Rbs Sell Off

[nosferatu]

We aren't making a loss by selling these shares.

The loss had already been made.

There is no point in keeping the shares and speculating that the price would increase. The gov would be better selling the shares and investing in other shares with better prospects.

But, of course, that could never happen. Could you imagine the outcry if the gov used taxpayers money to speculate on the stockmarket at the same time as cutting back on welfare?

By keeping the shares, that, in effect, is what the gov would have been doing.

Its odd that some of the left wingers on this forum are advocating such a policy...

[Bud the Baker]

Institutional investors don't just manage money from private pensions. In fact, I'd imagine that private pensions only make a very small %.

Occupational pensions will make up the vast majority

I work for Burger King.

Semantics here but for me there is the state pension and private pensions which includes occupational pensions.

We aren't making a loss by selling these shares.

The loss had already been made.

There is no point in keeping the shares and speculating that the price would increase. The gov would be better selling the shares and investing in other shares with better prospects.

But, of course, that could never happen. Could you imagine the outcry if the gov used taxpayers money to speculate on the stockmarket at the same time as cutting back on welfare?

By keeping the shares, that, in effect, is what the gov would have been doing.

Its odd that some of the left wingers on this forum are advocating such a policy...

I reealize the money was lost when Labour government stepped into bail the banks out back in 2008 but like I said earlier the duty of the government is to do the best for the most people which I don't reckon they are doing by pursuing such a well signposted policy.

For the record I would have been happy to see the system crash and burn in 2008 and I'd be happy to see the government retain or even increase it's ownership and control of the banking system.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Bud the Baker

[Guest TPAFKATS]

So to recap..

The government spent the publics money buying shares in a failing company.

The government spent further billions if the publics money bailing out said failing company.

Having kept failing company afloat, government is now selling some shares but public are still making a loss on the deal.

This is apparently a good bit of business.

[Stuart Dickson]

We aren't making a loss by selling these shares.

The loss had already been made.

There is no point in keeping the shares and speculating that the price would increase. The gov would be better selling the shares and investing in other shares with better prospects.

But, of course, that could never happen. Could you imagine the outcry if the gov used taxpayers money to speculate on the stockmarket at the same time as cutting back on welfare?

By keeping the shares, that, in effect, is what the gov would have been doing.

Its odd that some of the left wingers on this forum are advocating such a policy...

Bizarrely though these Natsis cite Norway as an example to follow yet they do speculate on the London Stock Market

[FTOF]

I work for Burger King, cleaning the toilets.

[FTOF]

Could be worse.

They could give a charity £3 million pounds of a grant, against expert advice, only for it to go tits up.

Still, what's £3million down the tubes, given the £1 billion loss that's being forecast in relation the RBS sale?

FWIW, IMO selling off RBS is correct. However, the timing is wrong and shares should be made more widely available.

[Reynard]

Could be worse.

They could give a charity £3 million pounds of a grant, against expert advice, only for it to go tits up.

Still, what's £3million down the tubes, given the £1 billion loss that's being forecast in relation the RBS sale?

FWIW, IMO selling off RBS is correct. However, the timing is wrong and shares should be made more widely available.

Should have been offloaded in the last parliament but the libdems acted like a drag anchor.

You are right about charities though. None of them should be receiving taxpayers money like this. We jut see yet again that the state is an expert at spunking other peoples money about. Charity should be there as a response by people to need that they see. The state has no role to play in any of it.

[Reynard]

Semantics here but for me there is the state pension and private pensions which includes occupational pensions.

I reealize the money was lost when Labour government stepped into bail the banks out back in 2008 but like I said earlier the duty of the government is to do the best for the most people which I don't reckon they are doing by pursuing such a well signposted policy.

For the record I would have been happy to see the system crash and burn in 2008 and I'd be happy to see the government retain or even increase it's ownership and control of the banking system.

Its drawn directly from taxation and borrowing. There is no state pension "pot". The burden for increased state pension provision comes directly from the workforce and from borrowing, which falls on a workforce yet to be born.

[Bud the Baker]

Its drawn directly from taxation and borrowing. There is no state pension "pot". The burden for increased state pension provision comes directly from the workforce and from borrowing, which falls on a workforce yet to be born.

Did I say there was?

Moving off on another tangent, didn't Marvin Gaye sing about the poor workforce yet to be born.........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPGioIcPnZI

Edited August 5, 2015 by Bud the Baker

[FTOF]

Should have been offloaded in the last parliament but the libdems acted like a drag anchor.

TBH I think we should wait longer to sell it.

In addition to desperately needing money to balance the books, due to his mismanagement of the economy, the timing of this sale has been engineered by Gideon to make him look like the man who drew line under the ills that were caused by the banking collapse and all that came before it, like the massive bonuses, endorsed by the establishment. The only problem is, that most of us know that it hasn't really ended.

Edited August 5, 2015 by FTOF

[nosferatu]

The government own about 70 odd % of RBS. Would they not have made more selling a controlling interest to the highest bidder (as long as it met a minimum value) and then selling the remainder when the stock value (most probably) increased? Or were they worried that the winning bidder would break the bank up before they could do so?

FFS

You should offer your services as an economic adviser

[nosferatu]

So to recap..

The government spent the publics money buying shares in a failing company.

The government spent further billions if the publics money bailing out said failing company.

Having kept failing company afloat, government is now selling some shares but public are still making a loss on the deal.

This is apparently a good bit of business.

All of your post up to the last sentence is irrelevant.

What has happened has happened.

The loss has already been made.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I find it incredible that alleged left wingers like yourself are effectively advocating that the gov speculate on the stockmarket whilst cutting welfare.

[nosferatu]

Semantics here but for me there is the state pension and private pensions which includes occupational pensions.

.

The vast majority of institutional investors money is from pension funds.

And not all is "private". There are massive funded pension schemes out there that aren't in the private sector.

I always find it ironic when I hear folk bleating about the city fat cats and bankers bonuses when it may well be their own pension which is the driver behind it all!

[Bud the Baker]

The vast majority of institutional investors money is from pension funds.

But obviously not all of it.

And not all is "private". There are massive funded pension schemes out there that aren't in the private sector.

So.

I always find it ironic when I hear folk bleating about the city fat cats and bankers bonuses when it may well be their own pension which is the driver behind it all!

....and do you think we don't? Regulation to end this form of profiteering is long overdue.

I don't see how any of this changes my original assertion that such a well publicised policy can be anything but detrimental to the eventual total of money recovered and should be the main priority. We're just going round in circles.

Oh, and just who do you work for?

Edited August 5, 2015 by Bud the Baker

[oaksoft]

Institutional investors don't just manage money from private pensions. In fact, I'd imagine that private pensions only make a very small %.

Occupational pensions will make up the vast majority

I work for Burger King.

2 days ago it was Aldi.

[Reynard]

TBH I think we should wait longer to sell it.

In addition to desperately needing money to balance the books, due to his mismanagement of the economy, the timing of this sale has been engineered by Gideon to make him look like the man who drew line under the ills that were caused by the banking collapse and all that came before it, like the massive bonuses, endorsed by the establishment. The only problem is, that most of us know that it hasn't really ended.

The state will be in surplus by the time of the next election.

Not bad considering he was given a 150 billion yearly overspend to deal with.

[salmonbuddie]

That's what he said last time. Still waiting.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The state will be in surplus by the time of the next election.

Not bad considering he was given a 150 billion yearly overspend to deal with.

Are you sure about this?

[Guest TPAFKATS]

All of your post up to the last sentence is irrelevant.

What has happened has happened.

The loss has already been made.

As I mentioned in an earlier post I find it incredible that alleged left wingers like yourself are effectively advocating that the gov speculate on the stockmarket whilst cutting welfare.

it's all relevant, just not to you ;)

The loss is being made now as we aren't getting back what we invested in rbs.

Oh and I'm not advocating speculating on the stock market. I'm with Reynard on this, I wouldn't have bailed it out either.

It's all part of the austerity scam!

[FTOF]

The state will be in surplus by the time of the next election.

Not bad considering he was given a 150 billion yearly overspend to deal with.

Even if it is, this obsession with maintaining a surplus will do more harm than good to the majority of people in the country.

I'm sure the rich, including the bankers, will continue to get richer though.......................

Edited August 6, 2015 by FTOF

[Stuart Dickson]

Even if it is, this obsession with maintaining a surplus will do more harm than good to the majority of people in the country.

I'm sure the rich, including the bankers, will continue to get richer though.......................

It's strange you don't use the same argument when talking about things closer to your heart. You've been a strong advocate of St Mirren living within their means yet when it comes to the country you think we should spend it like there's no tomorrow and you think bankrupting the nation would be good for the majority of people in the country.

Only a daft nationalist socialist could come away with such a stupid statement.

[Stuart Dickson]

The loss is being made now as we aren't getting back what we invested in rbs.

Sorry, what? What kind of false accounting is this?

Lets say we're talking about a business here - you know, one like RBS. They bought ABN Amro at a ridiculously high price and then quickly found that the company was f**ked to the extent that it was absolutely worthless. Are you really claiming the RBS should have been allowed to submit annual accounts each year claiming that ABN Amro was still worth every penny that they spent on it until the point when they finally sell ABN Amro?

Edited August 6, 2015 by Stuart Dickson

[oaksoft]

It's strange you don't use the same argument when talking about things closer to your heart. You've been a strong advocate of St Mirren living within their means yet when it comes to the country you think we should spend it like there's no tomorrow and you think bankrupting the nation would be good for the majority of people in the country.

Only a daft nationalist socialist could come away with such a stupid statement.

Last year you were saying it was ludicrous to compare running an economy with running a household.

Now you are effectively arguing the opposite by comparing with the club.

More flip-flops than a tacky Spanish resort.

[Stuart Dickson]

You're just being stupid now.

If you want to put it in terms of accounts then yes, the accounts would show that the money was spent when the shares were bought. However, something tangible was purchased at the "value" that was set. The government thought that they had something worth what they paid for it (whether they were right or not is a different matter) and it would show on the accounts as an asset worth that much. If, at a later date, you sell it for less than you paid then the money brought in will show on the accounts but so will the loss of the asset, which will be greater than the money brought in. That is when you register a loss on the asset regardless of whether you make an overall profit or loss in the accounts in each of those years.

The way you are trying to talk about it is like saying that any investment is immediately a loss, it's not, it's a transfer of wealth.

Whether the shares should have been bought in the first place or whether the price was right or not has nothing to do with it, as has whether dumping a lot of shares at once has any effect on the share price.

That's false accounting. Shares are easily valued on a minute by minute basis. We knew the minute the government bought them how big the loss was. If the government claimed on balance sheets that it was still worth what we paid for it that would be false accounting on a Tesco scale.

[Stuart Dickson]

Last year you were saying it was ludicrous to compare running an economy with running a household.

Now you are effectively arguing the opposite by comparing with the club.

More flip-flops than a tacky Spanish resort.

No I didn't. I consistently compared the running of a household budget with the running of the economy and was roundly accused of over simplfying by the "economic experts" like Ernie here who thought Premium Bonds were how the UK Government covered it's debts.