Thatcher style Tory Lloyds sell off in 12montbs

Thatcher style Tory Lloyds sell off in 12montbs

Author
Discussion

AmitG

3,299 posts

160 months

Sunday 19th April 2015
quotequote all
Blaster72 said:
As for the poster above who said the public didn't bail them out, if the government borrows money to bail out the banks where exactly do you think the money comes from to pay back those loans???
Exactly.

The public has already bought, and paid for, its stake in Lloyds. It didn't pay upfront, but instead got a loan (by issuing unsecured debt in the bond markets) in order to get the money to buy it. It's now paying back the loan through its taxes. (A fairly big chunk of tax money goes towards paying interest on government debt.)

I just don't understand how the public can then be asked to "buy" the stake again.

sidicks

25,218 posts

221 months

Sunday 19th April 2015
quotequote all
I'm not sure what the confusion is here?

The shares were previously in private hands.
Following the bank bailouts, the government ended up owning a significant shareholding in Lloyds but this was only ever expected to be temporary.
The plan is now to return the shares to private hands.

What has this got to do with Thatcher?

turbobloke said:
As long as they remember to tell Sid.
I'm now fully up to speed with the situation!
wink

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 19th April 12:03

z4RRSchris

11,290 posts

179 months

Sunday 19th April 2015
quotequote all
normally we would sell these off to institutional investors over a sell off period to get maximum value.

instead we are going to give poor people (you'll only get shares I bet if you apply for a few hundred quid) a bit of pocket money buy giving them a few hundred quid in their pocket. And lose a few billion in the process via the discount and bonus

thatcher did the same, in fact we did the same with Royal Mail

otolith

56,154 posts

204 months

Sunday 19th April 2015
quotequote all
The "public" jointly own a share of a bank. The "public" will sell their share of a bank to individuals for money. The "public" will then own money to pay down a bit of its enormous debt and the individuals will own the shares. What's hard to grasp?

xjsdriver

1,071 posts

121 months

Sunday 19th April 2015
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
Trailhead said:
Where and when can I buy them?
DYOR first.

Strange time to sell given the UKs financial position, cost of borrowing etc. Also why not just tranche them back onto the market progressively and get the best price?

Edited by speedy_thrills on Sunday 19th April 10:00
Because then mates of Dave won't benefit as much.......who cares if it's good for the country or nor - as long as Dave's mates make their stashes of filth lucre?

sidicks

25,218 posts

221 months

Sunday 19th April 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
The "public" jointly own a share of a bank. The "public" will sell their share of a bank to individuals for money. The "public" will then own money to pay down a bit of its enormous debt and the individuals will own the shares. What's hard to grasp?
beer

jonby

5,357 posts

157 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
AmitG said:
Blaster72 said:
As for the poster above who said the public didn't bail them out, if the government borrows money to bail out the banks where exactly do you think the money comes from to pay back those loans???
Exactly.

The public has already bought, and paid for, its stake in Lloyds. It didn't pay upfront, but instead got a loan (by issuing unsecured debt in the bond markets) in order to get the money to buy it. It's now paying back the loan through its taxes. (A fairly big chunk of tax money goes towards paying interest on government debt.)

I just don't understand how the public can then be asked to "buy" the stake again.
I'm struggling to see how this is difficult for people to grasp

At present, it is indeed not so far fetched to say that we the public ALL own a tiny bit of lloyds. The key being the use of the word ALL. Using our cash, whether borrowed or not.

When the shares are sold, a small number of people will buy and therefore own those lloyds shares. In return we will all have the shares that we currently all own converted back to the cash that was used to buy the shares - we will actually ALL be better off assuming the cash that we sell the shares for exceeds the amount that was used to buy lloyds

As a separate issue, there will as a result be investors, made up of some of the public but not all, who have bought lloyds shares with their own cash. Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't sell any of the stake to British taxpayers and only sell to institutions and foreign private investors ?

This idea that we are being somehow asked to double pay for doesn't take into account the whole picture


anonymous-user

54 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
AmitG said:
I think that robemcdonald makes a good point.

Lloyds was already bought using taxpayer money. The nation already owns it. To then "sell" it back to British nationals suggests that the nation is being asked to pay for something that it already owns.

All the Tories are really doing is asking people to write cheques to pay off the national debt, in return for direct exposure to the upside (or downside) of Lloyds stock.

I've simplified a bit, but that's how it looks to me.
Absurd illogical nonsense. If indeed 'the nation' does own Lloyds (its only 22%), then when it is sold 'the nation' will be paid for it, by the new owners. Who gives a fvck who the new owners are, 'British Nationals' or otherwise, if they want to own it good luck to them. Yes a British taxpayer willfully choosing to buy Lloyds from UKFI in a convoluted way has paid for some of it twice, but using the same logic they will also be paid for selling it once also. So no it's not a good point its a sh1t point.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th April 21:52

greygoose

8,262 posts

195 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
fblm said:
AmitG said:
I think that robemcdonald makes a good point.

Lloyds was already bought using taxpayer money. The nation already owns it. To then "sell" it back to British nationals suggests that the nation is being asked to pay for something that it already owns.

All the Tories are really doing is asking people to write cheques to pay off the national debt, in return for direct exposure to the upside (or downside) of Lloyds stock.

I've simplified a bit, but that's how it looks to me.
Absurd illogical nonsense. If indeed 'the nation' does own Lloyds (its only 22%), then when it is sold 'the nation' will be paid for it, by the new owners. Who gives a fvck who the new owners are, 'British Nationals' or otherwise, if they want to own it good luck to them. Yes a British taxpayer willfully choosing to buy Lloyds from UKFI in a convoluted way has paid for some of it twice, but using the same logic they will also be paid for selling it once also. So no it's not a good point its a sh1t point.

Edited by fblm on Monday 20th April 21:52
Given the collective we as tax payers own 22% I don't see why we should sell it off at 95% of its value to pay off part of the national debt , rather than 100% if it was sold normally as the rest of the stake has been sold. (Yes I know the selling bank will take a percentage of thr sale either way)

anonymous-user

54 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
greygoose said:
Given the collective we as tax payers own 22% I don't see why we should sell it off at 95% of its value...
Couldn't agree more. I suppose the folksey justification is that 'we' rescued it so 'we' should get a little thank you but that is clearly fvcking hogwash and this is yet another grubby little exercise in buying our votes with our money.

Centurion07

10,381 posts

247 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
So do I need to sell the shares I currently own or hang onto them? wobble

Salterns

650 posts

118 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
Centurion07 said:
So do I need to sell the shares I currently own or hang onto them? wobble
Well I'm asking myself the same question. DYOR of course, but I think for investors it will be short term pain and long term gain, so I'm not selling.

Camoradi

4,291 posts

256 months

Monday 20th April 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
The "public" jointly own a share of a bank. The "public" will sell their share of a bank to individuals for money. The "public" will then own money to pay down a bit of its enormous debt and the individuals will own the shares. What's hard to grasp?
or spunk it on a really fast train to make politicians feel like they're not totally useless

speedy_thrills

7,760 posts

243 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
otolith said:
The "public" will then own money to pay down a bit of its enormous debt and the individuals will own the shares. What's hard to grasp?
Does that make sense given the UK can borrow at such low rates over extended durations? I could be sympathetic if this was an unproductive asset like an unused building or vehicle.

I'm lead to believe the UK paid about 61p/share, current valuation is ~78p and there is a 7.5p dividend.

Slaav

4,255 posts

210 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
otolith said:
The "public" will then own money to pay down a bit of its enormous debt and the individuals will own the shares. What's hard to grasp?
Does that make sense given the UK can borrow at such low rates over extended durations? I could be sympathetic if this was an unproductive asset like an unused building or vehicle.

I'm lead to believe the UK paid about 61p/share, current valuation is ~78p and there is a 7.5p dividend.
I seem to believe that one of the reasons we, as a country can borrow huge amounts of cash at low rates is because the lenders/investors see that we have a chance of paying them back and servicing our debts?

Or is it me that is being too simplistic?

How do we think we instil this confidence? By being sensible or voting SNP etc?

speedy_thrills

7,760 posts

243 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
Not because central banks can push a little more QE? Rates across the developed world are low, the UK isn't special or a uniquely good creditor.

greygoose

8,262 posts

195 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
otolith said:
The "public" will then own money to pay down a bit of its enormous debt and the individuals will own the shares. What's hard to grasp?
Does that make sense given the UK can borrow at such low rates over extended durations? I could be sympathetic if this was an unproductive asset like an unused building or vehicle.

I'm lead to believe the UK paid about 61p/share, current valuation is ~78p and there is a 7.5p dividend.
The dividend is 0.75p per share, sadly as a shareholder myself.

anonymous-user

54 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
I'm lead to believe the UK paid about 61p/share, current valuation is ~78p and there is a 7.5p dividend.
There were 3 investments/bailouts cost averaging 73.58p
There was a dividend recently but there was no way in hell if was 10%, maybe 1%, don't know what it was though.
In terms of taxpayer income from Lloyds, far bigger than any dividend, there was also a £2.5bn fee they paid to exit the APS early.

sidicks

25,218 posts

221 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
fblm said:
There were 3 investments/bailouts cost averaging 73.58p
There was a dividend recently but there was no way in hell if was 10%, maybe 1%, don't know what it was though.
In terms of taxpayer income from Lloyds, far bigger than any dividend, there was also a £2.5bn fee they paid to exit the APS early.
You are correct - 0.75 per share.

Slaav

4,255 posts

210 months

Tuesday 21st April 2015
quotequote all
speedy_thrills said:
Not because central banks can push a little more QE? Rates across the developed world are low, the UK isn't special or a uniquely good creditor.
So why have a credit rating?

Bring on Grexit...... Or the Spanish (or French) emperor being seen naked?