Lloyds shares offer to the public

Eco_Miser

EdGasket wrote: »

Interesting 'spin' on this. The gov't selling to the taxpayer what the taxpayer already owns

Takes me back to the eighties, when tax-payer owned assets were being sold off left, right, and centre. Well right and centre anyway.

gadgetmind

EdGasket wrote: »

The gov't selling to the taxpayer what the taxpayer already owns

The government (and thus tax payer) owns the shares, but doesn't really want them. People (who may or may not be tax payers) will get a chance to own these shares, but need to pay the government for them. The government (and thus the tax payer) then has money instead.

Glen_Clark

EdGasket wrote: »

However it is only the better off 'public' who might derive any financial benefit

Exactly. The losers are those taxpayers who can't afford to buy the discounted shares. But they aren't likely to vote Tory. Just like selling discounted council houses, its aimed at people who can be bribed to vote Tory, with other voters money.
Unfortunately, the dirty skills needed to climb the greasy pole of politics, (which Osborne undoubtedly has) are not the same skills needed to run the country.

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

The government (and thus tax payer) owns the shares, but doesn't really want them. People (who may or may not be tax payers) will get a chance to own these shares, but need to pay the government for them. The government (and thus the tax payer) then has money instead.

Yes but they could do all that by continuing to drip feed the shares into the market, as any normal investor would.
But Osborne prefers to sell our shares cheap to people who can be bribed to vote for him.

gadgetmind

Glen_Clark wrote: »

The losers are those taxpayers who can't afford to buy the discounted shares.

Just like in a rights issue, so welcome to the real world.

kidmugsy

gadgetmind wrote: »

The big losers were the previous shareholders. They got shafted as the share price crashed

Quite right too. It was their business; it went phut; they correspondingly lost. Who else do you think should have borne the loss?

Thrugelmir

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Yes but they could do all that by continuing to drip feed the shares into the market, as any normal investor would.
But Osborne prefers to sell our shares cheap to people who can be bribed to vote for him.

Placing large parcels of shares is always done at a discounted price to current market value. Why should US or Asian investors end up with the majority of the bank?

grey_gym_sock

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Placing large parcels of shares is always done at a discounted price to current market value.

so why not (assuming that the UK should be selling its shares) sell a few shares every day, over a period of months if necessary? that is more likely to maximize the sale price.

Why should US or Asian investors end up with the majority of the bank?

they will anyway, assuming that's who wants to buy the shares. if UK individuals are only buying for the 15% - sorry, 13.6% - discount, then they'll sell again after a year - to US/asian investors, if that's who's interested in buying. if you don't want lloyds to be owned by foreigners, then either don't sell the shares, or slap some kind of foreign ownership restrictions on it.

there's no good justification for osborne's 13.6% give-away.

Nick_C

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Placing large parcels of shares is always done at a discounted price to current market value.

Surely that's not true?

I understand HMG at one time owned 43% of Lloyds. That has been reduced to less than 13% now. Surely those shares were sold on the open market as part of normal trading?

Thrugelmir

Nick_C wrote: »

Surely that's not true?

I understand HMG at one time owned 43% of Lloyds. That has been reduced to less than 13% now. Surely those shares were sold on the open market as part of normal trading?

Off loading shares in that quantity has to be managed. So as not to cause price disruption in the market. Big lines of stock are always placed not traded.