Royal Mail to be floated on stock exchange

[Noxia]

I agree although I'm keeping mine, was never about making a quick buck just the fun of having shares in the RM even if it does go down the pan in a few years. I still think I'll come out with a little profit when I go to sell in 5 or 10 years, you never know.

Fair play, you have far greater patience than I but that's why I don't mess about with shares.

 

[jimjamuk]

Applied at the last minute and got the allocation and have spent 6 hours with Hargreaves Lansdown today trying to sell them - anyway made best part of £250 today

Hopefully RM will start to improve with it being part privatised because the service we get isnt this magical universal service that keeps being touted around.

 

[Noxia]

Applied at the last minute and got the allocation and have spent 6 hours with Hargreaves Lansdown today trying to sell them - anyway made best part of £250 today

Hopefully RM will start to improve with it being part privatised because the service we get isnt this magical universal service that keeps being touted around.

Exactly the point I was making, just because profit is involved doesn't mean the service will be worse. Simple really.

 

[jimjamuk]

Exactly the point I was making, just because profit is involved doesn't mean the service will be worse. Simple really.

Agree it means working better not harder. Sometimes you just need a fresh face to come in and tell you a better way. But for the doom mongers change is bad.......

 

[kPATm]

If only investors knew RM profits were so high because of posties starting early for free (upto 90mins is commonplace apparently to avoid agro from managers on what are often rounds that are way too big for modern internet shopping habits); not taking their paid breaks

Iv seen a few replies to this post saying its untrue. It is true ion my office at least. I would estimate in my office Royal Mail are GIVEN at least 20hrs a day. That's 2 full time jobs and a part time jobs hours a week they are getting for nout. All down to some employees starting early or finishing late and not putting in for the OT. Not entirely Royal Mails fault but they turn a blind eye to the ones starting early even though "officially" it is not allowed

 

[StonedPenguin]

Why is it going to get worse? To be honest that would be really hard. How do we know it won't improve? Oh that's right, not a clairvoyant.

Oh my, Has anything gotten better when privatized? Trains, Aircraft, Gas, Electric etc etc?

My speculations on the service once the USO (universal service obligation - 1 stamp price goes anywhere in UK) ends within 3 years:

Small business's and remote area's deliverys will be affected substantially.

3 day a week delivery, A delivery every other day over 5 or 6 days.

Stamp prices £1.50+ for 1st, ONLY 2nd class will be capped (for a while)

Massive job losses,Pay-cuts, Zero-hour contracts..RM employ 160,000+, 2nd biggest employer in the UK behind the NHS.

Onwards for the nationwide strikes in a week or 2!

 

[Noxia]

Oh my, Has anything gotten better when privatized? Trains, Aircraft, Gas, Electric etc etc?

My speculations on the service once the USO (universal service obligation - 1 stamp price goes anywhere in UK) ends within 3 years:

Small business's and remote area's deliverys will be affected substantially.

3 day a week delivery, A delivery every other day over 5 or 6 days.

Stamp prices £1.50+ for 1st, ONLY 2nd class will be capped (for a while)

Massive job losses,Pay-cuts, Zero-hour contracts..RM employ 160,000+, 2nd biggest employer in the UK behind the NHS.

Onwards for the nationwide strikes in a week or 2!

I cannot comment on levels of service (which is what I'm solely referring to) as I rarely use the first two and haven't had any issues with utilities from a service point of view. I appreciate this is a narrow view but as a consumer I rarely concern myself with the inner politics. That said, job losses I wouldn't wish on anyone and I appreciate this is inevitable with privatisation. If service does decline then it's been a massive loss for everyone who isn't benefiting from the profits.

 

[Amp34]

I applied and never got anything its complete bullcrap that 70% went to the hedge funds and tories who probably invested millions and are now trying to pull out and double thier money.

What have private investors got that should make them gt 70%? The tories just slapped the 99% in the face and given the 1% 70% of the shares.And this from a public company who were financed through the taxpayers.

Your fathers and thier fathers helped make RM what it is today through taxes and now its being raped by the tories and hedge funds.And what do people do? They sit at home or on a forum and complain.To be honest the whole thing should have triggered protests.shares divided equally through every citizen in uk who has been a resident for 20 years should have been how it went down.

Ooooh those evil pension funds! Giving those millions with pensions the ability to skive off work after 65!

Oh... Wait...

 

[Bear]

Spot the Thatcherite.How can you honestly sit there and be arrogant to that man for posting up what is essentially the truth about the great rip off?

What more evidence do you need that selling of state assets people depend upon to live in society is a bad idea and leads to job losses and higher prices for the customer?Seriously do you need to be Einstein to see the fact that the new owneers now have to make a profit where as RM of old never had to make a profit.Where does this magical extra money come from Einstein? It comes from a combination of job cuts, whipping the staff like dogs for extra performance and increased prices for customers.


It happened with gas and electric too why else are people in uproar and the Labour goverment at war with the energy firms? Did our communications network get better when we sold off BT? No as they will not even rollout FTTC/FTTP without every single council in the UK paying 30% the EU pay 30% and BT pay the rest and get to keep the fibre and profits.


Its basic bloody maths that a company who do not have to turn a profit can pass on lower prices to a customer than a company having to generate profits for shareholders.The sheer fact you cannot see this yet seemingly must be quite rich to take the point of view you did make's me wonder how exactly did you become rich in the first place apart from inheritance?

So why did you try and apply? You sound like a real bitter whiner and hypocrite.

 

[Vanilla]

Spot the Thatcherite.How can you honestly sit there and be arrogant to that man for posting up what is essentially the truth about the great rip off?

Look at it the other way - a lot of the population do not want these services controlled by the government. British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways….why?

The government should make laws and make sure my rubbish is collected every week. Not control the largest companies in the country around energy, telecoms and travel. Big Government vs small government. The government has never been good at running such things.

Such companies without a balance sheet are a black hole for our money. Look at the NHS....how many billions? And they can't even stop someone flying in from Asia to get treatment free. Bet your bottom dollar if it was privatised a ‘treatment tourist’ wouldn't even get a plaster.

What more evidence do you need that selling of state assets people depend upon to live in society is a bad idea and leads to job losses and higher prices for the customer?Seriously do you need to be Einstein to see the fact that the new owneers now have to make a profit where as RM of old never had to make a profit.Where does this magical extra money come from Einstein? It comes from a combination of job cuts, whipping the staff like dogs for extra performance and increased prices for customers.

We don’t depend on any of these services to live in society. Life did not change when any of these were privatised.

Job losses - that's the thing private companies are great at. Getting rid of people that are not needed - people you and I would be paying for. Shareholder pressure and accountable balance sheets means there is a strive to be efficient. When they are privatised who pays for the inefficiency? That's right, the tax payer.

What drive would a company have to improve if it never has to make a profit? What would get fixed? They’d never modernise, it would be a cash cow.

Price increases are not common given such privatisations. When BG and BT were privatised it brought with it deregulation and a huge increase in competition. BT were forced to give others access to their networks, same with BG. Look at all the suppliers of gas and telecoms now - i've never seen internet so cheap and the global rise in energy prices can hardly be blamed on privatisation given the events.

It happened with gas and electric too why else are people in uproar and the Labour goverment at war with the energy firms? Did our communications network get better when we sold off BT? No as they will not even rollout FTTC/FTTP without every single council in the UK paying 30% the EU pay 30% and BT pay the rest and get to keep the fibre and profits.

Do you remember just how bad BT and BG were back in the day?
The sheer cash injection from shareholders into BT gave them the change, over the last 20 years, to pretty much rip and replace the network and then again when the internet came along. People bought shares, this went straight to BT (and remember they were forced to share their network so they took that cash, upgraded their network and then had to let competing companies use the same network). Better service and competition.

Its basic bloody maths that a company who do not have to turn a profit can pass on lower prices to a customer than a company having to generate profits for shareholders.The sheer fact you cannot see this yet seemingly must be quite rich to take the point of view you did make's me wonder how exactly did you become rich in the first place apart from inheritance?

No, it’s more like a subsidy. The government will churn billions of your tax money into something so you can *think* you’re getting a good deal when really the actual cost to the country is much higher.

It's basic knowledge that companies that are politically controlled provide a poor service and lack of investment in infrastructure. Political control results in a short term view - they would not want to invest in long term project such as refreshes but rather short term projects that make them look good for the next election.

Cut them loose and they have to react to real competition – they evolve, they adapt, they cut dead wood and competitive prices are seen.

 

[Rofflay]

Look at it the other way - a lot of the population do not want these services controlled by the government. British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways….why?

The government should make laws and make sure my rubbish is collected every week. Not control the largest companies in the country around energy, telecoms and travel. Big Government vs small government. The government has never been good at running such things.

Such companies without a balance sheet are a black hole for our money. Look at the NHS....how many billions? And they can't even stop someone flying in from Asia to get treatment free. Bet your bottom dollar if it was privatised a ‘treatment tourist’ wouldn't even get a plaster.



We don’t depend on any of these services to live in society. Life did not change when any of these were privatised.

Job losses - that's the thing private companies are great at. Getting rid of people that are not needed - people you and I would be paying for. Shareholder pressure and accountable balance sheets means there is a strive to be efficient. When they are privatised who pays for the inefficiency? That's right, the tax payer.

What drive would a company have to improve if it never has to make a profit? What would get fixed? They’d never modernise, it would be a cash cow.

Price increases are not common given such privatisations. When BG and BT were privatised it brought with it deregulation and a huge increase in competition. BT were forced to give others access to their networks, same with BG. Look at all the suppliers of gas and telecoms now - i've never seen internet so cheap and the global rise in energy prices can hardly be blamed on privatisation given the events.



Do you remember just how bad BT and BG were back in the day?
The sheer cash injection from shareholders into BT gave them the change, over the last 20 years, to pretty much rip and replace the network and then again when the internet came along. People bought shares, this went straight to BT (and remember they were forced to share their network so they took that cash, upgraded their network and then had to let competing companies use the same network). Better service and competition.





No, it’s more like a subsidy. The government will churn billions of your tax money into something so you can *think* you’re getting a good deal when really the actual cost to the country is much higher.

It's basic knowledge that companies that are politically controlled provide a poor service and lack of investment in infrastructure. Political control results in a short term view - they would not want to invest in long term project such as refreshes but rather short term projects that make them look good for the next election.

Cut them loose and they have to react to real competition – they evolve, they adapt, they cut dead wood and competitive prices are seen.

Look i get the arguement from you about being modern and striving to improve but that is simply lazy managment and being honest i think its down to having it too good as well with no pressure.But does it need to be run by a private company to modernize and install these beliefs? No it does not you need to stop thinking about money and the whip these do not make good workers, they make miserable workers and its known that good productivity comes not from threats of unemployment but from enjoyment and security.


You are advocating sacking people to make it more efficent.So you think job losses and profit is the only way to drive something forward which i simply cannot ever agree with.Making a profit in your view is the ultimate goal, as long as there is a company lacking someone at the top taking off the cream and whipping the underlings success can never be achieved?


And BT before privitisation had one of the biggest workforces in the UK.BT have cut them down so much how many engineers are there now? Hvae you ever tried to book one and saw the costs involved? Explain the farce of a national rollout of a network behind the times and reliant on copper like FTTC?

Why did the goverment have to put up the BDUK fund? Why did NI have to pay 50% of the cost for a national telecoms rollout? Surely as you state profits would stimulate that investment? But it never did as the profits in this case would have to be sacrificed for long term investment and BT just barely managed to win that battle with its shareholders for the pityful shambles called out national FTTC rollout.


And the energy firms have also made in excess of 3billion in profits according to Ed Millibands speech/editorial.3billion that i remind you went to france's economy not the UK economy as they are all french owned.

 

[Pudney]

Yea you do not like people having an opinion do you? Tough buddy its called freedom of speech

Maybe if you could come out with some counter evidence or facts we could discuss this but im guessing your ego could never allow debate's could it? And where have i told a lie? Can you state where the lie is before your suspension kicks in?

The bit about 70% going to hedge funds and Tories for a start?

 

[Rofflay]

The bit about 70% going to hedge funds and Tories for a start?

According to the Guardian:

If the shares rise by 20%, the 690,000 people granted £749.10 worth of shares will make a near-instant paper profit of £150. Demand from the public was so strong that it would have allowed all of the shares to be sold to the public. The government has increased the proportion of shares granted to ordinary investors from 30% to 33%, by reducing the amount going to pension funds and other institutional investors from 70% to 67%.

It was stated before 70% would be reserved.I never saw any press releases to say otherwise.Are you saying this is not the case?

 

[Pudney]

According to the Guardian:



It was stated before 70% would be reserved.I never saw any press releases to say otherwise.Are you saying this is not the case?

"Institutional Investors" does not mean hedge funds.

Of the 70% going to "Institutional Investors" 90% went to pensions and life insurance companies, the remaining 10% went to hedge funds.

So 7% went to hedge funds. There you go, first lie and I wasn't even trying to find them in your post, I've only just seen it from Theophany's quote!

 

[Rofflay]

Alright so i got the recipients of the 70% wrong then.Although which pension funds exactly? And why do they deserve 70%?

I would hardly call that a lie when i believed it would be allowed to be gobbled up by hedge funds.For him to flip out like that just makes him seem like a wacko bird considering it was simply a case of getting Institutional Investors wrong.


And how come there was even a requirement to buy them? After all and i never saw you discuss this even though you are busy trading them.They are property of every single citizen in the UK.

 

[Pudney]

Alright so i got the recipients of the 70% wrong then.Although which pension funds exactly? And why do they deserve 70%?

I would hardly call that a lie when i believed it would be allowed to be gobbled up by hedge funds.For him to flip out like that just makes him seem like a wacko bird.


And how come there was even a requirement to buy them? After all and i never saw you discuss this even though you are busy trading them.They are property of every single citizen in the UK.

I haven't discussed anything, I popped in to the last page, so your simplistic understanding of the situation and despaired at the public. I think Theophany's frustrations stem from how people can be so judgemental about a situation whilst having an incredible lack of understanding about it. Quite frankly I agree with him.

As to why do pensions deserve some? Erm. Maybe because they're made up of peoples' money. So it comes back to the public. Which is surely where we want the beneficial ownership?

Edit: Have a link derived from Bloomberg, a better source than a journalist trying to sell the Guardian (and also better than any other main newspaper given their lack of specialist knowledge on the subject)

http://www.pionline.com/article/20131011/DAILYREG/131019971/institutional-investors-gain-from-royal-mail-stock-jump-after-ipo

Edit2: Actually, do you know who's going to do the biggest damage to the RM? It's the private individuals and staff who sell as soon as possible, because then it's open season where they go. And they may well end up in the hands of less interested hedge funds. It's all in the public's hands.

 

[Rofflay]

I haven't discussed anything, I popped in to the last page, so your simplistic understanding of the situation and despaired at the public. I think Theophany's frustrations stem from how people can be so judgemental about a situation whilst having an incredible lack of understanding about it. Quite frankly I agree with him.

As to why do pensions deserve some? Erm. Maybe because they're made up of peoples' money. So it comes back to the public. Which is surely where we want the beneficial ownership?

You know all he had to do was clarify Institutional Investors.He just took the arrogant path of trying to destroy anyone who does not work in hedgefunds or investment as having no place in any discussion.Thats the typical city attitude though is it not? It is much too complicated for the average person just let us brain boxes take care of it and rob you all blind


For an idiot who knows nothing, i can manage to figure out that people are being sold something everyone owns and only a small % are going to benefit.They have privitised the profits and nationalized the losses.I also know that most of this money has came out of thin air also due to our corrupt banking and monetary system.Not content with robbing people blind through printing money for EU bailouts and robbing everyone else thorough inflation they are now doing it in public again with Royal Mail.


So no it is not beneficial to anyone as now everone in rural area's is going to get shafted while a small part of the population gets a secure pension fund.What about the other 80% of the population and thier pension funds? They owned Royal Mail as much as anyone else.

 

[Pudney]

You know all he had to do was clarify Institutional Investors.He just took the arrogant path of trying to destroy anyone who does not work in hedgefunds or investment as having no place in any discussion.Thats the typical city attitude thought is it not? It is much too complicated for the average person just let us brain boxes take care of it and rob you all blind

Yes, that's all he really needed to do but he decided to get suspended instead. Personally I would have just taken a deep breath, but hey ho.

For an idiot who knows nothing, i can manage to figure out that people are being sold something everyone owns and only a small % are going to benefit.They have privitised the profits and nationalized the losses.

Well, I've never benefited when it was state owned, I'll still get post in the future as will everyone else. Will this change for the majority? No. You're just being idealistic about everyone "benefiting".

I also know that most of this money has came out of thin air also due to our corrupt banking and monetary system.Not content with robbing people blind through printing money for EU bailouts and robbing everyone else thorough inflation they are not doing it in public again with Royal Mail.

I don't actually know what you mean.

So no it is not beneficial to anyone as now everone in rural area's is going to get shafted while a small part of the population gets a secure pension fund.What about the other 80% of the population and thier pension funds? They owned Royal Mail as much as anyone else.

Where did you get 80% from? Out of thin air. You have no idea how much of the population is going to benefit from the pensions. For all you know most people with pension funds will benefit. Then the majority will benefit still. You're just being irrational now.

 

[Rofflay]

Yes, that's all he really needed to do but he decided to get suspended instead. Personally I would have just taken a deep breath, but hey ho.




Well, I've never benefited when it was state owned, I'll still get post in the future as will everyone else. Will this change for the majority? No. You're just being idealistic about everyone "benefiting".



I don't actually know what you mean.



Where did you get 80% from? Out of thin air. You have no idea how much of the population is going to benefit from the pensions. For all you know most people with pension funds will benefit. Then the majority will benefit still. You're just being irrational now.

Well yes i pulled the 80% figure out of a hat but really how many people will have thier pensions linked to RM? There cannot be that much i would guess 70% will have nothing to do with it to be honest.Is your pension linked to RM?

And when you stated you never did benefit when it was state owned of course you did,we all did me more so than others perhaps considering i post my goods from Ireland.Now the price hikes will benefit a few and cost others more.Yes it was a subsidy but that is what happens with a society.

Unless we go to systems like road tax based on how many miles you drive or only paying to maintain the bits of road you actually use.instead everyone pools thier resources and everyone in some part of industry gets a subsidy.Imagine if you owned a small postage based business in scotland are were posting to london.Soon they will be faces with big price hikes and could be forced to even close.The Universal service made it possible for them to compete with rivals further down the country making it fair on all parts of the UK and promoting jobs not just in around London but all over the UK.


Does that make sense to you? Universal service is vital to certain parts of the UK.Scotland is going to be angry, As is northern Ireland and let's face it OCUK will be more expensive for me and i am going to buy more goods locally instead of online.So OCUK will lose customers to rivals.It promotes local based transactions and trade rather than national and international.Its it just essentially backwards and to be honest why even be part of the UK if they are not willing to subsidy equal services for all?

 

[Pudney]

Well yes i pulled the 80% figure out of a hat but really how many people will have thier pensions linked to RM? There cannot be that much i would guess 70% will have nothing to do with it to be honest.Is your pension linked to RM?

I don't know, but you'd be surprised how many will invest in the same thing. We could ask Theophany as he's better placed to know but he got all emotional and suspended

And when you stated you never did benefit when it was state owned of course you did,we all did me more so than others perhaps considering i post my goods from Ireland.Now the price hikes will benefit a few and cost others more.Yes it was a subsidy but that is what happens with a society.

I don't really benefit that much though. What gets posted to me now? Amazon orders maybe, something else ordered online? And in most cases RM are just the end carrier, not the contracted carrier so my delivery charges won't change.

Posting? Not a huge issue, and I imagine not for the vast majority of the population except the generations still not to grip with electronic communications.

So no, I don't see a huge benefit from RM. I'd much rather dividends going into my pension pot.

Unless we go to systems like road tax based on how many miles you drive or only paying to maintain the bits of road you actually use.instead every pools thier resources and everyone in some part of industry gets a subsidy.


Does that make sense to you?

Sorry, I meant your whole thing about money created from thin air. I don't really agree with the subsidy idea either but that's a separate debate to be had.