Manlinose Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 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... sorry, i could have made that post a bit clearer - as i understand it, their (official) advisers told them that 330 was about right as if it was much higher it would put off some institutional investors it is other financial advisers and institutions who were telling the government that it was too low - they were not advisers to the Government "city bankers" is a very broad term - some are capable and trustworthy, some are unscrupulous and not very good at their jobs, some are unscrupulous and very good at their jobs, but they have a different agenda to the government and a different motivation how much would RM have cost the taxpayer if it hadn't been sold? i have no idea - not wanting to appear as if i'm trying to sound clever, but it depends what you mean by cost - if the sale had been aborted there would no doubt have been many millions to pay in fees to advisers in any event, but the company makes a profit which, theoretically at least, would go to the treasury if it was still a publicly owned company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 sorry, i could have made that post a bit clearer - as i understand it, their (official) advisers told them that 330 was about right as if it was much higher it would put off some institutional investors it is other financial advisers and institutions who were telling the government that it was too low - they were not advisers to the Government "city bankers" is a very broad term - some are capable and trustworthy, some are unscrupulous and not very good at their jobs, some are unscrupulous and very good at their jobs, but they have a different agenda to the government and a different motivation how much would RM have cost the taxpayer if it hadn't been sold? i have no idea - not wanting to appear as if i'm trying to sound clever, but it depends what you mean by cost - if the sale had been aborted there would no doubt have been many millions to pay in fees to advisers in any event, but the company makes a profit which, theoretically at least, would go to the treasury if it was still a publicly owned company By cost I mean what investment is needed in RM to enable it to pay it's way..obviously this is not now the responsibility of the tax payer..so are we gaining or losing by having sold at the price we did..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 By cost I mean what investment is needed in RM to enable it to pay it's way..obviously this is not now the responsibility of the tax payer..so are we gaining or losing by having sold at the price we did..? based on a quick internet search (BBC & Sky news), annual profits before tax in 2012/13 were approx. £400m and profits for the first 6 months of 2013/14 (i.e. to the end of September 2013) were £283m so it was already paying its way - which is not to say it doesn't require further investment it is forecast that they will pay a dividend to shareholders of £133m, some of which will come to the Government as we are still a large shareholder we gained by receiving a few billion from the sale of the shares, we lost the profit the company makes - it's swings and roundabouts - the money we got for the shares is probably equivalent to about 10 years profit - it's probably a political decision as to which you think is better philosophically, the government prefers RM to be privately owned and prefers the £2bn or so windfall they got to set against the budget deficit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 I think it has potentially cost more than £750m. In monetary terms we have to wait until we see what strategy is for postal prices. There are obvious ongoing implications there for individual taxpayers and businesses. In social terms we have to see what the strategy is in terms of strength of commitment to unviable but socially critical services - there could be a serious impact there in the coming years. And a massive error in the commons today from Cameron. He had to invoke the argument about the gold sale. It is universally accepted that the gold sell-off was well less than perfectly managed but Cameron's strategy today was to try and excuse a massive coalition error by trying to argue that Labour had made an even bigger error. Implicit acceptance there that the RM sell off was flawed. The other thing that made me chuckle is that Cameron inflated the losses due to the gold sale from 6bn to 9bn. It seems that bags of political hot air inflate even faster than house prices. Cue Obelix to argue the gold sale was the greatest crime of the last 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Nothing of course. It's what passes for "debate" in Mecky's head these days. Roll up! Roll up! See the incredible disappearing Mecky (or not)! Watch how he vanishes as soon as you throw a fact at him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Do we know who the 'priority investors' were that were supposed to be in it for long haul but sold out within weeks? It says they were mainly pension funds... smells like a pension fund bailout by stealth. I still haven't seen this question answered. Priority was given to certain investors on the understanding they'd provide a stable long term investment. They sold up after about 10 minutes, pocketed millions and laughed all the way to the bank. What guarantees were given? What correspondence was there between Cable and his dept and these so called long term investors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I still haven't seen this question answered. Priority was given to certain investors on the understanding they'd provide a stable long term investment. They sold up after about 10 minutes, pocketed millions and laughed all the way to the bank. What guarantees were given? What correspondence was there between Cable and his dept and these so called long term investors? There was no such agreement, nothing to lock in the 16 preferred investors that had been chosen on the basis that they would be long-term investors. Six of those high quality long-term investors jumped off board within weeks, bagging huge profits. Of others we know that Standard Life sold 99% of the 12m RM shares it purchased within weeks. There was no lock in and Standard Life made a legal and rational decision in the best interests of its policy holders. It seems that the low price that was supposed to attract long-term investors actually led to them walking away because of the huge short-term profits to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Sold on the cheap and people cashed in despite a CoS not shares could not be sold on for 3 years, I think ... People cashed in. Now RM is failing http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27514531 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Now RM is failing http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27514531 It's a good job they sold it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 What does that have to do with selling Royal Mail...? I don't know but someone else felt fit to mention it in post 18. I purely responded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.