Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

Yes ordinary retired Australians in the water companies case, that leveraged debt upon said water company, didn't pay any tax, didn't do much re infrastructure and put the bills up by a third. Sound like.people you'd want to do business with?

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:55 ----------

It's not our pension funds that own them but carry on

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24488144

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

Course they are Vince just like the water and power companies

http://news.sky.com/story/1152622/ro...-to-get-shares

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

George done his friends another favourr probably but what the hey no one cares so onto the next thing. I'm getting less and less interested in politics by the day and can see the next general election being the first in my adult life where i won't bother voting.

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

If George was doing his friends a favour he'd have favoured larger share applications.

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

He did that's why 70% of the shares weren't available to the public.

http://news.sky.com/story/1151131/ro...mall-investors

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

from TD's previous link on this page...

http://news.sky.com/story/1152622/ro...-to-get-shares
Seems not to be helping his 'friends'[/quote]

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

[/QUOTE]

Hugh he's helping his very best friends

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...il-shares.html

and the very last couple of lines were telling to, british funds lost out to sovereign wealth funds from abroad, fantastic, what were you saying again Vince?

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

Helping his mates, selling it too cheap, blah, blah, blah. Whatever he'd have done some people would be whining. The price these shares are currently trading at has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the business and the fact that major pensions funds and investment companies have bought into the issue is a very good thing for the business and millions of ordinary pension holders and savers whose funds/returns have been having a pretty hard time in recent years. Don't let that spoil the anti-Govt. agenda though eh...

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

I think the best thing for ordinary people and businesses will be how the Royal Mail performs post-privatisation. If it's sold off cheaper than it perhaps should have been then that's not great, regardless of how it helps investment funds, but it's not the worst thing in the world. However the Government will be judged long term on the effects of privatisation.

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

In the Times today, it said that most of the trading was in small amounts (personal buyers).

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

It doesn't matter what the share price will be in 3 months time, it's what they could have been sold for when they were issued. It's glaringly obvious that they were sold off too cheaply. However, It's easy to say that the price was set to help Tory 'friends', but it's more likely that the price was set low to ensure that they sold, because after all, politicians' reputations are far more important than little things like getting value for money.

As with previous privatisations, the shares will eventually end up with the big institutional investors. As with previous privatisations, we will find ourselves with a cartel of price-fixing companies.

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

Now where have we seen that before??

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

Perhaps it was here or here.....

Re: Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?
 

With the buy limit in place on these shares spread bets can be a very lucrative path to tread. You can make a ton of cash if you're smart.