I don't give a fig how 'successful' they are in monetary terms.
Their success isn't just over their balance sheet - their profit / loss, assets vs liabilities, or share price - it's about their growth
, all the while most would happily use them as a punchline for their jokes.
They are a terrible company, with a long record of misdoings.
Like most companies whose reason d'etre is purely making money.
Whether that be in oil, banking, arms dealing or anything else, when your primary objective is to satisfy shareholders corners are cut and people are exploited.
They may well be all of those things - just
like many other huge companies.
All the same, there's a whole load of ignorant bollocks spouted about them, by people who clearly have no clue whatsoever in terms of how they've actually performed over the last decade or so - and let's not forget, that's what companies are suppose to do, make profit, grow their market share.
Regardless of so called government regulation.
As usual the tax payer will wind up bearing the costs twice over.
Regardless of their promises to cover the price of their blunders over this, which they would readily fail to do were they not thinking of future contracts and the possibility they might be forced out of business in the UK as a result of this.
I seriously doubt that'll happen. They've had worse press, and prevailed in the market.
I understand some of the criticism - even nod my head - but some of that, is not purely their doing. Governments outsourcing or privatising key aspects that companies like G4S have grown into, in recent times, is just how the market reacts.
Perhaps in many of those cases, the market shouldn't have been asked - or more closely monitored / regulated / penalised.
All the same, though, their business model is the envy of many other aspiring business - that's not to say all aspects of their performance are, though.