Um no, the feds have sold lots of fed assets including the Com bank and they never need to ask for permission from the voters/taxpayers to do so. The Fed Govt owned the Com Bank, not you. Regardless it had to be sold as how can the govt own a bank in a large privatized market, the bank would have continued to be bogged down by inefficiency, high costs, unions, mis management and govt influence. The only people would would have done business with the Com bank would have been those who didn't get a better deal elsewhere.You don't have a shred of evidence for anything you've said there - the Commonwealth Banks was already a mean, profit-focused machine by the time Keating sold it for a song. And taxpayers own the government so by extension we owned the bank. You really have large gaps in your knowledge, you know that don't you.
The Com bank had been corporatised in the years prior to being sold.
So if it was "already a mean, profit-focused machine by the time Keating sold it". what was the point of keeping it.
It's share price for the years following its float indicates the price was about right.
(not adjusted for inflation)
1st 1991 - $5.40 (middle of a recession)
2nd 1993 - $9.35
3rd 1996 - $10.45 paid over 2 years (middle of Asian currency crisis, talks of a recession)
2000 - share price was around $25
There is nothing here that indicates it sold for a song.
Let me say it one more time, you maybe a taxpayer, but you DO NOT OWN the fed govt Assets.
I'm a very very very minor share holder of a number of company's but I cannot as a shareholder stop or require to be asked to sell an asset, that's why we vote for a board to run the company. That's also why you vote for a govt, to run the country! Why is this such a basic concept so hard to understand?
The "gap issue" isn't at my end!