Member Info for fleccy

End of next month, should be interesting.

8% Simple Interest is a standard figure, it appears to be what the Financial Ombudsman Service uses.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/understanding-compensation

No idea, but the higher the price rises the more it reduces their profit. BT also pays a chunky 5.39p per share Final Dividend in August, so if BT maintains the dividend at that level it'll be a drain on any paper profit they might have accumulated. Normally the share price dips by the amount of the dividend, but if BT is seeing good upward momentum going into ex dividend it might encourage some of the short's to get out, if an increasing share price doesn't do the job before then. As well as tomorrows results there's also the court case to consider, the result of the court case could determine the actions of the short's.

"Clearly the figures have since increased (inflation)"

No, the excuse for increasing the claim followed information provided by BT, in my opinion it was used as a lever to encourage BT to settle out of court, which BT hasn't done.

"OK, So I understand that they have better prospects of a win on the split purchase part, given OFCOM somewhat let them off on that issue."

I take the complete opposite view, the whole point of OFCOM pushing BT into reducing prices was due to lack of engagement by elderly people, Split purchase and Business customers are both engaged according to OFCOM; Also the Split purchase and Business customer litigation period is much wider than the landline only residential customer. Patourel's lawyers aren't just asking the CAT to litigate, they're also asking then to regulate.

"The Proposed Class includes all persons domiciled in the United Kingdom (except in the Hull Area) who, during the Claim Period, bought a BT Standalone Fixed Voice Service (“BT SFV Service”), excluding BT Basic and BT Home Phone Saver (“Excluded Services”). A BT SVF Service means any residential landline calling plan service provided by BT, except for the Excluded Services, which (i) includes landline line rental and (ii) has not been sold as part of a bundle with broadband.

The Proposed Class is split into two Proposed Sub-classes, namely:

(a) BT Voice Only Customers: Members of the Proposed Class who, during the applicable Claim Period as defined below, bought a BT SFV Service but did not, at the same time, buy a broadband service, either from BT or any other provider.

(b) BT Split Purchase Customers: Members of the Proposed Class who, during the applicable Claim Period as defined below, have bought at the same time both (i) a BT SFV Service; and (ii) a broadband service, either from BT or any other provider.

The Claim Period means:

(a) for residential BT Voice Only Customers, between 1 October 2015 and 1 April 2018 inclusive;

(b) for business BT Voice Only Customers, between 1 October 2015 and the date of the Tribunal’s final determination of the claims made by the Proposed Sub-class of BT Voice Only Customers or their earlier settlement (or settlement of any part thereof); and

(c) for BT Split Purchase Customers, between 1 October 2015 and the date of the Tribunal’s final determination of the claims made by the Proposed Sub"

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2021-01/1381_Patourel_summary_260121.pdf

IDMB, OFCOM's reasoning was that elderly customers aren't engaged and are therefore staying with their provider no matter how much the price rises. Importantly OFCOM's opinion is that Split Purchase Customers are engaged and aren't being treated unfairly.

"2.2.1 The price reduction will not apply to BT Basic or Home Phone Saver customers.

2.2.2 The price reduction will not apply to Split Purchase Customers. BT will exclude any

standalone voice customers from the price reduction that it has reason to believe

buy fixed broadband services, whether from a BT group company or another

communications provider. Such customers will be provided with an opportunity to

opt back in if BT’s information is incorrect.

2.2.3 The price reduction will not apply to business customers. BT will exclude any

standalone voice customers from the price reduction that it has reason to believe

are business customers. Such customers will be provided with an opportunity to opt

back in if BT’s information is incorrect.

2.2.4 In respect of 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 above, BT will from time to time provide Ofcom with

information relating to the volume of customers impacted and the volume who have

received the discount."

Split purchase service is probably the largest part of the litigation claim, at least half or more. All CP's operate the same policy, if you don't renegotiate at the end of your contract your payments increase dramatically, in the case of landline's BT's competitors were following BT's price rises so competition wasn't working, that isn't BT's fault.

It's by no means clear cut that BT have overcharged and they're probably among the most regulated companies on the planet, so maybe the courts should leave it to the regulator in BT's case.

The Net Debt should reduce by around €2 Billion following the completion of the Spain sale, due to the €4.1 Billion cash payment with €2 Billion earmarked for buybacks.

"On completion, Vodafone's consideration will comprise at least €4.1 billion in cash and up to €0.9 billion in the form of Redeemable Preference Shares ("RPS") which redeem, for an amount comprising the subscription price and accrued preferential dividend, no later than 6 years after closing.

Vodafone and Zegona have entered into an agreement whereby Vodafone will provide certain services to Vodafone Spain for a total annual service charge of c.€110 million.

The enterprise value of €5.0 billion is equivalent to a multiple of 5.3x Adjusted EBITDAaL3 and 12.7x OpFCF4 for the 12-month period ended 31 March 2023"

https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/vodafone4/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=221&newsid=1730061

Vodafone have also said they'll use €2 Billion of the €8 Billion Italy sale for buybacks, so you'd expect there's thepotential to reduce Net Debt by a further €6 Billion following the Italy sale.

"Value-creating sale of Vodafone Italy to Swisscom for €8 billion upfront cash proceeds Value-creating sale of Vodafone Italy to Swisscom for €8 billion upfront cash proceeds"

https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/vodafone4/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=221&newsid=1799593

"Bonds outstanding (EU and US)" (Some bonds may have already been paid)

https://investors.vodafone.com/debt-investors/bonds-outstanding-eu-and-us

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRA1ndHTf_Bz7O_moDxmcbWnEtcusZucUu6lEJvm3O4mGooeH4ErFjRqot3RQHBaVXCgoUED1k2CUVK/pubchart?oid=17624073&format=interactive

Here is my Cash Flow chart updated with the most recent figure. FY23 is represented and I notice a reduction in the spectrum and licences fees for FY23 has increased the Cash Flow for those results. If anyone notices any mistakes, let me know and I'll correct them.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRA1ndHTf_Bz7O_moDxmcbWnEtcusZucUu6lEJvm3O4mGooeH4ErFjRqot3RQHBaVXCgoUED1k2CUVK/pubchart?oid=325944045&format=interactive

A while back I created a chart to roughly approximate the valuations of Ako Capital's short trades. I used the closing prices on the day the short's were made and calculate gains and losses dependent on the current price. I did it for fun and it may not be accurate:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRsw9LqqM3qfp1pbyg2fC4UnADyTjldJjpbBz0ejR1F7KI6w6k1OhPW65Iz80lXOgTJh19gwwG7o85U/pubchart?oid=1398899881&format=interactive

It's clear that removing stamp duty on share purchases would increase volume's, but would that help stock valuations? For long term investors the 0.5% stamp duty is relatively insignificant, but for traders it becomes significant because they need to see the price increase over 0.5% before seeing any profit; High Frequency Traders are hammered by the 0.5% stamp duty, due to the number of trades they continually execute.

Can someone explain to me how scrapping stamp duty on share purchases will increase the valuations of UK listed stocks? Because I can see how it'll increase profits for traders, but I have no idea how that would lead to increasing stock prices.

" inflation linked price hikes help ensure revenues are keeping up i.e. holding the divi is akin to cutting it anyway. There's not a need to trim."

As an investor the easiest way to counteract the inflation effect is to reinvest the dividends and grow your holding with each reinvestment, feeding through to more future dividends.

BT has far less shares in issue than Vodafone and a much lower dividend bill. Because there a less than 10 Billion shares issued in BT they don't need to divert funds into Buybacks, if they did it would also inflate Drahi's ownership of the company and potentially give him more control. I don't think BT need to reduce the dividend, even though UBS use dividend cut speculation in their updates to damage sentiment.

Off Book trades are negotiated between parties Off Exchange, and although they usually go through at the On Exchange price they don't participate in the price setting process.

Phat they're negotiated Off Book trades and are non price setting.

These are the relevant trades:

tradeDate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . price volume . . . . . . . tradeValue

2024-05-13T15:40:45+01:00 105.5 20,000,000.00 21,100,000

2024-05-13T13:49:52+01:00 105.5 20,000,000.00 21,100,000

2024-05-13T13:49:51+01:00 105.5 20,000,000.00 21,100,000

2024-05-13T13:28:36+01:00 105.5 17,012,644.00 17,948,339.42

2024-05-13T13:28:29+01:00 105.5 17,012,644.00 17,948,339.42

But it went over $68,000 in Nov 2021 and then fell to around $16,000 in December 2022, the reason it's so volatile is because it's not tied to anything tangible. How would anyone investing in Bitcoin today know it wont drop to $15,000, or $5,000, by this time next year? Because its value is based on speculation, even if the HODLers hold on to their Bitcoin the speculators could still push the price down to next to nothing, in the absence of the whales jumping in to support the price. Bitcoin has one purpose and that's to allow punters to bet on the price direction, anything else is just the facilitators who make money by running the machine and taking their cut.

Pas, one of the narratives pushed by the vested interests is that Bitcoin will replace Fiat, don't take my word for it look on Google. If Bitcoin is an investment opportunity, what's the investment case? I would argue against the historic price outperformance as justification for buying Bitcoin, since Bitcoin doesn't have any efficient use cases. The value of Bitcoin is free floating and based purely on demand, but what is that demand based on in the absence of an association to something with a real world use? If Bitcoin was worth its weight in Gold, by association, then I could see where the valuation might come from since Gold has real world use cases, as well as being a store of value.

Pas, I would suggest the outperformance of BTC is irrelevant and doesn't disprove my view that Bitcoin's price is based on belief and speculation. Obviously the hyped narrative, touting BTC as a solution to all the World's financial issues, has caught the imagination of some very rich people who've bought into the hype, then encouraging others to create a belief/speculative hype machine aimed at building a snowball effect.

I have no idea what will kill Bitcoin, or when it will happen, but in my opinion the lack of an efficient use case will eventually lead to its demise.

Not really, Fiat currency values are based on the economy of the issuing block/Central Bank's. The Euro is based on the EU economy, Sterling is based on the UK economy and the Dollar is based on the US economy, although the US appears to get away with writing blank cheques due to their status as the World's reserve currency. Unlike Fiat, Bitcoin has no Central Bank and isn't associated with any economy, so its value is based purely on belief and speculation.

The Bitcoin Fiat comparison is yet another fake narrative used to hype the Token and build belief that Bitcoin is somehow the same as, but better than, Fiat.