Royal Mail shares

[Tangled up in Blue]

Gordon Gekko is one of my heroes.

"Lunch is for wimps." :winking:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm a firm opponent of any extreme and myopic views. On exactly that basis, the day I worry about what YOU think I sound like is the day I'll cease wanting to breathe.

As Nye Bevan said:-

"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down."

 

[londonblue]

This is all very after the fact. These people took some initiative and put their own money at risk. They may equally have lost money.

i don't understand this "rewards for all (except bankers)" and the notion that something of benefit to A must be at the expense of B. I don't care who got shares because it doesn't affect me as a taxpayer. I don't care about the income distribution of who purchased shares because everyone had the opportunity to do so. If people wanted to purchase shares but couldn't afford it then tough. There are plenty of things I would like to do but can't afford. Either be more realistic about your ambitions or find some more money.

as to the price, I don't know who valued it or how they did it. I do know two things though: the first is that the taxpayer had to take on the the Royal Mail pension obligations. Without that it would have been worth precisely zero. I do care about that as a taxpayer because it is a direct cash cost to me.

the second thing is that public offerings are a dangerous moment for a company. If the offer price is too high and the offer is under-subscribed then the price tanks and the company gets a reputation for being unwanted. Most offerings make sure they are fully subscribed by fixing the price accordingly.

could they have increased the price to say 400? Probably, but that is easy to say with hindsight.

I see you've ignored my point about demand and supply...

 

[chapperzUK]

The point is, that shares in the Royal Fail were effectively given away at below their real market value, thus depriving the British taxpayer of a fair return, for what Harold Macmillan (when describing Thatcher's privatisations in the 80's) called "selling off the family silver."

http://www.channel4.com/news/royal-mail-share-sale-privatisation-free-money-investors

So in your opinion, whoever bought shares in the Royal Mail are greedy people who are on high income?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So in your opinion, whoever bought shares in the Royal Mail are greedy people who are on high income?

Naughty.:winking: :net:

That's actually Paul Mason's opinion rather than mine (but I happen to broadly agree with him).

You'll notice he used the phrase the "better off" in his blog.

 

[Neil_F]

I see you've ignored my point about demand and supply...

nope, I addressed it in my comments about typical valuations for public offerings and trying to find a balance between the highest possible offer price and full subscription.

 

[Neil_F]

The point is, that shares in the Royal Fail were effectively given away at below their real market value, thus depriving the British taxpayer of a fair return, for what Harold Macmillan (when describing Thatcher's privatisations in the 80's) called "selling off the family silver."

http://www.channel4.com/news/royal-mail-share-sale-privatisation-free-money-investors

a sale that was only possible because the taxpayer took on the pension obligations of the employees. What about the pure greed of the union, Barna, and their ceaseless attempt to extract ever more money from the taxpayer for an increasingly poor service?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

a sale that was only possible because the taxpayer took on the pension obligations of the employees. What about the pure greed of the union, Barna, and their ceaseless attempt to extract ever more money from the taxpayer for an increasingly poor service?

Actually,(as you yourself have mentioned),once the Post Office Employees pension pot was hived off, the Post Office (especially the parcels division) has become extremely profitable,which is precisely why it was privatised.

Good luck though for anyone living in rural areas of the country with privatised deliveries in future.

 

[Neil_F]

Actually,(as you yourself have mentioned),once the Post Office Employees pension pot was hived off

It wasn't "hived off", it was rescued by the taxpayer. The Royal Mail pension scheme has effectively been bailed out by the taxpayer. The pension scheme has a massive deficit that no private company would have ever taken on so the taxpayer had to. That pension obligation will have to be paid by taxpayers over the next 40 odd years I.e. me.

I don't know what the pension arrangements are going forward but I really hope that scheme has been closed to further accrual otherwise the taxpayer will continue to bleed cash at levels that dwarf the was it/wasn't it under-valued debate.

 

[Holy Joe]

How would you describe people making a quick buck by buying (what they knew to be) underpriced shares,in what was essentially a b and b operation?

You sound like a Gordon Gekko fan to me.

Why would anyone buy shares that were not (in their opinion) underpriced?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why would anyone buy shares that were not (in their opinion) underpriced?

The more significant question for me is why were the shares underpriced in the first place?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It wasn't "hived off", it was rescued by the taxpayer. The Royal Mail pension scheme has effectively been bailed out by the taxpayer. The pension scheme has a massive deficit that no private company would have ever taken on so the taxpayer had to. That pension obligation will have to be paid by taxpayers over the next 40 odd years I.e. me.

I don't know what the pension arrangements are going forward but I really hope that scheme has been closed to further accrual otherwise the taxpayer will continue to bleed cash at levels that dwarf the was it/wasn't it under-valued debate.

Perhaps then you could explain why Post Office employees are widely expected to vote for strike action next week?

 

[South Bank Hank]

As Nye Bevan said:-

"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down."

Nye Bevan always was a closed-minded ****.

You don't get run down if you think for yourself. The great thing about an open mind is that you get to choose which side of the road to go down and when to do so.

The only people standing still or getting left behind are the ones spouting their irrational vitriol from the pavements and gutters at the far left and far right.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Nye Bevan always was a closed-minded ****.

You don't get run down if you think for yourself. The great thing about an open mind is that you get to choose which side of the road to go down and when to do so.

The only people standing still or getting left behind are the ones spouting their irrational vitriol from the payments and gutters at the far left and far right.

When you've achieved what Nye Bevan did in his lifetime, then I'll be quite happy to pay some serious attention to your homespun little homilies on independence of thought.

Not before though.

"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."

W.B. Yeats.

(Interesting Freudian slip by the way). :winking:

 

[Davros]

So two pages since I asked, and no one has come up with an answer to my question of what has this actually cost 'the poor', as some have suggested.

I like the fact that these shares are seen as somewhat elitist, and only available to the rich. Investing in shares by its nature is only ever going to be available to people with some spare income, just like gambling on the horses really. For some reason, shares are more frowned upon than gambling on horses. There is a whole part of this forum dedicated to betting tips and such... I assume that you frown upon this also, as only people with spare savings or cash can take benefit of these tips?

 

[South Bank Hank]

(Interesting Freudian slip by the way). :winking:

Great wasn't it! Sadly, one more belonging to Apple and their iPhone predictive text than any subdued wish on my part.

:dim:

 

[steveo]

Perhaps then you could explain why Post Office employees are widely expected to vote for strike action next week?

Well if they do, as a share holder, I vote to sack them.

 

[superblue24]

The point is, that shares in the Royal Fail were effectively given away at below their real market value, thus depriving the British taxpayer of a fair return, for what Harold Macmillan (when describing Thatcher's privatisations in the 80's) called "selling off the family silver."

http://www.channel4.com/news/royal-mail-share-sale-privatisation-free-money-investors

Yet Golden Brown sold* off the family gold, right Barna?

*sold in the loosest sense of the word, in actuality he took it to the local pawn shop and accepted the lowest price.

 

[Holy Joe]

The more significant question for me is why were the shares underpriced in the first place?

In order to be sold. If the shares were fair value, or overpriced, no one would buy them.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Any idea where this profit might be invested next? What usually happens when people receive a windfall? What have you been arguing this country needs right now[/B][/B]?[/QUOTE

I'd imagine that even you can probably appreciate that there's a significant difference between a few hundred thousand or so punters spending their windfall profits on whatever takes their fancy and the Government spending on targeted,focused infrastructure projects,as they've been advised to do by the IMF and others.



]