Was Royal Mail sold too cheaply?

Royal Mail van

With £27bn of investors' money having chased shares priced at just £1.7bn, and with Royal Mail's share price trading at more than 450p this morning, compared with the 330p a share the government is receiving, there is a certainly a case for saying the government could have got more.

And just to put this in slightly more concrete terms, at 330p the government is receiving a fraction under £2bn, if (as is very likely) its bankers exercise what is known as the over-allotment option (if you really want to know more about this, see me after class).

However if the shares had been priced at around this morning's market price, at say 450p, the Exchequer would have received £2.7bn.

So should taxpayers be raging that they've lost a potential windfall of £700m, which would not have paid off the trillion pound national debt but would have paid for a couple of miles of High Speed 2?

There are a number of things to say about this. And the first is that pricing is more art than science, and no vendor of a large number of shares will ever get the best price available.

Also the price range for the privatisation shares was set by the government at a time when prevailing opinion was that this was a risky declining business hobbled by lamentable industrial relations; it was only in the course of the share sale that investors noticed a parcels operation growing very nicely, an endowment of potentially valuable properties in city centres and the fat income the company is promising to pay shareholders.

What is particularly striking is that Royal Mail's own people are confident that they are in a business that will prosper: I have learned that 15,000 Royal Mail employees, almost a tenth of the workforce, have paid £52m to buy Royal Mail shares (in addition to the free shares being handed to all Royal Mail employees).

However, what some may think is odd - including, presumably, ministers - is that investors have completely ignored the risk that Royal Mail could imminently be brought to a grinding halt by a strike. The frenzy to buy Royal Mail shares probably tells you quite a lot about the extent to which better-off people think the economy is recovering - which the government is not going to rage about.

That said, a 36% gap between market price and privatisation price is far wider than would normally be thought necessary to whet punters' appetite for future privatisations (remember that the Department for Business Innovation and Skills has another 30% of Royal Mail to flog, probably next summer, so ministers would not want to burn investors buying in this initial share offer).

So something does seem to have gone a bit cock-eyed with the sale. What?

Well the privatisation prospectus explicitly allowed the government to revise the sale price up, outside of the indicated range, if demand for the shares turned out to be much greater than expected. With big investment institutions putting up money for the shares worth 20 times what was on offer to them, and retail investors bidding for seven times what was available, it is fair to say demand was greater than anticipated.

So why did the relevant ministers, Vince Cable and Michael Fallon, sell at the top of the indicated range, rather than breaking through that threshold?

They had what they regard as non-partisan advice, from the investment bank Lazards - which was not involved in actually placing the shares, and therefore had no vested interest, in theory - that 330p was a fair price.

And that advice was apparently underwritten by the government's own internal counsellor on these issues, the UK Shareholder Executive.

But, that said, Cable and Fallon are grown-ups and know that ultimately the buck stops with them: advisers advise, ministers decide.

So they know that if the share price stays at this level for weeks and months, they will be vulnerable to criticism - and, probably, to a ticking off by the National Audit Office.

But Vince Cable has already made clear that he thinks the market is wrong to price the shares at these levels, by talking about the need to wait until the "froth" has been blown off.

Or to put it another way, he and Fallon assume that Royal Mail shares will be back near the offer price before Christmas.

Which points towards the most delicious political spat I've seen in a long time.

Labour's spokesman on all this, Chuka Umunna, in chastising Cable and Fallon for allegedly selling Royal Mail too cheaply, has in effect been shouting - at the most sensitive period of privatisation - "the government is selling five pound notes for 50p, fill your boots."

Whereas the capitalist Tory Fallon and leftish Lib Dem Cable have been saying to retail investors, "I'd take care if I were you, this stock-market game can be a bit dangerous."

So what is quite striking is that 700,000 people with a bit of money to spare voted Umunna, by stampeding to apply for the shares - though whether they are natural Labour supporters is another thing altogether.

Here is the intriguing political calculation.

If Royal Mail shares stay at these levels, the government may well in time be found guilty of having privatised the company too cheaply.

But ministers have just delivered a tidy windfall of £187m to 690,000 people who've been allocated £750 of shares each. That is a potential profit of almost £250 for each of them.

Which is a fair number of people who are probably prepared to buy Fallon and Cable a drink.

Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

How Labour pays for student fee cut

Labour would reduce tax relief for those earning £150,000 or more a year, shrink maximum pension pots to £1m and cut maximum annual pension contributions to £30,000 to pay for a cut to £6,000 in student fees.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Robert


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 45.

    BT? What are you talking about. There is SO MUCH choice of telecoms providers and it's easy to switch if you're not a complete numpty. I make nearly all my calls via VoIP, which costs me about £4 a month with no call limit.

  • rate this

    Comment number 44.

    38. hubert huzzah
    Well there's the tax breaks for the election sorted.
    My thoughts exactly, although another slap in the face for any savers who might have had more than £750 to punt, so my vote's still out to tender.

  • rate this

    Comment number 43.

    What more proof do people need to realise that Lib Dem = Tory and that it's all about snouts in the trough

  • rate this

    Comment number 42.

    When I joined the pension scheme it had a huge surplus. Royal Mail then took a 14 year pension holiday. The Government took over the pension liabilities because they were liable. Oh and they sold off the £21b assets and pocketed them last April.

  • rate this

    Comment number 41.

    With hindsight the price of the shares was probably pitched too low but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
    Being privatised should help to increase efficiency and competitiveness.
    I think many people bought shares in the Royal Mail because it's a key symbol of Britishness, and they like their postperson.

  • rate this

    Comment number 40.

    @ Lorienfee: BoE base rate 0.5% per year. 10 days of interest is 1/36th of year. That's 13p for every £1000 for the time indicated.

  • rate this

    Comment number 39.

    30 Yes BT gave such a wonderful servcie when it held its monopoly; now of course we have even less choice in the provision of telecoms and telecoms equipment.

    ANd all the other state monopolies of the 60s and 70s; oh what joy. They certainly knew a lot about serving the customer. LOL

  • rate this

    Comment number 38.

    Well there's the tax breaks for the election sorted.

  • rate this

    Comment number 37.

    "prevailing opinion was that this was a risky declining business hobbled by lamentable industrial relations" - yes indeed, and who has consistently peddled this opinion in the interest of 'news' I wonder?
    Perhaps the new regime will do something about the disgraceful theft from cards around Christmastime as a starter.

  • rate this

    Comment number 36.

    @29. Tripod
    "It demonstrates that public sector pensions are off the scale and totally unaffordable in the "real" world aka private sector."

    You shouldn't lump all public sector pensions in together. The treasury has been creaming billions from NHS pension contributions over the years.

  • rate this

    Comment number 35.

    I have no particular beef with privatisation, but if public services are sold, the Government has a duty to get every last penny it can for them. It patently hasn't in this case (as previous administrations didn't for water, gas, etc). Another Christmas present to their pals in the City.

  • rate this

    Comment number 34.

    So Cable calls us spivs and speculators, what he fails to appreciate is that for every seller there is a buyer, and there are plenty of buyers out there at 440p. The Government got this completely wrong, apparently they took advice from the Institutions who wanted to buy the shares. Does cable expect them to tell the government the maximum they are prepared to pay? You can't make it up

  • rate this

    Comment number 33.


    "You do know that the gold fire sale was specifically to bail out the fragrant banking industry, don't you?"

    Yeah, right!!!!!

    That made my day...thank you!!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 32.

    Well at least the Government has the chance of making up part of the (potential) £700m 'loss' by selling its remaining 30% stake at a 'proper', higher price.

  • rate this

    Comment number 31.

    14.Keep F1 on the BBC
    For Osborne and Cameron the UK has lost £1 billion
    ... to add to the Pension Fund deficit which is still ours, all ours.

    Oh, joy!


  • rate this

    Comment number 30.

    The UK Government is failing in its first duty to protect the country. The surrender of control over the things we need is going to destroy the country.

    Privatisation has been such a success. None of the privatised markets are working correctly. None, there are no exceptions.

    Short term gains for the treasury short term profits for the markets.

    But the cost to society

  • rate this

    Comment number 29.


    I agree that the banksters seem to have got a good deal by getting the lion's share of discounted shares but...

    We "owned" the pension liabilities before and we still do. That's nuetral for us taxpayers.

    It demonstrates that public sector pensions are off the scale and totally unaffordable in the "real" world aka private sector.

  • rate this

    Comment number 28.

    It’s one small step out of the stone age for the Royal Mail, investors seem to think that they can make a go of it but only time will show if they can.

  • Comment number 27.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 26.

    The price of these shares is irrelevant,all that semed to happen to the gas and electricity shares is that they went from "shares" to fleecing blank chequed monopolies.


Page 11 of 13



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.