http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulatio ... 810222317/
Lord Mandleson, true to form, has upset Labour backbenchers by backing the partial privatization of Royal Mail. In an interview with the Financial Times, Mandleson has claimed that: ”if I had not been forced to resign, it would have happened”.
In Privatization: Reviving the Momentum – which we published earlier this year – Nigel Hawkins argues that the value of the public floatation could be in excess of £4 billion: tempting for a cash-strapped government. However, as Hawkins expounds in the same paper, Royal Mail will need to restructure its finances to reduce its long-standing pension fund deficit before the company is publicly floated.
Before action is taken we will have to wait for the soon-to-be-published review by Richard Hooper, the former communications regulator. Let’s hope he recommends the government push ahead with privatization. Of course, the privatization will necessarily result in some job loses, especially with the need to promote greater efficiencies in the sorting process. However, given that the Royal Mail is currently running at a loss, such efficiency savings (and resulting job losses) would have had to be introduced at some point anyway. The difference with privatization is that opening up of competition will enable Germany’s Deutsche Post and Holland’s TNT to step into the marketplace, which will raise standards and create jobs in the process. Staff will also benefit in their likely eligibility for Royal Mail shares.
Given the poor state of public finances, privatizations now appear increasingly attractive to the government (just as they did in the early 80s). It is a cost benefit analysis for the Labour Party: the undoubted gains to the exchequer could come at costs to the already precarious finances of the party. The Communications Workers’ Union this summer threatened to cut off funding to Labour if Royal Mail did not remain in public ownership. With tough times ahead, let’s hope Labour can prioritize the public good over their private benefit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Adam Smith Institute is the UK's leading innovator of free-market economic and social policies. Politically independent and non-profit, the Institute promotes its ideas through reports, briefings, events, media appearances, and its website and blog.
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
Privatization: a public good
-
TrueBlueTerrier
- FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 72596
- Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
- Gender: Male
- Location: On my couch
Privatization: a public good
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
-
TrueBlueTerrier
- FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 72596
- Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
- Gender: Male
- Location: On my couch
Privatization: a public good
Extract from the document:Reviving the Momentum (full document: http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/pri ... mentum.pdf )
The Leading Privatization Candidates
Royal Mail/Post Office
The publicly–owned Royal Mail Group (Royal Mail) operates the mail services and
Post Office network in the UK. Successive governments have avoided, partly for
political reasons, undertaking major structural reform of the key businesses within
Royal Mail. Now that many of the sub–Post Office counter closures have been
implemented, without serious political problems, the time is ripe for re–assessing
the role of Royal Mail and how its performance can be materially improved.
Currently, Royal Mail has four main businesses — the key data, based on 2006/07
figures, is set out below:
In recent years, there have been some efficiency gains but there are far more to come,
notably with greater use of machinery in sorting offices. Even so, in 2006/07, people
costs amounted to £6,145 million, equivalent to 68.4% of the Group’s overall costs.
To that extent, a rigorous focus on reducing the cost base is a top management
priority. However, as a people–dominated business — especially on the doorstep —
there will be limits to staff reductions, unless customer service levels are
significantly reduced.
Irrespective of the challenges on the operational front, there is no doubt that, like
many state–owned businesses, significant capital expenditure increases will be
required. In 2006/07, the capital expenditure figure was £244 million. Nevertheless,
Royal Mail candidly admits that its rivals are 40% more efficient, a serious failing
that it blames on a lack of modernization and a lack of technology.
Royal Mail’s finances are heavily influenced by regulation, which is implemented by
Postcomm, both in terms of price–setting and with respect to competition.
Recently, Postcomm undertook an interim pricing review, which covers charges
between April 2008 and March 2010. In particular, Postcomm considered the issues
of the ongoing reduction in the UK inland addressed mail market, which Royal Mail
estimated at 2.3% in 2006/07, along with the impact of competition. Royal Mail
argues strongly that the average 13p of revenues that it receives for each unit of
delivered access mail does not cover its costs.
13. Whilst Postcomm decided not to change the current access margin, it did allow
Royal Mail to raise the price of a second class stamp to 29p by 2010, subject to
inflation — the original price cap was 26p.
Looking forward, there is a need to review the Universal Service Obligation (USO)
to which Postcomm apparently seems wedded. After all, there is no inherent
necessity for identical pricing nationwide, which does not currently apply to other
utility services, including telecoms. In the water sector, for example, South West
Water customers pay an average £483 per year compared with an average £275 for
Thames Water customers.
Indeed, there is a case for a pricing structure which is based on zones. Such a change
would better reflect the costs incurred; this policy is backed by Royal Mail. Current
stamp rates could apply for post being sent to addresses in the same county and
enhanced rates for elsewhere. Alternatively, a postal code methodology could be
devised.
Undoubtedly, the permitted charges for first–class and second–class stamps remain
crucial in determining Royal Mail’s financial returns. In 2006/07, almost 90% of
Royal Mail’s core £6,857 million of revenues was attributable to the provision of
price–controlled services. Arguably, there should be substantial increases in stamp
charges, partly to fund the capital expenditure bill; such rises, however, should be
offset by higher productivity.
Increasing competition in postal services provision is a firm aim of Postcomm. Yet,
Royal Mail is currently delivering 99% — in volume terms — of the addressed
letters market. In time, there will be greater competition, not necessarily from
domestic organisations, such as Business Post, but more from leading overseas post
office businesses, such as Germany’s Deutsche Post and Holland’s TNT — the latter
currently has a market capitalization of c. £7 billion.
Both these latter companies, who have spearheaded postal services privatization in
mainland Europe, are very keen to expand. They are both currently operating in the
UK, at the business end of the market. In time, no doubt, they would be keen to
participate in the entire delivery chain.
Under the EU’s legislation to promote competition in the mail delivery markets, part
of which has been delayed, increased competition seems inevitable. In Germany, the
recent decision to impose a minimum wage has caused real problems for
competitors of Deutsche Post; but it has been a boost for the latter. For Royal Mail
itself, it will face challenges for which it needs to be more prepared, both
operationally and financially.
In addition to addressing the capital expenditure programme and the operating cost
and revenue bases of Royal Mail, there is a more general need for an overhaul of its
finances.
Within this proposed restructuring, the long–standing pension fund deficit issue
needs to be resolved by putting the pension fund on a firmer financial footing. As of
March 2007, the pension fund deficit was just below £5 billion, whilst the employee
contribution rate at 6% — very surprisingly — remained unchanged in 2006/07.
14. This proposed financial restructuring should enable Royal Mail itself to become
more suitable for a public flotation, which would raise further funds for the business
to expand. Moreover, a pension fund deficit should not be an insuperable barrier to
a public flotation, although action will need to be taken to ensure that the deficit is
much reduced.
In preparing Royal Mail for a public flotation, careful analysis would need to be
undertaken regarding the appropriate debt/equity structure. As of March 2007,
Royal Mail actually reported a net cash balance of £392 million.
Last year, the government agreed a £4 billion refinancing programme for Royal
Mail, of which £1.2 billion is earmarked for an uplift in investment and £1.7 billon
for the modernization — and effective subsidy — of the Post Office network, which
will see c. 2,500 branches being closed. A further £1 billion has been set aside for
pension fund payments.
If the debt component is too low, it will encourage private equity investors to bid for
Royal Mail with the aim of substantially gearing up the company. It would also be
important to ensure that current Royal Mail employees, with a lengthy service
record, become eligible for a substantial proportion of the shares on offer.
A public flotation of Royal Mail would not only allow it to be far better funded than
at present, but it would also enable it to expand. After all, members of its staff have
trusted access to virtually every business and house in the UK, amounting to c. 27
million addresses. With that unique level of customer contact, the potential for
cross–selling is considerable.
At the political level, previous manifesto commitments have been cited as a reason
for ruling out any privatization of Royal Mail. However, such policy commitments
are not sacrosanct. Indeed, it is clear that the government’s recent decision on the
future of the Tote goes against previous manifesto commitments.
Valuation: In placing an Enterprise Value (EV) of just over £4 billion on Royal Mail,
comparisons have been made with other quoted Post Office businesses, notably the
Dutch–based TNT. Inevitably, various assumptions have been made about the
underlying worth of Royal Mail, once the many one–off factors have been stripped
out. However, its value — pre the pension fund deficit — clearly lies well beyond
the c. £2.3 billion Regulatory Asset Value (RAV) that applies to the Royal Mail core
business.
Notice has also been taken of a discussion paper published by the Policy Unit of the
Liberal Democrat Party in January 2006, which placed a value of between £4–5
billion on Royal Mail (assuming that the Post Office network was stripped out).
Presumably, too, the c. £5 billion pension fund deficit has also been discarded.
The Leading Privatization Candidates
Royal Mail/Post Office
The publicly–owned Royal Mail Group (Royal Mail) operates the mail services and
Post Office network in the UK. Successive governments have avoided, partly for
political reasons, undertaking major structural reform of the key businesses within
Royal Mail. Now that many of the sub–Post Office counter closures have been
implemented, without serious political problems, the time is ripe for re–assessing
the role of Royal Mail and how its performance can be materially improved.
Currently, Royal Mail has four main businesses — the key data, based on 2006/07
figures, is set out below:
In recent years, there have been some efficiency gains but there are far more to come,
notably with greater use of machinery in sorting offices. Even so, in 2006/07, people
costs amounted to £6,145 million, equivalent to 68.4% of the Group’s overall costs.
To that extent, a rigorous focus on reducing the cost base is a top management
priority. However, as a people–dominated business — especially on the doorstep —
there will be limits to staff reductions, unless customer service levels are
significantly reduced.
Irrespective of the challenges on the operational front, there is no doubt that, like
many state–owned businesses, significant capital expenditure increases will be
required. In 2006/07, the capital expenditure figure was £244 million. Nevertheless,
Royal Mail candidly admits that its rivals are 40% more efficient, a serious failing
that it blames on a lack of modernization and a lack of technology.
Royal Mail’s finances are heavily influenced by regulation, which is implemented by
Postcomm, both in terms of price–setting and with respect to competition.
Recently, Postcomm undertook an interim pricing review, which covers charges
between April 2008 and March 2010. In particular, Postcomm considered the issues
of the ongoing reduction in the UK inland addressed mail market, which Royal Mail
estimated at 2.3% in 2006/07, along with the impact of competition. Royal Mail
argues strongly that the average 13p of revenues that it receives for each unit of
delivered access mail does not cover its costs.
13. Whilst Postcomm decided not to change the current access margin, it did allow
Royal Mail to raise the price of a second class stamp to 29p by 2010, subject to
inflation — the original price cap was 26p.
Looking forward, there is a need to review the Universal Service Obligation (USO)
to which Postcomm apparently seems wedded. After all, there is no inherent
necessity for identical pricing nationwide, which does not currently apply to other
utility services, including telecoms. In the water sector, for example, South West
Water customers pay an average £483 per year compared with an average £275 for
Thames Water customers.
Indeed, there is a case for a pricing structure which is based on zones. Such a change
would better reflect the costs incurred; this policy is backed by Royal Mail. Current
stamp rates could apply for post being sent to addresses in the same county and
enhanced rates for elsewhere. Alternatively, a postal code methodology could be
devised.
Undoubtedly, the permitted charges for first–class and second–class stamps remain
crucial in determining Royal Mail’s financial returns. In 2006/07, almost 90% of
Royal Mail’s core £6,857 million of revenues was attributable to the provision of
price–controlled services. Arguably, there should be substantial increases in stamp
charges, partly to fund the capital expenditure bill; such rises, however, should be
offset by higher productivity.
Increasing competition in postal services provision is a firm aim of Postcomm. Yet,
Royal Mail is currently delivering 99% — in volume terms — of the addressed
letters market. In time, there will be greater competition, not necessarily from
domestic organisations, such as Business Post, but more from leading overseas post
office businesses, such as Germany’s Deutsche Post and Holland’s TNT — the latter
currently has a market capitalization of c. £7 billion.
Both these latter companies, who have spearheaded postal services privatization in
mainland Europe, are very keen to expand. They are both currently operating in the
UK, at the business end of the market. In time, no doubt, they would be keen to
participate in the entire delivery chain.
Under the EU’s legislation to promote competition in the mail delivery markets, part
of which has been delayed, increased competition seems inevitable. In Germany, the
recent decision to impose a minimum wage has caused real problems for
competitors of Deutsche Post; but it has been a boost for the latter. For Royal Mail
itself, it will face challenges for which it needs to be more prepared, both
operationally and financially.
In addition to addressing the capital expenditure programme and the operating cost
and revenue bases of Royal Mail, there is a more general need for an overhaul of its
finances.
Within this proposed restructuring, the long–standing pension fund deficit issue
needs to be resolved by putting the pension fund on a firmer financial footing. As of
March 2007, the pension fund deficit was just below £5 billion, whilst the employee
contribution rate at 6% — very surprisingly — remained unchanged in 2006/07.
14. This proposed financial restructuring should enable Royal Mail itself to become
more suitable for a public flotation, which would raise further funds for the business
to expand. Moreover, a pension fund deficit should not be an insuperable barrier to
a public flotation, although action will need to be taken to ensure that the deficit is
much reduced.
In preparing Royal Mail for a public flotation, careful analysis would need to be
undertaken regarding the appropriate debt/equity structure. As of March 2007,
Royal Mail actually reported a net cash balance of £392 million.
Last year, the government agreed a £4 billion refinancing programme for Royal
Mail, of which £1.2 billion is earmarked for an uplift in investment and £1.7 billon
for the modernization — and effective subsidy — of the Post Office network, which
will see c. 2,500 branches being closed. A further £1 billion has been set aside for
pension fund payments.
If the debt component is too low, it will encourage private equity investors to bid for
Royal Mail with the aim of substantially gearing up the company. It would also be
important to ensure that current Royal Mail employees, with a lengthy service
record, become eligible for a substantial proportion of the shares on offer.
A public flotation of Royal Mail would not only allow it to be far better funded than
at present, but it would also enable it to expand. After all, members of its staff have
trusted access to virtually every business and house in the UK, amounting to c. 27
million addresses. With that unique level of customer contact, the potential for
cross–selling is considerable.
At the political level, previous manifesto commitments have been cited as a reason
for ruling out any privatization of Royal Mail. However, such policy commitments
are not sacrosanct. Indeed, it is clear that the government’s recent decision on the
future of the Tote goes against previous manifesto commitments.
Valuation: In placing an Enterprise Value (EV) of just over £4 billion on Royal Mail,
comparisons have been made with other quoted Post Office businesses, notably the
Dutch–based TNT. Inevitably, various assumptions have been made about the
underlying worth of Royal Mail, once the many one–off factors have been stripped
out. However, its value — pre the pension fund deficit — clearly lies well beyond
the c. £2.3 billion Regulatory Asset Value (RAV) that applies to the Royal Mail core
business.
Notice has also been taken of a discussion paper published by the Policy Unit of the
Liberal Democrat Party in January 2006, which placed a value of between £4–5
billion on Royal Mail (assuming that the Post Office network was stripped out).
Presumably, too, the c. £5 billion pension fund deficit has also been discarded.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
-
pinstripe
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: 25 May 2007, 16:42
- Gender: Male
- Location: 2 left turns from reality
Privatization: a public good
"Of course, the privatization will necessarily result in some job loses, especially with the need to promote greater efficiencies in the sorting process. However, given that the Royal Mail is currently running at a loss, such efficiency savings (and resulting job losses) would have had to be introduced at some point anyway"
Well isn't that a rather dismissive statement. They seem to forget that these people who will lose their jobs don't have multi-million golden handshakes to fall back on, hell they don't even have a decent pension scheme anymore. Now if the job losses were from the board room, no pay offs either, let's see Crozier down the job club, maybe we could stomach it a bit easier. (rant, rant, rant, bad word, bad word, really bad word, and a suggestion on where these parasites can put their proposals)
:mfo :cfo :lfo
Well isn't that a rather dismissive statement. They seem to forget that these people who will lose their jobs don't have multi-million golden handshakes to fall back on, hell they don't even have a decent pension scheme anymore. Now if the job losses were from the board room, no pay offs either, let's see Crozier down the job club, maybe we could stomach it a bit easier. (rant, rant, rant, bad word, bad word, really bad word, and a suggestion on where these parasites can put their proposals)
:mfo :cfo :lfo
-
BELIAL
- Posts: 6758
- Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 17:33
- Gender: Female
- Location: Nowhere
Privatization: a public good
How humiliating for the fat cats thinktank, publishing that load of tired old drivel just before the crowning glory of their private enterprise economy nosedives into oblivion dragging the rest of us with it, and then has the barefaced cheek to come crawling cap in hand for a public handout . Just how thick would you have to be to fall for those porkies especially at this time 
Anybody seen the latest figures estimating the cost of bailing out UK financial institutions, Sunday Times article placed the figure at around £100,000 for each UK taxpayer
or 1.5 x our annual GNP 
Bye
-
Big Daz
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: 17 Apr 2007, 20:27
- Gender: Male
Privatization: a public good
What they for some reason keep quiet is that 1 in 3 letters is posted on DSA contract.
Thats one third of the mail being handled by the competition!!!!
It crazy to think that our rivals will develop a full blown delivery network to every and I mean every address in the UK!
Thats one third of the mail being handled by the competition!!!!
It crazy to think that our rivals will develop a full blown delivery network to every and I mean every address in the UK!
-
norbert
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: 15 Jan 2008, 01:46
Privatization: a public good
look who published that - the Adam Smith Institute - just a bit ? to the right -Adam Smith the forefather of ConservatismBig Daz wrote:What they for some reason keep quiet is that 1 in 3 letters is posted on DSA contract.
Thats one third of the mail being handled by the competition!!!!
It crazy to think that our rivals will develop a full blown delivery network to every and I mean every address in the UK!
If the Prince of Darkness was forced to resign
:mfo - From the Young Communists to Free market - what a political journey 
MURDERERS. Need to dispose of a body? Simply parcel it up and post it to yourself via DHL. You will never see it again.
-
BELIAL
- Posts: 6758
- Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 17:33
- Gender: Female
- Location: Nowhere
Privatization: a public good
In fairness Norbert old Adam wasn't such an absolute dickhead, but his writings have been corrupted and abused for factional gain,bit like folks claiming the USSr was Marxist ,or the bible saying the leaders of the fourth crusade must rape all tanned women after the siege of Constantinople 
Bye
-
Yahoorsur
- Posts: 512
- Joined: 02 Jul 2007, 08:52
- Gender: Male
- Location: Dunfermline
Privatization: a public good
80's remedies for the 21st century,sooo out of date
Mandelson yesterday saying no return to the 80's solutions, :mfo
'gawd elp us',if the credit crunch has shown us one thing its that the Anglo Saxon model of capitalism of the last 30 years or so,( the thrusting captains of industry,de'il tak the hindmost etc etc) will change,the recent partial nationalisations in both the UK and the USA show this,
I must admit its a great concept, if you fail in business,lets privatize the gains and nationalise the losses,its like having your own safety net,a bit like the welfare state,but with more money going in your pocket,you cant lose if your a fat cat like Leighton and Crozier or even Fred 'the shred' Goodwin
I find it hard to believe that any govt. will go ahead with even a partial privatisation,the Hooper report,according to some is broadly sympathetic to the CWU case for Royal Mail,it's going to be a great big poke wi a sharp stick in the eye for Mandy(well lets hope so) :mfo
Mandelson yesterday saying no return to the 80's solutions, :mfo
'gawd elp us',if the credit crunch has shown us one thing its that the Anglo Saxon model of capitalism of the last 30 years or so,( the thrusting captains of industry,de'il tak the hindmost etc etc) will change,the recent partial nationalisations in both the UK and the USA show this,
I must admit its a great concept, if you fail in business,lets privatize the gains and nationalise the losses,its like having your own safety net,a bit like the welfare state,but with more money going in your pocket,you cant lose if your a fat cat like Leighton and Crozier or even Fred 'the shred' Goodwin
I find it hard to believe that any govt. will go ahead with even a partial privatisation,the Hooper report,according to some is broadly sympathetic to the CWU case for Royal Mail,it's going to be a great big poke wi a sharp stick in the eye for Mandy(well lets hope so) :mfo
The more you know, the worse it gets.
-
sevenandseven
- Posts: 162
- Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 16:12
Privatization: a public good
Mandleson has claimed that: ”if I had not been forced to resign, it (privatisation) would have happened”.
Mr - or Lord Mandelson - was twice forced to leave the cabinet in 1998 and 2001. Once for misleading statements to Parliament and once for failing to disclose a secret loan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1134392.stm
It is truly comforting to know Royal Mail is in safe hands.
Mr - or Lord Mandelson - was twice forced to leave the cabinet in 1998 and 2001. Once for misleading statements to Parliament and once for failing to disclose a secret loan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1134392.stm
It is truly comforting to know Royal Mail is in safe hands.
-
not me
- Posts: 2735
- Joined: 10 Aug 2007, 15:07
- Gender: Female
- Location: Uranus
Privatization: a public good
more like Lord meddlesome
-
Big Daz
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: 17 Apr 2007, 20:27
- Gender: Male
Privatization: a public good
Yahoorsur
The Hooper team and the CWU are of one mind as to what the problems facing us are.
The Hooper team and the CWU are of one mind as to what caused these problems.
When it comes to the solutions we may part company with the hooper review but I imagine that will only be partially rather than fully.
Mandy is considering asking Hooper to widen the terms of their review.
The Hooper team and the CWU are of one mind as to what the problems facing us are.
The Hooper team and the CWU are of one mind as to what caused these problems.
When it comes to the solutions we may part company with the hooper review but I imagine that will only be partially rather than fully.
Mandy is considering asking Hooper to widen the terms of their review.