Member Info for Aus3009

Price raised from £1.80 to £1.85 such is their confidence. I’d feel happier if I thought their original price of 1.80 was right.

I’m pretty sure slightly panicy quotes in the press from BT seniors won’t help confidence. Also don’t need to read charts to see £1 looks like a barrier on the way up

Be careful what you wish for, my mum used to say. Paul Dacre looks favourite to take over OFCOM......

So volatile today

Very sorry about the share price. I’ve just bought more (usually means a big fall) :)....

Good advice is important. Whilst economy is bad, you can make that wirk to your advantage by looking at transferring, which is one of the options you’re talking about, I’ve heard from friends offer could be 40+ times the defined pension payout

Fleccy - oh okay that answers my question why there’s a difference in valuation thank you

Beza sounds good.

Beza. Okay yep. Is this happening at scale? I dunno. I was thinking sudden increased Use actually costs BT as they suddenly need to increase back bone capacity etc. So I’ve been thinking, in this mad world & because of the way the bb model works, increased demand, probably costs BT and adversely affects the bottom line ?

Bertram that’s another annoyance, I can’t see benefit for Bt with working from home? People who have BB don’t pay extra for longer or more use? Do they ?

Pension calculations vary. I’ve noticed I’ve the years BT results show pension deficit as 3 to 4 to 5 billion, whilst outside the same deficit is shown as 7, 9 or 11 £billion. I can’t explain it, But always makes me cautious to celebrate pension numbers recorded on results? I’m not saying it’s a fiddle btw & maybe the results calculation is always right?

Hi Tony, that’s a very good point I like & appreciate your thinking, that potentially the higher priced BT products might be insulated. But there is 2 sides to this coin, when money is tight people look to reduce costs. BB, Energy & tv seems an obvious choice, although some friends in the industry tell me expensive sky packages are the last to go... with so many alternatives I’m not sure that’s true any more. I guess all these things are up for debate, the acceleration of business revenue is a different matter I would guess? The pattern I think is Bt are loosing out as their retail customers convert to using a line wholesale service like Fleccy does with sky, I think lager wholesale deals are probably in decline too as other operator networks appear, virgin being one of many. New revenue streams or deals are needed to stop the slow decline. I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect that’s been accelerated during covid, but that’s just a guess.

Fleccy that’s a reduction in revenue. If you choose sky of a BT retail product, you are in fact reducing BT’s income. If more people do what you do to save a couple of quid, BT’s revenue is down. I’m also guessing Bt business / office connectivity must be under pressure too

Yes big gap between opinion and observable reality (SP).

Nige, jack. I think you are talking at cross purposes. One side of this argument said here are the problems and consequences & the other side said, no there aren’t and signed a contract / treaty in bad faith. Now those consequences are apparent, should a sovereign government act like a spoilt child & break international law to overcome the consequences of their bad faith. Is it then right to force the U.K. / Irish border consequences / problem / responsibility into the EU as a result of a British problem, in effect the U.K. government is effectively saying they have caused a problem they can’t resolve themselves (only because of ideology)...... this is no way for a U.K. government to behave. Britain is in this position because a treaty they signed. It’s poor beyond words & its all cloaked In more and more dishonesty, again which I think is unbritish.

Hey NDN can I invite you to read my posts. I think you will find I’m talking about law breaking and dishonesty which will damage U.K. prospects. Brexit is already done, but I can understand how you would link dishonesty and law breaking with Brexit, but in this occasion, I’m talking about the now, not 2016

NDN - the original point was to demonstrate the duplicity of our governments position & the inevitable damage this will do to the UK’s standing & of course the impact on the economy / risks to U.K. investments. On one side the government are making ridiculous claims about the EU in a very worrying lunatic way in part because of state aid and fake claims of sovereignty. Whilst on the other hand agreeing terms with japan that has more state aid controls, claiming success..... other countries will be watching this in horror & wondering whether the U.K. can ever be a trusted partner. Outwardly this looks like lunacy, or a government who signed a treaty in bad faith or a government so incompetent they didn’t know. All these accusations will negatively impact investments. The rest of the thread is an annoyance with fools who continue to cheer this on.

Absolutely right jack. Thanks. As for the rest of your nonsense Fleccy. The whole point is there was nothing democratic about the leave campaign. It was the abuse of democracy by liars and charlatans & now witnessing the damage they are doing. U.K. has always been sovereign as is every other member state. A country uses its sovereignty whether to sign up or not sign up ( Japanese deal has state aid controls etc) every agreement will, once signed it’s an obligation to stick to it. How can Johnson be in the right? He either signed and then sold the WA in bad faith or he didn’t understand it, either put this government in the wrong. Like I said, I hope others can see your analysis of this & see how warped it is, knowing you do the same with your investment opinions

New lows being reached again Fleccy. I do hope other investors can see your devastating logic & understand you apply the same to your investment opinions. I looked at leave papers, their front pages refer to the Luftwaffe .... a pretend blockade & breaking international law isn’t really breaking international law. On the subject I see Germany has already redirected over £75bln of business away from the U.K. to alternative markets & the japan trade deal might deliver as much as 0.07% of gdp increase over an indeterminate number of years.... also means Japanese can make cars in japan and import them without tariffs, so why build them in the U.K.?

The Japanese trade deal has far tighter rules on state aid than anything the EU requires. Does this indicate U.K. acting in bad faith whilst threatening to break international law because of Eu state aid rules, whilst simultaneously trumpeting deals with japan that have more state aid restrictions

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178