Lloyds shares offer to the public

veryintrigued

Glen_Clark wrote: »

With Osborne its always political, so he will want the sale to appear to show a profit for the taxpayer - which it won't at the current market price.

Is that political?

Glen_Clark

veryintrigued wrote: »

Is that political?

Yes, 'appear' to show a profit is political.

Thrugelmir

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Yes, 'appear' to show a profit is political.

From last August.

The government has begun its sell-off of shares in part-nationalised lender Royal Bank of Scotland, raising £2.1bn, a third below the price it paid.
It sold a 5.4% stake at 330p a share, a 7.6p discount on Monday's closing price.
Chancellor George Osborne is facing criticism for selling the shares at well below the price of about 500p the then Labour government paid for them.
The 170p difference represents a loss of about £1.07bn on the shares sold.
The government's sale cuts the government's stake in RBS to 73%.
RBS shares closed on Tuesday at 339p, up 1.4p, or 0.4%, valuing the bank at £39.2bn.

But Barbara Keeley, the shadow treasury minister, accused the government of "casually" losing £1bn.

Royal Bank of Scotland closed at 251p today.

That's the trouble with political views these days. Out of touch with reality and the speed with which markets move.

Seems as Gordon overpaid on behalf of the UK taxpayer.

Google tax is similar. People have simply no idea what they are talking about.

melbury

I know the stockmarket has been very volatile of late, but why are Lloyds shares taking such a battering?

I thought they were on the up.

Glen_Clark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

From last August.
Google tax is similar. People have simply no idea what they are talking about.

Thats true actually, because so much of it has been kept secret. I was staggered to hear an accountant on Radio 4 justify this unchallenged by saying Google tax affairs were private like 'yours or mine' If that were true public companies wouldn't have to publish any accounts at all?

Glen_Clark

melbury wrote: »

I know the stockmarket has been very volatile of late, but why are Lloyds shares taking such a battering?

I thought they were on the up.

I think its just more skeletons coming out of the cupboards like PFI, bad loans etc?

bowlhead99

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Thats true actually, because so much of it has been kept secret. I was staggered to hear an accountant on Radio 4 justify this unchallenged by saying Google tax affairs were private like 'yours or mine' If that were true public companies wouldn't have to publish any accounts at all?

Public companies have to make announcements and publish accounts, information and reports in line with accounting standards, the Code etc. What they don't have to do is invite news reporters into all their meetings with suppliers, customers, regulators etc where they discuss confidential information about transactions, strategic business plans etc etc. They're entitled to tell you in the nicest possible way, to "go forth and multiply".

melbury wrote: »

I know the stockmarket has been very volatile of late, but why are Lloyds shares taking such a battering?

I thought they were on the up.

Well, like you say, the stock market has been volatile of late, so companies' values move. Especially financial services businesses in times of domestic and global uncertainty.

They are "on the up" as in, balance sheet significantly improved from five years ago... but that has been fully expected for ages which is why the shares have been in a price range of 60-80p for ages rather than the 20-30p you could have bought them for in relatively recent memory.

Aside from company-specific challenges, things like BOE pushing back the timing of likely interest rate rises doesn't help either (not that it's necessarily bad policy by BOE, but low interest rates don't help profit expectations of banks who are in business to lend money to customers).

Thrugelmir

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I think its just more skeletons coming out of the cupboards like PFI,

PFI is on the Governments books as well. Suggest you steer clear of that subject as well.

John_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Public companies have to make announcements and publish accounts, information and reports in line with accounting standards, the Code etc. What they don't have to do is invite news reporters into all their meetings with suppliers, customers, regulators etc where they discuss confidential information about transactions, strategic business plans etc etc. They're entitled to tell you in the nicest possible way, to "go forth and multiply".

Of Course. But the suggestion was a public company has the same right to tax privacy as an individual - who doesn't have to publish accounts like a public company does. All we know is the amount paid by Google is a miniscule percentage of turnover and profit compared to other companies - or most people, who earn far less.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

but low interest rates don't help profit expectations of banks who are in business to lend money to customers).

But they don't lend to customers at low interest rates. They just borrow from them at low interest rates.

John_Clark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

PFI is on the Governments books as well. Suggest you steer clear of that subject as well.

Senior moment So many skeletons I am losing track of them all . I meant to say PPI (skeleton in Lloyds cupboard) , not PFI (skeleton in the Government's cupboard)
The FT reported that Lloyds shares fell on the news Osborne wasn't selling. The fact that £billions of taxpayers shares were not going to be dumped on to the market at a discount as a political bribe should have caused a rise in the share price - especially if the market had any confidence in Osborne's ability to get a better price for them in future?