In which I note that nasal delivery might make it last a while.
It's really bugging me how, in popular culture, shareholders are being painted as rich fat cats with evil intent. A classic example is the Nationwide adverts. A woman complains of being charged for taking her money out while abroad, and is told that that's like their 'tip' which pays for 'The Bubbly at the Shareholders' meeting'.
There are other examples, e.g. when a company makes a profit, there seems to be implicit disapproval (e.g. Tesco). This forgets that if a company with a turnover of a 100billion making a 1billion profit is equivalent to a company with a turnover of 100million making a million.
Now, all things being equal, I'm perfectly happy to concede that if Company A pays dividends to shareholders, and Company B has no shareholders to pay, then Company B is likely to provide better value to customers. It's common sense. However, all things are not equal.
Let's take a look at the best buy tables for financial products right now
The top three results for an instant access savings account are HSBC (6%), Citibank (5.84%) and Bradford and Bingley (demutualised BS) (5.8%). The Post Office comes fourth. Nationwide, offers 4.7% on their Instant Access account. (Based on saving £3000)
True, if you can put aside 200 quid a month, their regular saver account looks attractive, at 6.5% - until we see the Halifax at 7% (admittedly, that's a one year term though). We can do even better, with Alliance and Leicester at 12%. To be fair, it's not as straightforward as that, and here's where my argument is undermined. The higher rate is for one year, and after that you have to start from scratch, transferring the total to a regular account (6%). I think the 6.5% with Nationwide can be over a longer period. So assuming it's not fixed term then after about 20 months the 6.5% from Nationwide would be better (if I've done my sums correctly).
However, interest rates can, and do, change - 20 months is a long enough timeframe that the 'best solution' shifts, and 12% over one year could well be the better route in that case.
It doe annoy that Building societies, for example, regularly play the "we're not paying shareholders" card, but the interest rates, especially for 'starter' accounts, can be appalling, e.g. the Britannia offer 2.55% with their flexible savings account on amounts over £100000... okay, they offer more on their 'direct savings' account, but still, there are a significant number of people who want the 'security blanket' of a passbook.
In other fields, Pharmaceutical companies are sometimes castigated for the prices of their pills (and I'm completely behind the argument that prices should be lower when it comes to countries in places like Africa, supplying these nations at cost is good PR for the company too). When paying for the pills the implication is often that the company is profiting from illness and that this is inherently bad. It is true that the company profits from illness. However, it's conveniently forgotten that though each pill costs pence to produce, the first pill cost billions, and that has to be recovered in order to make the next wonderdrug. Yes, the shareholders are making a profit from illness, but without their investment that cure would not have been developed at all. There are also issues about third parties making 'copycat' drugs once someone has paid the development costs. That's a whole other issue.
Putting the nitty-gritty arguments about individual sectors of the economy aside, what really annoys me about this tendency to see shareholders as evil is the fact that it's share dividend and capital growth that pays for things like pensions. If you have a pension, you are indirectly a shareholder.
It's true that there are corporations which do not 'play nice' and seem to exhibit the short term view of maximising shareholder profit only. Guess what? These are corporations which, unless they have a monopoly (which is another matter) tend to die. Whilst it is the long term aim of a company to maximise shareholder return, this in turn gives rise to the aim of 'pleasing the customer'. It's in shareholders' interests for the company to please it's customers. Though the sole aim of the company is to maximise shareholder returns and a company which fails to supply what customers want, in the way they want it, will soon not have customers and fail. The message here is that if you want better interest rates and terms from your bank, be prepared to move your account - it's easy these days, they do all the paperwork for you.
Of course, I'm not saying that organisations with shareholders are whiter than white. Of course not, I'm simply saying that they're not necessarily evil.
This 'shareholders are fat cats' outlook allowed Gordon Brown to remove some tax benefits for dividend income on shares around a decade ago. This was reasonably popular at the time, presumably as it was seen as targeting the rich. However, it had a direct impact on the success of pension funds, and the subsequent difficulties which some have experienced.
As you've no doubt realised, the demonisation of shareholders is really annoying me. Shareholders are regular people, like you and me - even if they haven't bought shares directly. It's real people, investing in businesses which provide jobs and pay taxes. It's people putting their own money at risk - of course, they're doing it in the expectation of a reward - and why not? After all, that's why people save money in savings accounts...
Giving money to a good cause is called 'Charity'. Companies are not charities, nor should they be.
Disclosure: Yes, I have shares. The only company mentioned above that I directly have shares in is Tesco (though I will have an interest in FTSE100 companies via a tracker).
I've just seen the Simpsons Episode with Richard Dean Anderson. Clicking around, I see that he revived his MacGyver role for this rather good Mastercard commercial which was transmitted during the superbowl (which is some championship in a minor world sport of some kind).
(To visiting merkins: Yes, and I know that the show went out in April in the US, but we've only just had it over here.... and the game you're looking for when you pad up for the superbowl is called 'rugby')
I really like this ad, it's supremely silly, it's reminiscent of Evel Knievel, and it's got a nice soundtrack.
Update: The ad is discussed here, along with a comment on the History of Honda and the hidden symbolism in the ad(!)
You have to know something about Honda to "get" this ad. It tells Soichiro Honda's life story symbolically...and it is utterly brilliant. As such, it is the best commercial I have ever seen:
-Soichiro Honda the outsider... the guy living in a trailer by the sea, an outsider.
-Soichiro the grease monkey...this guy looks like a grease monkey.
-The seagull in a nest tending to it's young...His dream in the earliest stages.
-Two Seagulls on the rock....Soichiro and Takeo Fujisawa (Honda's alter-ego)
-He begins his journey with a simple mini-bike...symbolic of the Honda Cub.
-The dogs chasing him as he sings "to fight the unbeatable foe"... the resistance that dogged him from MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) and the Gakubatsu (Japanese old Boys network).
-The sheep moving together as a group... the Japanese culture of group over the individual. Meanwhile, he motors on by in the background on his individual journey past the group. Two horses overlooking the field in the background-...I haven't figured this part out yet.
-The succession of cars and bikes as they progress through advances in developement.
-The boat flying off the waterfall...his death.
-The balloon rising out of the mist, with him singing "to reach for the unreachable stars"...on his way to heaven and still dreaming. A Very Happy ending.
-Underlying the entire commercial is the humor of this guy singing like Andy Williams as he blasts down the road.
Honda had a great sense of humor.
Duncan's TV discusses the England modifications
Following on from previous rants about natural versus manmade, I was in the supermarket last night, and saw an amusing example of a kid who knew how to "play the game". He and his father were buying orange juice. The father wanted squeezed orange juice from the chiller cabinet, and the boy wanted Sunny Delight.
The father completely refused to buy SunnyD, saying that the fresh orange juice was healthier. So the kid brought out the buzzwords:
... but this will be better for me, it has added seawater and no added salt!
Correctly the father took this with a pinch of.... erm... salt (sorry!)
The boy persisted, and as I was walking away he was about to yield. Mainly for a quiet life.
Even though the boy was being totally inconsistant, he had picked up on the fact that to most people natural is axiomatically good (though how 'natural' the seawater is does rather depend on the sea chosen).
It just goes to show that the marketing drones get them young!
I'm using Firefox, which has a built in popup blocker. Given that I have a pop up blocker, what makes an advertiser so sure that I want to buy from them that they have to find ways to bypass the blocker? Pop-unders are the spawn of satan, and they are starting to spread beyong Microsoft Internet Explorer. Fortunately, in a very low key way, so far.
Hint to advertisers. If you have to bend over backwards to get your ad seen, chances are you're going to annoy people. Given the choice, I will avoid companies which use popups, and I certainly will never buy from companies which spam.
This morning I had some junk mail from M&G, which I opened in the pile of the other mail. Nothing unusual there, you might think. Except that some genius decided that they could make their junk a little more noticeable by including a handful of confetti.
Wonderful... confetti everywhere.
I rang them up to say that I had been looking at them to take some of my business (a slight fib), but that this had annoyed me so much that they could now forget that.
Stupid, messy, bad idea marketing drones. Annoying potential customers certainly won't earn my business! What will earn my business are good investment products - nothing less.