Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video 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.
"this share hasn't done bad since bottom it's rallied 20 per cent".
There was a small rally when directors bought in; however the dynamics for the major part of the rally was a "leaked rumour" that BT was in negotiations to sell of part of Openreach. Now that this has been dismissed by Openreach and BT as not going to happen, can we expect a retrace of SP back to where it was before the rumour was leaked?
There are many companies that don’t pay dividends and usually if for the right reason of getting a better return on that investment, then shareholders shouldn’t want to be paid dividend as the investment return will be higher than the dividend, which goes on the share price over time.
Ie amazon never pay dividends just reinvest as they believe they can make better use of that money for shareholders.
If dividends are cancelled due to not making any money that’s a different story.
But I think Jansen is exactly doing right thing as it also keeps their debt cheap in bond mkt as well as getting 10/12 per cent return. This share hasn’t done bad since the bottom it’s rallied 20 percent and still on short term bullish momentum at moment.
So let’s see where it is in 6mths. But bit harsh to say it’s distressed.
UncleBuck..... "Taylor Wimpy were £101.5 on April 3rd they are now selling for £1.54. That's a profit of 51.7%. On an investment in only 2 months. Who is going to buy BT at the moment when there are better investments providing a higher and quicker return for your money?"
I see great undervaluation in BT, yes other more riskier companies will outperform BT, like Taylor Wimpy, but I would rather be invested in BT than TW, with the housing market on the downturn with the biggest monthly drop in 11 years. Another big plus in my eyes is CEO Philip Jansen's share purchases totalling £6 million, his average price 150p. I believe that no one is better positioned than the CEO of a company. His actions speaks volumes. Jansen will double his money within 5 years. Just my opinion of cause.
But take into account that it might be slow road but I do feel BT is a safe option.
I do feel that there are better option for a fast recovery but I've already been burnt moving big.holdings around so I'm just holding for long term. Let's hope it pays off.
"BT may have £2bln a year profit but the company has a significant challenge challenge before it with the FTTP and 5G rollout. Where is the incentive for shareholders to invest at the moment? Are you suggesting that investing now and waiting 22 months for a dividend of 7.7p per share that might never materialise is a good idea?"
Unclebuck, if you really believe what you're posting and hold BT shares then you should sell them immediately and post your new buys that have better prospects and we can all congratulate you if you're right. Words are cheap, but putting your money where your mouth is takes belief. I've added to my BT holdings recently, so I can say with conviction that I believe BT to be cheap.
Emmjane,
BT may have £2bln a year profit but the company has a significant challenge challenge before it with the FTTP and 5G rollout. Where is the incentive for shareholders to invest at the moment? Are you suggesting that investing now and waiting 22 months for a dividend of 7.7p per share that might never materialise is a good idea? Investors want to make money and in completely scrapping the dividend BT has disadvantaged a large number of normal investors/pensioners who rely on the dividend to supplement their income. Unless things change significantly I can only see BT at the moment being traded up and down over a 15p-20p range to recover the lost dividends. Other shares are rising more quickly than BT as the lockdown is eased and business swings back into action. Who is going to invest in BT long term to wait months for a dividend that may never be paid. Especially when there are other bargain shares around on which a tidy profit can quickly be made. Taylor Wimpy were £101.5 on April 3rd they are now selling for £1.54. That's a profit of 51.7%. On an investment in only 2 months. Who is going to buy BT at the moment when there are better investments providing a higher and quicker return for your money? I do want BT to prosper but at the present moment cannot see that happening. I do hold a large number of BT shares but fear that I will never get a reasonable price or return for the investment that I have made in the company.
UncleBuck57 has provided a fair unbiased summary of the facts as they stand. Currently, investors are showing little interest in BT Group, while other companies' share prices are steadily rising. I simply do not understand the BT Board's "all or nothing" dividend removal strategy. Due to its track record over the last five years, BT Group is not seen as a company with significant growth potential, so that it might have helped to retain a proportion of the dividend?
My own experience of BT Group is that they can only supply me with their most basic (non fibre) broadband in two properties - both in the green belts immediately outside two cities in the South West. The case for the requirement of massive investment is clear. It is the manner that BT Group are fulfilling it to the detriment of long-standing dividend investors that is questionable in my opinion.
Bt debt is bbb rated which certainly isnt distressed either
https://www.btplc.com/Sharesandperformance/Financialreportingandnews/Debtinvestors/index.htm#:~:text=BT's%20credit%20rating&text=Standard%20%26%20Poor's%20(S%26P)%2C,and%20the%20lowest%20is%20C.
Agreed EJ, and it certainly will not fall within HMG's definition of a "distressed company"
If hmg want a stake in bt, they have to pay a premium. Only if bt goes to hmg with beggar bowl in hand would the govt take a stake and dilute sp for shareholders.
"I disagree, BT is a distressed company"
£2bln a year profit and cancelling dividend to invest to get a 10/12 per cent return on dividend reinvestment into infrastructure, is not a distressed company in my book.
I disagree, BT is a distressed company. The government has over regulated and penalised BT for the last 20 years. The share price has lost 80% of it's value over the past five years. It's now cancelled the dividend until 2022. It's going to cost the company £500M to reduce the Huawei equipment to 35% and there is now a very good chance that this incompetent government will want BT to reduce that to 0%, possibly another £500M or more, also at cost to the company. The CEO is giving his pay to the NHS and bonusses have been forgon. As far as I know no staff furloughed and no help from Boris. No possibility of making a decent return/profit on the FTTP rollout, and then free cash flow only being created by staff reductions and less maintenance once the rollout is completed in the next 5-10 years. Plus if other providers install their own equipment then maintenance will be down to them saving some money but losing revenue by not selling this to & maintaining it for the provider. This sounds like a distressed company to me, but I don't see the government helping it anytime soon. Unlike companies like BA who have already furloughed 22,000 staff and want to make the remainder redundant and then hire them back on new contracts with a 60% pay cut. It's not a British company anymore but I'm pretty sure that Boris will want to help them out in any way that he can.
"i have a nagging thought in my head that HMG may take a stake in bt to push through the 5g at a rapid pace."
If it was France, maybe, but i couldn't see a Tory government taking a stake in a privatised company, unless it was part of a bailout and BT isn't a distressed company. What they might do is put together a compensation package. If they force BT to remove all the Huawei equipment and with it not being BT's fault, compensation would be justified. Using compensation, the Government could finance 5G and Fibre without being accused of providing state support.
i have a nagging thought in my head that HMG may take a stake in bt to push through the 5g at a rapid pace.
i cannot get that FT report that said bt was in negotiations to sell a stake of openreach out of my head. ie no smoke without fire!!!
please do give your opinions and what it would mean to the sp if this did happen.