Politics Thread!

[pogo]

Again, how else should they have done it? A public offering? Problem is RBS is still pretty fucked up, not the sort of thing the govt. should be encouraging the general public to dabble in. It would take a long time to organise, with the danger the price might fall further. And they need to sell many more shares, in many more blocks, and the public would soon tire of it.

[gravy]

Brilliant, a free and open market has gone from being the best system to "too hard".

[gravy]

Hey pogo, this left wing mouthpiece thing Osborne's actions are likely politically motivated

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... -1-billion

[VNVObit]

not the sort of thing the govt. should be encouraging the general public to dabble in.

Must have missed a meeting when did the government become an independent financial advisor?

It would take a long time to organise, with the danger the price might fall further.

or rise

And they need to sell many more shares, in many more blocks, and the public would soon tire of it.

if they were doing a public offering than the number of blocks would reduce significantly as the scale of sales would be higher than the small % sold to date

[pogo]

Yes, I read that earlier. Only political in the sense that the government is now able to do what [it thinks] is correct, free of LD interference. It ends:

The timing of the sale is more likely to be linked to the ejection of the Liberal Democrats from government in May, allowing Mr Osborne to follow his privatising instincts. The chancellor is right that banks are better off owned by the private sector than by governments. But the focus should not be on turning profits from bailouts. Better to make sure the government is not dragged into them in the first place.

I.e. stop obsessing over the £1bn lost, it’s the wrong issue to focus on. Certainly stop worrying over the odd £million they hypothetically left on the table because the sale was structured to sell all of the shares quickly, especially as anything slower might have cost even more.

[pogo]

Must have missed a meeting when did the government become an independent financial advisor?

if they were doing a public offering than the number of blocks would reduce significantly as the scale of sales would be higher than the small % sold to date

Even worse than an IFA, the government ends up cheerleader for any sale to the public, talking up the shares as a good long term investment. But that would be misleading with RBS, its long term prospects are still uncertain. Being honest about this would lead to a very small take up among private investors.

As for a higher scale no, as the amount they sell is limited by what the market will bear. Sell too many too quickly and it could push prices even lower, damaging the prospect for more sales, no matter how they are sold.

[gravy]

£1bn isn't worth obsessing about?

I'll have that lined up the next time you're justifying some borderline psycopathic cuts targeting of the vulnernable to yield near meainingless savings.

And stop conflating the feeling that the chancellors done a poor job with an argument for state owned the banks. This is an argument about how badly the job has been done, not whther it should be done/

[VNVObit]

Yes, I read that earlier. Only political in the sense that the government is now able to do what [it thinks] is correct, free of LD interference. It ends:

The timing of the sale is more likely to be linked to the ejection of the Liberal Democrats from government in May, allowing Mr Osborne to follow his privatising instincts. The chancellor is right that banks are better off owned by the private sector than by governments. But the focus should not be on turning profits from bailouts. Better to make sure the government is not dragged into them in the first place.

I.e. stop obsessing over the £1bn lost, it’s the wrong issue to focus on. Certainly stop worrying over the odd £million they hypothetically left on the table because the sale was structured to sell all of the shares quickly, especially as anything slower might have cost even more.

It also mentions that RBS is currently restructuring, consequently it should have some cash from sale of separated businesses to buy back some of its shares. Arguably a more sensible approach for someone who isn't a "normal" shareholder particularly when they hold 73% of the shares

That would support a higher share price going forward without being seen to be done over by hedge funds

and if we are going to selectively quote from the article then this is probably closer to the point of it than the bit you quoted

Regardless of the price the government paid for the shares seven years ago, what matters now is getting the best possible price for them. But it is hard for George Osborne, the chancellor, to make this argument, given how he crowed about the profit he turned in an earlier bank privatisation.

[VNVObit]

As for a higher scale no, as the amount they sell is limited by what the market will bear. Sell too many too quickly and it could push prices even lower, damaging the prospect for more sales, no matter how they are sold.

given it was oversubscribed by more than 100% it's safe to say that the market could have borne more.
stop quoting micro economics supply and demand theory when the facts clearly contradict your viewpoint

[gravy]

I one of the stpuidest things they've done is tell the ONS they're going sell off all of their shares in RBS over the government term at only get 75% of their worth at TODAY'S PRICES.

It was in the post budget OBR report Nothing like telling who you're selling to what your bottom line is before the sale. Not great to build your negotiating position with. Also a pretty good indicator that getting the best deal isn't prime motivator here. It's getting rid during this sitting irrespective whether it's appalling timing or not.

[pogo]

I one of the stpuidest things they've done is tell the ONS they're going sell off all of their shares in RBS over the government term at only get 75% of their worth at TODAY'S PRICES.

It was in the post budget OBR report Nothing like telling who you're selling to what your bottom line is before the sale. Not great to build your negotiating position with. Also a pretty good indicator that getting the best deal isn't prime motivator here. It's getting rid during this sitting irrespective whether it's appalling timing or not.

I suppose the OBR has to make a guess at how much it will raise, but at the moment it’s hard to argue they will lose money on RBS. But again, it’s the wrong thing to focus on. It was bought (and not by this government) to stop the banking system collapsing which would have been far more expensive. But they can’t hold on to RBS forever, they have to sell it. The sooner the better as it’s not paying a dividend and there are other things they could do with the £30bn.

There’s no good time to sell. There’s no guarantee waiting will raise more: RBS share price could be in the doldrums for years. The OBR seems to think so, if that’s what’s in their post budget report. Which means holding on to them for longer than is necessary makes no sense

[gravy]

I really don't get the logic.

Labour doing the right thing in buying RBS / Lloyds to stave off a wider financial crash gives Osbourne license to do a shit job re-prvatising them.

It's not his money and it's fair to for the people who's money it is to expect better, After all he's predicting a financial rise that would make it nigh on impossible for RBS's value not to rise.

We're not all in love with him like you

[pogo]

I really don't get the logic.

Labour doing the right thing in buying RBS / Lloyds to stave off a wider financial crash gives Osbourne license to do a shit job re-prvatising them.

It's not his money and it's fair to for the people who's money it is to expect better, After all he's predicting a financial rise that would make it nigh on impossible for RBS's value not to rise.

We're not all in love with him like you

What else could he have done? As The Economist notes perhaps his biggest mistake in this was talking up the profit made on the Lloyds sale, as that would mean pundits would focus on the loss on the RBS sale. But the point is not and was not to make a profit, and it is the wrong thing to focus on.

[k345y]

The price has risen since, so anyone holding on to RBS shares has made a small profit.

Anyone except the majority share holders. US! Who, seemingly are at a loss.

Don't kid yourself Pogo, RBS shares such as was TRM are thank you vouchers to insiders, courtesy from a government that is saying thank you for riding this rough spell out, here's your reward, guaranteed inevitable rising shares.
Fuck the public, they're only the means to an end and lets all have a right laugh at the irony of cutting public sector wages at the same time as denying the most needy their basic liveable social security. The very people who own this institution.

Pfffft.

Every single person in this country of ours deserves a return on the sale of any governmental held share/s.
It's ours held in trust, any board would be voted out by its holders if it sold at a loss ffs!

Fuck Osborne and crew, corrupt and biased wankers the lot of them!



/rant

[(o)(o)]

I don't know how many times you have to be told.

Again, the important thing is to defocus your attention from deeds Tories are committing...

Instead focus on... growth, we're paying down the debt, lower unemployment, disableds being incentivised to get on rather than choosing a lifestyle of languishing on benefits etc..