Member Info for fleccy

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.

The Video is quite an amusing spin on Bitcoin, but in the end it's just SPIN. It's correct that inflation erodes the value of Fiat currency and the lesson should be that no one holds more cash than they need as a float, or for emergencies. I wont invest in Bitcoin because I don't see any use for it, it's inefficient, wasteful, and the scarcity narrative is false in my opinion. I'd rather invest in companies that provide a measurable service and own hard assets. The video compares Fiat to Bitcoin, but last I heard Bitcoin is apparently now classified as a commodity, personally I don't view it as a commodity either. No mention in the Video about using hard assets as a hedge against inflation, like owning property, stocks, or commodities like Gold. It was amusing, but full of half truths and scripted to skew the narrative.

Personally Pas I don't see much value in Art either and see little to like in many of the old masterpieces, much of the pricing is likely due to millionaires and Billionaires outcompeting each other to show off their wealth. It reminds me of the outraged Italian chased by a waiter because his €500 tip was insufficient, demonstrating the crazy surreal world we find ourselves in today. If the Italian had any sense he would find a nice reasonably priced restaurant, where they serve good food at down to earth prices and appreciate his business, especially if he gave them a tip equaling the price of his meal.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12408161/Very-rich-Italian-left-outraged-chased-reprimanded-Saint-Tropez-waiter-leaving-500-euro-tip-meal.html

That story is just one example of the weirdness permeating through society today, where sense and value are disconnected, especially when it comes to valuations of many stocks and Crypto.

I think around £3 would be a fair valuation for BT once the current capex cycle ends and the cost savings kick in, showing up as an increase in the bottom line Net Profit. I don't see BT as a revenue growth play due to their incumbent status, but BT has massive potential for savings through building closures, network transformation and staff reductions. To put things into perspective, BT's yearly Capex spend at around £5 Billion is more than ARM Holding's total yearly revenue, ARM has a market cap of $113.23 Billion and BT's market cap is around £10.5 Billion. Once the current capex cycle ends, BT will have the largest national FTTP and 5G network's, and enough firepower to reduce debt should it choose to. It's blindingly obvious to me that the market is undervaluing BT's assets, so I have no problem topping up as dividend cash becomes available. Whether or not ARM has the potential grow revenue and justify it's large P/E ratio remains to be seen, but it's anyone's guess as to why Telecom stocks are being hammered down to historically low valuations; My theory is that big players are depressing Telecom stock valuations, to push out retail and quietly mop up stock behind the scenes.

Rolls Royce is a good example of how the market can move prices when they want to, from 39p in Oct 2020 to around 423p today. Rolls Royce rerating is even more miraculous when you consider there were 1,930,995,313 total voting rights in Dec 2019 and 8,416,696,989 today and they dropped the dividend and still have debt. If Rolls Royce isn't an example of big market players gaming stock valuations I don't know what is, since it's the only way I can make sense of the disparity in valuations between different stocks and sectors.

I don't see the comparison between art and Bitcoin as valid, since art is valued based on its uniqueness and there are 20 million Bitcoin's currently mined. A more valid argument is that Bitcoin's value is based on the belief of the participants, whether or not Bitcoin holds value would be dependent on the ratio and actions of true believers vs speculators.

In my opinion Michael Saylor is a Bitcoin Evangelist talking his own book. I expect Michael Saylor is a true believer, I just don't understand why?

Pas as far as I can tell QBT's methods are all focused on Proof of Work Blockchain, which relies on miners competing to solve mathematical problems using massive amounts of energy, whereas all the use cases you listed could easily be provided by far more efficient Proof of Stake Blockchains provided centrally, or decentrally. Something else to consider is that any entity can create their own Blockchain's, none of your use cases require use of inefficient Blockchain's like BTC. I'm not against Blockchain, I just don't see any value in Bitcoin.