urgently contacting bondholders ahead of a crucial vote next week on a deal that will leave the Co-op Group with just a 30% stake in the bank. Bondholders, led by two US hedge funds, will own the rest. Vince Cable, the business secretary, has indicated that he is ready to review the continued use of the Co-op name at the bank after the change of ownership if asked to do so.

A Department for Business spokesman said: "The secretary of state would carefully consider any representations he may receive regarding his powers under the Companies Act on the matter of company names."

The Co-op embarked on an "internal fact-finding review" after the video was released by the Mail on Sunday. It is now reviewing all emails sent and received by Flowers during his time as chairman and checking expenses he reclaimed.

Flowers apologised after the video was released, saying he had done things which were "stupid and wrong" after a death in the family and as a result of the pressures of chairing the bank. He has made no further comment since.

The Co-op said on Thursday: "When Paul Flowers relinquished his responsibilities in June, it was agreed, as per his contractual obligations, that his fees for the rest of his period of office would be paid.

"Following recent revelations, the board stopped all payments with immediate effect and no further payments will be made."

The circumstances surrounding his resignation from drug charity Lifeline Project – where he was accused of misclaiming up to £70,000 – were not known to the Co-op Group when he was named chairman of the bank in March 2010.

The political fall-out from Flowers's fall continued on Thursday. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, is facing renewed pressure over his links to the Co-op Bank after it emerged that he attempted to woo voters in theLabour-affiliated Co-operative party during the 2010 leadership contest by claiming that he helped pave the way for the Britannia Building Society takeover.

As the Labour leadership accused the coalition of launching a smear campaign over the party's links with the disgraced chairman, a transcript of an interview with Balls in 2010 showed that he highlighted his role in helped to create Britain's "first ever 'super-mutual'".

Balls told the Co-operative party in August 2010: "I was able to show this [my support for co-operatives] by ensuring treasury support for a new private members bill [introduced by the then Tory MP Sir John Butterfill] that led to the creation of the first ever 'super-mutual', bringing Britannia Building Society and the Co-op Bank together in the interests of customers, rather than the banking elite." A spokesman for Balls acknowledged that he supported the private member's bill but pointed out that he played no role in approving the merger in 2009 which was made on commercial grounds when he was schools secretary.

Balls said Flowers had been suspended from Labour and was "out, out, out".

Flowers resigned from the unpaid position as a trustee at the Lifeline Project in Manchester in 2004 after its chief executive Ian Wardle blew the whistle to the charity's solicitor regarding discrepancies in Flowers's expenses.

Wardle said: "These discrepancies had not been obvious and required a detailed investigation. Following legal advice from the outset from Lifeline's solicitor and further support from Queen's Counsel, the investigation continued and a process was followed to attempt to identify with the involvement of Rev Flowers, which of the expenses were reasonably incurred and which were not. The matter was fully reported to the Charity Commission."

Wardle said the charity had no record of the Co-op ever asking for a reference concerning Flowers.

The Charity Commission said Lifeline Projects had never provided any evidence that Flowers had acted in bad faith in claiming the expenses, or that he had claimed expenses incurred outside of charity business.

The commission believes that Flowers claimed under an expenses policy agreed by the Lifeline's board, which turned out to be "not in line with charity or company law and not allowed by the terms of the charity's governing document."

New management at Lifeline changed the expenses policy to make it legally compliant and asked Flowers to pay the money back. According to the charity, he never did. The Charity Commission said: "We are now writing to the charity of which the former trustee of Lifeline Projects is still a trustee to reassure ourselves that it is satisfied its governance systems are robust and there are no concerns relating to the issues raised by Lifeline Projects.

"We will also write to all of the charities of which the trustee in question has served as a trustee for the same purpose."

Flowers has stood down from the boards of the Manchester Camerata and the Terrence Higgins Trust. The trust said on Thursday that Flowers had not claimed expenses, sent emails from the trustee email address nor accessed the internet.

Thursday, 21 November 2013

Investors: AT&T and Verizon must say how much customer data goes to NSA

Phone companies' customers could switch networks if they feel their privacy is being compromised, say investment funds

Big investors in America's two largest mobile phone companies have demanded they disclose how much customer data they hand over to the US and foreign governments. Documents from the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden show AT&T and Verizon have installed equipment to copy, scan and filter large amounts of the traffic that passes through their networks.

AT&T and Verizon Communications, which owns Verizon Wireless, will face votes at their annual shareholder meetings following formal requests from one of New York's biggest public sector pension funds and a large private investment firm. The $161bn New York State Common Retirement Fund, which manages the pensions of more than 1 million state workers, and Trillium Asset Management, a Boston-based investment management firm with $1.3bn under management, havelodged demands with both networks to publish the number of requests they receive for customer information every six months.

The investors said customers could switch to other networks if they think their privacy has been compromised.

AT&T has also been warned that its willingness to co-operate with state-sponsored surveillance could hamper its ambitions to expand its business into Europe. The company is reported to be considering a bid for Vodafone, the British-based mobile network with outposts across Europe, Africa and Asia.

The Verizon chief executive, Lowell McAdam, when asked about the company's legal obligations, recently stated: "We are the largest telecommunications provider to the United States government, and you have to do what your customer tells you."

A Verizon spokesman said: "We've received the proposal and we're currently evaluating it." A spokesman for AT&T stated: "As standard practice we look carefully at all shareholder proposals but at this point in the process we do not expect to comment on them."

EU backs move to boost numbers of female non-executive directors

Legislators back rules demanding firms choose women when men are equally qualified – but stop short of quotas

The European parliament has backed rules that would give women preference for non-executive posts at companies, after plans for a mandatory quota to get women into top jobs were scrapped.

The rules demand that companies give non-executive directorships to women where there is no male candidate who is better qualified, until they reach a target of four in 10 being women.

"The parliament has made the first cracks in the glass ceiling that continues to bar female talent from the top jobs," said EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding, who launched the proposal.

Although the draft law envisages possible fines for firms that ignore selection rules, it has been softened from imposing a quota with a penalty. Nor do the rules help women aiming for top management roles, such as chief executive. They also exempt smaller companies and those that are not listed.

Only about 17% of non-executive board members in the EU's largest companies are women. In Britain, women hold 17.4% percent of directorships, up from 12.5% in 2010; only four CEOs at FTSE 100 companies are women.

If endorsed, the rules will take seven years to come into full force. Countries are now required to sign off on the law but are divided on whether pan-European rules on positive discrimination are necessary.

Britain and Germany have argued against mandatory quotas.

Men dominate boardrooms in the region, and many women who have risen through company ranks resent quotas because they can be seen as suggesting that women have not been promoted on merit.

Only Norway, which is not a member of the bloc, has enforced a 40% quota since 2009, although critics say this has been achieved in part thanks to a small number of women holding non-executive positions in multiple companies.

"It is essential for listed companies to evolve so as to include highly skilled women in their decision-making processes," said Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, a member of the parliament who is playing a central role in shaping the law.