Seven City investment banks led by Goldman Sachs are set

to share fees of up to £30m from the privatisation of Royal Mail.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news...isation-8701571.html

Who thought that the public (i.e YOU) would be better off?

Gets better

Today's share price confirms the company was grossly undervalued, cheating the taxpayer out of billions of pounds





Moya Greene is Canadian and now the 12th most powerful woman in Britain. Her old job was President and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Post on May 12, 2005. During her period of tenure injuries went up 15.4% and grievances went up 59.3%.

Your postie didn't benefit either. That's why he/she is looking grumpy and tired now.

mikey mikey wrote:
That can't be right...privatisation always improves customer service.

The company who advised on the privatisation should not be allowed to buy shares for say 5 years. Goldman Sachs advise on the under valued price and then buy a ton of shares themselves. The temptation to undervalue is too great.

Barnfish wrote:
It is fairly clear that the "temptation" was actually a 100% intention and deliberate. In fact carefully planned.

What's more, why was it even necessary to sell a natural monopoly into corporate hands?

mikey mikey wrote:
Allowing competition for parcel delivery was a tester and with companies like DHL able to move into the market, the writing was always on the wall for letters and other services. The history of privatisation is here

www.regulation.org.uk/post.shtml

It follows the same route as other national institutions such as British Steel, British Telecom and British Leyland becoming private companies. Gradual introduction of competition and a desire for government to cut their bills subsidising and running companies. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, I am just saying that is how it happened.

Appreciate the info and link Barnfish.

It is just that, as you may agree, whether you agree with privatisation for the sake of introducing competition is, in this case, for the common good, there is no way this farce is in order to create competition

It seems to be quite simple. In the initial, undervalued issue of shares, Joe public buys in and quickly cashes in on a short term profit. Whereupon the hawks come in and complete the takeover at a more reasonable but still undervalued price.

Joe public walks away thinking, yayyyyy go me and the hawks just take his short term profit back off him in the form of higher prices.

Same old same old. Wankers.