bigsexydoug 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 ---------- ""What President Hollande is seeking to do in France and what he is seeking to do in leading the debate in Europe is find that different way forward." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9423448/Ed-Miliband-welcomed-by-Francois-Hollande-on-Elysee-Palace-steps.html good old red ed, as forrest gump used to say "stupid is as stupid does" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/alistair-darling-we-were-two-hours-from-the-cashpoints-running-dry-2245350.html What does that have to do with selling Royal Mail...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 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 ? it was to do with the share value on the day they could first be traded because that was the only valid comparison - anything since is market fluctuation on the day, the government sold them for 330p when they could have sold them for much more, were constantly being told that they could and should get more for them and as soon as they were available, the government was proved wrong as an analogy, you decide you are going to sell your car, and you decide you are going to ask £1,000 for it. Your wife tells you that it is a popular make and model, there will be lots of people wanting it and you should ask £1,500 for it. But you know better, so you stick to your guns, advertise it for sale at £1,000, have lots of people knocking on your door and sell it to the first person who comes up with the cash. He then advertises the car the same day, having done nothing to it, for best offers - and sells it for £1,500 yes, you got shut of your car for the price you wanted, so you are, presumably, happy, but you could have got so much more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 it was to do with the share value on the day they could first be traded because that was the only valid comparison - anything since is market fluctuation on the day, the government sold them for 330p when they could have sold them for much more, were constantly being told that they could and should get more for them and as soon as they were available, the government was proved wrong as an analogy, you decide you are going to sell your car, and you decide you are going to ask £1,000 for it. Your wife tells you that it is a popular make and model, there will be lots of people wanting it and you should ask £1,500 for it. But you know better, so you stick to your guns, advertise it for sale at £1,000, have lots of people knocking on your door and sell it to the first person who comes up with the cash. He then advertises the car the same day, having done nothing to it, for best offers - and sells it for £1,500 yes, you got shut of your car for the price you wanted, so you are, presumably, happy, but you could have got so much more Then again you could have advertised it at £1500 and still have it sat on your drive now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 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? of course a lot of it is guesswork, and you have to rely on the people to whom you are paying a fortune for advice, (although you do have to take responsibility for instructing the advisers) but when there are many others telling you that you are wrong, but you stick to your guns and are then proved to be wrong, you should hold your hands up, admit your mistakes and take responsibilty ---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 10:32 ---------- Then again you could have advertised it at £1500 and still have it sat on your drive now... you could, but then you could just as easily re-advertise it at a lower price - admittedly not so easy for an IPO, but the principle is the same - the shares were going to be sold come what may - i am not talking about asking ridiculously high prices for them, i am talking about squeezing a bit more value out of something that was obviously going to be easy to sell this is not aimed at anyone in particular, but i wonder if some of the comments would be the same if gordon brown had done it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Didnt Vince originally want to just give Royal Mail, back to the people of the UK? Well he has managed to do it, he has given me (a UK tax payer) a £500 bonus. Where is the harm in that? Isnt that what previous privateisations did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 [quote=Mecky;10412669 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/alistair-darling-we-were-two-hours-from-the-cashpoints-running-dry-2245350.html Like I said - the closest we were to cashpoints running dry was on Labours watch. Now can you please give a reference to the Royal Mail needing to be sold immediatly because the cashpoints were going to run dry last October? While we are at it - you still havent given any proof that the economy halved in March 2013 - that's another of your outstanding questions remember. Thanks. ---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 10:51 ---------- What does that have to do with selling Royal Mail...? Nothing of course. It's what passes for "debate" in Mecky's head these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 of course a lot of it is guesswork, and you have to rely on the people to whom you are paying a fortune for advice, (although you do have to take responsibility for instructing the advisers) but when there are many others telling you that you are wrong, but you stick to your guns and are then proved to be wrong, you should hold your hands up, admit your mistakes and take responsibilty ---------- Post added 02-04-2014 at 10:32 ---------- you could, but then you could just as easily re-advertise it at a lower price - admittedly not so easy for an IPO, but the principle is the same - the shares were going to be sold come what may - i am not talking about asking ridiculously high prices for them, i am talking about squeezing a bit more value out of something that was obviously going to be easy to sell this is not aimed at anyone in particular, but i wonder if some of the comments would be the same if gordon brown had done it I'm not sure how you'd redo an IPO..in fact could you..? Once the offer's there can it be changed? I'm not defending/accusing anyone..just saying hindsight is always 20:20.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 I'm not sure how you'd redo an IPO..in fact could you..? Once the offer's there can it be changed? I'm not defending/accusing anyone..just saying hindsight is always 20:20.. but as i (and others) have said before - it isn't hindsight - the government was advised and warned before the price was fixed, by many varied independent bodies and financial institutions that the price could, and should be higher it should be noted that the initial price range was (i think) between 270p and 330p and the government chose the highest amount because they knew there was so much demand but they couldn't go higher because that was the maximum they had set in the IPO documents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 but as i (and others) have said before - it isn't hindsight - the government was advised and warned before the price was fixed, by many varied independent bodies and financial institutions that the price could, and should be higher it should be noted that the initial price range was (i think) between 270p and 330p and the government chose the highest amount because they knew there was so much demand but they couldn't go higher because that was the maximum they had set in the IPO documents Are you saying that all their advisors said they were aiming too low...? Are you also saying that City bankers are now to be trusted? Genuine questions by the way..not having a pop.. ..how much would RM have cost the tax payer if it hadn't been sold? Again another question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.