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!

The covid test time bomb

Postal workers discussion forum. Discuss the day to day life in a Blue Shirt.
*horcrux*
Posts: 78
Joined: 22 May 2017, 13:31
Gender: Male

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by *horcrux* »

A2B wrote: ↑
27 Jan 2022, 18:25
*horcrux* wrote: ↑
27 Jan 2022, 17:38
clashcityrocker wrote: ↑
27 Jan 2022, 17:13
Hyrrokkin wrote: ↑
27 Jan 2022, 16:46

Conpany shareholders will just to have make do with smaller dividends then
Or they can decide to invest elsewhere.
What difference would that make to RM if people did invest elsewhere?
RM shares would be worth next to nothing and the company would grind to a halt?
No this is not true.
The company doesn't get any money when someone sells shares to someone else.
The companies finances are still the same whether the share price is £1 or £10. None of the companies income cones from having a big share price.
The only exception being if they were to issue more shares for a fund raise but that's hardly likely since they just gave 400 million away (or whatever it was) in the form of a special dividend.
clashcityrocker
Posts: 16710
Joined: 22 Sep 2009, 13:50
Gender: Male
Location: strummerville

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by clashcityrocker »

*horcrux* wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 06:28

The companies finances are still the same whether the share price is £1 or £10.
Your naivety would be worrying if it actually wasn't so funny.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
Murdoch
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 572
Joined: 11 Apr 2018, 16:55
Gender: Male

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by Murdoch »

clashcityrocker wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 09:30
*horcrux* wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 06:28

The companies finances are still the same whether the share price is £1 or £10.
Your naivety would be worrying if it actually wasn't so funny.
Perhaps instead of calling him naive, contest his point.

It's fair to say, that company finances, or lets say revenue or performance isn't always related to share price.

The financial markets ultimately are run by humans, and they tend to overeact or panic at times. I don't think anybody could say the financial markets get the valuation of all companies correct, all of the time. It's a big money making game, more akin to gambling than anything else.

So he's correct to make the distinction between share price and finances. Because lets face it, revenue is key here.
*horcrux*
Posts: 78
Joined: 22 May 2017, 13:31
Gender: Male

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by *horcrux* »

clashcityrocker wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 09:30
*horcrux* wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 06:28

The companies finances are still the same whether the share price is £1 or £10.
Your naivety would be worrying if it actually wasn't so funny.
Good rebuttal there.
Don't get me wrong I know a higher share price "looks good" and could reflect a company doing better but in the end RM makes money from selling stamps/delivery products not from shares being traded on the LSE. That's the point I was trying to get across.
clashcityrocker
Posts: 16710
Joined: 22 Sep 2009, 13:50
Gender: Male
Location: strummerville

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by clashcityrocker »

If the share price doesn't matter why are RM engaged in buying back as many shares as possible?
They know the share price reflects business confidence.
The £1 drop in the share price has wiped approx 20% off the value of the company.
That effects confidence in the company and also its ability to borrow. It might also worry its creditors.

And then of course there is Kretinsky (or another like him) How many shares does he own now?
A lower share price may persuade him to launch a hostile takeover bid.
After all, mopping up the £3 billion property portfolio might look attractive to an investor.

So shares at £10 - high business confidence.
Shares at £1 - probably the end of RM as we know it.

And we haven't even begun on those shorting the stock.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
MrSort
Posts: 27
Joined: 02 Aug 2007, 02:03

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by MrSort »

POSTMAN wrote: ↑
27 Jan 2022, 15:00
26,340,000 that were covid kits at £8 - it’s £210.3m in income
Err we wouldn't be charging 8 squid to 'deliver' a test kit.

I can't see the big deal in this, yes it's lost work but there's kinda other work out there.
Do we all usually panic when a 'temporary' contract finishes?
Apparently it is £8 per kit.
That price includes processing and delivering it, then collecting from designated covid pillar box once used, scanning it and then processing it and handing it over to the courier / lab
User avatar
POSTMAN
SITE ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 32805
Joined: 07 Aug 2006, 03:19
Gender: Male

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by POSTMAN »

MrSort wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 20:20
POSTMAN wrote: ↑
27 Jan 2022, 15:00
26,340,000 that were covid kits at £8 - it’s £210.3m in income
Err we wouldn't be charging 8 squid to 'deliver' a test kit.

I can't see the big deal in this, yes it's lost work but there's kinda other work out there.
Do we all usually panic when a 'temporary' contract finishes?
Apparently it is £8 per kit.
That price includes processing and delivering it, then collecting from designated covid pillar box once used, scanning it and then processing it and handing it over to the courier / lab
Any links or docs, not doubting you but would just like to see.
EDIT: To be fair various articles say this...
The contract value is for £550 million but that could swell to £1 billion.

Farrrrkinell!
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been.
My BFF Clash
The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
Clappedoutpostie
Posts: 1264
Joined: 05 Nov 2021, 21:46
Gender: Male

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by Clappedoutpostie »

POSTMAN wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 21:01
Any links or docs, not doubting you but would just like to see.
EDIT: To be fair various articles say this...
The contract value is for £550 million but that could swell to £1 billion.

Farrrrkinell!
£550 million for 12 months delivering up to 900000 a day, that’s the maths of it.
MrSort
Posts: 27
Joined: 02 Aug 2007, 02:03

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by MrSort »

POSTMAN wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 21:01
MrSort wrote: ↑
28 Jan 2022, 20:20
POSTMAN wrote: ↑
27 Jan 2022, 15:00
26,340,000 that were covid kits at £8 - it’s £210.3m in income
Err we wouldn't be charging 8 squid to 'deliver' a test kit.

I can't see the big deal in this, yes it's lost work but there's kinda other work out there.
Do we all usually panic when a 'temporary' contract finishes?
Apparently it is £8 per kit.
That price includes processing and delivering it, then collecting from designated covid pillar box once used, scanning it and then processing it and handing it over to the courier / lab
Any links or docs, not doubting you but would just like to see.
EDIT: To be fair various articles say this...
The contract value is for £550 million but that could swell to £1 billion.

Farrrrkinell!
Sorry, nothing to actually back it up apart from hearing how much we were getting on original deal and how many items. Bearing in mind that was also originally exclusive pillarboxes for tests and stand alone collections.

Apologies if original reply misled.
Kenfandango
Posts: 694
Joined: 19 Oct 2021, 16:40
Gender: Male

Re: The covid test time bomb

Post by Kenfandango »

Simon agreed to the "3 million a week" hyperbole a good few weeks after the mass back pat ceremony where they lined some rich people's pockets to the tune of £400mil, and I think the £8 each was the first batch when only one company was supplying them.