The National Audit Office, some of the media, and the Opposition (of course) are saying that the sale of Royal Mail was "too cautious" and lost "hundreds of millions of pounds" for the taxpayer. This is nonsense, and its currency shows how little some people understand about privatization, or perhaps how much people have forgotten by not doing it.
It was the first major privatization in two decades, and the aim was not to raise the greatest possible sum for the government, but to turn a state-run corporation into a successful and flourishing private business. This was always the aim of the privatizations of the 1980s and 1990s. When the major state industries and utilities were brought to the stock market and put into private hands the aim was always to achieve a first-day premium so that investors would feel satisfied that it was a success, and feel confident about its future.
No-one knew what the "correct" price was for Royal Mail, any more than they did for BT, British Gas and the dozens of others. Since they had not traded in the private sector, or had to attract private investment, no-one knew how they would be valued. Government took expert advice knowing that it would be, at best, an estimate. It covered itself by retaining a proportion of the shares so it could gain later from any increase in value. In the case of Royal Mail it has retained 30% for later sale at a higher price.
The pricing was cautious, as it was in the earlier privatizations, because government wanted a successful launch into the private sector more than it wanted the highest possible price. Privatization was always a political as well as an economic act. Its major aim was to replace state ownership and direction of industry by commercial and (where possible) competitive private sector activity. It did so because the private sector is exposed to improving disciplines absent from nationalized industries.
The threat at the time of a Royal Mail strike cast more uncertainty over the company's valuation, even though that threat was later withdrawn. We now have a successful private company holding its own in a competitive market, a company that has become one of the UK's leaders, and one whose future prospects look good. This was a successful sale, and those who carp about not gaining the maximum possible price simply do not understand what privatization is all about. It isn't about selling off stuff for the top price; it's about building up companies that can thrive by providing goods and services in a dynamic competitive market.