Member Info for Dowsie3

Mike I have no inside knowledge of the Warrington hubs show me a post where I said I did . And your words not mine this is massively undervalued at 581 a share nothing about broker ratings just your opinion which was massively wrong . Now if you think a share is massively undervalued your buy into that share but for some reason you didn’t buy then but miraculously you have an average of 200 me thinks you are full of sh-t

Mike you seem a little bitter to me about how your share price on here is doing on just looked at your history and on the 24 th of January you accused me of being a DeRamber when I sold at 581 . You said even at this price the share was massively undervalued so Christ knows what you bought in at . Now stop blaming the lazy postman for your losses and take some responsibility for your bad decision making

Mike you say you haven’t heard any issues with the Warrington hub why would you your retired now . Enjoy your retirement and stop worrying what’s going on with Royal Mail

Why would any postman leave at this particular time if he his unhappy with The TC when he can hang on and get VR

Compulsory reredundancy’s for all striking postman then hire staff that want to work. Christ we couldn’t fill one vacancy in my office when the DOM was allowed to take someone on . I’d like to see them try and fill a 100000 vacancies throughout the country

Good point Oligarch and in my opinion the reason is they don’t have to walk 12 miles a day and deliver letters as well as parcels

Teslo it’ no,the strike action that’s decimated the share price it’s down to less parcels and to a lesser extent. Less. Letters Look where the share price was at the beginning of the year and where it’s is now most of the drop was before IA was even announced yes IA hasn’t helped the share price but it definitely isn’t the main reason for the drop

Redceo Royal Mail last set of figures before it was privatised made 324 million profit I will let you decide if you think it was a good idea to privatise it

Yes Oli your correct that’s the CWU preferred option but unfortunately for the CWU it’s not the government preferred option

Ispy he doesn’t know the difference between no and now so I wouldn’t hold out much hope on putting it in big letters

If IDs make 10000 redundant let’s jus say the average is 15000 per person that is 150 million pounds IDS have to find I know it could be less then 15000 per person but even 10000 per person is 100 million which is a lot of money for a company making losses

Hate to admit this Maximus but I think you might be right spoke to my manager last week we have 4 people who want VR but he doesn’t want to lose any of us there are 2 in the office he wants out and if he gets to decide those 2 will be gone but at the minute he doesn’t know how IDS are going to handle the redundancy situation

Maximus that would be IDS all over keep the ones who want to leave and let the ones leave who want to stay no wonder the company are in a mess

Timetokill 100% correct IMO the average age of a postman in the area I work in was 51 6 years ago we were told obviously people have left since then so I don’t know what it is now but probably higher . I could well be wrong but I don’t think they will need to make any compulsory redundancy’s because we will get enough volunteers

Ispy at are office the PHG keeps a record of tracked items and any other scanned items from month to month he has been doing it for 3 years now so far for November we have more scanned items for 2019 but less then 2020 and 2021 obviously 2020 was of the scale because of Covid. We are 15% up on 2019 figures but 10% down on last year . 2020 we are 36% down and if we are still on strike I honestly think we will have half the packets in December what we had in 2020 that’s not just the strike causing the drop mind people can go shopping now where is December 2020 we were in lockdown

Jimoc your right about VR being oversubscribed only 17 people in the office I’m in and 4 want VR me being one of them . 2 are 57 myself 59 and the PHG 61

a 14 acre site in Nine Elms, South London which was used formerly as the location of the Group’s South London Mail Centre;
? a site of around eight acres that forms part of land owned by the Group at Mount Pleasant in central London; and
? a one acre site adjacent to Paddington main line railway station in central west London.
A key objective of Royal Mail in relation to the London Development Portfolio has been to generate value in the relevant sites by undertaking pre-development work, including obtaining planning consents and resolving issues identified with the legal title to the land. This has been with the aim of repositioning the portfolio for alternative use (which has tended to be residential use), thereby allowing Royal Mail to capture upside on disposal of the relevant property.
Royal Mail has, further, made a number of public press announcements relating to its intentions with the London Development Portfolio.
The generally accepted approach to the valuation of land for development is to start with what the end state completed development will be worth when built. This is known as the gross development value and it assumes that all consents and title issues are resolved. From the gross development value are deducted all costs including construction and finance costs and a developer’s profit to arrive at what is known as a residual land value. This is how the three London development sites will be valued by developers in the property industry. Unfortunately a lot of press speculation has focused on the gross development value and this is very misleading.
As a proxy for the residual land valuation approach, the property industry sometimes looks at prices per acre for land recently sold in the area in question. This is not an accurate form of valuation. It does not take into account the density of the development scheme or the risks in the scheme, for example, whether the scheme has a planning consent. On this proxy basis, the most comparable precedents suggest that £10-15m per acre is an appropriate range for the Nine Elms site, suggesting a value of £140 - £210m. This fails though to take into account the relatively low level of building density set out in the planning consent to allow for a park, a key requirement of the planning authorities.
It is harder to find recent land deals of size around Mount Pleasant and so harder to use this proxy method of valuation for the land which will become surplus at that site. Any journalist or analyst choosing to value Mount Pleasant would need to bear in mind that this site currently has no planning consent for alternative use. Paddington is a much smaller site than the other two and it also does not have a full planning consent.
Taking into account the overall position of the surplus portfolio and the relative immaturity of these sites in terms of actual development, a combined value of £330m (as suggested in one of the equity research analyst reports) appears at the top end of any likel

Property valuation
The Committee asked for clarification on the valuation of the Company’s property portfolio, including the independence of the valuation that had been obtained.
Royal Mail’s value depends, in large part, on its operating and financial performance driven, in particular, by its parcels strategy. The Company’s asset value, including property, has not been a key driver of valuation. This is clear when comparing Royal Mail’s net book value of £1.8 billion (as at 30 June 2013) with the market capitalisation on listing of £3.3 billion.
Based on Royal Mail’s FY2012-13 audited annual report and accounts, the net book value of Royal Mail’s land and buildings, based upon a historic cost accounting policy and excluding fit- out, was £724 million2 as at 31 March 2013. This is consistent with the figure disclosed in the Prospectus. The Directors of Royal Mail also considered any increase in value of land and buildings based on market values. In the opinion of the Directors, when considering market values on an existing use basis, the aggregate market value of the Group’s land and buildings exceeded its net book value by £310 million as at 31 March 2013 – this was also disclosed in the FY 2012/13 accounts. The incremental value of £310 million is based on expert and independent valuation advice provided to Royal Mail by BNP Paribas as part of a regular property valuation analysis.
The Prospectus additionally set out a description of Royal Mail’s surplus properties. It details that three major sites in London, which form part of Royal Mail’s UK freehold estate, have been recognised as surplus by the Company subject to completion of necessary separation and reprovisioning activities (the “London Development Portfolio”). These three sites are

If I remember correctly when the IPO was done in October 2013 the value of the property RM owned was 1 billion pounds obviously property has increased since then but I do believe we have sold some of the property since then . So probably 1.5 billion would be close to the mark

Maxi lair all I did was call you out for lying just as ispy did now who looks a tit so why would I believe anything you say