• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Royal Mail shares

Forums New posts
superblue24 said:
As Steveo says, those who vote to strike, my vote (as shareholder) is to sack them.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that in a consultative ballot ealier this year, 96% of Post Office workers voted to go out on strike?

"In a consultative ballot this year 96% of postal workers were opposed to the privatisation, which they said will erode their pay and conditions."
 
Tangled up in Blue said:
"Scab bonus."

I see Vince Cable and The Investment Bank that gave him advice about share pricing are likely to be called up to explain themselves before the Business Select Committee.
Click to expand...

Scab bonus? lol. Idiot.

I think they should be called up to be congratulated on giving millions of hard working tax payers the chance to invest and make a profit. Good work.
 
I don't know how true this is, but I read the George Osborne's best man made a £3M instant profit on his share option despite the "small investor" being favoured.

Disclaimer: This could be complete crap.
 
Given that 99.7% of the employees took the shares on offer it doesn't seem like the most sensible decision to suspend activity for a day.
 
Fair point MK. I was thinking more of the Ford strike in the late 70's when Ford managed to shift a massive stock pile of unsold motors whilst saving a fortune on wages. Or the NUM. Still makes me laugh thinking about old Arthur taking his beloved union to court last year when they refused (couldn't afford) to pay his rent forever. Seemed the bloke never realised that if money wasn't there it couldn't be spent.
 
steveo said:
Fair point MK. I was thinking more of the Ford strike in the late 70's when Ford managed to shift a massive stock pile of unsold motors whilst saving a fortune on wages. Or the NUM. Still makes me laugh thinking about old Arthur taking his beloved union to court last year when they refused (couldn't afford) to pay his rent forever. Seemed the bloke never realised that if money wasn't there it couldn't be spent.
Click to expand...

Here's another one:

Match Girls Strike
 
Up to £5.22 today.....Becoming difficult to know exactly when to sell, or if.

YB - Can you elaborate on what you mentioned regarding transferring them into my daughters name?

Also, does anyone know why the dividend is 6.1% yet people are saying it only works out to 4%? Is that something to do with tax?
 
superblue24 said:
Up to £5.22 today.....Becoming difficult to know exactly when to sell, or if.

YB - Can you elaborate on what you mentioned regarding transferring them into my daughters name?

Also, does anyone know why the dividend is 6.1% yet people are saying it only works out to 4%? Is that something to do with tax?
Click to expand...

You could be liable to Capital Gains Tax, even if you are "giving them away" in the eyes of the taxman you should have received at least market value for the shares.
 
superblue24 said:
YB - Can you elaborate on what you mentioned regarding transferring them into my daughters name?
Click to expand...

I'm not a tax expert, but basically the dividends received will be taxed as income whilst your daughter is likely to have not yet exhausted her annual tax free allowance.

It would therefore be more tax efficient for a non-taxpayer to hold them.

However, you may need to weigh this against the cost of transferring them (you will have incurred capital gains which would be taxable, but may fall within a tax-free allowance; there may be costs involved in transferring).

I don't know what the rules are for shares being in a kids' name - but I'm sure someone on here has kids and has looked into this.
 
Tangled up in Blue said:
I note that according to one estimate, this bungled fire sale has cost the taxpayer over 1 billion quid.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-moya-greene-protection-strikes-share-trading
Click to expand...


I thought we covered this last week. No one knew what the actual market value was (except you of course although you didnt comment on it till after the event - no change there then) so the taxpayer has lost nothing. Your article, which I cant be bothered with, presumably says if the shares were priced higher and had all been sold then the return would have been higher. The thing is Barna, they weren't and they didn't so stop bleating about it and post something other than a Guardian link.

In fact some taxpayers have earned rather lot, which, as I am one of them is relatively good news.

Talking of Guardian links, i saw an article on the BBC website last week about unemployment being down. I thought I would post a link from the Guardian for you to read but strangely they didn't mention it. Wouldn't want any god news would they.
 
steveo said:
I thought we covered this last week. No one knew what the actual market value was (except you of course although you didnt comment on it till after the event - no change there then) so the taxpayer has lost nothing. Your article, which I cant be bothered with, presumably says if the shares were priced higher and had all been sold then the return would have been higher. The thing is Barna, they weren't and they didn't so stop bleating about it and post something other than a Guardian link.

In fact some taxpayers have earned rather lot, which, as I am one of them is relatively good news.

Talking of Guardian links, i saw an article on the BBC website last week about unemployment being down. I thought I would post a link from the Guardian for you to read but strangely they didn't mention it. Wouldn't want any god news would they.
Click to expand...

Certainly not.They're all atheists (I would hope).:winking:
 
Sorry for my ignorance, but who is JP Morgan?

So another person jumps on the bandwagan and suddenly I (a taxpayer) have been conned. Whether it was valued at £4 or £100bn, please tell me how I, or any taxpayer, would have benefited.
 
Tangled up in Blue said:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/24/royal-mail-worth-10bn-jp-morgan?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2&et_cid=53794&et_rid=philspooner@yahoo.com&Linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fuk-news%2f2013%2foct%2f24%2froyal-mail-worth-10bn-jp-morgan


I see Royal Mail shares were valued at 10 billion quid by JP Morgan before they were sold to the British public (and institutions) at a price some 2 and a half times less than that.

This is a national scandal.
Click to expand...

Was there ever an investigation into Labour selling all of our gold reserves when the commodity was at its lowest value?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary Andys man club
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top