We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Lloyds shares offer to the public
Comments
-
With Osborne its always political.
If this was about getting the best deal for the taxpayer he wouldn't be selling shares to small investors at a 15% discount.
He would drip feed them into the market like any sensible investor does when they want to sell their shares, avoiding the cost of the PR campaign and the extra administration costs of having more shareholders.
Who else, other than a politician, would go about selling shares in this manner?
I don't agree with it, but I can't stop it, so will be putting in for £999 worth. If somebody is going to profit from this it might as well be me.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »Who else, other than a politician, would go about selling shares in this manner?
Well, quite. It's not a floatation, where you want to publicity, but a bit of a give away.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Its not really a floatation. The shares already exist and are available for trading. The government are just selling their shareholding. They have already sold many (most?) of the shares that they had bought.
And sorry but I'm a maths pedant. The discount is 13.6%. (£110 of shares for £95).0 -
Its not really a floatation. The shares already exist and are available for trading. The government are just selling their shareholding. They have already sold many (most?) of the shares that they had bought.
And sorry but I'm a maths pedant. The discount is 13.6%. (£110 of shares for £95).
Wouldn't that be 15.8%?0 -
Wouldn't that be 15.8%?
No. Shares cost £110. You get a discount of 13.6%, which is £14.96. Take £14.96 away from £110 and you get £95.04. 13.6% is rounded to 1dp
A better calculation is (1-(95/110))*100
Edit: If you weren't getting the 13.6% discount, you would have to pay 15.8% more for your shares.0 -
No. Shares cost £110. You get a discount of 13.6%, which is £14.96. Take £14.96 away from £110 and you get £95.04. 13.6% is rounded to 1dp
A better calculation is (1-(95/110))*100
Edit: If you weren't getting the 13.6% discount, you would have to pay 15.8% more for your shares.
Yep , Agreed..my mistake. Gain is 15.8% not the discount0 -
I think HSBC is a better long term investment.
The problem for HSBC is that Osborne has cottoned on to the populist 'bash the bankers' movement like a loose cannon, and is taxing HSBC more than any of the other banks, even though they didn't get a bailout, because unluckily they happen to have high foreign earnings taxed in London.
Like the Building Societies, HSBC are being clobbered with taxes to shore up their competitors. This is the Government's version of 'Capitalism' and 'Free Enterprise'. Looks more like Socialism to me.
HSBC have threatened to move back to Hong Kong, but the reason they left in the first place (China) is still there.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Interesting 'spin' on this. The gov't selling to the taxpayer what the taxpayer already owns with George Osborne making it sound like he is doing the 'public' a favour by offering a discount. However it is only the better off 'public' who might derive any financial benefit; most of the public are still paying for the excessive city bonuses and professional mismanagement of finance by the City institutions.0
-
Glen_Clark wrote: »The problem for HSBC is that Osborne has cottoned on to the populist 'bash the bankers' movement like a loose cannon, and is taxing HSBC more than any of the other banks, even though they didn't get a bailout, because unluckily they happen to have high foreign earnings taxed in London.
Like the Building Societies, HSBC are being clobbered with taxes to shore up their competitors. This is the Government's version of 'Capitalism' and 'Free Enterprise'. Looks more like Socialism to me.
HSBC have threatened to move back to Hong Kong, but the reason they left in the first place (China) is still there.
HSBC appear to have softened their stance. Now it's the challenger banks that are complaining.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards