Royal Mail sell-off: Why did Mr Cable trust these cash-hungry corporations?

Mr Cable should have known very well that, once shares in a public company have passed into the private sector, there is no way trade in them can be restricted

Editorial
Wednesday 30 April 2014 18:05 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

So much for the “long-term investors”, then. After an inordinate delay, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, has seen fit to publish the names of the firms that effectively received preferential treatment in the flotation of Royal Mail last year. Some, such as the sovereign wealth funds, did at least fulfil the Government’s hopes that they would secure long-term partners in building the Royal Mail business – indeed constancy has been something of a feature of the Gulf States’ funds since their inception four decades ago.

However, other names on the list are less obviously faithful – as could have been predicted at the time. And so we learn that, of the 16 shareholders who were selected by Mr Cable for their “long-term investor potential”, and given vastly larger allotments than the £1,000-worth available to individuals, all but four sold out quickly. Rather than 22 per cent of the shares lying in such long-termist hands, only 12 per cent do now. The role of the investment bank Lazard Brothers – as advisor and priority investor – is another blot on the flotation.

There is a further point here, which adds to the impression of naivety on the part of ministers. It is simply this; why would you take the word of people Mr Cable might have dismissed in his past life as an opposition spokesman as “spivs”? What on earth came over the Business Secretary? Mr Cable should have known very well that, once shares in a public company have passed into the private sector, there is no way trade in them can be restricted. Had he wished to, it would have been relatively easy to place some sort of covenant on the shares, which would “lock-in” investors for at least the medium term. Many other large floats have done so. There are drawbacks with such a “hangover”, but if short-termism is such a strategic weakness in British business, and Mr Cable has identified it as such, then it might have been price worth paying.

As things stand, Mr Cable seems to have made a number of mistakes in the handling of the Royal Mail flotation. An apology may not be forthcoming given how far Mr Cable’s reputation is invested in the sell-off. Nevertheless, it appears some contrition is due.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in