Jump to content
IGNORED

Lansdown sells shares for $137 million


Bobbie

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

whilst the immoral and incompetent private sector bankers that caused the biggest financial crash in a century come out apparently smelling of roses. 

Exactly how did these (private sector) bankers bring us so low?

The truth of the matter, especially here in the UK, is that it was political policy supported by the Bank of England (Public Sector) that precipitated the crisis. As with the US, our political masters here created the unlimited credit, 'good times' culture. At Blair's behest both Brown & Darling used every trick in the book to increase consumer confidence & consumer spending. The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street provided them the means so to do. In doing so most folks filled their boots with cheap credit, never once considering the cost & risk of paying it all back. The Government & public borrowed & spent unreasonably, not the bankers.

And here's the interesting bit - on several occasions the bankers went to the Treasury informing that leverage was majorly out of kilter, that it was unsustainable, that credit needed to be squeezed & made more expensive, much more expensive. The bankers were unequivocally informed that should THEY attempt to limit credit (damaging the political vibe that had been created,) then via the BoE cheap funds would be made available. They were undermined in what they knew had to occur.

And when the inevitable happened (in the case of the UK that was, first, the mismanaged Royal Bank of Scotland going bust,) rather than follow the other bankers advice to let that bank go bust given they'd easily be able to accommodate the damage, Brown, Darling (& Blair) made clear that at ALL costs they would not allow THEIR national Bank to disappear. The speed with which they were prepared to announce that publicly & the mechanism by which they proposed to do so was guaranteed to spook the markets. The bankers warned the Treasury off, they were ignored for political reasons. The other banks (who didn't need support other than were the Government to artificially create a market in which speculators could & would wreak havoc, leaving them temporarily vulnerable,) were FORCED to ring-fence the exposure created by the politicians. The rest is history; Darling lit the touchpaper for speculators to fill their boots & that they did.

If you wish to point the finger of blame, point it at the public who with wreckless abandon borrowed & spent & the politicians they elected who spent a king's ransom & more on their behalf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Exactly how did these (private sector) bankers bring us so low?

The truth of the matter, especially here in the UK, is that it was political policy supported by the Bank of England (Public Sector) that precipitated the crisis. As with the US, our political masters here created the unlimited credit, 'good times' culture. At Blair's behest both Brown & Darling used every trick in the book to increase consumer confidence & consumer spending. The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street provided them the means so to do. In doing so most folks filled their boots with cheap credit, never once considering the cost & risk of paying it all back. The Government & public borrowed & spent unreasonably, not the bankers.

And here's the interesting bit - on several occasions the bankers went to the Treasury informing that leverage was majorly out of kilter, that it was unsustainable, that credit needed to be squeezed & made more expensive, much more expensive. The bankers were unequivocally informed that should THEY attempt to limit credit (damaging the political vibe that had been created,) then via the BoE cheap funds would be made available. They were undermined in what they knew had to occur.

And when the inevitable happened (in the case of the UK that was, first, the mismanaged Royal Bank of Scotland going bust,) rather than follow the other bankers advice to let that bank go bust given they'd easily be able to accommodate the damage, Brown, Darling (& Blair) made clear that at ALL costs they would not allow THEIR national Bank to disappear. The speed with which they were prepared to announce that publicly & the mechanism by which they proposed to do so was guaranteed to spook the markets. The bankers warned the Treasury off, they were ignored for political reasons. The other banks (who didn't need support other than were the Government to artificially create a market in which speculators could & would wreak havoc, leaving them temporarily vulnerable,) were FORCED to ring-fence the exposure created by the politicians. The rest is history; Darling lit the touchpaper for speculators to fill their boots & that they did.

If you wish to point the finger of blame, point it at the public who with wreckless abandon borrowed & spent & the politicians they elected who spent a king's ransom & more on their behalf.

It's a pity you weren't representing one of the 47 bankers in the UK, or hundreds in America, that have been sent to prison over their conduct before and during the financial crisis. 

Their legal representatives obviously didn't put forward the array of excuses you've outlined above, or maybe they did, but the respective judges weren't buying them.

Either way, let's try and not rewrite history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

I’d worry more about the lazy element in our population who spend their whole lives breeding and living off the state personally , however much tax SL avoids at the present time he has contributed to society in many ways direct and indirectly , through tax , employing hundreds , improving Bristol as a City ,Etc. etc  let alone our Football Club 

So in a simply enormous way.

I think he’s probably ‘done his bit’ for the UK

I'm not really sure why. The money lost through what you've said will be a fraction of the amount that is dodged/avoided by large corporations and billionaires like SL. I think we'd do better to focus our attention on the real issues rather than what the tabloids would have you believe.

Don't get me wrong, people who work hard and innovate like SL deserve to be filthy rich, it's absolutely earned. But there's rich and then there's super rich. The difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is night and day, and when you have people like Jeff Bezos who could in theory solve world hunger overnight and choose not to do so, you know there's something wrong. What Danny Dyer said is actually pretty great. If you are working a full-time job and you still can't afford to live then that demonstrates that the system is broken.

On the flip side, and I know it's massively ambitious, but just imagine what we as a population could achieve if all the basics were provided without stress. Water, energy, broadband... If an entire country didn't have to fight for the basic necessities and rights of life every day, you'd have the freedom and capacity for ultimate creativity, productivity, etc from everyone. It would require proper taxation to afford it, but can you imagine the rewards the country could reap as a result? It's that sort of thinking that could be a vision for the long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry said:

Steve Lansdown has probably paid more tax than I ever have. 

And so he should, it's easy to forget how staggeringly wealthy he is.

I've said this before, but lets take a prem footballer earning 100k per WEEK. Not too shabby right? We all like to have a bit of a pop at how they're ridiculously overpaid.

In a year our prem football has earned £5.2m

In 10 years that's £52m

In 100 years of 100k / week he's on £520m... so that's now around 1/5th of Lansdowns net worth.

That's right. A prem footballer on 100k / WEEK would have to work non stop for 450 YEARS to get the amount of money he has.

It is unbelievable... and plain wrong in my opinion but I'm probably in the minority there! I think people just don't fundamentally realise how much money these people have (not saying that's you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

And so he should, it's easy to forget how staggeringly wealthy he is.

I've said this before, but lets take a prem footballer earning 100k per WEEK. Not too shabby right? We all like to have a bit of a pop at how they're ridiculously overpaid.

In a year our prem football has earned £5.2m

In 10 years that's £52m

In 100 years of 100k / week he's on £520m... so that's now around 1/5th of Lansdowns net worth.

That's right. A prem footballer on 100k / WEEK would have to work non stop for 450 YEARS to get the amount of money he has.

It is unbelievable... and plain wrong in my opinion but I'm probably in the minority there! I think people just don't fundamentally realise how much money these people have (not saying that's you).

That's astonishing. The batshit crazy thing is some people seem to almost celebrate this kind of wealth, like it is a good thing. 

Jeff Bezos could afford to pay every single Amazon employee in the world $100k and he'd still be as wealthy as he was 9 months ago (he had approx $450bn 9 months ago!) 

It's an utterly absurd situation we've got ourselves into. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It's a pity you weren't representing one of the 47 bankers in the UK, or hundreds in America, that have been sent to prison over their conduct before and during the financial crisis. 

Their legal representatives obviously didn't put forward the array of excuses you've outlined above, or maybe they did, but the respective judges weren't buying them.

Either way, let's try and not rewrite history.

Nice obfuscation but interesting you didn't answer the question I posed. Exactly how did bankers bring us low?

I'll take your word that 47 UK bankers have been jailed for crimes (I'd have thought the figure higher,) but from a sector workforce of 1.2m employees I'd estimate that's a fairly low percentage compared to any given sector. Your post also doesn't reference for what offences these 47 bankers were convicted, though doubtless the judicial process ensured their convictions were merited?

I'm not rewriting history, them's the facts as are easily verified but folks don't like accepting blame for their own downfall, easier point and blame someone or something else, however nebulous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Nice obfuscation but interesting you didn't answer the question I posed. Exactly how did bankers bring us low?

I'll take your word that 47 UK bankers have been jailed for crimes (I'd have thought the figure higher,) but from a sector workforce of 1.2m employees I'd estimate that's a fairly low percentage compared to any given sector. Your post also doesn't reference for what offences these 47 bankers were convicted, though doubtless the judicial process ensured their convictions were merited?

I'm not rewriting history, them's the facts as are easily verified but folks don't like accepting blame for their own downfall, easier point and blame someone or something else, however nebulous.

Surely they chose to lend to people who could not realistically pay the money back. That was the banks choice and they got caught by it.

The banks lent to anyone and everyone they possibly could no matter how unsafe it was fuelled by an under-regulated market. Their leveraged debt ratio doubled in just 3 or 4 years in some cases.

To try and imply the poor bankers were sounding the alarm (that they were lending far too much money too easily) is a pretty bizarre take, no?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Water, energy, broadband... If an entire country didn't have to fight for the basic necessities and rights of life every day

Amazing how growing up in BS13 we all managed to get on fine with only the provision of a frequently vandalised public telephone box - broadband a basic necessity.....

What we did manage to learn without internet access was there are no such thing as absolute human rights - rights are always conditional. You deserve and receive that you are prepared to put in - basic socialism. Problem today is folks no longer think it necessary to contribute and unfortunately that's more prevalent at the bottom of the heap than it is at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a party political broadcast by the bcfcfinker party - you can go make a cup of tea if you want.

To use a very simple argument.

Who determines what is the 'right' amount of money that a person can earn?

Once the super rich have been whittled down to size, why stop there, the rich, the less than rich and at some point, everyone is earning the same irrespective of how hard they work, use their brains etc.

 

In opposition to those who criticise the 'super rich' for having too much money, others will look to the other extreme, to the feckless who do absolutely nothing for their money, other than maybe complain that they aren't getting enough for doing nothing.

 

The arguments being used on this thread tend to support personal political views and biases, playing one-upmanship and tit-for-tat games based on political ideology. Politics will never solve any real problems because you can't fix ideologies (the domain of the stupid, which has been proven to be unfixable i.e. make something idiot proof and someone will just make a better idiot).

 

Keep stuff like this off the football thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IAmNick said:

Surely they chose to lend to people who could not realistically pay the money back. That was the banks choice and they got caught by it.

The banks lent to anyone and everyone they possibly could no matter how unsafe it was fuelled by an under-regulated market. Their leveraged debt ratio doubled in just 3 or 4 years in some cases.

To try and imply the poor bankers were sounding the alarm (that they were lending far too much money too easily) is a pretty bizarre take, no?

 

As I explained the banks attempted to restrict credit once leverage became unsustainable. The Government made clear it would provide cheap credit if they attempted so to do, (nb banks aren't the only folks who lend money,) thus forcing them to continue to offer 'good times' so as to remain in business.

Bankers weren't poor, rather they weren't calling the shots.

7 times capitalisation was good, at 11-13 times they started to raise the alarm and once it hit high teens the game was over. Government policy was to have us all spend, spend, spend. Fiscal policy drove saving to historic low levels. So long as there was sufficient money in circulation to fund the cost of borrowing there's no problem, but that's a big 'if', as those who bought into the dream BS discovered to their cost.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I know you're one of the main capitalists on here, but in the scheme of things - whilst it's nice for Bristol City to do well, it doesn't really matter that much. By avoiding tax - whether using a legal loophole or not - the country is deprived of that income which (in theory) should go towards improving conditions for it's citizens.

The country needs all the income it can get right now - and billionaires exploiting tax loopholes mean that it's others - such as public sector workers shouldering a pay freeze - that have to effectively make up the shortfall.

Call it a "loophole" all you like, in the quest for feeling hard done by. 

It's legal, its not a loophole, it's a rule, which anyone with half a brain, especially having made their money in financial investments, would be well served to use. 

If it was illegal, I'd agree. It's not, it's simply sensible..! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Call it a "loophole" all you like, in the quest for feeling hard done by. 

It's legal, its not a loophole, it's a rule, which anyone with half a brain, especially having made their money in financial investments, would be well served to use. 

If it was illegal, I'd agree. It's not, it's simply sensible..! 

I don't feel particularly hard done by, I've long since given up on expecting billionaires to abide by tax rules to the letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

Amazing how growing up in BS13 we all managed to get on fine with only the provision of a frequently vandalised public telephone box - broadband a basic necessity.....

What we did manage to learn without internet access was there are no such thing as absolute human rights - rights are always conditional. You deserve and receive that you are prepared to put in - basic socialism. Problem today is folks no longer think it necessary to contribute and unfortunately that's more prevalent at the bottom of the heap than it is at the top.

People probably got on fine too before running water was a thing - doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

I'm not sure how you come to your final conclusion when this is specifically about how billionaires and big corporations are actively avoiding contributing what they should - especially when that total exceeds the total avoided at the 'bottom of the heap' many many times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

I’d worry more about the lazy element in our population who spend their whole lives breeding and living off the state personally , however much tax SL avoids at the present time he has contributed to society in many ways direct and indirectly , through tax , employing hundreds , improving Bristol as a City ,Etc. etc  let alone our Football Club 

So in a simply enormous way.

I think he’s probably ‘done his bit’ for the UK

then you’d be worrying about the wrong thing, and I’d wager led up the garden path by a certain section of our media 

 

https://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/graphic-benefit-fraud-is-tiny.html

1F9EB686-0705-4367-815D-8C9E54019A32.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcfcfinker said:

This is a party political broadcast by the bcfcfinker party - you can go make a cup of tea if you want.

To use a very simple argument.

Who determines what is the 'right' amount of money that a person can earn?

Once the super rich have been whittled down to size, why stop there, the rich, the less than rich and at some point, everyone is earning the same irrespective of how hard they work, use their brains etc.

 

In opposition to those who criticise the 'super rich' for having too much money, others will look to the other extreme, to the feckless who do absolutely nothing for their money, other than maybe complain that they aren't getting enough for doing nothing.

 

The arguments being used on this thread tend to support personal political views and biases, playing one-upmanship and tit-for-tat games based on political ideology. Politics will never solve any real problems because you can't fix ideologies (the domain of the stupid, which has been proven to be unfixable i.e. make something idiot proof and someone will just make a better idiot).

 

Keep stuff like this off the football thread.

because being a billionaire isn’t about working hard and reaping the reward. it’s a moral and societal failing. 

782C35E8-9CF0-41F8-B013-7CBD33F0B69C.jpeg

Just now, Greedo said:

because being a billionaire isn’t about working hard and reaping the reward. it’s a moral and societal failing. 

782C35E8-9CF0-41F8-B013-7CBD33F0B69C.jpeg

edit: the graphic is from an American perspective, but the point still stands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I don't feel particularly hard done by, I've long since given up on expecting billionaires to abide by tax rules to the letter. 

There you go again.... 

He is, as most do. There are rules and he's using them. 

Should the rules be changed..? Probably. 

Is he doing anything that's anything other than sensible and prudent...? NO

Is he investing hugely in the local economy, jobs and infrastructure, with his own personal wealth..? Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Greedo said:

then you’d be worrying about the wrong thing, and I’d wager led up the garden path by a certain section of our media 

 

https://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/graphic-benefit-fraud-is-tiny.html

1F9EB686-0705-4367-815D-8C9E54019A32.jpeg

I assume you are referring to Benefit fraud

I never said anything about benefit fraud , at least bother reading my post correctly
 

And have another look at your graph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

I assume you are referring to Benefit fraud

I never said anything about benefit fraud , at least bother reading my post correctly
 

And have another look at your graph

Unemployment benefit is 1% of the total welfare budget.

Pensions are the most - 42%.

Tax credits - 13%

Housing - 11%

Disability - 8%

Incapacity - 7%

Child benefits - 5%

Pension credit - 3%

Jobseekers - 1%

"Other" - 11%

I recommend culling over 70s personally ;) given that your breeders (child benefits) and scroungers (unemployment) are in total only 6%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

As I explained the banks attempted to restrict credit once leverage became unsustainable. The Government made clear it would provide cheap credit if they attempted so to do, (nb banks aren't the only folks who lend money,) thus forcing them to continue to offer 'good times' so as to remain in business.

Bankers weren't poor, rather they weren't calling the shots.

7 times capitalisation was good, at 11-13 times they started to raise the alarm and once it hit high teens the game was over. Government policy was to have us all spend, spend, spend. Fiscal policy drove saving to historic low levels. So long as there was sufficient money in circulation to fund the cost of borrowing there's no problem, but that's a big 'if', as those who bought into the dream BS discovered to their cost.

 

Right, so once they realised they'd royally screwed up they tried to scramble and fix it, but it was too far gone by then.

So you are basically saying: Government lends to banks. Banks lend to people. In that chain you blame government and people, not the banks? Surely the banks both borrowed AND lent too much and unsafely?

Lets check the reports following the crash http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/Financial_Crisis/FinancialCrisisReport.pdf:

Quote

The Report found that the four causative aspects of the crisis were all interconnected in facilitating the risky practices that ultimately led to the collapse of the global financial system. Lenders sold and securitized high risk and complex home loans while practicing subpar underwriting, preying on unqualified buyers to maximize profits. The credit rating agencies granted these securities safe investment ratings, which facilitated their sale to investors around the globe. Federal securities regulators failed to execute their duty to ensure safe and sound lending and risk management by lenders and investment banks. Investment banks engineered and promoted complex and poor quality financial products composed of these high risk home loans. They allowed investors to use credit default swaps to bet on the failure of these financial products, and in cases disregarded conflicts of interest by themselves betting against products they marketed and sold to their own clients. The collusion of these four institutions led to the rise of a massive bubble of securities based on high risk home loans. When the unqualified buyers finally defaulted on their mortgages, the entire global financial system incurred massive losses.

Fairly clear who that blames.

You can blame regulation by government, that's probably partly fair. Who do you think was endlessly lobbying the government to reduce regulation and encourage all this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

There you go again.... 

He is, as most do. There are rules and he's using them. 

Should the rules be changed..? Probably. 

Is he doing anything that's anything other than sensible and prudent...? NO

I haven't denied any of that though Bar BS3 so I think you've misunderstood. We both actually align here that the rules should be changed. Whilst they exist as is I completely understand why people take advantage where they can.

Quote

Is he investing hugely in the local economy, jobs and infrastructure, with his own personal wealth..? Yes. 

That's great obviously but it's a straw man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phileas Fogg said:

I haven't denied any of that though Bar BS3 so I think you've misunderstood. We both actually align here that the rules should be changed. Whilst they exist I completely understand why people take advantage where they can.

That's great obviously but it's a straw man.

 

I've no idea what the calculations might work out as, but I'd suspect that the impact of the jobs created and the tax paid by employees as a result of SL's investment, exceeds that of what tax he may have paid without moving to Guernsey and he is also investing in a continuing legacy, rather than simply chucking tax into a pot to get wasted.

Anyway...i for one am very grateful that he's as astute as he is and able & willing to benefit us as a result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I've no idea what the calculations might work out as, but I'd suspect that the impact of the jobs created and the tax paid by employees as a result of SL's investment, exceeds that of what tax he may have paid without moving to Guernsey and he is also investing in a continuing legacy, rather than simply chucking tax into a pot to get wasted.

Anyway...i for one am very grateful that he's as astute as he is and able & willing to benefit us as a result. 

I've no idea 

Clearly

rather than simply chucking tax into a pot to get wasted.

Wasted ? 

On the NHS ? on supporting workers furloughed?  Adult Social Care?  Education? Pensions? Etc  ....and on a topical note the cost of procuring,distributing, and administering a vaccine to the entire UK population free of charge so lives can be saved and normal life resumed.

But yeah 'wasted'

Muppet

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

I've no idea 

Clearly

rather than simply chucking tax into a pot to get wasted.

Wasted ? 

On the NHS ? on supporting workers furloughed?  Adult Social Care?  Education? Pensions? Etc  ....and on a topical note the cost of procuring,distributing, and administering a vaccine to the entire UK population free of charge so lives can be saved and normal life resumed.

But yeah 'wasted'

Muppet

Expand  

 

I assume you freely donate more tax to HMRC than you are required to pay then....? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

I've no idea 

Clearly

rather than simply chucking tax into a pot to get wasted.

Wasted ? 

On the NHS ? on supporting workers furloughed?  Adult Social Care?  Education? Pensions? Etc  ....and on a topical note the cost of procuring,distributing, and administering a vaccine to the entire UK population free of charge so lives can be saved and normal life resumed.

But yeah 'wasted'

Muppet

Read more  

 

Yeah, because that's all that tax gets spent on. 

You think differently, which is fine. But if you think that taxes don't get wasted, on many, many things, other than those very worthy and esstial sectors which you mention, then are you sure that its just me that's the muppet..? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Yeah, because that's all that tax gets spent on. 

You think differently, which is fine. But if you think that taxes don't get wasted, on many, many things, other than those very worthy and esstial sectors which you mention, then are you sure that its just me that's the muppet..? 

Of course there is waste - the PPE contracts that Boris awarded his friends and Tory diners at over inflated prices - for example. And that should be properly investigated and rectified although that won't happen under Boris as he doesn't give 2 f##ks for anyone but himself.

It doesn't mean that people should avoid tax or applaud those that do as that obviously hits the most needy hard.

And yes I'm sure it's just you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

Of course there is waste - the PPE contracts that Boris awarded his friends and Tory diners at over inflated prices - for example. And that should be properly investigated and rectified although that won't happen under Boris as he doesn't give 2 f##ks for anyone but himself.

It doesn't mean that people should avoid tax or applaud those that do as that obviously hits the most needy hard.

And yes I'm sure it's just you ?

Who wouldn't avoid any tax that they are legally entitled to avoid paying..? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Greedo said:

then you’d be worrying about the wrong thing, and I’d wager led up the garden path by a certain section of our media 

 

https://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/graphic-benefit-fraud-is-tiny.html

1F9EB686-0705-4367-815D-8C9E54019A32.jpeg

Top of the class for irony i.e. "...led up the garden path by a certain section of our media"

There is a narrative to the graph.

It starts with the need to group together a lawful pursuit to avoid tax (people and business should ensure that they only pay the tax that is required to by the law) and tax evasion, a unlawful act.
It's been probably been done to push the figure into the second ranking.

It then talks about 'perception'. Just how is perception measured and why has it been added to this graph? Could it be a made up figure, just where did it come from?
That's been give 3rd ranking.

HMRC 'estimate' of missing taxes. When did estimates become reliable figures?
Forth ranking.

Real cost of benefits. Is this not included in the gross cost of benefits?
Sixth ranking

Tax fraud. So, has this been included in the 'Total cost of all taxes avoided and evaded' or is this some other figure?
Eighth ranking.

 I think the saying is (you like to quote things): Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Morality indeed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...