Manx Gas MEGA Price Rise

[Andy Onchan]

41 minutes ago, Youaintseenme said:

Has there been a situation before where a company has been u able to pay its bills because the government wouldn’t allow them to just put the price of their products up when the commodity price went through the roof?

If there had you may have a point.  In this case, the situation is of the government’s making by trying to pander to people unable to grasp basic economics and wanting to be the only place in the world where prices for gas are expected to be low.

NB further up the thread makes a very salient point..... WTF have MG been doing with the cash from their customers' for the gas supplies? Has it been siphoned off to Ancala Partners elsewhere? I'd be surprised if they haven't.

[Len Trench]

52 minutes ago, Banker said:

I’ve had my rebate!

Me too - today.

[Andy Onchan]

4 minutes ago, Youaintseenme said:

Probably.

Very few businesses would have cash reserves adequate to trade for months at a significant loss.

Profits get distributed to shareholders, that’s how it works.

They are victim of unprecedented cost increases the like of which no business can plan for.  They warned us there could be dire consequences of not being able to rise prices at a time when prices from suppliers world wide were soaring and UK gas suppliers were going bust.

Prople ignored them or mocked them. Now they are skint and will probably either need a government prop up or another price hike.

I am not sure what people expected.  It was obvious months ago.

I could be wrong but where private equity ownership arrangements are in place the first creditor that gets paid is the partnership. The rest can whistle. It's a simple formula. Depending on the financing arrangements those payments could run to hundreds of thousands/month, possibly millions (which could be the case given that MG racked up £9 million at one point). They would never think about giving up a months' Partnership payment to enable the operating company to survive.

[Non-Believer]

9 minutes ago, Youaintseenme said:

Probably.

Very few businesses would have cash reserves adequate to trade for months at a significant loss.

Profits get distributed to shareholders, that’s how it works.

They are victim of unprecedented cost increases the like of which no business can plan for.  They warned us there could be dire consequences of not being able to rise prices at a time when prices from suppliers world wide were soaring and UK gas suppliers were going bust.

Prople ignored them or mocked them. Now they are skint and will probably either need a government prop up or another price hike.

I am not sure what people expected.  It was obvious months ago.

So you appear to be trying to justify MG handing over money to Ancala/shareholders whilst at the same time

1) withholding payment for materials that they've already received from the MUA and sold on and;

2) pleading poverty and holding out the cap at the same time to IoMG and the Manx taxpayers for a bailout.

Pull the other one. You settle your bills first, then distribute anything that's left amongst your shareholders. Being a shareholder carries risks like any business investment, but not apparently in MG/Ancala?

This is exactly the sort of conduct that has given MG the reputation they have. No wonder MUA and CURA to their credit are having none of it.

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

I could be wrong but where private equity ownership arrangements are in place the first creditor that gets paid is the partnership. The rest can whistle. It's a simple formula. Depending on the financing arrangements those payments could run to hundreds of thousands/month, possibly millions (which could be the case given that MG racked up £9 million at one point). They would never think about giving up a months' Partnership payment to enable the operating company to survive.

In an insolvency position, it depends on whether the PE has also made secured loans.  Secured creditors always get out ahead of unsecured creditors, but preferred creditors (tax, NI, VAT) get paid out first. 

If there is no security but the company is insolvent, paying out PE will be problematic. 

[Banker]

Don’t worry if you are a wealthy pensioner you will be getting another nice bonus, just give it to people below a certain income.

Most pensioners I know are well off & have own house with no mortgage 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/more-government-support-in-face-of-inflation-545451

[Andy Onchan]

30 minutes ago, Gladys said:

In an insolvency position, it depends on whether the PE has also made secured loans.  Secured creditors always get out ahead of unsecured creditors, but preferred creditors (tax, NI, VAT) get paid out first. 

If there is no security but the company is insolvent, paying out PE will be problematic. 

Secured or not Glad.... the partners always get paid first along with government (I left gov out as I took them as a given) as they appoint partners as directors who are usually signatories to the bank accounts!

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Secured or not Glad.... the partners always get paid first along with government (I left gov out as I took them as a given) as they appoint partners as directors who are usually signatories to the bank accounts!

Except a director making a payment when the company is insolvent may find themselves in hot water. From distant memory it is fraudulent preference of a creditor. The security issue is important, as is trading whilst insolvent. 

[John Wright]

49 minutes ago, Banker said:

Don’t worry if you are a wealthy pensioner you will be getting another nice bonus, just give it to people below a certain income.

Most pensioners I know are well off & have own house with no mortgage 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/more-government-support-in-face-of-inflation-545451

That statement probably says more about you and your limited social circle rather than anything profound about the financial standing of pensioners on Island

[Gladys]

@Andy Onchan the real difference of PE investment is the motivation for a return, normally pretty short term.  They go in with lots of cash, but it is heavily conditioned - they want to see a return and want to be able to sell out pretty quickly to secure a capital gain. 

[cissolt]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

That statement probably says more about you and your limited social circle rather than anything profound about the financial standing of pensioners on Island

Yes, my social circle consists of very concerned pensioners worrying about heating their homes and cutting back on food.  It's a very sad state of affairs.  The foodbank have been an amazing support for those who can swallow their pride and use the service.

[asitis]

Lessons have been learned, no one person to blame, we are where we are, could not have been foreseen.

Oh sorry file this for later in the thread !

[Banker]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

That statement probably says more about you and your limited social circle rather than anything profound about the financial standing of pensioners on Island

That’s your opinion as a very wealthy person! I just don’t think all pensioners should get free prescriptions, winter fuel allowances, heating allowances when there’s lots more deserving cases including single people in rented housing 

[John Wright]

31 minutes ago, Banker said:

That’s your opinion as a very wealthy person! I just don’t think all pensioners should get free prescriptions, winter fuel allowances, heating allowances when there’s lots more deserving cases including single people in rented housing 

You make all sorts of assumptions there. And you don’t actually address the problem of your original post.

All I’m pointing out is that your assumption that a majority of pensioners are wealthy is not my experience based on those I know personally or come across professionally.

Means testing is difficult. A careful balance is needed to ensure that the filtering out of free prescriptions, winter fuel allowances or heating allowances for the haves doesn’t cost more than it saves ( to the detriment of the don’t haves and the taxpayers in general ).

And where do you stand on those entitled to non contributory universal non means tested benefits such as Disability Living or Mobility, or concessionary fares based on age or disability, or free prescriptions based on health conditions.

[Andy Onchan]

2 hours ago, Gladys said:

Except a director making a payment when the company is insolvent may find themselves in hot water. From distant memory it is fraudulent preference of a creditor. The security issue is important, as is trading whilst insolvent. 

Fully aware of that.

My point is that PE Partners see only $ signs. If they can get cheap finance, or better still, someone else to cough up for the cashflow (in this case the GMT via MUA) then they will. 

I've had dealings with a group PEP and they are ruthless and will get their pound of flesh one way or another.