1. Personal post must be a fraction of the mail delivered these days but despite concerted attempts by all businesses who deal direct with the public there is still a huge majority who insist on receiving postal bills, statements and the rest and always will be, and whilst the likes of me might be shocked when I have to buy a second class stamp and find its at least 20p more than I thought it was going to be (last Monday), the businesses that are legally obliged to send postal correspondence have no choice but to pay the discounted franked bulk mail rate - most mail received in households is from businesses.

2. Business to business and business to home as you well know, the sector where Royal Mail has a massive monopoly at the moment is in personal parcel post, either the boom in eBay transactions or returns to other couriers from internet shopping - strange how the likes of Yodel can get a courier van to your door within 24 hours but if its the wrong size or colour and you need to return it they then have to pay the Post office Counters to accept their returns.

Initially the price will rise but it will settle back within a month to somewhere close to the offer level - let's see where the share price is in a year when the true reality of running this business - outside of state ownership final hits home and the hedge funds cannot justify the value of their holding.

Indeed, just when your average punter can trade, after the city have flogged off their shares and pocketed a short term gain.

Bugger me, have you got any idea how these things work?

The vast majority of the initial offer will have been resold within 24 hours. The institutional investors will probably play a longer game but the spivs of hedge funds will have gotten out and clear away without handing over a red cent.

Is this our brave new world?

Can't afford to pay NHS staff 1% extra but MP's get 10%?

There's only 650 odd MP's mate.

Aye, I did think about that, still seems a little bit unfair though

"We're all in this together."

Glad to see you recognise how short-termism affects the price.

Must be, Cameron DID start this years Conference speech by saying that the last year has been 'really tough'. I assume he meant for him too and not just us poor lot

Must be, Cameron DID start this years Conference speech by saying that the last year has been 'really tough'. I assume he meant for him too and not just us poor lot

have to love it when those that can't bemoan that cant moan about those that can

POE, as is always the Sin Bin way

Just run that past me again?
Eh?

Your random word generator needs rebooting.

You been at the cooking sherry again?

Why not actually try to contribute/engage?

Because he knows he'll get his a[ir[/ise handed to him on a plate, as is usual

When you have read these you might actually understand how hedge funds actually work

Not by you though that is for sure!!

As we have said earlier the share price is seldom linear and serious companies will not bat an eye if the share price drops one day and gains another.

We have indeed.
But it wasn't the point.

MP's were already on upwards of 60k per year, i'll hazard a guess that your average NHS employee is not on anywhere near that amount. The numbers probably still don't add up, but i still say that the principle of 1% for us 10% for them stinks

Stocks and shares are the ultimate ponzi scheme. Limited liability for screwing up.
However should you want use a high street bookmaker you are seen as feckless.
I guarantee that the institutional investors will bet on a short term gain with this scam sale and it will not cost them a penny but they will make money on the deal. The Ponzi scheme and laws are set up that way no matter what the right wingers say.

Yes it was - you were initially suggesting that the share price was the primary consideration of all serious CEO and that they would make all their decisions around the movements in the share price no matter how short term.

I am suggesting that is not the case - I think serious companies make decisions that they genuinely think will benefit the business longer term - increases in the share price should be a positive externality of those decisions. I don't think they make decisions to give the share price a short term boost to satisfy a few traders - you quite clearly do.

That is not what I said BUT I have just checked back and the bit in blue, I reckon, will be the bit you mean ...


Allow me to correct that...

As directors often receive bonuses in shares, they are thereby motivated to increase the share price as that, ultimately, improves their remuneration.
Such efforts which successfully result in a share price change also go to feed short-term stock market gamblers who add very little to society but take a cream off the top of what the economy produces.
And then, very often, put their profits through an offshore company and pay next to no tax.

How's that?