Member Info for Aus3009

Snakeman - that’s a good question.

When I have asked myself same question I arrive at couple of answers.

One is this valuation assumes openreach carry on doing the same work, with a long term contract and these valuations are just multiples of openreach revenue.

Or valuation has made a mistake about network ownership.

It’s why I arrive at my idea to give openreach off with a 50 year contract to give it value, but BT don’t lose ownership or as Rod says split it between BT and other interested parties (which I like best) because it addresses competition problem and makes those owners sticky

Matarab - I think there are lots of answers to your question I’ll give you 3

1 - openreach is valued somewhere between £20-30 billion pounds, that value is not showing itself in the current market value. Using openreach differently should change this.

2 - biggest risk to BT and openreach is two fold (in my opinion). Firstly major customers like Sky could choose to start using other networks, because all they need is a fibre connection. Over time this would force Openreach to reduce prices and overtime other networks will reduce openreach over a thousand cuts. Sharing ownership of the network with the other companies should remover their appetite to go elsewhere. Should kill off altnets.

3 - Ofcom interferes too much in this industry. An Openreach & network no longer wholly owned by BT should remover their appetite the need for Ofcom interference

Imo

Too right little Rod. Too many posters on this board with no imagination or business acumen, running round insulting poster who do.

BT can of course choose not to sell their network, they could sell or divide “openreach” across interested parties so they can have a stake, Sky, Vodafone etc etc, I se this as a defensive play, removing the need for these “service providers” to use altnets or even Virgin Media wholesale offering when or if it finally comes.

To make it worth their while & to ensure future employment, BT could lease their network (for a substantial fee) to Openreach for 50 or even 100 years.

BT would earn from this lease, renewed every 10 years if so, BT would earn from its portion of openreach ownership and the other service

Providers will earn from their portion of ownership & have a business they can tweak to improve profitability, from which they all gain.

I think this solves potential competition problems for BT in the future, satisfies OFCOM & keeps larger service providers happy with a stake in the network they use. Or should want to use

It’s because UBS think openreach will lose more than 800.000 broadband customers (not retail)

You have to add the “not retail” otherwise crazy posters want to pick a fight

Whether that loss happens or whether it’s worth the low valuation is the interesting bit.

Each loss hits BT revenue & emboldens competition, so they are double whammies. BT says majority of these are old style broadband (not fibre) where they don’t yet have full fibre available

I’ve not seen BT share price this determined for lots of years.

Errorplane - not on altnets.

Altnets don’t have Old school TDM services. There is no migration needed on their side.

Also interested to see this article referring to “service providers” as “retailers”… as in providing retail products. Something I was attacked for last week.

Just saying.

Cont 2/2

Regulatory Scrutiny:

Cross-trades are often subject to regulatory oversight, as they can be seen as potentially problematic if not conducted fairly and transparently.

When to be Cautious:

Lack of Transparency:

Be wary of cross-trades where the details are not fully disclosed or where the process lacks transparency.

Potential for Manipulation:

If you suspect that a cross-trade might be intended to manipulate prices or create artificial market activity, it's crucial to investigate further.

Regulatory Concerns:

Be aware of the regulatory environment and any specific rules or guidelines that apply to cross-trades in your jurisdiction or industry.

In conclusion: Cross-trades are not inherently bad, but they require careful consideration and due diligence. Weigh the potential benefits against the risks and ensure that the trade is conducted fairly, transparently, and in compliance with all applicable regulations

No worries. I found this too. I think this begins to confirm what I was saying a while ago about on book and off book trading (&

Being told how dumb I am)

Most retail traders just buy and sell their stock, sometimes these go to other retail share holders, so go to brokers who hold them and set a sale price.

What I think happens in the auction is bids are matched to the lowest sell spread for transaction to happen very quickly in one go so does not create large increase in sp. Whereas on the open market, if a buyer wanted to buy 91m shares & those are not available, buyer needs to increase bid, but seeker can then step change sell price too, hence supply demand, overall price increases, quickly for buyer to find thr many sellers.

No, cross-trades should not be ignored, but they also shouldn't be blindly accepted. While cross-trades can offer benefits like reduced transaction costs and faster settlement, they also carry risks, including potential for manipulation and reduced market transparency. A careful assessment of the specific context and potential impact is necessary.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Potential Benefits:

Reduced Transaction Costs:

Cross-trades can lower brokerage fees and other transaction expenses, as they bypass public exchanges.

Faster Settlement:

Trades can be executed more quickly when they don't need to go through the usual exchange processes.

Price Improvement:

In some cases, cross-trades can provide better prices for one or both parties involved, compared to public markets.

Potential Risks:

Manipulation:

Cross-trades can be used to manipulate prices or create the appearance of market activity, potentially disadvantaging other market participants.

Reduced Transparency:

Because cross-trades occur outside of public exchanges, they can reduce transparency in the market, making it harder for others to assess true market sentiment.

Conflicts of Interest:

When a cross-trade involves parties with a pre-existing relationship (like a fund manager trading on behalf of two different funds), there's a risk of conflicts of interest, where one party might be favored over another.

Regulatory Scrutiny:

Cross-trades are often subject to regulatory oversight, as they can be seen as potentially problematic if not conducted fairly and transparently.

When to be Cautious:

Lack of Transparency:

Be wary of cross-trades where the details are not fully disclosed or where the process lacks transparency.

Potential for Manipulation:

If you suspect that a cross-trade might be intended to manipulate prices or create artificial market activity, it's crucial to investigate further.

Regulatory Concerns:

Be aware of the regulatory environment and any specific rules or guidelines that apply to cross-trades in your jurisdiction or industry.

In conclusion: Cross-trades are not inherently bad, but they require careful consideration and due diligence. Weigh the potential benefits against the risks an

By asking a good AI tool some questions I get this for an example

Cross trade helps investors to post orders to buy at certain opening prices or during order imbalances, thus improving liquidity and reducing disruptions in the market. Cross trades help execute large block orders by matching buy and sell orders without recording their transactions on the exchange.

It all happens during an auction phase.

Shares are exchanged between sellers and buyers at the point where bid and sell prices are equal.

Lots of people on this board tell everyone to ignore these, but ultimately these determine the final share price for the day.

This explains better than me

Impact of Large Transactions:

Large buy or sell orders can significantly impact the price, especially if the stock has limited liquidity (fewer shares available for trading).

At time of a big buy, there may not be enough sellers, price increases for lots of smaller investors until they sell

One big buy & thousands of little sells for example would be good for a share price.

Supply and demand, time it takes for all those smaller investors to sell the price will increase inline with the range they are prepared to sell.

Czq - I already said I didn’t know why that word was overwritten? I wrote or tried to write “trading”

What I mean is the track and and down of the share price was following trading patterns. Up for big buys, down for big sells.

I do t think a buy is a sell. You can have lots of people selling small amounts but one big buy for instance. My understanding is the big buy will elicit an increase in price.

I’ve noticed for ages the BT share price has not been following up and down in response to big buys or sometimes sells.

My think is, that’s because the noise of the market, the bit we see, has been drowned out by the larger moves of shares off book.

So the shares follow a pattern determined by off book.

I’m not saying I’m right, I’m just saying BT share price has been behaving strangely, but recently this has changed, big buys up, big sells down.

Un like previous posts I’m not saying I’m correct, it’s an observation for which I have tried to think of a reason

What food they say? Was it aimed at you or me? Must have been bad, based on the abuse you normally get?

That was “trading” don’t know why that got overwritten ?

oh really, i didn’t ask for any posts to be taken down. i never do that or block people, it’s a public board, people can say what they like. i don’t know why they then can’t be the same?

as for share price big patterns of **************s today, quite unusual, for the public side of the market.

for once sp seems to be following these trades, so to me, looks like up front trading rather off book in control ?

Right on lil Rod. It’s my Asperger’s, I don’t like wrong.

I do pretty well normally.

Yes

These posters are all about “space monkeys” “warped views of relativity “ “grasses” “expletives” & all out creepy.

But everyone else is the problem?

As far as BT goes, SP is showing stubborn growth which is good. I wonder if lil Rod will see his 10p prediction ?

Hmmm, stalking through my posts, making silly judgements. Accusing me of being dishonest……. Confusing the use of “there “ & “their”

Are you sure I’m the pompous, dishonest one?

Obviously only. Fool would make such in-depth judgements about another human being in this way, under these circumstances

Honestly gives me the creeps when confronted by someone who feels entitled to do so…. Such entitled behaviour can lead to all kinds of unpleasant habits.

At least lil rod is mainly talking about BT or business rather than full on, unhinged creepiness.

My guess is other posters might feel same way, even if they don’t like my posts, this kind of creepy should bother anyone.

Hey lil rod. Maybe Matherj is referring to the one who is doing the bullying & talking about space monkeys ? That, by far deserves majority of concern. As do his supporters encouraging his insanity,

I can’t see why your opinions actually relating to BT would fit into “space monkeys” territory?