Royal Mail shares

[South Bank Hank]

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.

So when you're talking about how much the Government has undervalued the the Royal Mail by, it's the end of the world. But when it's the punters re-investing it in the economy, you disregard it as insignificant. You can't have it both ways Barna.

You all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers expense, then.

Or put another way, it has allowed people with a higher disposable income (mostly the rich) to profit at the expense of the people with lower disposable income (mostly the poor).

Sorry, but i don't understand what 'the poor' have actually lost?

Barna, how is this at the tax payers expense?

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.

I'm interested in why you only responded to half of my post and ignored the piece underlined above. And then why you think some people are profiting 'at the expense of other people'? I'm genuinely curious as to how person A buying shares is damaging, harmful or detrimental to person B who didn't?

In what way did it cause these 'other people' harm, detriment and/or loss?

I've been wondering this as well. I had a nice little accumulator come in last night. My stake money was earnings I paid tax on. I made a decent profit. Was this at the expense of other tax payers? Did I harm anyone?

Now any chance you might give us some insight into how EXACTLY one person purchasing shares is at the expense of, detriment or harm of someone else who doesn't?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So when you're talking about how much the Government has undervalued the the Royal Mail by, it's the end of the world. But when it's the punters re-investing it in the economy, you disregard it as insignificant. You can't have it both ways Barna.

Why not? :winking:

Now any chance you might answer the question about how exactly one person purchasing shares is at the expense of, detriment or harm of someone else who doesn't?

I've already suggested that the Royal Mail sell off was an exercise in popular capitalism, (much like the Right to Buy -Tory votes) scheme.

The Post Office was owned by every taxpayer in the UK and should only have been sold off (if at all) at the very best market price available to the taxpayer and certainly not in a glorified firesale.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Sorry Barna, let's be more specific.

It was offered for sale to all taxpayers.

HOW. EXACTLY. IS. ONE. TAXPAYER. BUYING. SHARES. CAUSING. HARM. OR. DETRIMENT. TO. ANOTHER. TAXPAYER. WHO. DOESN'T?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

We as a country own certain things, if they are sold we as a country no longer own them.
to buy shares you need enough spare cash to buy shares.
Market forces have shown that the Royal Mail shares were under valued and therefore as an act partly intended to reduce the deficit it has worked less well that it should have done.
Anyone who bought shares will be pleased, anyone who didn't will be displeased - surely?

 

[steveo]

The Post Office was owned by every taxpayer in the UK and should only have been sold off (if at all) at the very best market price available to the taxpayer .

But how do you know what the market price is till it goes on sale? Its easy for you to say it was undervalued now but I cant find the post where you said it was undervalued before it went on sale.

 

[South Bank Hank]

We as a country own certain things, if they are sold we as a country no longer own them.
to buy shares you need enough spare cash to buy shares.
Market forces have shown that the Royal Mail shares were under valued and therefore as an act partly intended to reduce the deficit it has worked less well that it should have done.
Anyone who bought shares will be pleased, anyone who didn't will be displeased - surely?

I understand all of that as I'm sure you understand that without at least some potential upside, we wouldn't have sold any shares. But we're not talking about being pleased or displeased here. There's some bizarre allegation that Taxpayer A who bought shares has caused harm and detriment to Taxpayer B who didn't.

As I said, I'm curious about that. Sounds like there's a bunch of nasty people who've ****ed me right over as I didn't choose to buy any. Those evil share-buying *******s!!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I understand all of that as I'm sure you understand that without at least some potential upside, we wouldn't have sold any shares. But we're not talking about being pleased or displeased here. There's some bizarre allegation that Taxpayer A who bought shares has caused harm and detriment to Taxpayer B who didn't.

As I said, I'm curious about that. Sounds like there's a bunch of nasty people who've ****ed me right over as I didn't choose to buy any. Those evil share-buying *******s!!

That is the vibe of buying and selling shares in the short term - make a profit but do not enhance the value. A lot of people who have to properly work to earn their money would find someone else's easy gain frustrating. The fact that our collective debt could have had a bigger chunk chipped away by this than it has is the main issue. Sure the price has to be attractive in order to sell, it was sooooo attractive that all the experts said it was undervalued and everyone with a few hundred quid to spare made an easy profit. So even if you agree Royal Mail is ok to sell, they mismanaged the sale.

 

[superblue24]

So the fact I have £750 saved up means that I don't "properly" work.

Again, noone made a fuss of the value before they floated, it's only now they have. The range was £2.50(ish) to £3.30 and they were set at £3.30 so they were sold at the very top end of their initial range. To be honest, I'm not sure how many would have invested north of £4, I doubt I would have.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So the fact I have £750 saved up means that I don't "properly" work.

Again, noone made a fuss of the value before they floated, it's only now they have. The range was £2.50(ish) to £3.30 and they were set at £3.30 so they were sold at the very top end of their initial range. To be honest, I'm not sure how many would have invested north of £4, I doubt I would have.

Why does everyone take things personally.
it was common knowledge you could make a guaranteed quick profit on buying and selling these shares - anyone who didn't have £750 to invest would have to work for however long it takes them to work to make £250, that's all.
The Labour Party did make a fuss about the under valuation of the shares before the sale it just wasn't such big news then. The value arguments were happening in advance though.

 

[steveo]

I think we are flogging a dead horse with Barna - no change there then.

The bloke had the chance to invest some of his hard earned pesetas, or whatever they are using in the third world these days - and didn't take it. So now he's gutted that he missed out and a load of people made a quick profit.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think we are flogging a dead horse with Barna - no change there then.

The bloke had the chance to invest some of his hard earned pesetas, or whatever they are using in the third world these days - and didn't take it. So now he's gutted that he missed out and a load of people made a quick profit.

We're still using the Euro here,Stevo.

Ever heard of ethical socialism,btw?

 

[steveo]

Ever heard of ethical socialism,btw?

Yes. Its crap.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Sorry Barna, let's be more specific.

It was offered for sale to all taxpayers.

HOW. EXACTLY. IS. ONE. TAXPAYER. BUYING. SHARES. CAUSING. HARM. OR. DETRIMENT. TO. ANOTHER. TAXPAYER. WHO. DOESN'T?

I understand all of that as I'm sure you understand that without at least some potential upside, we wouldn't have sold any shares. But we're not talking about being pleased or displeased here. There's some bizarre allegation that Taxpayer A who bought shares has caused harm and detriment to Taxpayer B who didn't.

As I said, I'm curious about that. Sounds like there's a bunch of nasty people who've ****ed me right over as I didn't choose to buy any. Those evil share-buying *******s!!

Obviously, those taxpayers sophisticated enough to know how to go about buying shares in a nationalised industry,willing to do so, (and to have 750 quid in disposable income readily available), probably represent a minority of the electorate.

The more important point for me, is that (to pursue Macmillan's analogy), if you're selling off the family silver, you shouldn't do it cheaply.

If you do, it affects every man,woman and child in the UK.

"Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls for Thee".

John Donne.

However,I suppose if you believe ,(as I imagine you do),that "there's no such thing as society" that makes it all right.:nope:

 

[Usual_Suspect]

Still, on the plus side, the share price is moving in the right direction again this morning.

 

[South Bank Hank]

The more important point for me... is that (to pursue Macmillan's analogy) if you're selling off the family silver you shouldn't do it cheaply.

If you do, it affects every man,woman and child in the UK.

"Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls for Thee".

John Donne.

However,I suppose if you believe ,(as I imagine you do),that "there's no such thing as society" that makes it all right.:nope:

You don't agree with privatisation, we get that. But the thing with selling off family silver is to be able to find a buyer: too expensive, no one buys it and the deficit you were hoping to close remains the same.

Standard behaviour on the rest though. No response to the numerous challenges to back up your earlier assertions because it's not the important point? Then an allusion to a lack of belief in society because some of us don't believe the taxpayers who bought the family silver have caused harm to their brothers and sisters who didn't?

I'd mention my own sincere appreciation for a bit of John Dunne here along with the recognition that metaphysics is ultimately a series of philosophies that don't work in the real world, but I guess it'd just prolong the debate by giving you another excuse to not answer the question.

 

[superblue24]

Obviously, those taxpayers sophisticated enough to know how to go about buying shares in a nationalised industry,willing to do so, (and to have 750 quid in disposable income readily available), probably represent a minority of the electorate.

The more important point for me, is that (to pursue Macmillan's analogy), if you're selling off the family silver, you shouldn't do it cheaply.

If you do, it affects every man,woman and child in the UK.

"Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls for Thee".

John Donne.

However,I suppose if you believe ,(as I imagine you do),that "there's no such thing as society" that makes it all right.:nope:

Yet you still fail to acknowledge or comment on the fact that Brown sold all of our gold reserves for nowt.....Is that because it doesn't suit you to comment, or are you just plain embarrassed?

 

[londonblue]

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.

What a load of ****. You came on here telling other people they didn't understand supply and demand. The point is that if the price was right supply would equal demand. I'm not talking about this situation in specifically, just the way you came over as rather arrogant, whether you meant to or not.

 

[steveo]

Obviously, those taxpayers sophisticated enough to know how to go about buying shares in a nationalised industry,willing to do so, (and to have 750 quid in disposable income readily available), probably represent a minority of the electorate.

The more important point for me, is that (to pursue Macmillan's analogy), if you're selling off the family silver, you shouldn't do it cheaply.

I really don't know how many people in this country have access to the internet but it took about 5 minutes to buy the shares online after you found the website, so no need for much sophistication there.

With regard to your second point, I cant be bothered to look for the threads which were being discussed when your mate Gordon flogged the gold off cheap. Where did you stand on that one?

 

[londonblue]

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

For the long term gain in dividends, which is really what shares are supposed to be about, rather than hoping to make a short term gain, which (in normal circumstances) is really a gamble. In this instance it wasn't a gamble at all because the shares were undervalued, which was proven to be the case when the price rose as soon as trading started.

In normal circumstances the share price should equal the present value of future returns, i.e. future profits should be reflected in the price, but in this instance it obviously wasn't calculated correctly, and the prices rose. That is where the gamble normally comes into play, because you have to decide which shares you think are going to rise. Investment banks spend millions on analysts to look into this, not just for their own proprietary trading, but also to advise their clients. No-one needed to spend a penny working out that the government had got this one completely wrong.

 

[steveo]

Still, on the plus side, the share price is moving in the right direction again this morning.

That should cost the taxpayer who didnt invest even more then