"Robin9" wrote in message

'Recliner[_2_ Wrote:
;122031']

Could you be more specific on this? After all, the Roscos and Tocs
were

not owned by the City institutions at privatisation, and nor was
Railtrack. So, which financial institutions exactly benefited from
these

reserved shares?

On the other hand, a lot of lawyers and accountants did very well
out of

the complex restructuring. They didn't buy any part of the system,
but were well paid for helping carve it up.

Major's government probably did sell it all off too cheaply, not so
much

as to benefit their pals, but to make sure it all got sold off before
they lost power. They also made it as complex as possible for an
incoming Labour government to re-nationalise it. So it was ideology
(and incompetence by a tired, failing government), not spivery, at
work.

Quite frankly, after all these years, I don't know which institutions
bought which shares. Essentially British Rail was split into various
segments and shares in each segment were offered for sale. I think 20%
was reserved for financial institutions. This was not the first
privatisation where this had happened.

Thatcher's Government started privatising on a small scale and made
all the shares available to the public. The shares sold out in
advance and Opposition politicians said that proved the price had
been set too low. When council houses were sold off for far less than
their market value, the Tories' opponents and some irreverent
journalists noticed a pattern emerging. I recall on radio programmes
like "Today" Government Ministers being given a grilling on their
failure to protect tax-payers by maximising revenue.

Later, when the really big privatisations took place, the Tories
announced that a chunk of the shares were being reserved for the big
institutions. I seem to remember one minister being challenged on this
and replying that some stability in the financial market was required
for such a large privatisation and that if small shareholders quickly
sold for a fast profit, this might unsettle the market! If my memory
serves me correctly, at that time there was no suggestion by
Opposition politicians or journalists that there was an "over-close
relationship" - Harold Wilson's phrase incidentally - between the
Tories and some people in the City.

By the time John Major's Government decided to privatise the railways,
the mood of the country had changed and cynicism about the Tories'
integrity was widespread. No longer was the electorate prepared to
give the Govenment the benefit of the doubt and when, once again, the
price was set a level which most informed observers felt was way
below the real value, accusations of corruption were thrown about
gleefully.

It is certainly the case that some people made a huge profit
overnight. There was one instance of a company being sold soon after
privatisation for 300 million more than the shareholders had paid for
it.

There must be plenty of information about all this on the Internet
although, of course, some of the posters will have political axes to
grind.

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.

"Robin9" wrote in message


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.

You accuse the John Major Tories of corruption, when I think they were
merely ideological and incompetent.


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.

I didn't say the Tories took Prescott seriously; few politicians did. I
said that potential buyers of the railway assets were warned off from
buying them, meaning that the buyers were MBOs who could only raise much
smaller sums. When it became obvious that the nationalisation threat was
hollow, they sold the firms on at realistic values, meaning they made
big profits.


There are three serious flaws in your assertion that it doesn't really
matter if some pension funds made a quick profit.

As I keep saying, it wasn't the pension funds who made the quick profit
from privatised utilities, but the small share buyers who sold them on
to pension funds. This didn't apply with rail privatisation, as the
companies were not sold off as PLCs, apart from Railtrack.

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.

True, I'm certainly not in favour of selling off nationalised assets at
very low prices. John Major's government was idiotic to do so, and we're
still paying the price.

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.

As I said, it wasn't the pension funds who initially invested in the
railway assets, so their performance has nothing to do with rail
privatisation. Gordon Brown can take the credit for damaging Britain's
private pension industry.

"Having an axe to grind" is normally said of people who hold a very partisan view and who vigorously propagate that view to the annoyance of others. My view about the venality of politicians is not partisan. I expressly mentioned Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as well. In my case a more appropriate pejorative term would be "having a bee in my bonnet". Obviously I will disagree and say my opinion is calm, rational and in accordance with the evidence.

I am intrigued by your repeated insistence that the big pension funds did not buy shares in the various privatised utilities and sections of British Rail. How do you know this? Have you kept records of everyone who bought the shares? (I admit openly that I do not know who bought the shares)