|
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 5, 2019 9:54:41 GMT
I happened to see an article on the proposed sale of Chobham to a US venture capital firm. I can't for the life of me find it right now, don't even know if it was recent or not but that's not the point.
Anyway, with the exchange rate as it is and a further reduction in the event of no deal (this isn't contentious as far as I'm aware), does this present buying opportunities for foreign investors to snap up UK plc at bargain basement prices? I guess some of the Fx is offset to some extent by foreign earnings but it would appear to me that it's not just real estate that would present opportunities to foreign investors.
Thoughts from those more knowledgeable is most welcome.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,906 
Likes: 11,127
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 5, 2019 12:17:44 GMT
(Chobham is ceramic composite tank armour)
And yes highly likely that chunks of UK Plc will be snapped up but then this is just a continuation of an ongoing trend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 12:23:03 GMT
Everything in the stock market is up for sale.........
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 5, 2019 12:36:05 GMT
(Chobham is ceramic composite tank armour)
And yes highly likely that chunks of UK Plc will be snapped up but then this is just a continuation of an ongoing trend.
 would explain why I couldn't find it again I guess the point being, will the degradation in sterling act as a catalyst?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 5, 2019 12:42:47 GMT
(Chobham is ceramic composite tank armour)
I beg to differ. Cobham is a small town in Surrey, while Chobham is umm a small town in Surrey. And of course I never get them confused....
[P.S. Chobham armour is so called because it was developed at the British Tank research centre, located in Cobham, sorry Chobam. Whatever.]
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,911
Likes: 1,612
|
Post by benaj on Aug 5, 2019 12:44:39 GMT
The UK government should take a keen interest protecting defence or tech companies like COBHAM being sold to US or even China, although majority of employees of Cobham is from US, especially in the scenario of Brexit. Cobham 38% revenue comes from US. The Huawei Innovation Research Program has been acquiring technology very fast through donations from top Universities in the world, including University of Oxford in the past. innovationresearch.huawei.com/IPD/hirp/portal/index.htmlIt is a dangerous scenario for the UK to lose in the in the modern tech war. |
|
|
|
Post by petebutt43 on Aug 11, 2019 20:36:04 GMT
(Chobham is ceramic composite tank armour)
I beg to differ. Cobham is a small town in Surrey, while Chobham is umm a small town in Surrey. And of course I never get them confused....
[P.S. Chobham armour is so called because it was developed at the British Tank research centre, located in Cobham, sorry Chobam. Whatever.]
Cobham refers to Sir Alan Cobham, the founder. He was famous in the 20s for long distance flying and developed in-flight refuelling in the 30s and 40s. The company then was Flight Refuelling Limited. The vast majority of the groups activities and income are now from the US!
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 12, 2019 7:44:23 GMT
I beg to differ. Cobham is a small town in Surrey, while Chobham is umm a small town in Surrey. And of course I never get them confused....
[P.S. Chobham armour is so called because it was developed at the British Tank research centre, located in Cobham, sorry Chobam. Whatever.]
Cobham refers to Sir Alan Cobham, the founder. He was famous in the 20s for long distance flying and developed in-flight refuelling in the 30s and 40s. The company then was Flight Refuelling Limited. The vast majority of the groups activities and income are now from the US! Indeed. On all counts.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 12, 2019 9:05:50 GMT
Everything in the stock market is up for sale......... Quite. Isn't that kinda the whole point of a public limited company? The concept of a publicly listed company being of any specific nationality shows a misunderstanding of one of the most basic concepts of business... Cobham PLC was always a private company, right from foundation in 1934. Over the last decade or so, it's been involved in various acquisitions and divisional sales, often involving US businesses. It's done a lot of business with the US military, alone or in partnership with US companies. It's a globally-trading firm that's been in global ownership since it was publicly listed in 1954... Chobham, otoh, is a small town in Surrey where I once lived for a while was part of what was the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) before being privatised in 2001 as Qinetiq Group PLC - the Longcross (it's nearer Virginia Water and Sunningdale than Chobham) site was closed down in 2003, and is now a housing and industrial estate... If you want to take exception to anything as being the UK "selling national assets", surely it'd be that 2001 privatisation? Look at the top 10 shareholders of both, and they're all global asset managers, accounting for around half of the ownership of each. www.marketscreener.com/COBHAM-PLC-4005190/company/www.marketscreener.com/QINETIQ-GROUP-PLC-9590216/company/
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,911
Likes: 1,612
|
Post by benaj on Aug 12, 2019 13:59:22 GMT
I suppose most people don't have time to decide whether companies like Cobham should be sold to Advent International. UK has blocked merger in the past such Sainsbury's merging with Asda. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44263620The price taxpayer paid to private companies are too high in some cases, like this story about the high street chemist charged the NHS £3,220 for the medicinal mouthwash, which can cost £93. |
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Aug 12, 2019 14:34:30 GMT
I suppose most people don't have time to decide whether companies like Cobham should be sold to Advent International. UK has blocked merger in the past such Sainsbury's merging with Asda. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44263620The price taxpayer paid to private companies are too high in some cases, like this story about the high street chemist charged the NHS £3,220 for the medicinal mouthwash, which can cost £93. A bit off topic but the government has the power to prevent such overcharging of 'specials' to the NHS. In Scotland, the practice of overcharging has been effectively banished through case-by-case price authorisations requiring quotes from multiple manufacturers. The fact that NHS England does not follow suit...vested interests/lobbying?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 12, 2019 15:26:24 GMT
I suppose most people don't have time to decide whether companies like Cobham should be sold to Advent International. UK has blocked merger in the past such Sainsbury's merging with Asda. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44263620The price taxpayer paid to private companies are too high in some cases, like this story about the high street chemist charged the NHS £3,220 for the medicinal mouthwash, which can cost £93. A bit off topic but the government has the power to prevent such overcharging of 'specials' to the NHS. In Scotland, the practice of overcharging has been effectively banished through case-by-case price authorisations requiring quotes from multiple manufacturers. The fact that NHS England does not follow suit... vested interests/lobbying?I doubt its vested interests/lobbying: that would also intend to imply a level of conspiracy/fraud. I suspect combination of mostly incompetence (systems, people) and, perhaps controversially, an at times somewhat "don't care" attitude to spending by some. Of course this overcharging is not meant to happen.
Take as another example the [reported] inability to reclaim treatment costs done under the EHIC arrangements. By all accounts the NHS has failed to recover costs on a massive scale for treatment to eligible foreign (EEA or Swiss) patients: essentially it had been treated by the NHS as a right to free treatment, but not a right (and responsibility to the UK taxpayer) to ensure the costs are reclaimed. Which in turn has yielded yet another cheap shot at "europe" even though the failing lies solely with NHS administration/UK Govt oversight.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 12, 2019 15:45:35 GMT
UK has blocked merger in the past such Sainsbury's merging with Asda. Yes, to prevent consumer monopolies. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48048596That's a very different kettle of irrelevant fish. Take as another example the [reported] inability to reclaim treatment costs done under the EHIC arrangements. By all accounts the NHS has failed to recover costs on a massive scale for treatment to eligible foreign (EEA or Swiss) patients: essentially it had been treated by the NHS as a right to free treatment, but not a right (and responsibility to the UK taxpayer) to ensure the costs are reclaimed. Which in turn has yielded yet another cheap shot at "europe" even though the failing lies solely with NHS administration/UK Govt oversight. Eminently likely that it's been looked at, and it's been decided that it's more cost-effective overall to let it slide than to start questioning anybody who may potentially be required to pay-and-reclaim. Can you imagine the Daily Wail headlines when 83yo Maureen Miggins gets handed a bill, while Wladek the Polish Plumber doesn't? (Because Maureen's lived on a Spanish Costa for the same decade and a bit that Wladek has been a gainfully employed resident taxpayer here, and only flew home for treatment because she doesn't trust foreign doctors)
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 12, 2019 17:22:22 GMT
Take as another example the [reported] inability to reclaim treatment costs done under the EHIC arrangements. By all accounts the NHS has failed to recover costs on a massive scale for treatment to eligible foreign (EEA or Swiss) patients: essentially it had been treated by the NHS as a right to free treatment, but not a right (and responsibility to the UK taxpayer) to ensure the costs are reclaimed. Which in turn has yielded yet another cheap shot at "europe" even though the failing lies solely with NHS administration/UK Govt oversight. Eminently likely that it's been looked at, and it's been decided that it's more cost-effective overall to let it slide than to start questioning anybody who may potentially be required to pay-and-reclaim. Can you imagine the Daily Wail headlines when 83yo Maureen Miggins gets handed a bill, while Wladek the Polish Plumber doesn't? (Because Maureen's lived on a Spanish Costa for the same decade and a bit that Wladek has been a gainfully employed resident taxpayer here, and only flew home for treatment because she doesn't trust foreign doctors) Isn't that misunderstandig ? As I understand it, there is no reason why little old Maureen need be handed a bill in these circumstances. If she is eligible for receiving the treatment under the scheme, then the provider is able to claim it back from the originating country (essentially in this case Govt to Govt).
And no, its not more cost effective overall. Its just typical b****x that happens in govt run organisations. Edit: from what I was reading we may have been collecting as little as 20% of what we could be, and that marries up with a big contrast for the reciprocals (i.e. what other countries claim form us versus what we claim from them). But still its the beloved, sacroscant NHS so who dare criticise it.
Edit 2: I also just found this interesting link. Only partly read it but rather illuminating.
What a surprise. It would appear that part of the problem is that there was no financial incentive for NHS trusts to collect and report the required information: they were not compensated for the additional administration involved, and did not directly receive any of the collected compensation.
Under the current system, although NHS trusts are expected to collect the necessary demographic and administrative information from EEA patients, we recognise that they are not currently compensated for this additional clerical function. Furthermore, although the benefits of reporting EHIC activity are significant to the NHS as a whole, individual trusts
do not see a direct benefit when investing in administrative resources for reporting.
Of course if you are a private provider in a public funded or mixed public/private payer system, you would have a built in incentive to ensure you exercised your entitlement to claim. (Not that I am necessarily advocating that).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Aug 12, 2019 17:27:51 GMT
Eminently likely that it's been looked at, and it's been decided that it's more cost-effective overall to let it slide than to start questioning anybody who may potentially be required to pay-and-reclaim. Can you imagine the Daily Wail headlines when 83yo Maureen Miggins gets handed a bill, while Wladek the Polish Plumber doesn't? (Because Maureen's lived on a Spanish Costa for the same decade and a bit that Wladek has been a gainfully employed resident taxpayer here, and only flew home for treatment because she doesn't trust foreign doctors) Isn't that misunderstandig ? As I understand it, there is no reason why little old Maureen need be handed a bill in these circumstances. If she is eligible for receiving the treatment under the scheme, then the provider is able to claim it back from the originating country (essentially in this case Govt to Govt). You think that the Wail will be concerned about that minor detail? B'sides, what if Maureen hasn't got her EHIC? After all, why does she need it? She's Ingurlish, innit? So you think the NHS (whether centrally or individual trusts) is voluntarily choosing to waste multi-zero-millions of potential revenue...? Because it simply CBA? It's a lot easier when everybody, including the locals, has to do some kind of payment paperwork at the point of provision. The NHS doesn't do that. So there would need to be some way of accurately and swiftly identifying non-UK-residents without inconveniencing UK residents... How? Address? Well, it's easy to give any old address - nobody checks.
|
|
would explain why I couldn't find it again 
