10 % Shares

[shepherdess]

If my calculations are correct and we are to be given the £2000 shares at the starting price £3.30 this equals just over 606 shares which is 10% of the company. If it closes at £4.00 a share on the 15th we will only get 500. Employees were to get 100 million shares (10%) If we dont get the shares till the price has gone up, for example £4 a share that means the 500 shares we will get will only add up to 75 million which is 7.5% of total shares. Who,s getting the 2.5% of the company / 25 million shares?

[PhilthyPhil]

We are getting a set percentage of shares not a fixed value, therefore the share price is irrelevent to the number of shares we receive

[bensonhedge]

We are getting a set percentage of shares not a fixed value, therefore the share price is irrelevent to the number of shares we receive

No i smell something fishy here.Would this higher price affect any future dividend staff may receive perhaps??

[POSTMAN]

The initial market value of the 10 per cent. stake in Royal Mail which is being made available free to eligible employees will be based on the closing mid-price at the end of the trading day on 15 October 2013.

It's in here after Moya's statement...
http://forms.bis.gov.uk/royalmail/royal ... fer-price/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TrueBlueTerrier]

In financial markets, the mid price is the price between the best price of the sellers of the stock or commodity offer price or ask price and the best price of the buyers of the stock or commodity bid price. It can simply be defined as the average of the current bid and ask prices being quoted.

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

We are getting a set percentage of shares not a fixed value, therefore the share price is irrelevent to the number of shares we receive

No i smell something fishy here.Would this higher price affect any future dividend staff may receive perhaps??

When viewed over long periods, the share price is related to expectations of future earnings and dividends of the firm, short term they are generally mismatched

[wandle]

If my calculations are correct and we are to be given the £2000 shares at the starting price £3.30 this equals just over 606 shares which is 10% of the company. If it closes at £4.00 a share on the 15th we will only get 500. Employees were to get 100 million shares (10%) If we dont get the shares till the price has gone up, for example £4 a share that means the 500 shares we will get will only add up to 75 million which is 7.5% of total shares. Who,s getting the 2.5% of the company / 25 million shares?

Your calculations are based on flawed assumptions.
Employees are to receive 10% of the company's entire share capital, in the form of shares. The exact number that each employee will receive is hard for us amateurs to determine, because it's not a straight calculation. If all employees were to receive an equal amount of shares, regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time, the maths would be simple. But because the ConDems decided that part-timers will get a pro-rata (smaller) number of shares, much hangs on the ratio of FT to PT, in establishing the number. My guess is around 680-700 shares apiece, for FT staff.

The 10% percentage was in the prospectus, and cannot be changed.

As you know, if you were to sell your shares after only three years, tax and NI is payable. However, in order to assess how much tax is payable, HMRC needs to establish a figure at which the shares were 'acquired' (even though we were given them for free). That HMRC base level is defined as 'the closing mid-price on October 15th, 2013', which looks likely to be significantly above the 330p IPO price, possibly around the 440p mark.

I hope this clarifies things for you !

[chrisj]

Employees are to receive 10% of the company's entire share capital, in the form of shares. The exact number that each employee will receive is hard for us amateurs to determine, because it's not a straight calculation. If all employees were to receive an equal amount of shares, regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time, the maths would be simple. But because the ConDems decided that part-timers will get a pro-rata (smaller) number of shares, much hangs on the ratio of FT to PT, in establishing the number. My guess is around 680-700 shares apiece, for FT staff.
!

I beg to disagree on the assuption that it was the ConDems alone that decide to give part-timers pro-rata number of shares. 10% of the shares would have been exactly the same regardless of the way it is shared out. So PT getting smaller number should be no bother to RM or govt?

I have a strong feeling that The CWU (Union) probably had the biggest say in that particular matter. Why? Because it is there typical way of operating - pandering to the more militant FT (and more senior) staff.

I am peed off about the fact that the shares have been made pro-rata - what exactly is the justification for such a move? We should have all shared and share alike regardless of hours contracted. Some people have just been made FT (lucky them) in offices where such an accommodation is possible whereas some other posties in other offices have been waiting more than 10 years to become FT with no joy.

Are FT staff more productive or not paid for the hours they work just like a PT staff? Some in my office are just about 1 or 2 months senior to others and they get to be FT staff just because...

CWU are always favouring the FT staff but they do not mind taking subs from PT staff for doing for them very little - they do not even care about their training, inferior working conditions, recurring temp contracts, stringent probation and the constant bullying from some managers and senior members of staff.

Thanks CWU.

[OnAFlyer]

Employees are to receive 10% of the company's entire share capital, in the form of shares. The exact number that each employee will receive is hard for us amateurs to determine, because it's not a straight calculation. If all employees were to receive an equal amount of shares, regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time, the maths would be simple. But because the ConDems decided that part-timers will get a pro-rata (smaller) number of shares, much hangs on the ratio of FT to PT, in establishing the number. My guess is around 680-700 shares apiece, for FT staff.
!

I beg to disagree on the assuption that it was the ConDems alone that decide to give part-timers pro-rata number of shares. 10% of the shares would have been exactly the same regardless of the way it is shared out. So PT getting smaller number should be no bother to RM or govt?

I have a strong feeling that The CWU (Union) probably had the biggest say in that particular matter. Why? Because it is there typical way of operating - pandering to the more militant FT (and more senior) staff.

I am peed off about the fact that the shares have been made pro-rata - what exactly is the justification for such a move? We should have all shared and share alike regardless of hours contracted. Some people have just been made FT (lucky them) in offices where such an accommodation is possible whereas some other posties in other offices have been waiting more than 10 years to become FT with no joy.

Are FT staff more productive or not paid for the hours they work just like a PT staff? Some in my office are just about 1 or 2 months senior to others and they get to be FT staff just because...


CWU are always favouring the FT staff but they do not mind taking subs from PT staff for doing for them very little - they do not even care about their training, inferior working conditions, recurring temp contracts, stringent probation and the constant bullying from some managers and senior members of staff.

Thanks CWU.

It's actually based on hours worked in the last few months. So, if you have a PT contract but work FT hours like many in my office then you will receive the full allocation of shares just as a FT'er will.

Btw, CWU subs for PT staff are less than those for FT, pro-rata if you will.

[mickeymacca]

Yeh Onaflyer I recall reading that. I can see where ChrisJ is coming from because it always irritates me that the Full Timers who never do any ot through the year get the full xmas bonus as well all the other bonuses we have received in the last few years, whereas I regularly do around 45+ hours a week and get only 70% of any bonus based on my contracted hours. Additionally I do exactly the same number of D2Ds a a week than everyone else in my office yet get paid £6 less. Still that was the job I applied for and I don't let it bother me too much!!

However I do think the share allocation is being handled fairly if as stated, it is based on the average hours worked over the qualifying period ( I think it was a 3 month window, but may be wrong).

[cloherty1976]

Yeh Onaflyer I recall reading that. I can see where ChrisJ is coming from because it always irritates me that the Full Timers who never do any ot through the year get the full xmas bonus as well all the other bonuses we have received in the last few years, whereas I regularly do around 45+ hours a week and get only 70% of any bonus based on my contracted hours. Additionally I do exactly the same number of D2Ds a a week than everyone else in my office yet get paid £6 less. Still that was the job I applied for and I don't let it bother me too much!!

However I do think the share allocation is being handled fairly if as stated, it is based on the average hours worked over the qualifying period ( I think it was a 3 month window, but may be wrong).

Hope you keep applying for a full time position.

[mandelsons_toenail]

Mickeymacca

Actually you get paid nothing for d2ds.

If we're splitting hairs, I used to get a £13 early shift allowance and now get what £22 so = £9

Why do you get £13

Not fair why do the FT ers get shafted........

See.

If you get your facts right first you don't spout bollocks

[mickeymacca]

Yeh Onaflyer I recall reading that. I can see where ChrisJ is coming from because it always irritates me that the Full Timers who never do any ot through the year get the full xmas bonus as well all the other bonuses we have received in the last few years, whereas I regularly do around 45+ hours a week and get only 70% of any bonus based on my contracted hours. Additionally I do exactly the same number of D2Ds a a week than everyone else in my office yet get paid £6 less. Still that was the job I applied for and I don't let it bother me too much!!

However I do think the share allocation is being handled fairly if as stated, it is based on the average hours worked over the qualifying period ( I think it was a 3 month window, but may be wrong).

Hope you keep applying for a full time position.

I am pretty happy with my lot to be honest, was just trying to highlight that I understood where ChrisJ was coming from based on my experiences.

Thanks for the sentiment though

[cloherty1976]

Yeh Onaflyer I recall reading that. I can see where ChrisJ is coming from because it always irritates me that the Full Timers who never do any ot through the year get the full xmas bonus as well all the other bonuses we have received in the last few years, whereas I regularly do around 45+ hours a week and get only 70% of any bonus based on my contracted hours. Additionally I do exactly the same number of D2Ds a a week than everyone else in my office yet get paid £6 less. Still that was the job I applied for and I don't let it bother me too much!!

However I do think the share allocation is being handled fairly if as stated, it is based on the average hours worked over the qualifying period ( I think it was a 3 month window, but may be wrong).

Hope you keep applying for a full time position.

I am pretty happy with my lot to be honest, was just trying to highlight that I understood where ChrisJ was coming from based on my experiences.

Thanks for the sentiment though

Fair play glad your enjoying it.

[PhilthyPhil]

If you are PT and do OT then the extra delivery supplement is included in your OT rate