Current Affairs British Steel...

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's the sheer scale of the physical operation that makes you wonder how it could possibly be allowed to fail.
Through the mists of time it was a school trip to John Summers at Connahs Quay in 1964 that made me decide on a career in engineering. To a thirteen year old lad the scenes in front of you left you in sheer amazement in the process.
The reality of the current situation has been well detailed already in these pages and I suppose money talks.
I do wonder though if the people making these decisions have any grasp of the tragic loss of skills, jobs, and the plants themselves.
A bit of a nostalgic thread no doubt but one of the saddest sights I've seen for a long while is the SSI steelworks in Redcar completely shut down a vast sprawling site. The reason, couldn't compete with the Chinese dumping cheap inferior quality slab steel in the EU.
Shame.
 
How A Private Equity Firm Brought About The Death Of British Steel
https://www.forbes.com/sites/france...bout-the-death-of-british-steel/#5bc5c7d74824

The iconic U.K. steelmaker British Steel has collapsed into insolvency. On Wednesday May 22 the High Court in London forced it into compulsory liquidation, the U.K. equivalent of Chapter 7 bankruptcy, after the U.K. government refused to advance it £30m ($38m) to cover short-term financing needs.

There had been rumors for some time that the company was in trouble. Three weeks ago, the U.K. government gave it an emergency loan of £120m ($152m) to enable it to pay carbon dioxide emissions dues to the EU. British Steel, along with other U.K. manufacturers, has been shut out of the EU’s carbon emissions trading scheme since December as part of EU preparation for no-deal Brexit. It seems the U.K. government thought it was reasonable to help British Steel pay the dues arising from its own failure to get a Brexit deal through Parliament.

But the additional £30m ($38m) was a step too far. In an official statement, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, said that the request would break EU state aid rules: 'The government can only act within the law, which requires any financial support to a steel company to be on a commercial basis. I have been advised that it would be unlawful to provide a guarantee or loan on the terms of any proposals that the company or any other party has made'.

He had good reasons for his decision. On Wednesday May 15 - one week before its failure - British Steel was scheduled to complete the acquisition of French steelmaker Ascoval for a cool £40m ($50.6m). It couldn't afford this, so it approached the U.K. government for help. This was of course refused. But according to the French daily Le Monde, the acquisition went ahead anyway. Ascoval is now owned by Greybull. So in effect, Greybull had asked the U.K. government to fund its acquisition of a French company. It takes some chutzpah to ask your government to pay for your foreign spending spree, and even more to pull the plug on the home business when it refuses to do so.

There isn’t much doubt that it is Greybull that has pulled the plug. British Steel’s accounts show that it is heavily indebted… to Greybull.

In May 2016, Greybull, via an opaque company called Olympus Steel registered in the British tax haven of Jersey, advanced British Steel £154m ($195m) at an interest rate of 9% over six-month sterling Libor. Sterling Libor is currently just under 1%, so the effective interest rate on the loan is nearly 10%. British Steel also has loans from banks at 3% over sterling Libor. The company’s owner is extracting cash at a rate 6% higher than that charged by banks.

The accrued interest on the loan from Olympus Steel will be capitalized after 36 months, and six-monthly thereafter until the maturity date of the loan, which was originally November 2019 but last year was extended to November 2021. So the first interest capitalization would occur at the end of this month. As British Steeel is now in liquidation, Greybull stands to lose not only the loan but also the interest on it. No wonder it was keen on the U.K. Government bailing it out.

But what was the purpose of this loan? Well, British Steel’s predecessor company, Longs Steel, was deeply insolvent. It recorded a loss of £122m ($154.4m) in March 2016. As it was at the time a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tata Steel, it had no shareholders’ funds of its own. So, when it was spun off by Tata, it had negative equity of £122m, partly covered by £74m ($93.67) of loan notes from Tata. When Greybull acquired Longs Steel for a notional £1, it wiped the negative equity (including Tata’s loan notes) and advanced £154m ($195m), representing the costs of acquisition plus a substantial injection of additional funding. The newly formed British Steel spent this on plant and assets, much of it bought below book value. The eventual negative goodwill recorded on British Steel’s books due to Greybull’s acquisition of Longs Steel amounted to some £50m ($63.3m).

Negative goodwill is a double-edged sword. It can indicate that the acquirer has gotten itself a bargain: if it can extract more value from the assets than the discounted purchase price, then it is in the money. This was no doubt Greybull’s hope. And not just for British Steel: in 2017, Greybull bought a Dutch steelmaker, FNsteel, for £15m ($19m) less than its book value. This too ended up on British Steel’s books.

But negative equity is also a warning. A company whose market price is far below the book value of its assets is deeply troubled. And assets sold off in a fire sale may or may not be worth more than the acquirer pays for them: caveat emptor, and all that. Growing through heavily discounted acquisition is a risky strategy. Many, if not most, of the companies purchased at a heavy discount will eventually fail. Many of the assets will turn out to be worthless. For companies that specialize in discounted acquisition, extracting value as fast as possible is a survival strategy.

This is Greybull’s business. It buys deeply distressed companies. It says this is to turn them round, and to be fair it has had a few successes: for example, in 2010, it supported a management buy-out from administration (the U.K. equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy) of Plessey Semiconductors Ltd, which is now a thriving business. However, too often Greybull’s strategy has amounted to milking its acquisitions dry then discarding them. Hence the very high interest rate on the loan to British Steel, and the “management charges” that have progressively drained the company of cash.

Greybull has previously been involved in the failures of Monarch Airlines, the electronic retailer Comet and the supermarket M Local. Maybe I am cynical, but it looks to me as if Greybull targets troubled companies that have very large workforces, in the hope that governments - scared of the political consequences of allowing thousands to lose their jobs – will bail it out if it all goes wrong. In the case of British Steel, this strategy very nearly worked.

But the British Government knew Greybull’s record. Why did it allow this vulture to take on Britain’s second largest steelmaker?

Successive British governments have blithely assumed that a private sector solution is always best for a failing company. And it is true that private equity acquisitions can prevent, or at least delay, disastrous failures. If Greybull had not bought Longs Steel, Tata would probably have closed it down in 2016. Just as the private equity owners of Maplin kept it going far longer than the company probably deserved, so Greybull preserved thousands of jobs at British Steel for three years.

But there’s a deeper reason too. British Steel was privatized by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in 1988. It was a flagship policy. For a Conservative government to take it back into public ownership, barely alive, would be tantamount to admitting that the privatization strategy pursued by the “Iron Lady” was a terrible, terrible mistake.

Even now, the government is desperately trying to find a way of keeping it in the private sector. But there is little hope of a buyer. The Conservative government faces an awful choice: allow British Steel to fail, with the loss of up to 25,000 jobs, or swallow its pride and nationalize it.

An excellent read and analysis.
We are still suffering the consequences of all the de-regulation and privatisation that occurred under Thatcher. Baling out the banks to the tune of over a trillion pounds in cash and guarantees (https://www.nao.org.uk/highlights/taxpayer-support-for-uk-banks-faqs/) set a dangerous precedent, by giving private companies access to our national budget and the turning of blind eyes by toothless watchdogs seems to be par for the course, is it surprising we have the situation that we find with British Steel, Carillion, Woolies and others.

When is the law going to be changed in order for people like Greybull and Phillip Green to be held financially responsible for the employees and pensions of the firms that they are asset stripping. I have never understood why privatisation is seen as being cost effective, because if you are skint would it be cheaper to decorate your house yourself or pay someone else to do it?

Thatcher the milk snatcher has a lot to answer for!
 
Indeed, so why did we put £45,000,000,000 into RBS.....


As someone who subscribes to the idea that free markets are the most effective economic system for raising the absolute living standard for the vast, vast majority of people, no failing banks should have been bailed out, and so neither should "British" Steel (btw if it was called Hinduja Steel no one would give a flying hoot).

Profits and losses are economic signals for new entities to move in or out of sectors. If Steel is a loss making industry that can't compete with what we can buy internationally then that is a very clear signal to mothball steel operations so those resources can be redeployed to other areas.

By saving the banks all that we did long term was to prevent the dissolution of a fundamentally unproductive assets which would otherwise be better deployed on other projects. That these entities still exist do not create wealth or raise living standards, the may be profitable for those within the industry but that comes at the cost of holding back other areas of the economy and so are actually value-destroying on the whole.


Henry Hazlitt's wrote that "the good economist is one who considers what is both seen and unseen, while the bad economist only considers what is seen."

If anyone has time (and I appreciate maybe this is a big ask), I would highly recommend his book Economics In One Lesson:

 
As someone who subscribes to the idea that free markets are the most effective economic system for raising the absolute living standard for the vast, vast majority of people

Can you name a single example?

The simplicity of the ideal of a 'free market' suggests a moral clarity that many find seductive, but economic history invariably fails to actually bear this assumption this out.

Likewise, the 'free market' conditions of perfect competition on which classic economics theory a la Ricardo et al are premised are as utopian and farfetched as anything that Fourier, Marx or Proudhon ever imagined.

Markets perform some functions effectively, but they are every bit as prone to bubbles, distortions and misallocation of resources as state planning. They also cannot be sustained without careful regulation; otherwise, corruption, criminality, and monopoly inevitably follows, as we see these days in the United States.

Societies which generate and distribute prosperity are characterised not by the 'freedom' of their markets, but by the soundness of their states' education, research and industrial policies, and the extent to which markets are effectively regulated and managed by the governments that represent them.

I am agnostic as to what should now be done about British Steel, by the way.

But as the article I posted suggests, it failed less because it could not compete 'on the free market', and more because of the myopic industrial policy and regulatory failures of naive ideologues driven by a childlike religious certainty that any possible outcome spit up by 'the free market' is morally justified.
 
Can you name a single example?

The simplicity of the ideal of a 'free market' suggests a moral clarity that many find seductive, but economic history invariably fails to actually bear this assumption this out.

Likewise, the 'free market' conditions of perfect competition on which classic economics theory a la Ricardo et al are premised are as utopian and farfetched as anything that Fourier, Marx or Proudhon ever imagined.

Markets perform some functions effectively, but they are every bit as prone to bubbles, distortions and misallocation of resources as state planning. They also cannot be sustained without careful regulation; otherwise, corruption, criminality, and monopoly inevitably follows, as we see these days in the United States.

Societies which generate and distribute prosperity are characterised not by the 'freedom' of their markets, but by the soundness of their states' education, research and industrial policies, and the extent to which markets are effectively regulated and managed by the governments that represent them.

I am agnostic as to what should now be done about British Steel, by the way.

But as the article I posted suggests, it failed less because it could not compete 'on the free market', and more because of the myopic industrial policy and regulatory failures of naive ideologues driven by a childlike religious certainty that any possible outcome spit up by 'the free market' is morally justified.

We have more-free and less-free countries we can compare.

Look at the comparative fortunes of Chile and Venezuela over the last 20 years.
Or South Korea and North Korea.

Everywhere where countries operate with more freedom the results have been favourable.

Hong Kong was a finish village in the 1960s. Today their standard of living puts ours to shame.

How about Estonia today?
 
We have more-free and less-free countries we can compare.

Look at the comparative fortunes of Chile and Venezuela over the last 20 years.
Or South Korea and North Korea.

Everywhere where countries operate with more freedom the results have been favourable.

Hong Kong was a finish village in the 1960s. Today their standard of living puts ours to shame.

How about Estonia today?
Just as I suspected.

You have a lot to learn about the economic and political history of South Korea and Hong Kong.
 
I'm firmly in the camp that believe we have to do whatever we can to keep the UK steel industry running. There are certain industries that, from a national security point of view, we need to have capabilities in to be near enough self sufficient in times of need, and I place the likes of shipbuilding, aircraft manufacture, energy and steel production amongst these. But there is also the social and economic impact that comes with a strong steel industry.

There is a steel charter launched this week encouraging the Govt and UK business's to buy British manufactured steel and I'm fully behind this. Yes it is more expensive and we, the consumer and tax payer, will ultimately bear the cost. But the long term alternative is uncontrolled prices once China have full control of the market.

A strong steel market will also enable the industry to invest in greener plants for the future, and we can actually make this a condition of the charter. We could actually become a market leader in green steel which would also make our product more marketable abroad despite the higher cost.

What I don't know is how this all runs with the competition rules of the EU and WTO. If our steel is of a higher quality than the cheap stuff that's flooding the market, as some have suggested, then I don't see how we can be prevented from paying extra for it.

I realise that this all, from a pure economical sense, flies in the face of free trade, but I believe there is enough justification here to make an exception to the rule.
 
Just as I suspected.

You have a lot to learn about the economic and political history of South Korea and Hong Kong.

Please enlighten me then...

I admit that do not consider myself a historian but rather an economist who has studied economic history, rather than political history. My conclusions are that what is often considered good politics is bad economics and vice versa.
 
I'm firmly in the camp that believe we have to do whatever we can to keep the UK steel industry running. There are certain industries that, from a national security point of view, we need to have capabilities in to be near enough self sufficient in times of need, and I place the likes of shipbuilding, aircraft manufacture, energy and steel production amongst these. But there is also the social and economic impact that comes with a strong steel industry.

There is a steel charter launched this week encouraging the Govt and UK business's to buy British manufactured steel and I'm fully behind this. Yes it is more expensive and we, the consumer and tax payer, will ultimately bear the cost. But the long term alternative is uncontrolled prices once China have full control of the market.

A strong steel market will also enable the industry to invest in greener plants for the future, and we can actually make this a condition of the charter. We could actually become a market leader in green steel which would also make our product more marketable abroad despite the higher cost.

What I don't know is how this all runs with the competition rules of the EU and WTO. If our steel is of a higher quality than the cheap stuff that's flooding the market, as some have suggested, then I don't see how we can be prevented from paying extra for it.

I realise that this all, from a pure economical sense, flies in the face of free trade, but I believe there is enough justification here to make an exception to the rule.

Britain buys the majority of its (imported) steel from Germany and the Netherlands o_O
 
I looked a few days ago so don't know off the top of my head, but I vaguely recall it was around 50/50.
It's hard to force British companies to buy British, but the Government should be buying British first, given the situation our steel industry is in.

I googled it myself. An article in the Mirror said 42% of steel valued at £68m was purchased by the Govt for various projects. This doesn't sound a lot of expenditure to me so I'm not sure you can rely in these figures. The article on the Unite website re the Steel Charter said the UK Govt expect to spend £2.5b on steel over the next 5 years, so that's £500m a year.

Obviously where demands for steel can't be met by home producers we need to look abroad, but we shouldn't be allowing such an important industry to go under.

And as I said earlier, it's an opportunity to invest in greener methods of steel production given the growing importance of carbon emissions. Whilst I accpt the risks of global warming, I am a bit sceptical of some of the latest timelines being put forward, but if thet are correct green steel will be massively in demand in a few years.
 
It's hard to force British companies to buy British, but the Government should be buying British first, given the situation our steel industry is in.

I googled it myself. An article in the Mirror said 42% of steel valued at £68m was purchased by the Govt for various projects. This doesn't sound a lot of expenditure to me so I'm not sure you can rely in these figures. The article on the Unite website re the Steel Charter said the UK Govt expect to spend £2.5b on steel over the next 5 years, so that's £500m a year.

Obviously where demands for steel can't be met by home producers we need to look abroad, but we shouldn't be allowing such an important industry to go under.

And as I said earlier, it's an opportunity to invest in greener methods of steel production given the growing importance of carbon emissions. Whilst I accpt the risks of global warming, I am a bit sceptical of some of the latest timelines being put forward, but if thet are correct green steel will be massively in demand in a few years.

As always, the Commons library to the rescue -
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7317/CBP-7317.pdf

2/3 of British steel imports are from the EU, so this company is not in a pickle because of cheap Chinese imports.
 
We have more-free and less-free countries we can compare.

Look at the comparative fortunes of Chile and Venezuela over the last 20 years.
Or South Korea and North Korea.

Everywhere where countries operate with more freedom the results have been favourable.

Hong Kong was a finish village in the 1960s. Today their standard of living puts ours to shame.

How about Estonia today?

Korea is a great example mate, in one part nearly 99% of the wealth is held by a small cartel of families who are almost entirely above the law, most of the population are long term renters and existing in a gross credit bubble, most of the retirement age populous have no assests and expect to be taken into their children's homes and looked after for the rest of their lives (which is now far longer as healthcare and social conditions have improved).

And then you've also got North Korea.
 
As always, the Commons library to the rescue -
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7317/CBP-7317.pdf

2/3 of British steel imports are from the EU, so this company is not in a pickle because of cheap Chinese imports.
I've never said it was Bruce. My only argument is that we should be doing our best to make sure that it doesn't go under.

My only reference to cheap foreign imports (and I didn't mention Chinese) was in relation to competition laws and whether we ran foul of them by buying British.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top