Royal Mail shares

[superblue24]

Anyone have a punt? Seems like the investment was akin to gambling your dough on a horse running in a race against one legged donkeys.

 

[Usual_Suspect]

Yes, was allocated mine this morning. Anyone who applied for £750-£9999 got 227 shares and anyone who applied for
£10k+ didn't get any (according to Halifax). Currently 440p, so 110p up on the 330p issue price.

Seems the Government could have made a lot more money on this.

 

[steveo]

Applied for £1000 so I assume i'll get £750 worth.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers expense, then.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/11/royal-mail-share-price-buyers-profit

Welcome to the world of popular capitalism.

Even Thatcher thought nationalising the Royal Mail was a step too far.

 

[Neil_F]

You all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers expense, .

I am convinced your epiphany is just round the corner. One day you will understand the concept of supply and demand at a price.

 

[Usual_Suspect]

You all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers expense, then.

QUOTE]

I'm a taxpayer so I prefer to think of it as compensation for all the 'Sorry we missed you cards' when I was actually at home or for the £1 handling fee that I've had to pay because somebody else hasn't paid enough postage to send me a letter.

 

[superblue24]

You all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers expense, then.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/11/royal-mail-share-price-buyers-profit

Welcome to the world of popular capitalism.

Even Thatcher thought nationalising the Royal Mail was a step too far.

Yet you have no problem with people claiming that per week on benefits for doing nowt. I put up £750 of my own hard earned wedge to pickup that £250 which was risking (albeit small) loss.

 

[South Bank Hank]

You all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers expense, then.

Re-phrased.

You (taxpayers) all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers your own expense, then.

Welcome to the world of popular capitalism.

Indeed. Any idea where this profit might be invested next? What usually happens when people receive a windfall? What have you been arguing this country needs right now?

 

[southend4ever]

£750 - can't trade out until Tuesday. With 6% interest. Approximately £50 dividend. I think this investment is more for the longer term.

 

[steveo]

You all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers expense, then.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/11/royal-mail-share-price-buyers-profit

Welcome to the world of popular capitalism.

Even Thatcher thought nationalising the Royal Mail was a step too far.

You obviously missed out then Barna.

Have you ever asked yourself why Capitalism is so popular?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I am convinced your epiphany is just round the corner. One day you will understand the concept of supply and demand at a price.

Ha! I think I had that one sorted, when I passed my A level Economics exam, over 40 years ago.:smiles:

 

[Neil_F]

Ha! I think I had that one sorted, when I passed my A level Economics exam, over 40 years ago.:smiles:

posts on this forum strongly suggest otherwise...

 

[londonblue]

I am convinced your epiphany is just round the corner. One day you will understand the concept of supply and demand at a price.

But supply and demand says that at the right price supply will equal demand. In this case the price has risen so that that wasn't true, and the original price must have been too low.

Interestingly my only real issue with this sale is from an historical perspective. The Royal Mail was the oldest nationalised industry in the world. It was nationalised by Charles I in 1635. It just seems a shame to mess with that.

 

[londonblue]

Re-phrased.

You (taxpayers) all stand to make an instant profit of 250 quid at the taxpayers your own expense, then.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say:

A small proportion of taxpayers stand to make an instant profit at the expense of the vast majority of taxpayers that either didn't apply for, or weren't allocated any, shares.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Actually, it would be more accurate to say:

A small proportion of taxpayers stand to make an instant profit at the expense of the vast majority of taxpayers that either didn't apply for, or weren't allocated any, shares.

Well, if we're being pedantic, it's even more accurate to say that:

ALL taxpayers were given the opportunity to make an instant profit as ALL taxpayers had the opportunity to apply for shares, and ALL taxpayers would have been subject to share allocation procedures. The only moot point is whether ALL taxpayers would reinvest ALL or just part of their profits back into the economy to the benefit of ALL taxpayers.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

posts on this forum strongly suggest otherwise...

Not mine though.:winking:

 

[londonblue]

Well, if we're being pedantic, it's even more accurate to say that:

ALL taxpayers were given the opportunity to make an instant profit as ALL taxpayers had the opportunity to apply for shares, and ALL taxpayers would have been subject to share allocation procedures. The only moot point is whether ALL taxpayers would reinvest ALL or just part of their profits back into the economy to the benefit of ALL taxpayers.

Assuming we could all afford to. I certainly couldn't.

Or put another way, it has allowed people with a higher disposable income (mostly the rich) to profit at the expense of the people with lower disposable income (mostly the poor).

 

[Davros]

Sorry, but i don't understand what 'the poor' have actually lost?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Sorry, but i don't understand what 'the poor' have actually lost?

A few pound coins under the sofa I'd imagine.

 

[superblue24]

Assuming we could all afford to. I certainly couldn't.

Or put another way, it has allowed people with a higher disposable income (mostly the rich) to profit at the expense of the people with lower disposable income (mostly the poor).

Umm, the idea of shares is that you are investing money into something of value in the hope that it increases in value. Not that you are given something of value for nothing...unless you're on benefits.

i think it's fair to say that the government ensured that the rich were not the winners in this scheme since the lowest investors were given priority over those wanting to invest over 10k who got nowt. I'm not rich and I invested (all my savings as it happens)....they could crash next week so there was a risk.