Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HighPressure

Royal Mail sell off - what did I get?

Recommended Posts

Just wondering as a taxpayer and someone who used to be part owner of the Royal Mail, what I have now?
 
It appears to me others such as bankers, big institutions and of course friends of the government have made millions, yet I as the previous owner have nothing to show for it?
 
Usually when I sell something that is mine I get some sort of return from it and it is normal for a co owner to have some say in its sale. I just don't see how as a individual I benefit from this in anyway what so ever? Even those members of the public who purchased their £750 worth of shares only purchased what they already owned.
 
Obviously I have a lot to learn about high finance Posted Image
Edited by HighPressure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and presumably MPs will take a pay cut now that their responsibilities have been reduced again.

 

I'm thinking, based on privatisations since the 1980's, they should maybe be on average UK salary level now?

 

I mean what they are responsible for managing has been cut enormously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and presumably MPs will take a pay cut now that their responsibilities have been reduced again.

 

I'm thinking, based on privatisations since the 1980's, they should maybe be on average UK salary level now?

 

I mean what they are responsible for managing has been cut enormously.

Yes but then their expenses need to rise to keep pace with the increasing costs of the privatised companies charges now they need to make huge profits, so it kind of equates in the end :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some school friends I know work from RM/PO and have done for years and they all seem quite well off and get plenty of holidays and a pension.  Used to work for a Boot and Shoe manufactuer many years ago, and a chap that started with us one year was an ex-posty, he decided he wanted an indoor only job and became a clicker, on peice work, deemed a good rate of pay etc, he left less than a year later to be a posty again as it was easier and better pay and benefits, his own words when he handed in his notice.

 

But what have you got? well you had a stake in a business that was financially not doing very well at all and not willing to change, just because something is public does that mean it should not run as any other private business? if it was the latter Im sure it would have gone bust a long time ago along with the many others that have fallen in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what have you got? well you had a stake in a business that was financially not doing very well at all 

 

 

What was this about then?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22605734

 

Royal Mail profits jump as parcel sales rise
 
Royal Mail's annual profits have more than doubled, helped by strong growth in parcel deliveries as more people shop online.
 
 
How come this happened if it was 'not doing well'?
 
 

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

 

Royal Mail shares jump sharply on market debut

 

Royal Mail shares rose 38% to 455p in their first day of conditional dealings on the London Stock Exchange.
 
The hugely oversubscribed sale was priced at 330p a share, valuing the 500-year-old firm at £3.3bn. At one point, the price hit 459.75p.

 

 

Whether it works out better or worse is open to question. However, what is not in question is that the sale was not driven by common sense... by competent business insight and long term planning... simply by ideology. That is indisputable. The Tories did not have it in their manifesto, but behaved as expected, i.e. undemocratically followed their own ideology. 

 

I'm sure you'll agree that now the UK government has reduced its responsibility (for managing RM), then they should cut their wages as a result? Small government as the right wishes should of course = smaller remuneration?

 

If the Tories did that with each privatisation, I might respect them as they'd actually be doing what they espouse.

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But what have you got? well you had a stake in a business that was financially not doing very well at all 

 

 

What was this about then?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22605734

 

Royal Mail profits jump as parcel sales rise
 
Royal Mail's annual profits have more than doubled, helped by strong growth in parcel deliveries as more people shop online.
 
 
How come this happened if it was 'not doing well'?
 
 

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

 

Royal Mail shares jump sharply on market debut

 

Royal Mail shares rose 38% to 455p in their first day of conditional dealings on the London Stock Exchange.
 
The hugely oversubscribed sale was priced at 330p a share, valuing the 500-year-old firm at £3.3bn. At one point, the price hit 459.75p.

 

 

Whether it works out better or worse is open to question. However, what is not in question is that the sale was not driven by common sense... by competent business insight and long term planning... simply by ideology. That is indisputable. The Tories did not have it in their manifesto, but behaved as expected, i.e. undemocratically followed their own ideology. 

 

have they plugged that pension black hole now? apologies if they have and I missed that part, last I saw that was not the case and offset the profits were balance sheet only for those implied parts of the business but not the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But what have you got? well you had a stake in a business that was financially not doing very well at all 

 

 

What was this about then?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22605734

 

Royal Mail profits jump as parcel sales rise
 
Royal Mail's annual profits have more than doubled, helped by strong growth in parcel deliveries as more people shop online.
 
 
How come this happened if it was 'not doing well'?
 
 

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

 

Royal Mail shares jump sharply on market debut

 

Royal Mail shares rose 38% to 455p in their first day of conditional dealings on the London Stock Exchange.
 
The hugely oversubscribed sale was priced at 330p a share, valuing the 500-year-old firm at £3.3bn. At one point, the price hit 459.75p.

 

 

Whether it works out better or worse is open to question. However, what is not in question is that the sale was not driven by common sense... by competent business insight and long term planning... simply by ideology. That is indisputable. The Tories did not have it in their manifesto, but behaved as expected, i.e. undemocratically followed their own ideology. 

 

I'm sure you'll agree that now the UK government has reduced its responsibility (for managing RM), then they should cut their wages as a result? Small government as the right wishes should of course = smaller remuneration?

 

If the Tories did that with each privatisation, I might respect them as they'd actually be doing what they espouse.

 

 

Being impartial you may want to include the prior decade of steady losses.

 

The coalition were right to sell it in my opinion. The postal service is not one which requires a government monopoly and one in which small margins can potentially make it a liability again,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have they plugged that pension black hole now?

 

Has selling it off done that? Or instead, you and I are now liable, as we are for bailing out the failed banking sector?

 

----------------------

 

As an aside, what I find odd is that people don't seem to appreciate that centre-right parties acting primarily in their own interest and not that of voters. If they were acting in the interests of voters, then they wouldn't be a proper centre-right party.

 

See here:

 

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

 

In the simplest terms, the end of the left scale has politicians / people acting entirely for the benefit of society (collectivism / communism, although that has its own problems). On the right of the scale, they act entirely for themselves (individualism). According to the graph, the Tories act ~90% for themselves and ~10% for voters. 

 

It's simplistic of course, but you catch my drift.

 

If you vote for a far economic right politician, then you vote for them to screw you as much as they can. If they didn't do this, then they're clearly not what they claim to be.

 

Personally, I've never understood why people vote against their own interests, be that far right or left. When I see my local Tory candidate, I know he/she is most interested in benefiting her/himself and if I'm lucky, put a little effort in for me to win my vote hopefully. Hence they don't get my vote. If they spent at least half their efforts on benefiting society and the other half themselves, then I'd consider that decent enough balance. That would be the centre.

Being impartial you may want to include the prior decade of steady losses.

 

The coalition were right to sell it in my opinion. The postal service is not one which requires a government monopoly and one in which small margins can potentially make it a liability again,

 

It wasn't theirs to sell is the issue. As HP pointed out, it belonged to the people of the UK, liability or not.

 

Unless of course it was in their manifesto? If it was in both the Tory and Lib manifestos, then ok.

 

Links please....

Edited by scottish skier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has selling it off done that? Or instead, you and I are now liable, as we are for bailing out the failed banking sector?

 

Shareholders and users are, if you are neither then no surely?  And as I have said elsewhere I disagree with the bank bailout and what GB did, nothing is ever too big to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shareholders and users are, if you are neither then no surely?  And as I have said elsewhere I disagree with the bank bailout and what GB did, nothing is ever too big to fail.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17423461

 

Nope, the pensions liability now rests on you and I as I understand it.

 

The centre-right (New Labour and) Tory agreement to bail out the failing banks was utterly hypocritical given past history for not bailing out failing industries. Well not really, just in terms of what was claimed by them...

 

As noted, those on the right acted in an entirely predictable way by bailing out the banks; they saved themselves (or rather the financial sector where they have interests) at the expense of voters. This is what politicians of the right should do. If they acted more in the interest of voters, they'd be socialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17423461

 

Nope, the pensions liability now rests on you and I as I understand it.

 

The centre-right (New Labour and) Tory agreement to bail out the failing banks was utterly hypocritical given past history for not bailing out failing industries. Well not really, just in terms of what was claimed by them...

 

As noted, those on the right acted in an entirely predictable way by bailing out the banks; they saved themselves (or rather the financial sector where they have interests) at the expense of voters. This is what politicians of the right should do. If they acted more in the interest of voters, they'd be socialists.

OK, but how did the liability get there in the first place?

 

if it was doing well then *hey we have money* ...

 

 

...but it did not and this is what we are left with, the bits no-one wants.

 

could you honestly ask an invester to put money in?

 

 

so why expect the taxpayer who has never had a choice for years on that question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17423461 Nope, the pensions liability now rests on you and I as I understand it. The centre-right (New Labour and) Tory agreement to bail out the failing banks was utterly hypocritical given past history for not bailing out failing industries. Well not really, just in terms of what was claimed by them... As noted, those on the right acted in an entirely predictable way by bailing out the banks; they saved themselves (or rather the financial sector where they have interests) at the expense of voters. This is what politicians of the right should do. If they acted more in the interest of voters, they'd be socialists.

We should avoid using the term "pension liability" to score political points; the newly privatised RM has a big hole, but then the whole of the public sector effectively has one....and it's you and I, and the rest of the UK taxpayers that are paying for it.Those taxpayers include many many people earning less than the average wage, who themselves have little or no pension provision, but are expected to subsidise the whole of the public sector, pensionwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so why expect the taxpayer who has never had a choice for years on that question?

 

Yes. No choice. Tory or Labour. Ostensibly the same from 1997 onwards in terms of policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should avoid using the term "pension liability" to score political points; the newly privatised RM has a big hole, but then the whole of the public sector effectively has one....and it's you and I, and the rest of the UK taxpayers that are paying for it.Those taxpayers include many many people earning less than the average wage, who themselves have little or no pension provision, but are expected to subsidise the whole of the public sector, pensionwise.

 

What would you prefer BB: good pensions/wages for both sectors or crap for both?

 

Anyway, we're back to that old left/right argument (which is interesting as I'm neither) and straying off topic so I'll leave this for now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, I am against such sell offs of strategic infra structure and disagreed with rail and the utilities but they were intent on selling off Royal Mail anyway and they were not without competition from other large companies of a similar ilk, so with mixed feelings I applied for an allotment of shares. At least those I have would remain in British hands whilst I have them until a takeover by a foreign company happens, as do the dividends.

 

However to be fair, although we have a fair few foreign owners of 'British' companies, we in turn own quite a number of foreign assets, so I suppose that this is the result of a global economy.

 

On the bright side, the postage stamps I can buy with the profits should last me for the rest of my life :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's really 2 subjects here, the 1st being do we the public who once owned these companies benefit from their sale, and I can honestly say I don't think any privatisation has directly benefited me either as a taxpayer or a member of the public. I do however think that many in the in certain circles such as banking and those close to the government have made huge sums from the sales.
 
The 2nd subject is whether privatisation is right par say, and having worked in one industry as it changed hands from one to the other the answer is no. It is clear however that governments are simply unable to run anything properly on their own which must bring into question how they run their own affairs on public money? But I see no reason why governments cannot simply bring in people to run state owned resources in partnership so we all get the benefit of the massive profits which seem to appear shortly after the government relinquishes control.
 
My own experience was in the water industry where in 1983 Britain's largest Water treatment works was still running on steam and had a work force of 200+. We went through a wonderful time from [email protected] engineering wise is was like opening Pandora's box, we introduced modern technology and made massive efficiency savings. The company was making hundreds of millions a year and everyone was happy at this cheap bit of kit gained from the government for about fourpence. But that wasn't enough when the easy money ran they still wanted more, even when there was nothing to give, they cut corners reduced manpower still further and lied to OFWAT. They setup companies outside the core business to strip away assets from the main company. By 2000 their march for greater profits meant they were unable to even guarantee supplies and needed 2 sets of books, the one which the company gave to OFWAT and the set we needed to actually run the operation. Its easily done you simply adjust the milliamps on a flow meter to give whatever reading you would like it to be.
 
Supplying water like electricity is al done on the basis of risk factor vs profit, neither could cope with extreme conditions because the infrastructure is not there. As far as water is concerned no new raw water storage capacity has been added since 1957 and London has no more then 40-50 days supply in hand.
 
I am wondering off the point now but needless to say is that it was entirely wrong to privatise the Utilities, the preverbal crap will hit the fan and those running the companies will take their payoffs and walk away. All that should of happened is for the government of the time to bring in the expertise it needed and today we would have the best utilities in the world and running at a profit.

 

As for workers rights, well I can see why postal workers are worried, get your free shares in 3yrs if you stay working for Royal Mail and btw you are all on 2yr contracts - and they haven't even started yet!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. No choice. Tory or Labour. Ostensibly the same from 1997 onwards in terms of policy.

Indeed. I was just as opposed to Blair's attempts at privatization...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening all,

A bit off topic, but what the heck!

It was my wife's birthday on 9 October and my son and his girlfriend sent her a card by first class mail, and also a separate one from their 2 year old boy also by first class on 7 October from Huntington. She did not receive either and not until some three weeks later a card was posted through our door to advise us that there was mail for us at the local sorting office as insufficient post had been paid on it. We went to the sorting office and discovered it was the missing birthday cards which were underpaid by 10p each. We had to pay this underpayment plus a £1 surcharge on each. The excuse that we were given for the delay is that they are so busy with underpayments this was the quickest they could let us know.

 

It was quite obvious in both cases that they were birthday cards and the disappointment that non delivery on the due date would cause, but since when has customer focus been an issue?

 

Of equal concern is the vast number of underpayments (ours was very marginally over size-wise rather than weight). Perhaps lack of customer education might be the problem. Is the something the Post Office might be deliberately promoting to maximise profit?

 

Just a thought.

 

Kind Regards

 

Dave

Edited by claret047

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening all,

A bit off topic, but what the heck!

It was my wife's birthday on 9 October and my son and his girlfriend sent her a card by first class mail, and also a separate one from their 2 year old boy also by first class on 7 October from Huntington. She did not receive either and not until some three weeks later a card was posted through our door to advise us that there was mail for us at the local sorting office as insufficient post had been paid on it. We went to the sorting office and discovered it was the missing birthday cards which were underpaid by 10p each. We had to pay this underpayment plus a £1 surcharge on each. The excuse that we were given for the delay is that they are so busy with underpayments this was the quickest they could let us know.

 

It was quite obvious in both cases that they were birthday cards and the disappointment that non delivery on the due date would cause, but since when has customer focus been an issue?

 

Of equal concern is the vast number of underpayments (ours was very marginally over size-wise rather than weight). Perhaps lack of customer education might be the problem. Is the something the Post Office might be deliberately promoting to maximise profit?

 

Nothing to do with them being sold, their quality of service has fallen for years and the cost to use them has risen considerably even when a public business and they still lost money through poor management of the business and inability to innovate, modernise, streamline or cost correct their business model, now they are private their focus will be parcels and the last mile for general post (the most costly I suspect) will fall,  but many I know have seen this coming for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, nothing is sacred anymore. Profits first people last, unless you're nearer the top end of the food chain where you're measured by the overall results. And get paid bonuses that many dream of.

The gaffers in my office each received bonuses of between £2,000-£7,000 earlier this year...from the sweat off our backs. We got nout. In fact, we are still waiting for a measly £200-£300 bonus from 3 years ago.Know where you stand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know where you stand...

away from the trap door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: public sector pension provision. It always seem to be forgotten that these pension schemes were doing rather well until the 80s, when a certain Tory Chancellor passed a law which introduced a tax on schemes which were overfunded by more than 5% - in effect, forcing employers to take "contribution holidays". Some of these employers did not pay their dues into their schemes for a decade or more, thus leaving them hugely exposed to the recessions of the 90s and the massive increase in life expectancy.

 

I believe the Financial Times lists this measure as the 4th greatest fiscal mistake of all time, and I agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: public sector pension provision. It always seem to be forgotten that these pension schemes were doing rather well until the 80s, when a certain Tory Chancellor passed a law which introduced a tax on schemes which were overfunded by more than 5% - in effect, forcing employers to take "contribution holidays". Some of these employers did not pay their dues into their schemes for a decade or more, thus leaving them hugely exposed to the recessions of the 90s and the massive increase in life expectancy. I believe the Financial Times lists this measure as the 4th greatest fiscal mistake of all time, and I agree with them.

i think you're a little confused and have got your facts in a twist.Public sector pension schemes weren't really affected by this as they're 'underwritten' by the UK taxpayer.Private sector final salary pension schemes were affected, BUT.........by far the biggest tax raid was instigated by the then chancellor, Gordon Brown ( where is he these days?), following the 1997 general election, where he removed tax credits on share dividends in final salary pension schemes. This has cost the UK's final salary pension schemes somewhere in the region of £100bn since1997.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Public sector pension schemes weren't really affected by this as they're 'underwritten' by the UK taxpayer."

 

Just like MPs' pensions and bankers' bonuses? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Public sector pension schemes weren't really affected by this as they're 'underwritten' by the UK taxpayer." Just like MPs' pensions and bankers' bonuses?

Agreed Pete.And that's why the taxpayer-subsidised public sector pension schemes have hardly been tinkered with, because the MPs are in the same boat.Actually i'm not a great advocate of the pensions 'race to the bottom', but a number of factors over the years have combined to make the gold-plated pension schemes of the past (final salary) almost near unaffordable. I, and my long-serving work colleagues saw ours shut by our employer in August this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...