Manlinose Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 it has got nothing to do with "playing the stock market" and certainly not with "our taxes" they sold an asset - they decided what price they were going to sell it for and they sold it for that price - they chose to accept the advice of their advisers with regard to the value they should place on it even though many other advisers told them that they were selling it for too low a price it has got nothing to do with the share value now, or the fluctuation of the value of the shares it is quite simply that they sold the shares at 330p each and they closed on the first day of trading at 489p - it is obvious they were sold for less than they were worth. it is obvious they could have charged a higher price for the initial offering. it is not hindsight when many were saying exactly this before it happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsexydoug Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 it has got nothing to do with "playing the stock market" and certainly not with "our taxes" they sold an asset - they decided what price they were going to sell it for and they sold it for that price - they chose to accept the advice of their advisers with regard to the value they should place on it even though many other advisers told them that they were selling it for too low a price it has got nothing to do with the share value now, or the fluctuation of the value of the shares it is quite simply that they sold the shares at 330p each and they closed on the first day of trading at 489p - it is obvious they were sold for less than they were worth. it is obvious they could have charged a higher price for the initial offering. it is not hindsight when many were saying exactly this before it happened my bold , so its got nothing to do with the share value now, but they have risen since they were sold , which is it . if he had valued them at 500p and no one had bought them would that have made you happy ?. ---------- Post added 01-04-2014 at 17:21 ---------- But they had to be sold at the time because the ATMs were running dry. Then the looting would probably begun ---------- Post added 01-04-2014 at 17:03 ---------- Like Osborne playing Bingo last week? How petulant of the usual suspects trying to flip the subject matter. didnt see osbourne playing bingo last week or the story behind it , so cant really comment on it . hows red ed's policies in france working out mecky ? have they paved the streets with gold yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 this is a thread about the royal mail sell off - a mistake by a previous government does not excuse a mistake by the current government yes you can always find many people with 20:20 hindsight but i am talking about many people who had the foresight to say so before it happened And were for quite reasonable grounds were dismissed. When floating any company on the markets you simply don't know what the markets will do. It's not possible to know. You can make a guess and that's all it is - an educated guess. You wouldn't for example have valued RM at 500m, nor would you have valued it at 50bn - but the price it was valued at was not unreasonable. IF the Govt had floated it at say 500p do you think it would have sold so fast? Would there still be shares on offer now? Or would more of it have gone to the larger hedge funds that people seem to decry so much? But they had to be sold at the time because the ATMs were running dry. Then the looting would probably begun Yeah right. You have proof of that right? You don't have talk some unsubstantiated cobblers. The closest we came to ATM's running dry was years ago - you know, back when Northern Rock had issues and Lehman brothers nosedived.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansheff Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 No it's ok Dave says so, I didn't hear all of what was said on the radio earlier but I thought they said that a lot of the shares were earmarked for big business and there were only about 16% of shares available to the public. Like I said, I only caught part of it but if that is correct it sums the Tories up, look after your friends and sod the rest of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 No it's ok Dave says so, I didn't hear all of what was said on the radio earlier but I thought they said that a lot of the shares were earmarked for big business and there were only about 16% of shares available to the public. Like I said, I only caught part of it but if that is correct it sums the Tories up, look after your friends and sod the rest of the people. This is just the first round of privatisation. Already the NHS is being carved up between the old boys, and then they'll be carving you and me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkatoy Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 And were for quite reasonable grounds were dismissed. When floating any company on the markets you simply don't know what the markets will do. It's not possible to know. You can make a guess and that's all it is - an educated guess. You wouldn't for example have valued RM at 500m, nor would you have valued it at 50bn - but the price it was valued at was not unreasonable. IF the Govt had floated it at say 500p do you think it would have sold so fast? Would there still be shares on offer now? Or would more of it have gone to the larger hedge funds that people seem to decry so much? Yeah right. You have proof of that right? You don't have talk some unsubstantiated cobblers. The closest we came to ATM's running dry was years ago - you know, back when Northern Rock had issues and Lehman brothers nosedived.... It is pretty much like the sell off of the parts of British Leyland. The companies were loosing money hand over fist. They weren't worth a bean. It was only when parts like Jaguar/Landrover & Mini got into private hands that they started to be run properly and made profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsexydoug Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 No it's ok Dave says so, I didn't hear all of what was said on the radio earlier but I thought they said that a lot of the shares were earmarked for big business and there were only about 16% of shares available to the public. Like I said, I only caught part of it but if that is correct it sums the Tories up, look after your friends and sod the rest of the people. you do realise a lot of them will be pension funds, are you now against people having a pension too ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 my bold , so its got nothing to do with the share value now, but they have risen since they were sold , which is it . if he had valued them at 500p and no one had bought them would that have made you happy ?. ---------- Post added 01-04-2014 at 17:21 ---------- didnt see osbourne playing bingo last week or the story behind it , so cant really comment on it . hows red ed's policies in france working out mecky ? have they paved the streets with gold yet ? Does Red Ed have any say on France's policies? ---------- Post added 01-04-2014 at 18:19 ---------- And were for quite reasonable grounds were dismissed. When floating any company on the markets you simply don't know what the markets will do. It's not possible to know. You can make a guess and that's all it is - an educated guess. You wouldn't for example have valued RM at 500m, nor would you have valued it at 50bn - but the price it was valued at was not unreasonable. IF the Govt had floated it at say 500p do you think it would have sold so fast? Would there still be shares on offer now? Or would more of it have gone to the larger hedge funds that people seem to decry so much? Yeah right. You have proof of that right? You don't have talk some unsubstantiated cobblers. The closest we came to ATM's running dry was years ago - you know, back when Northern Rock had issues and Lehman brothers nosedived.... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/alistair-darling-we-were-two-hours-from-the-cashpoints-running-dry-2245350.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 you do realise a lot of them will be pension funds, are you now against people having a pension too ? They'll not be in pension funds now. It's been established most of the blue chip big dealers got rid of their shares and made vast profits within 3 weeks of the BIG CONDEM SHARE GIVEAWAY! ---------- Post added 01-04-2014 at 18:21 ---------- Does Red Ed have any say on France's policies? :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Does Red Ed have any say on France's policies? ---------- Post added 01-04-2014 at 18:19 ---------- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/alistair-darling-we-were-two-hours-from-the-cashpoints-running-dry-2245350.html Well said Mecky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.