NatWest Shares?

Altior

TheBanker said:

I got a similar message from a stockbroker that I have an account with - might have been HL...

Anyway, there is some speculation that the Government are going to sell their Natwest shareholding at a cut-down price, to try to generate a bit of a feel good factor before the general election. Similar to when they flogged British Gas off cheap in the 1980s. I guess Barclays and other stockbrokers are expecting a lot of interest, and therefore see an opportunity to make some commission. Barclays in particular might think their retail customers, who wouldn't normally involve themselves in sharedealing, might be interested?

Here's some speculation from Sky News: 

This weekend, sources said that options under active consideration by Treasury officials included a minimum investment of £250, to encourage a wide participation in the retail offer.

A ceiling of £10,000 was "likely", they said, mirroring a 2015 Treasury plan - which was subsequently abandoned - for a retail offering by the Treasury of Lloyds Banking Group shares.

Advertisement

The NatWest offer is also expected to award one bonus share for every ten bought by retail investors and retained for at least a year, the sources added, although they cautioned that final details such as the bonus share ratio and precise investment thresholds could still be amended by officials.

A modest discount to the bank's prevailing share price will also be applied to encourage take-up.

https://news.sky.com/story/ministers-apply-finishing-touches-to-tell-sid-style-natwest-offer-13128685

The correlation with the privatisation of BG is scant to none. 

UK taxpayers only hold the 'RBS' shares in the first place due to being purchased under the instruction of the Labour government 16 years ago.

'We' have been selling these shares since 2015 (at a huge loss). The state in a capitalist democracy should not have a stake in a retail/commercial banking group, let alone a controlling one. But we have never come close to the price that Darling agreed. So when is the best time is an open question, I suppose. 

eskbanker

Altior said:
UK taxpayers only hold the 'RBS' shares in the first place due to being purchased under the instruction of the Labour government 16 years ago.

'We' have been selling these shares since 2015 (at a huge loss). The state in a capitalist democracy should not have a stake in a retail/commercial banking group, let alone a controlling one. But we have never come close to the price that Darling agreed. So when is the best time is an open question, I suppose. 

But surely that's only one side of the equation, i.e. what would have happened had Darling not made the emergency intervention in 2008?  Presenting it as if it had been a discretionary investment that's subsequently underperformed seems to miss the point, although at least the above commentary does recognise that "there are no simple solutions".

It seems worth segregating the two issues too, i.e. was it the right thing to do in 2008 (a decision hurriedly made in unprecedentedly extreme circumstances) and, separately, having bought the stake then, what's the best thing to do with it now?

Altior

But surely that's only one side of the equation, i.e. what would have happened had Darling not made the emergency intervention in 2008?  Presenting it as if it had been a discretionary investment that's subsequently underperformed seems to miss the point, although at least the above commentary does recognise that "there are no simple solutions".

It seems worth segregating the two issues too, i.e. was it the right thing to do in 2008 (a decision hurriedly made in unprecedentedly extreme circumstances) and, separately, having bought the stake then, what's the best thing to do with it now?

Whether it was the right or wrong move in 2008 is a different debate. 'TheBanker' was casually inferring that this was some kind of 2024 election ruse (which began in 2015?). People who don't know the history of why 'we' own/owned a massive chunk of NatWest, or indeed why it's cynically now called 'NatWest' and not 'RBS' could easily take this as being accurate and informed, so I like to interject to bring in some facts when I read it, from time to time. The only 'thin' correlation I can see of the privatisation agenda in the 1980's, and the state trying to diminish its holding of a publicly traded banking group purchased under a different administration is the state trading equities in some form or another, I guess.

I drew the excerpt from a piece from the HoC website, too long to post in its entirety Royal Bank of Scotland bailout: 10 years and counting (parliament.uk)

It's not really a political point from me (I have next to no time for the incumbent party), however I do believe the post I quoted contained thinly disguised party politics. 

eskbanker

Altior said:

It's not really a political point from me (I have next to no time for the incumbent party), however I do believe the post I quoted contained thinly disguised party politics. 

Quite possibly, but if you felt the need to challenge that point about whether the timing was suspicious, you could simply have stuck to observing that the sales have been ongoing since 2015.

I was commenting on the other aspects of your post, where you chose to go some way beyond that and presented information, some of which may indeed have been factual, albeit selective, but some of which was clearly opinion (whether the state 'should' own a stake in a bank).

Altior

The only 'opinion', I moved, reading back that I can see is The state in a capitalist democracy should not have a stake in a retail/commercial banking group, let alone a controlling one. Incontrovertible I'd have thought. Unless there are others who feel a democratic, capitalist state should have a significant stake in commercial businesses? It wasn't intended to be controversial, just setting the scene, but one can never tell these days, I guess!

The article is for context, lifted from a supposedly impartial source. 

eskbanker

Altior said:

The only 'opinion', I moved, reading back that I can see is The state in a capitalist democracy should not have a stake in a retail/commercial banking group, let alone a controlling one. Incontrovertible I'd have thought. Unless there are others who feel a democratic, capitalist state should have a significant stake in commercial businesses? It wasn't intended to be controversial, just setting the scene, but one can never tell these days, I guess!

The article is for context, lifted from a supposedly impartial source. 

Yes, not saying it's necessarily a controversial opinion, just pointing out that it's not a fact.  And likewise, overlaying a factual article with loaded commentary about selling "at a huge loss" and 'never coming close to the price paid' is moving away from true impartiality, albeit it may not have been conscious bias!

Altior

Just getting soppy to try and counteract what I posted. The final sentence is the pivotal point. Whenever the government sold the stock it would be open to the accusation of it being politically motivated. Which is why, in an ideal world, the state would not own or part own a commercial banking operation under the direction of politicians. 'We' own the stock due to decisions made under a different government. The plan was always to dispose of the stock once the market conditions proved amenable. Which may now not be within our lifetimes! So time has to be called on the project at some point. 

eskbanker

Altior said:

Just getting soppy to try and counteract what I posted. The final sentence is the pivotal point. Whenever the government sold the stock it would be open to the accusation of it being politically motivated. Which is why, in an ideal world, the state would not own or part own a commercial banking operation under the direction of politicians. 'We' own the stock due to decisions made under a different government. The plan was always to dispose of the stock once the market conditions proved amenable. Which may now not be within our lifetimes! So time has to be called on the project at some point. 

Can't see how the word 'soppy' can legitimately be applied to any of the above, but your qualifier about what should or shouldn't happen in an ideal world is pertinent, the 2008 global financial crisis clearly being some way from ideal circumstances.

However, as we all agree, revisiting the rationale for decisions back then isn't particularly productive and the focus needs to be on how and when to unwind the government holding - again it's not an ideal world in that there's little prospect of the share price recovering enough, so governments of all stripes will be damned if they do and damned if they don't!