ChatterBank0 min ago
Rbs: Government Sells £2.1Bn Of Shares In Bank
http://
The Fat Cats in the city must already be rubbing their hands in glee and ordering their new Porsches on the strength of this marvelous money-making news !
But us taxpayers are selling these shares at a huge loss.
The Fat Cats in the city must already be rubbing their hands in glee and ordering their new Porsches on the strength of this marvelous money-making news !
But us taxpayers are selling these shares at a huge loss.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Probably not FF, but according to the BBC link, the Treasury doesn't exactly inspire confidence :::
"The UK bailed out RBS in 2008 and 2009 by buying shares for £45bn and supplying it with cheap funds.
Ian Gordon, a banking analyst at Investec, told the BBC's Today programme: "The taxpayer is being short-changed."
The shares could have been sold for a higher price in February, when they were changing hands for more than 400p, he said"
"The UK bailed out RBS in 2008 and 2009 by buying shares for £45bn and supplying it with cheap funds.
Ian Gordon, a banking analyst at Investec, told the BBC's Today programme: "The taxpayer is being short-changed."
The shares could have been sold for a higher price in February, when they were changing hands for more than 400p, he said"
The Labour government did what had to be done at the time to prevent a banking collapse. It was not done as a money making investment opportunity. The share price has, since then, has never been close the £5 Darling/Brown paid and may never reach £5 so should the government hold on forever or should we try to get some money back. As with Gordon Brown's gold sale, only time will tell whether it was a good time to sell.
The fat cats may include our pension schemes
The fat cats may include our pension schemes
undervaluing looks like standard procedure
http://
http://
I think the plan is that selling a tranche of shares back into the private sector should improve the business, leading to a share price rise, so the next sale will be at a higher price.
If we sell off the shares in tranches then the important figure in the end is going to be the average price we got, not the price we got for the first tranche.
If we sell off the shares in tranches then the important figure in the end is going to be the average price we got, not the price we got for the first tranche.
Governments should not own public banks so it is right that it is returned to private ownership.
We were never going to get allour money back, the fact that we are getting a good deal of it back is a relief.
We invested in RBS to avert a banking collapse in this country, not as an investment.
Yesterdays sale was only a fraction of the 78% of RBS we owned.
Saying all that, Government sales of assets are notorious for being underpriced, Royal Mail being a recent example. Bankers advise the Government on the issue price for state assets, and are paid handsomely. Then the make a killing on buying the bargain shares.
We were never going to get allour money back, the fact that we are getting a good deal of it back is a relief.
We invested in RBS to avert a banking collapse in this country, not as an investment.
Yesterdays sale was only a fraction of the 78% of RBS we owned.
Saying all that, Government sales of assets are notorious for being underpriced, Royal Mail being a recent example. Bankers advise the Government on the issue price for state assets, and are paid handsomely. Then the make a killing on buying the bargain shares.
//Saying all that, Government sales of assets are notorious for being underpriced, Royal Mail being a recent example. Bankers advise the Government on the issue price for state assets, and are paid handsomely. Then the make a killing on buying the bargain shares.//
So how does that apply in this case. You can go see the price of the shares right now if you want.
Mickey, your head is clouded by anti Tory rhetoric. Labour bought the Bank out, I am on record on here as saying I did not a agree but many of your lefty mates howled me down.
Sometimes it is best to cut your losses. We are paying interest on the money we used to buy out RBS so that needs factoring among other things in too. As for should have sold them at 4.00, what utter nonsense. No one can foresee how the market will go with certainty, especially with Baks at the moment. I can imagine your howls of protest if they were sold at 4.00 then went up to 5.00.
Of course if you have more knowledge than the BoE then I suggest you apply for the role.
So how does that apply in this case. You can go see the price of the shares right now if you want.
Mickey, your head is clouded by anti Tory rhetoric. Labour bought the Bank out, I am on record on here as saying I did not a agree but many of your lefty mates howled me down.
Sometimes it is best to cut your losses. We are paying interest on the money we used to buy out RBS so that needs factoring among other things in too. As for should have sold them at 4.00, what utter nonsense. No one can foresee how the market will go with certainty, especially with Baks at the moment. I can imagine your howls of protest if they were sold at 4.00 then went up to 5.00.
Of course if you have more knowledge than the BoE then I suggest you apply for the role.
Now's your chance mikey444 to go on record and tell us at what point(s) you would sell the remaining 72.9% stake- or would you keep the shares under taxpayer control forever?
Don't ask Mikey - he says he doesn't know - lets ask Ian Gordan though - cause he's got more of an idea than this Government seem to
Don't ask Mikey - he says he doesn't know - lets ask Ian Gordan though - cause he's got more of an idea than this Government seem to
//Ian Gordon, a banking analyst at Investec, told the BBC's Today programme: "The taxpayer is being short-changed."
The shares could have been sold for a higher price in February, when they were changing hands for more than 400p, he said.//
No s *** t Sherlock !
Ian Gordon is an opportunist after his 15 mins of fame.
The shares could have been sold for a higher price in February, when they were changing hands for more than 400p, he said.//
No s *** t Sherlock !
Ian Gordon is an opportunist after his 15 mins of fame.
Don't be fooled - Osbourne's actions are politically motivated.
He may have the backing of the nominally non-partisan Bank of England governor Mark Carney, but the sale of RBS is also about advancing the Government's agenda.
It’s no coincidence that this news comes so soon after Osborne confirmed he would be selling off the remaining taxpayer stake in Royal Mail.
Both sell-offs will eradicate some of the Government’s debt pile, helping Osborne claim responsibility for fiscal prudence.
Ditching RBS will also disentangle the Government from embarrassing controversies over the bank’s conduct and dizzying executive pay.
He may have the backing of the nominally non-partisan Bank of England governor Mark Carney, but the sale of RBS is also about advancing the Government's agenda.
It’s no coincidence that this news comes so soon after Osborne confirmed he would be selling off the remaining taxpayer stake in Royal Mail.
Both sell-offs will eradicate some of the Government’s debt pile, helping Osborne claim responsibility for fiscal prudence.
Ditching RBS will also disentangle the Government from embarrassing controversies over the bank’s conduct and dizzying executive pay.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.