I am currently in Majorca with family to celebrate my 80th birthday next Saturday. We booked a package through Mercury travel and they arranged flights with Thos. Cook. We have been told that we will be flown back to the UK near to our original return date which could be up to 72 hours earlier and we could go to any UK airport and be coached back to Gatwick.
The Government should do alot more. It's another case where a big company suffers financially then is at the mercy of the Banks or private equity firms who suck all the value out of it, so they could be making profits but it's all going on extortionate interest payments, these private equity firms come in and charge huge admin fees and interest until they are totally unviable then dump them into administration. It shouldn't be allowed to happen when thousands of jobs are at stake and then less consumer choice in the future
Government should do nothing. It's a private business. Business failure is part of business. As bad as this loss is, people will still take holidays. Now the remainder of the industry will be in better shape, as all these people will need to go with them, instead. There is nothing un-natural about business failure. What is un-natural is when government spends taxpayer money to bailout private businesses who could not succeed as well as the others in the same industry who are still here.
I’m curious to understand the idea that anyone profited from TC’s demise. The stock is now worthless by definition and the bonds collapsed today. A few smart hedge funds shorted the stock but bear in mind their potential losses were infinite but their potential gains capped, hardly egregious capitalism at its worst.
At least 1.7 billion in debt with no strategy to improve ..you have to ask the management and it's bankers how it was allowed to get that far in the red .Political pressure perhaps? It's been an ailing business for ages ..a shame but the end didn't come soon enough ...
We used them for our Disney holiday a few years back
we spent a hell of a lot of money on this holiday far more than I anticipate I will ever spend again.
When we arrived at our disney hotel to say I was disappointed is an understatement the look on my kids face and my wife’s was heartbreaking, the lady at Thomas Cook assured me that we were in a fantastic suite the video link supplied at time of booking seemed to back that up even though I mentioned several times to her it looked small for a family of Five (one being only 20 months at the time of flying) it was tiny smaller than a family room at the premier inn and you couldn’t wash the 20month in the bath in the room it was that small
i never unloaded the bags from the car I went straight to the reception at Disney and although I should’ve been raging I remained calm and spoke to them with manners and respect
sir at Disney we make dreams not break them was the response
she looked at our booking forms saw the amount of money we had paid and said I really shouldn’t say this but Thomas Cook are known here as Thomas Crook you are not the first family to have been sold a sham you won’t be the last
she looked at the room and said that it is only for a maximum of 4 not 5 and as such they should never have reserved it for you
it was coming up to Christmas the place was packed
she looked on the system and said sit we have a log cabin at Fort-wilderness available that we can upgrade you to , so I went to pay the 1800 dollar difference and the lady said put the card away
you have paid far too much already and like i said Disney make not break dreams
she gave ave us a copy of the letter they would issue to Thomas Crook saying that they had sold us a room that was legally only insured for 4 not 5 and that they had upgraded us and issued us £500 meal plan as an apology, and that they will be going for reimbursement from them .
She told me they send 5-10 of these letters out each week to Thomas Crook
sad for those that lost their job but the company was a joke . managed terribly top to bottom 200million would’ve held the door closed till Xmas only
The fact the CEO got paid that figure doesn’t surprise me
someone was going to be the fall guy for this and he imo willingly hung his reputation on the line for a princely sum,
no no one will touch him again at that level he is nigh on unemployable and as such needed to secure his own future
do I agree with the thought process in a way yes I do
do I agree with it no no way do I too many poor unfortunate hard working employees on a fraction of his tax liability let alone his salary are now without a job it’s a scandal but a scandal I can understand
Would the own the freehold to any of their shops, or their planes?
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
The Government should do alot more. It's another case where a big company suffers financially then is at the mercy of the Banks or private equity firms who suck all the value out of it, so they could be making profits but it's all going on extortionate interest payments, these private equity firms come in and charge huge admin fees and interest until they are totally unviable then dump them into administration. It shouldn't be allowed to happen when thousands of jobs are at stake and then less consumer choice in the future
Government should do nothing. It's a private business. Business failure is part of business. As bad as this loss is, people will still take holidays. Now the remainder of the industry will be in better shape, as all these people will need to go with them, instead. There is nothing un-natural about business failure. What is un-natural is when government spends taxpayer money to bailout private businesses who could not succeed as well as the others in the same industry who are still here.
Agree with all but worth pointing out that in the short term there may be more disruption.
Agents and operators will have used Thomas Cook products (hotels and flights) as component parts to create packages under their own ATOL licence. Those agents and operators are now liable for fulfilling their customers travel arrangements at their own cost.
In addition, many Tour Operators who sold through Thomas Cook shops will be exposed to pipeline money - The guests have paid Thomas Cook but Thomas Cook wont have paid the Tour Operator, who is still liable to fulfill the holiday. It is highly likely that there will be knock on failures at worst, and severly dented performance at best. (On the flip side, the likes of TUI and Jet2 should be doing very well as guests look to reprotect their holidays and lots of hotel stock in European resorts suddenly becomes available...).
I’m curious to understand the idea that anyone profited from TC’s demise. The stock is now worthless by definition and the bonds collapsed today. A few smart hedge funds shorted the stock but bear in mind their potential losses were infinite but their potential gains capped, hardly egregious capitalism at its worst.
I’d be interested to know what happens to a Hedge Fund Manager that posts infinite losses.... doesn’t get bonus, gets sacked, moves to another company or ends up working in Asda?
It’s all just gambling and I’d hazard a guess that a loss Incurred due to Thomas Cook surviving wouldn’t make much a difference to most people’s pensions or investments.
Yes, TC may have had a failing and unstable business model but it isn’t helped by the vultures that want it to fail.
Would the own the freehold to any of their shops, or their planes?
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
Very much doubt they owned the freehold to any of their retail outlets. It's unusual for retailer to have freeholds. Don't know about the planes.
The Government should do alot more. It's another case where a big company suffers financially then is at the mercy of the Banks or private equity firms who suck all the value out of it, so they could be making profits but it's all going on extortionate interest payments, these private equity firms come in and charge huge admin fees and interest until they are totally unviable then dump them into administration. It shouldn't be allowed to happen when thousands of jobs are at stake and then less consumer choice in the future
Government should do nothing. It's a private business. Business failure is part of business. As bad as this loss is, people will still take holidays. Now the remainder of the industry will be in better shape, as all these people will need to go with them, instead. There is nothing un-natural about business failure. What is un-natural is when government spends taxpayer money to bailout private businesses who could not succeed as well as the others in the same industry who are still here.
They bail out the Banks though and bribe the DUP with 1bn of taxpayers money to stay in power. The magic money tree suddenly appears when its convenient
Would the own the freehold to any of their shops, or their planes?
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
They would have rented their shops and been tied into leases they were unable to get out of for several years. In addition to rent they would have had to pay business rates, salaries and other costs that online travel agents would not need to pay. Sometimes you can sub-let your property (usually with landlords permission) but with the state of the High Street there would have been very few other occupiers interested.
rents on High Streets need to fall off a cliff (and already are), business rates for retailers need more common sense and to be lower; parking should be free or nominal and online retailers need to pay their way in tax.
there has been so much change to online and the tax man is way behind the curve.
Would the own the freehold to any of their shops, or their planes?
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
Very much doubt they owned the freehold to any of their retail outlets. It's unusual for retailer to have freeholds. Don't know about the planes.
Prob not as simple as closing stores. They prob have 5 or 10+ year leases on the shops, so better to stay open on skeleton staff than close and make nothing whilst paying rent, and prob not allowed to sublet to another retailer - if they could even find one.
Would the own the freehold to any of their shops, or their planes?
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
Very much doubt they owned the freehold to any of their retail outlets. It's unusual for retailer to have freeholds. Don't know about the planes.
Would the own the freehold to any of their shops, or their planes?
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
Very much doubt they owned the freehold to any of their retail outlets. It's unusual for retailer to have freeholds. Don't know about the planes.
I don't know the detail but unlikely they will own any of the planes - these will be owned by leasors or banks (or a combination of both). The real value will be in Thomas Cooks landing slots at Gatwick, Manchester etc etc.
Would the own the freehold to any of their shops, or their planes?
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
Very much doubt they owned the freehold to any of their retail outlets. It's unusual for retailer to have freeholds. Don't know about the planes.
I don't know the detail but unlikely they will own any of the planes - these will be owned by leasors or banks (or a combination of both). The real value will be in Thomas Cooks landing slots at Gatwick, Manchester etc etc.
I’m curious to understand the idea that anyone profited from TC’s demise. The stock is now worthless by definition and the bonds collapsed today. A few smart hedge funds shorted the stock but bear in mind their potential losses were infinite but their potential gains capped, hardly egregious capitalism at its worst.
I’d be interested to know what happens to a Hedge Fund Manager that posts infinite losses.... doesn’t get bonus, gets sacked, moves to another company or ends up working in Asda?
It’s all just gambling and I’d hazard a guess that a loss Incurred due to Thomas Cook surviving wouldn’t make much a difference to most people’s pensions or investments.
Yes, TC may have had a failing and unstable business model but it isn’t helped by the vultures that want it to fail.
I think there's a misunderstanding about what a hedge fund is - they're usually small entrepreneurial limited companies or partnerships that pool the assets of a diversified group of investors (individuals, pension funds, charitable foundations etc.) and invest just like any regular fund albeit with fewer restrictions, notably around the 'shorting' of securities (which seems to create a disproportionate amount of vitriol for some reason [see below]).
They don't receive bonuses as they're not employees - if the business is successful the shareholders/partners will receive dividends or distributions. Junior employed staff who are not shareholders/partners may receive a bonus but then again their base salaries are relatively low (for highly-educated workers) given the prospects of the business are so hard to predict ex ante.
If the hedge funds don't perform then investors ask for their money back and they quickly go out of business - the failure rate in the industry is extremely high but that's not the type of headline which will engage the tabloids. If they do perform then their fee structure (plus the compounding effect) can be very lucrative but by definition that implies their investors have generated a good return too. Moreover they are fully aligned with their investors (to use a common analogy, 'they eat their own cooking' since a vast majority of their own net worth is invested in their own funds) - this is rarely true of more traditional investment funds (how much of his net worth did Neil Woodford have invested in his failed fund for example?).
With regard to those small number of funds which have profited from shorting the shares or bonds of Thomas Cook, it's worth noting the following points:
- shorting is expensive (interest/dividend expense, 'borrow' costs etc.), and dangerous (gains are capped at 100% but losses are theoretically infinite) - moreover the company's Board, management, advisers, shareholders etc. are working hard every day to try to ensure your bet is a losing one;
- short-sellers inject liquidity to ensure a healthy two-way market, increase market efficiency (to help ensure companies' cost of capital is appropriate for their prospects) and shine a light on fraudulent or (in this case) unsustainable businesses;
- cumulatively shorting has been and probably always will be a loss-making activity - not surprising really given that stock markets generally go up and companies don't default on their bonds - again "...Hedge Funds lose a ton of money shorting.." doesn't make exciting headlines - plenty of hedge funds will also have been short say Tui whose shares are up nearly 10% in two days;
Their business model from the days of the Ark, ineffective fat cat management, badly organised holidays (so I hear). I say bravo to the Government for not wasting £200m on a sticky plaster, for a failing company with an outdated concept.
I’m curious to understand the idea that anyone profited from TC’s demise. The stock is now worthless by definition and the bonds collapsed today. A few smart hedge funds shorted the stock but bear in mind their potential losses were infinite but their potential gains capped, hardly egregious capitalism at its worst.
I’d be interested to know what happens to a Hedge Fund Manager that posts infinite losses.... doesn’t get bonus, gets sacked, moves to another company or ends up working in Asda?
It’s all just gambling and I’d hazard a guess that a loss Incurred due to Thomas Cook surviving wouldn’t make much a difference to most people’s pensions or investments.
Yes, TC may have had a failing and unstable business model but it isn’t helped by the vultures that want it to fail.
I think there's a misunderstanding about what a hedge fund is - they're usually small entrepreneurial limited companies or partnerships that pool the assets of a diversified group of investors (individuals, pension funds, charitable foundations etc.) and invest just like any regular fund albeit with fewer restrictions, notably around the 'shorting' of securities (which seems to create a disproportionate amount of vitriol for some reason [see below]).
They don't receive bonuses as they're not employees - if the business is successful the shareholders/partners will receive dividends or distributions. Junior employed staff who are not shareholders/partners may receive a bonus but then again their base salaries are relatively low (for highly-educated workers) given the prospects of the business are so hard to predict ex ante.
If the hedge funds don't perform then investors ask for their money back and they quickly go out of business - the failure rate in the industry is extremely high but that's not the type of headline which will engage the tabloids. If they do perform then their fee structure (plus the compounding effect) can be very lucrative but by definition that implies their investors have generated a good return too. Moreover they are fully aligned with their investors (to use a common analogy, 'they eat their own cooking' since a vast majority of their own net worth is invested in their own funds) - this is rarely true of more traditional investment funds (how much of his net worth did Neil Woodford have invested in his failed fund for example?).
With regard to those small number of funds which have profited from shorting the shares or bonds of Thomas Cook, it's worth noting the following points:
- shorting is expensive (interest/dividend expense, 'borrow' costs etc.), and dangerous (gains are capped at 100% but losses are theoretically infinite) - moreover the company's Board, management, advisers, shareholders etc. are working hard every day to try to ensure your bet is a losing one;
- short-sellers inject liquidity to ensure a healthy two-way market, increase market efficiency (to help ensure companies' cost of capital is appropriate for their prospects) and shine a light on fraudulent or (in this case) unsustainable businesses;
- cumulatively shorting has been and probably always will be a loss-making activity - not surprising really given that stock markets generally go up and companies don't default on their bonds - again "...Hedge Funds lose a ton of money shorting.." doesn't make exciting headlines - plenty of hedge funds will also have been short say Tui whose shares are up nearly 10% in two days;
The Government should do alot more. It's another case where a big company suffers financially then is at the mercy of the Banks or private equity firms who suck all the value out of it, so they could be making profits but it's all going on extortionate interest payments, these private equity firms come in and charge huge admin fees and interest until they are totally unviable then dump them into administration. It shouldn't be allowed to happen when thousands of jobs are at stake and then less consumer choice in the future
Government should do nothing. It's a private business. Business failure is part of business. As bad as this loss is, people will still take holidays. Now the remainder of the industry will be in better shape, as all these people will need to go with them, instead. There is nothing un-natural about business failure. What is un-natural is when government spends taxpayer money to bailout private businesses who could not succeed as well as the others in the same industry who are still here.
I’m curious to understand the idea that anyone profited from TC’s demise. The stock is now worthless by definition and the bonds collapsed today. A few smart hedge funds shorted the stock but bear in mind their potential losses were infinite but their potential gains capped, hardly egregious capitalism at its worst.
I’d be interested to know what happens to a Hedge Fund Manager that posts infinite losses.... doesn’t get bonus, gets sacked, moves to another company or ends up working in Asda?
It’s all just gambling and I’d hazard a guess that a loss Incurred due to Thomas Cook surviving wouldn’t make much a difference to most people’s pensions or investments.
Yes, TC may have had a failing and unstable business model but it isn’t helped by the vultures that want it to fail.
I think there's a misunderstanding about what a hedge fund is - they're usually small entrepreneurial limited companies or partnerships that pool the assets of a diversified group of investors (individuals, pension funds, charitable foundations etc.) and invest just like any regular fund albeit with fewer restrictions, notably around the 'shorting' of securities (which seems to create a disproportionate amount of vitriol for some reason [see below]).
They don't receive bonuses as they're not employees - if the business is successful the shareholders/partners will receive dividends or distributions. Junior employed staff who are not shareholders/partners may receive a bonus but then again their base salaries are relatively low (for highly-educated workers) given the prospects of the business are so hard to predict ex ante.
If the hedge funds don't perform then investors ask for their money back and they quickly go out of business - the failure rate in the industry is extremely high but that's not the type of headline which will engage the tabloids. If they do perform then their fee structure (plus the compounding effect) can be very lucrative but by definition that implies their investors have generated a good return too. Moreover they are fully aligned with their investors (to use a common analogy, 'they eat their own cooking' since a vast majority of their own net worth is invested in their own funds) - this is rarely true of more traditional investment funds (how much of his net worth did Neil Woodford have invested in his failed fund for example?).
With regard to those small number of funds which have profited from shorting the shares or bonds of Thomas Cook, it's worth noting the following points:
- shorting is expensive (interest/dividend expense, 'borrow' costs etc.), and dangerous (gains are capped at 100% but losses are theoretically infinite) - moreover the company's Board, management, advisers, shareholders etc. are working hard every day to try to ensure your bet is a losing one;
- short-sellers inject liquidity to ensure a healthy two-way market, increase market efficiency (to help ensure companies' cost of capital is appropriate for their prospects) and shine a light on fraudulent or (in this case) unsustainable businesses;
- cumulatively shorting has been and probably always will be a loss-making activity - not surprising really given that stock markets generally go up and companies don't default on their bonds - again "...Hedge Funds lose a ton of money shorting.." doesn't make exciting headlines - plenty of hedge funds will also have been short say Tui whose shares are up nearly 10% in two days;
That being the case, why does it continue NYA?
...because shorting is generally profitable during a more challenging market environment (whether a brief sell-off or a longer 'bear market'), and shorting thus provides an important source of returns to reduce the losses elsewhere in a portfolio which is otherwise 'long' risk assets eg equities (hence the name, 'hedge' fund). Importantly the fund is also thus on a stronger footing to put capital back to work at attractive valuations when markets inevitably recover.
A typical 'traditional' equity fund which you or I can readily access (for our ISAs etc.) is typically always approximately 100% invested in stocks; it may occasionally hold cash as a partial hedge, but the manager can only express a negative view on an individual company by simply not owning it. As a result these types of funds will usually outperform even the very best equity hedge funds in bull markets, but the additional ability of hedge funds to 'short' gives them scope to significantly outperform in bear markets (they may still post losses overall though, but smaller losses).
This hedge or 'capital protection' is particularly valuable to long-term return potential because of the simple way that the maths of investing works. For example a typical traditional equity fund which was down say 50% in 2008/9 (as most were) would have had to subsequently return 100% to get the investor back to break-even. However if a hedge fund only lost say 20% in that period (due to the performance of its shorts) then it would only have to recover 25% to get the investor back to break-even. Suffice to say that even though the traditional fund is a more 'juiced up' play on subsequently recovering markets, it would still take it a lot longer to generate that 100% than it would take the hedge fund to generate 25%.
Throughout most of the past 50 years or so, bear markets have been sufficiently common that hedge funds earned their reputation as the premium investment product (with fees to match) since the combination of 'good enough' performance during bull markets plus strong capital protection in bear markets, led them to outperform traditional equity market investments over the long-term.
However hedge funds are very much out of fashion at present (and thus as an industry much smaller overall) precisely because there hasn't been any significant bear market since the financial crisis - every time there has been a sign of problems, the global central banks have stepped in and calmed markets. They will occasionally receive vitriol when a well-known company goes to the wall (unmerited in my view) but overall their performance has frankly been quite dire for decade.
The Government should do alot more. It's another case where a big company suffers financially then is at the mercy of the Banks or private equity firms who suck all the value out of it, so they could be making profits but it's all going on extortionate interest payments, these private equity firms come in and charge huge admin fees and interest until they are totally unviable then dump them into administration. It shouldn't be allowed to happen when thousands of jobs are at stake and then less consumer choice in the future
Government should do nothing. It's a private business. Business failure is part of business. As bad as this loss is, people will still take holidays. Now the remainder of the industry will be in better shape, as all these people will need to go with them, instead. There is nothing un-natural about business failure. What is un-natural is when government spends taxpayer money to bailout private businesses who could not succeed as well as the others in the same industry who are still here.
Unless the private business is a bank ofcourse.
Or any other business necessary to the country being able to run. I'd expect the Govt to bail out or nationalise electricity, gas, water providers and banks but not lawyers, accountants, toy manufacturers., football clubs. or package holiday. Car makers, steel manufacturers etc are debateable.
The bank bail out is much misunderstood in any event. Only two banks (Lloyds, RBS) received anything and only in exchange for shares. The total cost has been £1bn with the Govt claiming it will be in profit after the Lloyds shares are sold.
There is sadly a fundamental truth. If you book a holiday through Thomas Cook it costs a lot more than booking a holiday online - You can even book a Thomas Cook Holiday or flight cheaper on Ice Lolly. More and more people were going work that out, not less. And many already had.
The Government should do alot more. It's another case where a big company suffers financially then is at the mercy of the Banks or private equity firms who suck all the value out of it, so they could be making profits but it's all going on extortionate interest payments, these private equity firms come in and charge huge admin fees and interest until they are totally unviable then dump them into administration. It shouldn't be allowed to happen when thousands of jobs are at stake and then less consumer choice in the future
Government should do nothing. It's a private business. Business failure is part of business. As bad as this loss is, people will still take holidays. Now the remainder of the industry will be in better shape, as all these people will need to go with them, instead. There is nothing un-natural about business failure. What is un-natural is when government spends taxpayer money to bailout private businesses who could not succeed as well as the others in the same industry who are still here.
They bail out the Banks though and bribe the DUP with 1bn of taxpayers money to stay in power. The magic money tree suddenly appears when its convenient
Well many of us were against "them" bailing out the banks too.
If we bail out this company, then why not bail out the 20,000+ one or two person businesses that fail every year too? Why is that people always want to bail out the big businesses?
The only good news for Thomas Cook employees is that the Pension Scheme was in surplus at the time of collapse and in any event is protected by legislation.
The Government should do alot more. It's another case where a big company suffers financially then is at the mercy of the Banks or private equity firms who suck all the value out of it, so they could be making profits but it's all going on extortionate interest payments, these private equity firms come in and charge huge admin fees and interest until they are totally unviable then dump them into administration. It shouldn't be allowed to happen when thousands of jobs are at stake and then less consumer choice in the future
Government should do nothing. It's a private business. Business failure is part of business. As bad as this loss is, people will still take holidays. Now the remainder of the industry will be in better shape, as all these people will need to go with them, instead. There is nothing un-natural about business failure. What is un-natural is when government spends taxpayer money to bailout private businesses who could not succeed as well as the others in the same industry who are still here.
They bail out the Banks though and bribe the DUP with 1bn of taxpayers money to stay in power. The magic money tree suddenly appears when its convenient
Well many of us were against "them" bailing out the banks too.
If we bail out this company, then why not bail out the 20,000+ one or two person businesses that fail every year too? Why is that people always want to bail out the big businesses?
So you think the government should have let the UK banking system collapse ?
Comments
We booked a package through Mercury travel and they arranged flights with Thos. Cook. We have been told that we will be flown back to the UK near to our original return date which could be up to 72 hours earlier and we could go to any UK airport and be coached back to Gatwick.
we spent a hell of a lot of money on this holiday far more than I anticipate I will ever spend again.
When we arrived at our disney hotel to say I was disappointed is an understatement the look on my kids face and my wife’s was heartbreaking, the lady at Thomas Cook assured me that we were in a fantastic suite the video link supplied at time of booking seemed to back that up even though I mentioned several times to her it looked small for a family of Five (one being only 20 months at the time of flying) it was tiny smaller than a family room at the premier inn and you couldn’t wash the 20month in the bath in the room it was that small
i never unloaded the bags from the car I went straight to the reception at Disney and although I should’ve been raging I remained calm and spoke to them with manners and respect
sir at Disney we make dreams not break them was the response
she looked at our booking forms saw the amount of money we had paid and said I really shouldn’t say this but Thomas Cook are known here as Thomas Crook you are not the first family to have been sold a sham you won’t be the last
she looked at the room and said that it is only for a maximum of 4 not 5 and as such they should never have reserved it for you
it was coming up to Christmas the place was packed
she looked on the system and said sit we have a log cabin at Fort-wilderness available that we can upgrade you to , so I went to pay the 1800 dollar difference and the lady said put the card away
you have paid far too much already and like i said Disney make not break dreams
she gave ave us a copy of the letter they would issue to Thomas Crook saying that they had sold us a room that was legally only insured for 4 not 5 and that they had upgraded us and issued us £500 meal plan as an apology, and that they will be going for reimbursement from them .
She told me they send 5-10 of these letters out each week to Thomas Crook
sad for those that lost their job but the company was a joke . managed terribly top to bottom 200million would’ve held the door closed till Xmas only
someone was going to be the fall guy for this and he imo willingly hung his reputation on the line for a princely sum,
no no one will touch him again at that level he is nigh on unemployable and as such needed to secure his own future
do I agree with the thought process in a way yes I do
do I agree with it no no way do I too many poor unfortunate hard working employees on a fraction of his tax liability let alone his salary are now without a job it’s a scandal but a scandal I can understand
When their debt pile got so high I don’t understand why a company just keeps doing what it’s always done and not transition. Makes no sense. Surely the approach should have been over the last few years to either sell off assets to reduce their debt, reducing their High St presence, narrowing their flight / holiday coverage.
Shave your debt, reduce your costs, concentrate on the things that make you profit and you can deliver well, and then look to rebuild from there?
Agree with all but worth pointing out that in the short term there may be more disruption.
Agents and operators will have used Thomas Cook products (hotels and flights) as component parts to create packages under their own ATOL licence. Those agents and operators are now liable for fulfilling their customers travel arrangements at their own cost.
In addition, many Tour Operators who sold through Thomas Cook shops will be exposed to pipeline money - The guests have paid Thomas Cook but Thomas Cook wont have paid the Tour Operator, who is still liable to fulfill the holiday. It is highly likely that there will be knock on failures at worst, and severly dented performance at best. (On the flip side, the likes of TUI and Jet2 should be doing very well as guests look to reprotect their holidays and lots of hotel stock in European resorts suddenly becomes available...).
I’d be interested to know what happens to a Hedge Fund Manager that posts infinite losses.... doesn’t get bonus, gets sacked, moves to another company or ends up working in Asda?
It’s all just gambling and I’d hazard a guess that a loss Incurred due to Thomas Cook surviving wouldn’t make much a difference to most people’s pensions or investments.
Yes, TC may have had a failing and unstable business model but it isn’t helped by the vultures that want it to fail.
rents on High Streets need to fall off a cliff (and already are), business rates for retailers need more common sense and to be lower; parking should be free or nominal and online retailers need to pay their way in tax.
there has been so much change to online and the tax man is way behind the curve.
I don't know the detail but unlikely they will own any of the planes - these will be owned by leasors or banks (or a combination of both). The real value will be in Thomas Cooks landing slots at Gatwick, Manchester etc etc.
They own 3 of the 34 in their current fleet.
I think there's a misunderstanding about what a hedge fund is - they're usually small entrepreneurial limited companies or partnerships that pool the assets of a diversified group of investors (individuals, pension funds, charitable foundations etc.) and invest just like any regular fund albeit with fewer restrictions, notably around the 'shorting' of securities (which seems to create a disproportionate amount of vitriol for some reason [see below]).
They don't receive bonuses as they're not employees - if the business is successful the shareholders/partners will receive dividends or distributions. Junior employed staff who are not shareholders/partners may receive a bonus but then again their base salaries are relatively low (for highly-educated workers) given the prospects of the business are so hard to predict ex ante.
If the hedge funds don't perform then investors ask for their money back and they quickly go out of business - the failure rate in the industry is extremely high but that's not the type of headline which will engage the tabloids. If they do perform then their fee structure (plus the compounding effect) can be very lucrative but by definition that implies their investors have generated a good return too. Moreover they are fully aligned with their investors (to use a common analogy, 'they eat their own cooking' since a vast majority of their own net worth is invested in their own funds) - this is rarely true of more traditional investment funds (how much of his net worth did Neil Woodford have invested in his failed fund for example?).
With regard to those small number of funds which have profited from shorting the shares or bonds of Thomas Cook, it's worth noting the following points:
- shorting is expensive (interest/dividend expense, 'borrow' costs etc.), and dangerous (gains are capped at 100% but losses are theoretically infinite) - moreover the company's Board, management, advisers, shareholders etc. are working hard every day to try to ensure your bet is a losing one;
- short-sellers inject liquidity to ensure a healthy two-way market, increase market efficiency (to help ensure companies' cost of capital is appropriate for their prospects) and shine a light on fraudulent or (in this case) unsustainable businesses;
- cumulatively shorting has been and probably always will be a loss-making activity - not surprising really given that stock markets generally go up and companies don't default on their bonds - again "...Hedge Funds lose a ton of money shorting.." doesn't make exciting headlines - plenty of hedge funds will also have been short say Tui whose shares are up nearly 10% in two days;
...because shorting is generally profitable during a more challenging market environment (whether a brief sell-off or a longer 'bear market'), and shorting thus provides an important source of returns to reduce the losses elsewhere in a portfolio which is otherwise 'long' risk assets eg equities (hence the name, 'hedge' fund). Importantly the fund is also thus on a stronger footing to put capital back to work at attractive valuations when markets inevitably recover.
A typical 'traditional' equity fund which you or I can readily access (for our ISAs etc.) is typically always approximately 100% invested in stocks; it may occasionally hold cash as a partial hedge, but the manager can only express a negative view on an individual company by simply not owning it. As a result these types of funds will usually outperform even the very best equity hedge funds in bull markets, but the additional ability of hedge funds to 'short' gives them scope to significantly outperform in bear markets (they may still post losses overall though, but smaller losses).
This hedge or 'capital protection' is particularly valuable to long-term return potential because of the simple way that the maths of investing works. For example a typical traditional equity fund which was down say 50% in 2008/9 (as most were) would have had to subsequently return 100% to get the investor back to break-even. However if a hedge fund only lost say 20% in that period (due to the performance of its shorts) then it would only have to recover 25% to get the investor back to break-even. Suffice to say that even though the traditional fund is a more 'juiced up' play on subsequently recovering markets, it would still take it a lot longer to generate that 100% than it would take the hedge fund to generate 25%.
Throughout most of the past 50 years or so, bear markets have been sufficiently common that hedge funds earned their reputation as the premium investment product (with fees to match) since the combination of 'good enough' performance during bull markets plus strong capital protection in bear markets, led them to outperform traditional equity market investments over the long-term.
However hedge funds are very much out of fashion at present (and thus as an industry much smaller overall) precisely because there hasn't been any significant bear market since the financial crisis - every time there has been a sign of problems, the global central banks have stepped in and calmed markets. They will occasionally receive vitriol when a well-known company goes to the wall (unmerited in my view) but overall their performance has frankly been quite dire for decade.
The bank bail out is much misunderstood in any event. Only two banks (Lloyds, RBS) received anything and only in exchange for shares. The total cost has been £1bn with the Govt claiming it will be in profit after the Lloyds shares are sold.