Emily Moore Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Hiya Emily. RBS isn't a private business it's a plc. As such it is owned by its shareholders. The government are the representative of the majority shareholder. Do you think it incorrect that a majority shareholder of a plc has a say in the running of the business? Are you aware that, apart from a high on the 23rd of January, the RBS share price is now higher than it has been at any time since last July? Well you have hit the nail on the head with your first statement. Most PLCs have shareholders like pension funds who let company management get on and run the company. It is clear that politicians want to use public shreholding in RBS as an excuse to influence how the business is run. That is what other investors have noted and why RBS was marked down so heavily on Monday. Regarding the share price it is a bit of a red herring. The FTSE is also 200 points higher than it was a week ago and way above what it was last summer. That is the point. RBS shares were the biggest falling share of all companies listed in the FTSE100. That is now factored into the share price. Of course the price will go up and down, but their is a now a built in mistrust that the business can take decisions that are in its best interest rather than ones that appeal to a few who carp about anyone earning a large salary. We have all lost money as a result of the debate. The fact that is still running is just further proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Hiya Emily. RBS isn't a private business it's a plc. As such it is owned by its shareholders. The government are the representative of the majority shareholder. Do you think it incorrect that a majority shareholder of a plc has a say in the running of the business? Are you aware that, apart from a high on the 23rd of January, the RBS share price is now higher than it has been at any time since last July? I don't think it's incorrect. I think it's insane that the government, as our representatives, have chosen to devalue our bank. I'm aware that the share price dropped about 3% on this news. Any gains since that aren't really related, they might have happened anyway, or in response to other news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 I don't think it's incorrect. I think it's insane that the government, as our representatives, have chosen to devalue our bank. I'm aware that the share price dropped about 3% on this news. Any gains since that aren't really related, they might have happened anyway, or in response to other news. RBS is currently looking for a replacement for Brian Hartzer who is currently the chief executive of its UK retail bank and who anounced that he was leaving to take up a top post at Australia's Westpac Bank. Hartzer earned around £2m last year in salary and bonus. It seems he had little problem finding alternative employment. I wonder what sort of salary package the politicians will be offering in order to attract a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You think? How much does it cost a small business (plumber, electrician,painter & decorator, shop etc) to employ somebody? If you were running a small business (one which was doing well; a business which [if you were lucky] had customers queueing up) and the government said to you: "If you hire an additional employee, we will give you additional tax relief", might you be tempted to do so? If you did hire the additional employee, then your business might grow even further, that new employee would have a job, the economy would expand (even if only a bit) and both you and the employee would pay more in taxes (If the employee was any good, (s)he would bring in more than (s)he cost you.) If you chose not to hire the additional employee, how would you get richer from the tax break you didn't receive? What's the point in growing you businesses if you can't shift stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 What's the point in growing you businesses if you can't shift stuff? Lots of companies are "shifting stuff"...maybe investing in a larger sales force can help you to do this..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Lots of companies are "shifting stuff"...maybe investing in a larger sales force can help you to do this..? The only way your going to shift more stuff is if: Your customers have money You offer cheaper stuff than your competitors You offer a reliable source You offer stuff which nobody else does There are a few other things but those are the basics and I hope you get the idea. It just doesn't make sense to say because businesses are taxed less they create more jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 The only way your going to shift more stuff is if: Your customers have money You offer cheaper stuff than your competitors You offer a reliable source You offer stuff which nobody else does There are a few other things but those are the basics and I hope you get the idea. It just doesn't make sense to say because businesses are taxed less they create more jobs. I think the idea was to give companies a tax break if they employ more people..not just give them a tax break for nothing..you also can shift more stuff with a better product ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Regarding the share price it is a bit of a red herring. Course it is! This whole thread, however, is built around a claim that two days' share price movement has cost the taxpayer 900M. It is nonsense. I'm glad you agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 You think? How much does it cost a small business (plumber, electrician,painter & decorator, shop etc) to employ somebody? If you were running a small business (one which was doing well; a business which [if you were lucky] had customers queueing up) and the government said to you: "If you hire an additional employee, we will give you additional tax relief", might you be tempted to do so? If you did hire the additional employee, then your business might grow even further, that new employee would have a job, the economy would expand (even if only a bit) and both you and the employee would pay more in taxes (If the employee was any good, (s)he would bring in more than (s)he cost you.) If you chose not to hire the additional employee, how would you get richer from the tax break you didn't receive? That’s not always the case because as one business expands it takes some of the work from an already established business which now must contract or lower its prices to compete. This in turn lowers their profits and removes money from the economy, lowers the taxes they pay and could result in job losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I don't think it's incorrect. I think it's insane that the government, as our representatives, have chosen to devalue our bank. I'm aware that the share price dropped about 3% on this news. Any gains since that aren't really related, they might have happened anyway, or in response to other news. *chuckle* Aha, I see. *splutter*. So ... any SP movement that supports your opinion has a definite cause that you know to be so yet a movement in the opposite direction could have "just happened". Yep, you were right earlier - stick to the web design. Here's another scenario for you. A load of kneejerk traders sold their RBS shares on Monday (if you follow the stock market you will be aware that ths is a pretty much standard response to all sorts of news) ... The SP went down ... A different load of canny investors saw the kneejerk for what it was and bought some bargain RBS shares on Wednesday and Thursday. End result, SP restored to previous "correct" level. That's not, necessarily, my opinion - I would never claim to know why SP movements happen as they do, in fact I don't believe anybody does, but it's at least as credible as your suggestion. Now then, to help your future postings on this subject, you may wish to have a read of this. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.