View Single Post
  #27   Report Post  
Old August 21st 11, 06:53 PM
Robin9 Robin9 is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2011
Location: Leyton, East London
Posts: 902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recliner[_2_] View Post

I suspect that you're one of the people with a political axe to grind. I
don't think the privatisation of BR was corrupt, simply incompetent and
ideological. It was rushed, as they were determined to complete it
before the next election, which meant they put speed ahead of anything
else, including getting the best price. Few components were sold as new
PLCs that financial institutions could or would invest in, and it
appears that no thought was put into creating stable, efficient
companies.

The biggest reason for the low prices was Prescott's threats to
nationalise BR for minimal compensation. That scared off bidders with
deep pockets, so MBOs bought many of the fragments of BR for low prices.
Most sold out a few years later, once Labour's pre-election threats were
exposed as hollow, making huge profits in the process (the Roscos being
the prime example). The winners were BR managers, not pals of the
previous government. The other major beneficiaries were the big legal
and accounting firms who provided many millions of pounds of expensive
advice (who gained just as much from Labour's PFI schemes, so they
conscientiously befriend both major political parties). So John Prescott
bears as much blame for the low prices as John Major. Both were useless,
and promoted way beyond their capabilities.

And when you talk about mysterious 'financial institutions', these are
mainly public pension funds and insurance companies investing your and
my savings. we should all be happy if they do well. They tend to own the
majority of stock in UK listed companies, so as you say, even if "Sids"
(members of the public) initially buy privatised company stock, they
tend to sell it on pretty soon (I wish I'd dumped my Railtrack stock a
lot quicker than I did).

Administering large stockholder lists is expensive for public companies,
and those armies of small stockholders rarely bother to use their votes
or even read the thick, glossy annual reports that thud on to their
doormats -- so they are quite relieved when large, professional
financial institutions buy them out (I speak from personal experience as
a smallish shareholder in scores of public companies and funds). The
small shareholders of privatised utility companies made quick, easy but
modest tax-free profits (as they were usually well below the capital
gains tax threshold), so everyone was happy.
Which political axe do you suspect me of grinding? I'm not aware of having one. I support no political party and have no ideolological attitude to public ownership of industries and services. I want whatever works best for the country as a whole.

Your interpretation of how the Tories privatised the railways ignores the fact that there had already been a consistent pattern of nationalised assets being under valued. I imagine many Tories would laugh long and hard at the idea that they ever took John Prescott seriously.

There are three serious flaws in your assertion that it doesn't really matter if some pension funds made a quick profit. First, not everyone has a private pension and if their nationalised assets are sold off cheaply they may be called upon to pay more in taxation than might otherwise have been the case. Second, pension funds are not the only kind of financial institution and third, many people have since railway privatisation discovered that their pension fund has woefully underperformed.