yet again by way of undervaluing it. Vince Cables rubbish excuse for selling it on the cheap was lamentable.
Not contained in the above report but relevant is those 17 'key investors' who made a quick buck or rather a real quick buck' I wonder how many of those 17 are in the pockets of the Govt or vice versa
"… Seventeen key investors were sought for their comments up to a year ahead of the initial public offering
"These key investors who caused the deal to be struck too cheaply, then were rewarded by better allocations than other investors (which essentially means a larger cheque) but sold half their stock within weeks! It couldn't get worse. Mr Cable you were had."
Vince Cable as a business secretary should be sacked, his incompetence re the sale of the Royal Mail is about as bad as it gets and as for his comment that the Govt turned down a loss making company into a profit making publicly owned one is also rubbish, the business was on it's last legs (probably brought about by under investment by the Govt and them wanting to sell it/make some money from it's sale) but shortly before the share option was announced it became profitable part due to the influence of the then recently appointed Chief Exec Moya Greene who just happens to be Canadian the same as the current Governor of the Bank of England
and who himself was appointed by that good old mess of a human being George Osborne and who most likely influenced the decision by the the Govt owned Royal Mail to appoint Moya Greene as it's head.
Never more has the phrase ' Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely ' seemed so apparent as it does with this current Govt.
I wonder how many front line services could have been saved or received more funding had the Royal Mail been sold in a competent more diligent manner.
Vince Cable - Fail!
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Royal Mail Sale and the Govt had us over
Orgasminator
Yup! Good old Goldman Sachs were heavily involved and made a rather nice profit out it all. They (Goldman Sachs) were once described as...“a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity”. They are certainly no strangers to scandal and fraud.
Surely, it's every man for himself in the cut-throat world of high finance?
If you didn't invest and didn't benefit from the sale of the century, little point in lambasting everyone else about it. You can't change what is done.
I didn't invest but I'm not crying over it. It just seems to be a typically English jealous reaction to someone else having the gumption to make a few bob quite legally by people who missed the boat.
As for Vince Cable... well, he should have been strangled at birth like all Liberals.
If you didn't invest and didn't benefit from the sale of the century, little point in lambasting everyone else about it. You can't change what is done.
I didn't invest but I'm not crying over it. It just seems to be a typically English jealous reaction to someone else having the gumption to make a few bob quite legally by people who missed the boat.
As for Vince Cable... well, he should have been strangled at birth like all Liberals.
Quote by GnV
I didn't invest but I'm not crying over it. It just seems to be a typically English jealous reaction to someone else having the gumption to make a few bob quite legally by people who missed the boat.
It's nothing to do with making money, it's how much we as the British Tax payer lost out (or maybe it's 'sold out' due to the seemingly incompetent Business secretary seriously undervaluing a company prior to offering it for sale. Who made money on the sale is secondary.
Orgasminator
The valuation was primarily done by Goldman Sachs (and UBS), who then made a huge profit when, surprise, surprise it turned out to be undervalued and the stock rose in value. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
Quote by Toots
I didn't invest but I'm not crying over it. It just seems to be a typically English jealous reaction to someone else having the gumption to make a few bob quite legally by people who missed the boat.
It's nothing to do with making money, it's how much we as the British Tax payer lost out (or maybe it's 'sold out' due to the seemingly incompetent Business secretary seriously undervaluing a company prior to offering it for sale. Who made money on the sale is secondary.
It's everything to do with making money on a personal front.
How much extra would have been made if it was valued (if it was possible to value) higher? Always easy to be wise after the event.
I sold a car for 3,500€ recently. Someone came along after and said they would have given me 5,000€ Yeah. cushty but a bird in the hand is always worth two in the bush. At least it was a done deal whilst the other dreamer came up with a plan how to short change me and with a possible consequence of losing the deal altogether.
And what difference would that have made to the average tax payer?
Diddley Squat, that's what. In basic terms, HMG would only have pissed it up the wall
Quote by samson63
The valuation was primarily done by Goldman Sachs (and UBS), who then made a huge profit when, surprise, surprise it turned out to be undervalued and the stock rose in value. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
How did these banks make a huge profit from the stock rising in value?
Nobody bleated about the value being too low back in October last year when the IPO price was released (300-330p), in fact the people who are now stirring it were saying that at 330p it was going to be a disaster and nobody would pay that for the RM.
The RM staff have benefited from the sale with 10% of the shares 'free' with 613 shares in this tax year and a further 112 in the 14/15 tax year and if they keep them for 5 years they're free of any income tax or NIC.
Those with private or company pensions have gained as the initial 'issue guarantors' have sold their allocations, reducing their risk and exposure and increasing the net worth of the pension funds.
The Government retain a 30% shareholding currently worth 231p a share more than they were a 6 months ago.
Got rid of 100% tax payer liability for £100m+ investment in the RM a year.
Moya Green is the lowest paid CEO of any FTSE 100 company. When appointed by the RM Chairman Don Brydon, Vince Cable insisted that she return a £250,000 'relocation payment' offered by the RM Chairman (which she did).
The RM staff have benefited from the sale with 10% of the shares 'free' with 613 shares in this tax year and a further 112 in the 14/15 tax year and if they keep them for 5 years they're free of any income tax or NIC.
Those with private or company pensions have gained as the initial 'issue guarantors' have sold their allocations, reducing their risk and exposure and increasing the net worth of the pension funds.
The Government retain a 30% shareholding currently worth 231p a share more than they were a 6 months ago.
Got rid of 100% tax payer liability for £100m+ investment in the RM a year.
Moya Green is the lowest paid CEO of any FTSE 100 company. When appointed by the RM Chairman Don Brydon, Vince Cable insisted that she return a £250,000 'relocation payment' offered by the RM Chairman (which she did).
Quote by Fobs
Nobody bleated about the value being too low back in October last year when the IPO price was released (300-330p), in fact the people who are now stirring it were saying that at 330p it was going to be a disaster and nobody would pay that for the RM.
The RM staff have benefited from the sale with 10% of the shares 'free' with 613 shares in this tax year and a further 112 in the 14/15 tax year and if they keep them for 5 years they're free of any income tax or NIC.
Those with private or company pensions have gained as the initial 'issue guarantors' have sold their allocations, reducing their risk and exposure and increasing the net worth of the pension funds.
The Government retain a 30% shareholding currently worth 231p a share more than they were a 6 months ago.
Got rid of 100% tax payer liability for £100m+ investment in the RM a year.
Moya Green is the lowest paid CEO of any FTSE 100 company. When appointed by the RM Chairman Don Brydon, Vince Cable insisted that she return a £250,000 'relocation payment' offered by the RM Chairman (which she did).
I agree Fobs. We can all be right with the benefit of hindsight. Samson63 claims that Goldman Sachs and UBS benefited from the shares increasing in value. I'm not aware that they were allocated any shares in the flotation( ( Barclays and Merrill Lynch were also involved in the IPO) Lazards were the main advisors to the Government and they advised that the sale price should be in the range of 212-262p.
As you rightly say, the major beneficiaries todate have been pension funds.
It's rich Labour complaining about the sale being undervalued considering Gordon Brown cost the nation some £4 billion pounds selling half our gold reserves at rock bottom prices.
Quote by Toots
yet again by way of undervaluing it. Vince Cables rubbish excuse for selling it on the cheap was lamentable.
Not contained in the above report but relevant is those 17 'key investors' who made a quick buck or rather a real quick buck' I wonder how many of those 17 are in the pockets of the Govt or vice versa
"… Seventeen key investors were sought for their comments up to a year ahead of the initial public offering
"These key investors who caused the deal to be struck too cheaply, then were rewarded by better allocations than other investors (which essentially means a larger cheque) but sold half their stock within weeks! It couldn't get worse. Mr Cable you were had."
Vince Cable as a business secretary should be sacked, his incompetence re the sale of the Royal Mail is about as bad as it gets and as for his comment that the Govt turned down a loss making company into a profit making publicly owned one is also rubbish, the business was on it's last legs (probably brought about by under investment by the Govt and them wanting to sell it/make some money from it's sale) but shortly before the share option was announced it became profitable part due to the influence of the then recently appointed Chief Exec Moya Greene who just happens to be Canadian the same as the current Governor of the Bank of England
and who himself was appointed by that good old mess of a human being George Osborne and who most likely influenced the decision by the the Govt owned Royal Mail to appoint Moya Greene as it's head.
Never more has the phrase ' Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely ' seemed so apparent as it does with this current Govt.
I wonder how many front line services could have been saved or received more funding had the Royal Mail been sold in a competent more diligent manner.
Vince Cable - Fail!
The key investors (or priority investors ) were mostly pension funds. Nothing sinister about that, hopefully your pension fund was included.
Orgasminator
Quote by Max777
The valuation was primarily done by Goldman Sachs (and UBS), who then made a huge profit when, surprise, surprise it turned out to be undervalued and the stock rose in value. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
How did these banks make a huge profit from the stock rising in value?
From the increase in value and commission received when their "clients" (Goldman Sachs International) sold the stock.
Quote by samson63
The valuation was primarily done by Goldman Sachs (and UBS), who then made a huge profit when, surprise, surprise it turned out to be undervalued and the stock rose in value. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
How did these banks make a huge profit from the stock rising in value?
From the increase in value and commission received when their "clients" (Goldman Sachs International) sold the stock.
Are you implying that Goldman Sachs bought stock in their own right? If so, at what value? would you also care to quantify the 'huge profit' made from the commission on the sale of stock?
Orgasminator
Quote by Max777
The valuation was primarily done by Goldman Sachs (and UBS), who then made a huge profit when, surprise, surprise it turned out to be undervalued and the stock rose in value. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
How did these banks make a huge profit from the stock rising in value?
From the increase in value and commission received when their "clients" (Goldman Sachs International) sold the stock.
Are you implying that Goldman Sachs bought stock in their own right? If so, at what value? would you also care to quantify the 'huge profit' made from the commission on the sale of stock?
Goldman Sachs International, a branch of the bank, had snapped up more than 21 million shares by October 31. On November 11, it had less than 17 million.
It means Goldman traders could have sold at least 4 million shares during a period when they peaked at 587p, at which point they were worth £27million
If they had bought at the issue price and sold at the peak, the deals could have made nearly £12million profit. Goldman Sachs were allowed to profit from their own advice. It has to be a conflict of interest and unethical.
Quote by samson63
The valuation was primarily done by Goldman Sachs (and UBS), who then made a huge profit when, surprise, surprise it turned out to be undervalued and the stock rose in value. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
How did these banks make a huge profit from the stock rising in value?
From the increase in value and commission received when their "clients" (Goldman Sachs International) sold the stock.
Are you implying that Goldman Sachs bought stock in their own right? If so, at what value? would you also care to quantify the 'huge profit' made from the commission on the sale of stock?
Goldman Sachs International, a branch of the bank, had snapped up more than 21 million shares by October 31. On November 11, it had less than 17 million.
It means Goldman traders could have sold at least 4 million shares during a period when they peaked at 587p, at which point they were worth £27million
If they had bought at the issue price and sold at the peak, the deals could have made nearly £12million profit. Goldman Sachs were allowed to profit from their own advice. It has to be a conflict of interest and unethical.
Goldman Sachs claim that any shares subsequently bought were bought on behalf of clients. If you can prove otherwise I'd be interested in seeing your proof. Also, they could only have bought shares at issue price if any of the small investors sold at issue price, which is very unlikely, as they did not receive an allocation at flotation. Any profits realised would have been much smaller than the figures you put forward.
If the profits GS made were derived from commissions on purchases and sales of shares acquired and sold on behalf of clients, I fail to see how this is either a conflict of interest or unethical. They would have been doing nothing different to that which other investment banks were doing.
Quote by Max777
The valuation was primarily done by Goldman Sachs (and UBS), who then made a huge profit when, surprise, surprise it turned out to be undervalued and the stock rose in value. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
How did these banks make a huge profit from the stock rising in value?
From the increase in value and commission received when their "clients" (Goldman Sachs International) sold the stock.
Are you implying that Goldman Sachs bought stock in their own right? If so, at what value? would you also care to quantify the 'huge profit' made from the commission on the sale of stock?
Goldman Sachs International, a branch of the bank, had snapped up more than 21 million shares by October 31. On November 11, it had less than 17 million.
It means Goldman traders could have sold at least 4 million shares during a period when they peaked at 587p, at which point they were worth £27million
If they had bought at the issue price and sold at the peak, the deals could have made nearly £12million profit. Goldman Sachs were allowed to profit from their own advice. It has to be a conflict of interest and unethical.
Goldman Sachs claim that any shares subsequently bought were bought on behalf of clients. If you can prove otherwise I'd be interested in seeing your proof. Also, they could only have bought shares at issue price if any of the small investors sold at issue price, which is very unlikely, as they did not receive an allocation at flotation. Any profits realised would have been much smaller than the figures you put forward.
If the profits GS made were derived from commissions on purchases and sales of shares acquired and sold on behalf of clients, I fail to see how this is either a conflict of interest or unethical. They would have been doing nothing different to that which other investment banks were doing.
It is also illegal for any financial institution to 'speculate' with their own money now after the last Financial Crisis.
Any funds 'invested' have to be at the request of a 'client'. In some instances the 'client' can be someone like GS, but these are 3rd party funds 'managed' by them and their profit is derived from their management fees not directly from the sale of any shares.
All this waffle/smoke screen from what seems to be Apologists for Cameron/Cable/Colition but has very little base. The British Tax Payer on this occasion has quite simply been had to the tune of anywhere between £500 million and £1 Billion.
Anyone other than the politically blinkered/blind can see RM was grossly undervalued, perhaps in a deliberate manner to feather the pockets of the smasheynicey corporates the same corporates who most likely have a hand up the back of the Govt, who is working who?
NAO say on the sale
Somewhere above in this SH thread it's mentioned the Govt retained 30% of the shares and now showing a healthy return? but to pinch a Cable quote it's 'froth' because had they retained a larger amount they'd have made even more money for the taxpayer by now.
Cables 'private advisers' ( I wonder who they were ) kept the price low because as they were worried it wouldn't sell? Really? or maybe it was because some of the key investors threatened to walk away if the price was set too high.
Worried about the sale? It was over-subscribed and then some.
What of the twelve or so priority investors going on to sell some or all of their shares within a very short space of time post flotation even though an 'Gentlemans agreement not to seems to have been in place, all rather handy give key investors along with the 'private advisors' remain unknown to the masses.
It's not as if there was hisotric evidence on how a Privitisation sale might pan out.
Rolls Royce up 37% on the first day of trading
British Airways up 35% on the first day of trading
BT up 32% on the first day of trading
British Gas up 9% on the first day of trading
In the grand scheme the mooted £1 Billion undervaluation isn't a great deal of money in the coffers of the British Tax Payer, but it's still money that we could been redistributed to some areas where Govt Cuts are really biting.
Piss-ups & breweries where Cable/Cameron/Coalition and RM are concerned.
Anyone other than the politically blinkered/blind can see RM was grossly undervalued, perhaps in a deliberate manner to feather the pockets of the smasheynicey corporates the same corporates who most likely have a hand up the back of the Govt, who is working who?
NAO say on the sale
Somewhere above in this SH thread it's mentioned the Govt retained 30% of the shares and now showing a healthy return? but to pinch a Cable quote it's 'froth' because had they retained a larger amount they'd have made even more money for the taxpayer by now.
Cables 'private advisers' ( I wonder who they were ) kept the price low because as they were worried it wouldn't sell? Really? or maybe it was because some of the key investors threatened to walk away if the price was set too high.
Worried about the sale? It was over-subscribed and then some.
What of the twelve or so priority investors going on to sell some or all of their shares within a very short space of time post flotation even though an 'Gentlemans agreement not to seems to have been in place, all rather handy give key investors along with the 'private advisors' remain unknown to the masses.
It's not as if there was hisotric evidence on how a Privitisation sale might pan out.
Rolls Royce up 37% on the first day of trading
British Airways up 35% on the first day of trading
BT up 32% on the first day of trading
British Gas up 9% on the first day of trading
In the grand scheme the mooted £1 Billion undervaluation isn't a great deal of money in the coffers of the British Tax Payer, but it's still money that we could been redistributed to some areas where Govt Cuts are really biting.
Piss-ups & breweries where Cable/Cameron/Coalition and RM are concerned.
Who's waffling and who are the Cameron/Clegg/Cable apologists? Certainly not me!
As for your accusations of people being blinkered, remember that when you are pointing at someone, 3 of your fingers are pointing right back at you.
You don't seem to want to accept that the priority investors were in the main pension funds. The Government wanted some long term holding of the shares for stability. The fact that quite a few of these priority investors have sold their shares suggests to me that they believe the share price has peaked and the sensible thing to do was maximise their investment. The beneficiaries of this will be members of the various pension funds, hopefully people like you and me.
The shares sold to the private investors were limited to £750 per person, presumably to stop wealthy individuals buying thousands of shares at the issue price.
In time it may well be deemed that the issue price was undervalued but as I said earlier, we can all be right with the benefit of hindsight.
As for your accusations of people being blinkered, remember that when you are pointing at someone, 3 of your fingers are pointing right back at you.
You don't seem to want to accept that the priority investors were in the main pension funds. The Government wanted some long term holding of the shares for stability. The fact that quite a few of these priority investors have sold their shares suggests to me that they believe the share price has peaked and the sensible thing to do was maximise their investment. The beneficiaries of this will be members of the various pension funds, hopefully people like you and me.
The shares sold to the private investors were limited to £750 per person, presumably to stop wealthy individuals buying thousands of shares at the issue price.
In time it may well be deemed that the issue price was undervalued but as I said earlier, we can all be right with the benefit of hindsight.
Quote by Max777
Who's waffling and who are the Cameron/Clegg/Cable apologists? Certainly not me!
ditto Max
I seem to remember that we live in a democratic capitalist society. Obviously not!
Some people fail to appreciate there are two sides to every story. Their's is the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I fear we may get into Party Politics here but certain things do have to be noted:
The NAO's basic criticism was that the Government were 'too cautious'. Well give me that any time thank you when someone is handling my money.
The market advisors to the Government were on fees not share options so made no direct profit. Indeed they are barred from so doing by Stock Exchange rules.
Hindsight is always 20 / 20 vision. No one said the price was wrong (other than the Government were 'optimistic') when it was floated. And as was noted the Government could not afford for the issue to fail.
Labour happily trot out the figures for what we 'lost' and used the prices at their highest. We never 'lost' what we never had. But if that is true then can we have back the £10Billion Gordon Brown 'lost' by underselling our gold at a stupid price please?
Anyone noticed the current share price? They are now some 15% above the issue price and falling. Labour in its rush to score political points took the very highest price (which stood for all of 12 hours). Where are they now?...
There is an old adage that it is better to have 50% of something than 100% of nothing!
The share issue was being clouded by the CWU threatening industrial action on a mega scale. That was factored in by advisors when rating the issue price. As soon as the posties got their free shares they lost interest in a strike, called it off and the shares soared. Socialism at its best ...
Anyone with a pension should be glad the Pension funds got involved in a big way and are still involved. See Labour never mention that side of the equation. RM was sold on assurances from some 17 major investors. One broke their word. The rest stayed.
Not only the big dealers made money. Thousands of small private investors are now substantially better off. As are every one of the RM employees with their free shares.
Labour whinge as always quietly forgetting they tried and failed to privatise RM. They failed, this Government succeeded and it sticks in their craw.
Labour fail to mention the total mess they made of the RM pension fund and it was this government that had to sort it out. A short term paper profit but a long term liability.
Labour really should STFU after the QinetiQ debacle. In November 2007, the NAO reported that taxpayers could have gained "tens of millions" more and was critical of the incentive scheme given to Qinetiq managers, the 10 most senior of whom gained on a total investment of £540,000 in the company's shares. It was floated at 200p and the next trading day it was 220p.
I will park my soap box now ....
The NAO's basic criticism was that the Government were 'too cautious'. Well give me that any time thank you when someone is handling my money.
The market advisors to the Government were on fees not share options so made no direct profit. Indeed they are barred from so doing by Stock Exchange rules.
Hindsight is always 20 / 20 vision. No one said the price was wrong (other than the Government were 'optimistic') when it was floated. And as was noted the Government could not afford for the issue to fail.
Labour happily trot out the figures for what we 'lost' and used the prices at their highest. We never 'lost' what we never had. But if that is true then can we have back the £10Billion Gordon Brown 'lost' by underselling our gold at a stupid price please?
Anyone noticed the current share price? They are now some 15% above the issue price and falling. Labour in its rush to score political points took the very highest price (which stood for all of 12 hours). Where are they now?...
There is an old adage that it is better to have 50% of something than 100% of nothing!
The share issue was being clouded by the CWU threatening industrial action on a mega scale. That was factored in by advisors when rating the issue price. As soon as the posties got their free shares they lost interest in a strike, called it off and the shares soared. Socialism at its best ...
Anyone with a pension should be glad the Pension funds got involved in a big way and are still involved. See Labour never mention that side of the equation. RM was sold on assurances from some 17 major investors. One broke their word. The rest stayed.
Not only the big dealers made money. Thousands of small private investors are now substantially better off. As are every one of the RM employees with their free shares.
Labour whinge as always quietly forgetting they tried and failed to privatise RM. They failed, this Government succeeded and it sticks in their craw.
Labour fail to mention the total mess they made of the RM pension fund and it was this government that had to sort it out. A short term paper profit but a long term liability.
Labour really should STFU after the QinetiQ debacle. In November 2007, the NAO reported that taxpayers could have gained "tens of millions" more and was critical of the incentive scheme given to Qinetiq managers, the 10 most senior of whom gained on a total investment of £540,000 in the company's shares. It was floated at 200p and the next trading day it was 220p.
I will park my soap box now ....
all politicians of all colours in westminster are owned or compromised by financial interests and carry out policies in the interests of their masters and not their constituents or the general public.
the script played out in parliament by the puppets is a punch and judy show and the media's (owned by the same multinational financial interests) function is to deceive you.
use your own critical thought and reasoning and join up the dots.
hs2 is not about trains or infrastructure. it is about a loan at interest to the tax payer later to be stolen by city interests and rob you.
all privatisations including the post is to benefit the new owners (the city of london) and no one else.
all wars are bankers wars
the script played out in parliament by the puppets is a punch and judy show and the media's (owned by the same multinational financial interests) function is to deceive you.
use your own critical thought and reasoning and join up the dots.
hs2 is not about trains or infrastructure. it is about a loan at interest to the tax payer later to be stolen by city interests and rob you.
all privatisations including the post is to benefit the new owners (the city of london) and no one else.
all wars are bankers wars
Quote by Chish
Thought we'd lost that broken record
:bs::bs:
Old Communists don't die they just fade away on to SH.
I guess we should be grateful Margaret Thatcher wasn't mentioned and blamed for all our woes ..
margret thatcher was a puppet for the city of london. deregulation and the big bang comes to mind.
communist, socialist or collectivist ? so independent critical thought should be stigmatised in order to negate any real content. well i've been called a few things a lot worse but i would prefer if you and max would challenge the validity of the content
Quote by gulsonroad30664
Thought we'd lost that broken record
:bs::bs:
Old Communists don't die they just fade away on to SH.
I guess we should be grateful Margaret Thatcher wasn't mentioned and blamed for all our woes ..
margret thatcher was a puppet for the city of london. deregulation and the big bang comes to mind.
communist, socialist or collectivist ? so independent critical thought should be stigmatised in order to negate any real content. well i've been called a few things a lot worse but i would prefer if you and max would challenge the validity of the content
That's really rich coming from you. I've challenged you to substantiate all of the bull shit you spout on here and everytime my challenge has been met with a resounding silence!
