Quote: Derwent "It's true that I am not familiar with the corporate structure so I will have to accept what you're saying. It just seems a little bizarre to have a holding company as the trading company. In more than 20 years as an accountant I dont recall ever seeing that scenario. As I said, it tends to be at odds with the reasons for having holding companies in the first place. Hence my confusion. In the main, holding companies tend to exist to simply hold investments and not to trade, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Btw, I did say I was assuming so no need to be so sanctimonious from your obviously better informed position. Maybe just explain the actual position instead of being insulting ?'"
You made the statement that a holding company is not allowed to employ staff. Rather surprised that in your 20 years as an accountant you believed that to be the case.
You stated that OK had bought BBH, when the public statements (including from the administrator) state clearly that it was the business that had been bought.
You didn't seem to appreciate that just because a company may have the word "holdings" in its name, it does not necessarily mean it is a pure holding company, even if I agree common sense would suggest it ought to be. I could reel off a list of trading companies with "holdings" in their name.
If I came across as insulting, that was not my intent. But equally, you came out with some statements as if fact which were anything but. Maybe judicious use of "my understanding is" or similar would have helped?