Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Some very interesting interviews, comments over the weekend. IMO DK can across very very well and knows exactly what he is doing and what he wants. His points around current BOD not having the strength or conviction behind them for a myriad of reasons is well made.
It almost read as too many external influences and needs an individual majority shareholder to take things forward including investment. I would like to think that includes in employees, products and services and infrastructure,
Unfortunately it feels like we may not be able to go along for the ride. I may be fortunate that my investment here has overall been good but it looks like it will take someone like DK to be able to take the business forward which being very honest I find sad but shows how the many factions involved here BOD, OFCOM, Government, CWU and Institutional investors couldn't see an agreed way forward. Of course there are still votes and processes to go through and if DK doesn't succeed perhaps the business can slowly improve but its been stagnating for last 15 - 20 years so not going to be easy. All just my personal views but doesnt feel great.
Well JB, after reading your views I felt obliged to comment. However I agree entirely with your thinking and actually have nothing to add. Nothing other than a tick in the "like" box.
Be well keep healthy and hopefully your IDS shares will help support your financial excesses 😉
JB perhaps an alternative outcome might be that Govt/Ofcom block DKs take over but in so doing have to concede the urgent need to agree the IDS proposal to deliver 2c and access letters every other day. This then creates the headroom for upward valuation of shares and investment in future proofing the business.
There are at least 2 positive routes to increases in the value of people’s shares.
Conceding the IDS proposal would be a step in the right direction. However there needs to be a rethink on a number of things before the Company will flourish.
Personal thought is either let DK have free reign or everyone get behind the board 100%. Problem has always been the different factions pushing their own agendas.
Redceo yep keeping healthy and enjoying what we have. Whatever way it goes I do hope the business can change and flourish.
DerekR that is a possibility. But not sure Ofcom have the conviction to change anything without any Government say so as shown now by their decision to wait until after the GE. Perhaps it could be a catalysts for all parties to say yeah we can make this a success with the additional headroom if created but more likely it could all to revert to status quo. The CWU have made it very clear they don't support the current board so not a great footing on which to build a great future for all.
The best outcome medium to long term for the shareholders would be rejection of the bid, and substantial reform of the USO...
In this regard the CWU AND DAVE WARD are more important than the board who I believe have thrown in the towel too early...
The CWU have been paying the labour party yearly substantial subscription while in opposition, now is their chance to get payback....
The government accepting the bid is bad for CWU.
The government rejecting the bid without reform is bad for CWU ...
Only option is, like it or not, for the CWU , to take the lead , work with a friendly labour government , ofcom and the board, for reform the USO, and reject the bid...
Sid786 I agree that is the only obvious outcome for shareholders is rejecting the bid and substantial reform of USO. I thought DW/CWU had already made representations to OFCOM and we have seen the result. The business have been made numerous approaches to Ofcom and also got no where.
I am not concerned about what is bad for the CWU more what is good for the business and all employees. I get what your are saying that the CWU have been paying their dues to Labour and you might expect a bit of pay back but surely any representations input from CWU couldn't be any different to what they have already proposed or could they even be more radical? DW/CWU Exec will of course be aware of the consequences for them.
JB what has been proposed by the board has been fine,CWU and ofcom, seem to be fine with it, everyone, ie all the concerned parties seem to accept , change is required....
The problem has been all these messages have been falling on deaf ears, ie the conservatives... They just seem to be oblivious to what is happening at RM.....
If it had not been for the bid from DK and election, maybe things would have just continued, with the slow decline or RM....
WITH the bid, and new government, there is no time for lengthy consultations, fairly quick decisions will have to be made...
Let's hope these are for the better of shareholders and employees and not DK
Sid786 I agree everyone now appears to accept the need for change, that's why it is annoying that OFCOM cant make a decision to save themselves. Will a new government be more favourable I will wait and see.
The reason that OFCOM cannot give a decision is that the recent USO reform suggestion, is geared up for failure. Whilst it's a well thought out proposal, there will be as many daily failures in the future, as there is now.
The decimation of the service no longer bothers me, because it protects my job. The forward thinking is that the routes you lose, loses the need for recruitment. The current vacancies will be swallowed up, taking those vacancies off the balance of hours.
It does not mean that we will fail less, as duties will get bigger. Just that there will be less duties to cover on overtime.
Regardless of OFCOM's stance on this, and i believe it is their say, and has no government intervention, whatever the outcome, RM will be fined again next year. But, they will have made a huge saving on the loss of routes/overtime.
Ispy surely that would make it even easier for Ofcom to make a decision if it was that clear that the proposals wouldn't make any difference to QoS. If it is purely Ofcom's decision why did they say they have to wait until after the GE if that has no impact/meaning. I am perhaps looking at this too simplistically. If the proposals are well thought out and intended to reduce spec and the business are committed to filling vacancies and improving QoS what is missing?
Perhaps you can see how it may work in your office but I dont get it.
@ JBT
I assume OFCOM would like there to be no failures, as opposed to the constant ones in recent years. Hence, QoS would not be met.
If you read the proposal submitted by RM it clearly states that there would be no need to go to the government for approval. I have no idea why OFCOM have said after the GE.
It is well thought out. A six day service is provided at a uniform price. The vacancies will be filled through the reduction in routes, and not necessarily through recruitment. Meaning routes get bigger, thereby leading to as much failure in the USO as before. Unless of course, there is headroom to accomodate this growth in route size. I will remind you that RM have said that there will be between 7 & 9 thousand routes lost, with up to 1,000 VR packages.
Not forgetting, that everyone on delivery will have every other Saturday off. And, it protects my job, and all the other current employees in delivery. If i'm doing my time now and clearing, give me more, and i will fail.
Where is scamp? That dog was always my preferred voice from the front line
Ispy maybe me getting tired but I truly don't get your first sentence "hence Qos would not be met"
Totally agree the government don't need to be involved with Ofcom decision but looks like me Ofcom are waiting for a steer. Mentioning the GE can only suggest a political implication IMO.
The business has said it would tackle improving service and for me that includes recruiting in the areas where it is most needed. Lets hope the service does improve.
JB 'may be me getting tired '
Yes, I feel the exhaustion setting in here ... what a game soldiers!