Member Info for fleccy

Dan I normally invest for dividends and was recently waiting for BT to drop below 110p, at which point I was going to top up using the £20,000 I've just directed into Vodafone, but BT jumped 10% in short order. At the same time as I was considering BT, I was also aware that a top up of Vodafone would considerably reduce the average cost per share there and in the end I decided to go for the VOD average cost per share reduction. One reason I was hesitant to invest in Vodafone is because I consider the dividend as unsafe and realise that it could be reduced or dropped next year, but I still decided to top up Vodafone with that in mind.

I'm betting that Vodafone will soon see large increases in the share price, because of the planned restructuring. I think the VOD/Three merger will be allowed, even though logic suggests the CMA would block it and I also believe the disposals will deduct from the Net Debt. As much as I love the dividends, I believe Vodafone should reduce or drop them if they're unaffordable, although I'm not sure they are unaffordable. If the dividends are maintained going forward, I've just locked in a 10% yield on the 28,000 share top up, so I've pretty much considered all eventualities.

Nothing crazy about it Daniel, we dropped our average cost per share by 19p a share, multiply that by our new current holding of 109,734 shares and you get £20,849.46. I know it's an unusual way of looking at it, but it's a metric I decided to include when I was deciding where to invest. I also considered BT which came back with an average of £10,697.48 using the same formula, Lloyds came back with an average of £2,365.14. Ok I haven't really received that as a return and I could lose big time if the price drops from here, but that's the chance you take when you invest. Whichever way the price goes from here, every penny equates to an additional £1,097.34 paper gain/loss either way. In basic terms Vodafone saw a reduction in average cost per share nearly double what I'd have seen had I topped up BT, and Lloyds would have only seen a 1p per share reduction had I decided to top up there.

I can't see VOD dropping too far from here, but I said the same thing when it was a £1 and look where it is now, you pay your money and take your chances.

I can do it in my head Gutter, but my spreadsheet updates every minute for all our holdings and gives me up to the minute changes. It does lots of other things too, not just the calculator I mentioned in this thread.

You should learn how to build spreadsheets Gutter, it makes life much simpler.

When it eventually finds its way back to £4, we can say "that’s it’s value" or " thats the current share price so thats all they are worth"

"Of course tommorow they may fall, but I hope not. Is lowering your average wise (chasing your losses)"

I have a calculator on a Google spreadsheet that looks at our current holdings, across the different accounts, as well as the live prices and the amount I want to top up; The calculator has the following fields:

Calculate Number of shares after Top up

Current number of shares

Price per share of current holding

Amount to invest

Current price of Stock

Dealing Charge

Stamp Duty (0.5%)

Number of shares purchased

Total number of shares after purchase

Average price per share after purchase

Book cost of shareholding after purchase

Reduction in average cost per share

% Reduction in average cost per share

Total shares after purchase x Reduction in Avg cost per share

In the case of Vodafone, for a £20,000 top up it told me the number of shares and the average price after top up; And the final field "Total shares after purchase x Reduction in Avg cost per share" returned a figure of over £20, 800, which is actually higher than the amount I was using to top up with. Basically I invested £20,000, but knocked nearly £21,000 off the average cost across our total VOD shares after top up. It's like I invested £20,000 and got nearly £21,000 back, does that make sense?

I'm not bothered what the share price does in the short term, I'm in no hurry to sell.

"or more likely staying between £1 and £1.25 because thats all the shares worth."

What would you base that valuation on?

I topped up this morning too, 28,275 shares at 70.3432p. I'd been hanging on for it to dip below 70p, but was in a rush to get out so thought F'k it. The top decision had nothing to do with the dividend yield, it was purely about bringing down the average cost per share, it reduced the average by 19p a share.

I don't even watch QBT's price, I do however watch BTC's price as I'm interested in the herd mentality aimed at the Sheeple. As far as my last comment, it was more about the persistent reposting of links to the same content. Most people link to something once and leave it at that, any new investors looking into QBT, as a prospective investment, would likely do their own research and check QBT's website/X feeds.

Blatant ramping from Rampbone

I've watched many of the Coin Bureau videos and although Guy comes across well, he's just talking his own book and shaping the narratives to support his own vested interest. I listen carefully to his explanations, but I disagree with his reasoning used to dismiss the points raised in the report. One thing he did say that I agree wholeheartedly with, is the comment about the BTC value in tied to belief, which I believe is the only thing backing Bitcoin and determining the price.

"This sight is get unusable"

Can I suggest Goggles4u, they do glasses at very reasonable prices.

Just to add to my last post, price action will also likely depend on how the FTSE performs next week.

Everyone's different, with investment decisions dependent on personality, circumstance, and faith in the company. It may suit some investors, who are sitting on paper losses, to top up in order to bring down their average cost per share; Others may believe the company is super cheap and don't consider the dividend a motivating factor to buy stock. I'm currently watching Vodafone's price on a daily basis and suspect it may dip below 70p next week going off previous ex dividend price action in the following days. If it does, I'll likely top up myself.

1st June 2022

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ49B8X4hFFdtXb6WUx45CDRcgMt5FBglgZCFc5UnApKRpOX8cznaVjvfKeIWdC6xr70q5wCbdhpFe7/pubchart?oid=280115502&format=interactive

24th November 2022

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ49B8X4hFFdtXb6WUx45CDRcgMt5FBglgZCFc5UnApKRpOX8cznaVjvfKeIWdC6xr70q5wCbdhpFe7/pubchart?oid=26911151&format=interactive

8th June 2023

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ49B8X4hFFdtXb6WUx45CDRcgMt5FBglgZCFc5UnApKRpOX8cznaVjvfKeIWdC6xr70q5wCbdhpFe7/pubchart?oid=1136014184&format=interactive

23rd November 2023 (Currently)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ49B8X4hFFdtXb6WUx45CDRcgMt5FBglgZCFc5UnApKRpOX8cznaVjvfKeIWdC6xr70q5wCbdhpFe7/pubchart?oid=575774748&format=interactive

Old news, that was reported back in October. I don't really see it as relevant, since I'm of the view that at some point in the future OFCOM will have to take their boot off BT's neck, and allow them to price their products competitively. Once FTTP rollout's completed, should OFCOM ever decided to reclassify BT has no longer having Significant Market Power, BT would be able to price cheaper and undercut the competition anyway. Much is made of BT's debt, which is overstated by including lease liabilities, but they never mention the debt carried by the Altnets and VMO2/Nexfibre which is also significant and arguably more risky.

Blockchain is just a distributed ledger that doesn't have to produce rewards when storing Data, and it also doesn't need to use SHA-256. As I've previously said, BTC is flawed due to the transaction space per Block and the 10 minutes per Block processing time in conjunction with Bitcoin difficulty. Bitcoin difficulty is an artificial construct to slow down the processing time for each Block, which in turn limits the daily/monthly/yearly possible Blocks/rewards between each Halving and ensures each halving only occurs approximately every 4 years. The Bitcoin network can only process around 1Mb of transaction data every 10 minutes as a result of the Block size and Block processing time, so Bitcoin is restrained by all the design features touted as its strengths. Bitcoin is therefore rubbish as a medium for processing transactions and has no safeguards for users who decide to use it for transacting. If its useless as a currency, what's the point of it? Basically BTC is a Blockchain that's been nobbled by design, so it's a pretty useless Blockchain.

Is that what you thought I was going to say Pas?

"QBT is no 'one trick ' pony , purely focussed on BTC alone ... theres more to come and the clue is in the 'B' of the title name"

Pas please share your reasoning behind the B (Blockchain) clue? As far as I can tell, QBT have focused entirely on SHA-256, so what's new that's shown up in your research?

Cheapsharesboy, to answer your questions/assertions:

1. Ferrari aren't selling their cars for Bitcoin, they're selling them for Fiat. The Bitcoin will be immediately sold through Bitpay, with the buyer shouldering all the conversion risk, it's no different to the buyer selling their own Bitcoin and purchasing the Ferrari in cash; So it's wrong to suggest you can buy a Ferrari with Bitcoin, since Ferrari don't touch the Bitcoin they just receive the cash.

2. Bitcoin is a rubbish hedge against inflation, due to its volatility, you could invest in Land, property, or companies that provide a more stable hedge.

3. Again this is a fake narrative, if the Government wanted your Bitcoin they'd take it just as easily as they'd confiscate anything else. If you're banged up in prison, you'd soon give up your Bitcoin to see the light of day. The US has already seized Bitcoin from individuals, look at James Zhong who stole Bitcoin from the Silk Road dark web internet marketplace; Arguably he actually did the US a favour, since the Bitcoin he stole was earmarked for criminal transactions.

4. The future is digital, but Bitcoin is catastrophically flawed so it wont be part of it.

5. I've said previously that there's a place for Stablecoin's, so I agree certain Crypto currencies will be useful.

As far as QBT's concerned anything could happen. In the short term it'll depend on the company media releases, which may give the share price a short term boost benefiting the speculative trader bets; How sustainable that rise is long term would depend on QBT proving they have a working product benchmarked in the real world.

Jambone in reference to your second post mentioning me.

I wouldn't describe my BTC interest as an unhealthy obsession, I just think Bitcoin is a scam and I believe that a lot of believers will eventually get burned. As far as QBT's concerned, I have no idea if their algorithms will perform as implied by the company, but the only evidence provided by the company is in the form of words and videos. The media releases are also vague and use out of date examples, well below the current network hash rate and difficulty level, so it's hard to judge how their software will perform today on the live Bitcoin network.

I could be wrong, but QBT has the feel of a company created out of the ashes of Clear Leisure and latching onto the massive hype propelling BTC around the time of the name change, without the formation of QBT the company would have likely folded and the lenders would have lost their funds. I'm currently sitting on £20,000 cash in an ISA, and if I thought QBT had produced any substantive evidence backing up their 2.6 times claim I'd jump in myself, with the intention of making a fast gain, but I don't have confidence in their increased performance claim when it comes to the live BTC network. I could be wrong in my view and you guys might do really well out of your bet, but I'm happy to sit on the fence.

I'll answer your question Jambone.

I just enjoy expressing my point of view in relation to Bitcoin and since QBT is connected with Bitcoin, I've chosen this busy forum to express my view. I try and avoid inflammatory posts and stick to facts as I see them. Lloyds BT and VOD are my investments and I'll post there when I have something to say, just like I post here when I have something to say.

Just because I'm not invested in QBT, doesn't mean I'm not entitled to express my views on this public forum.

I watched the video, but AI comes in different flavours. You could argue that a calculator is AI, or another example is a program that plays chess. When I was in my 20's, many years ago, I wrote a program in Basic to play Noughts and Crosses and I have to say it was unbeatable once completed, was that AI? I would argue it isn't, but a Chess program that learns as it plays would be. The recent hype around AI is about Generative AI, not a program performing a mathematical calculation to increase the probability of finding a target within a range. True AI might be a program that evolves and learns as it trains itself on new data over time, are QBT's algorithms self learning?

Garwool, the article is misleading because Bitcoin mining is unproductive. Bitcoin is useful for one thing, which is speculative bets on the price going higher; I'd liken it to gambling, there are winners and losers and the industry employs people, but Bitcoin itself produces nothing it just redistributes wealth between different parties. Apparently Bitcoin mining consumes about 147 terawatt-hours of electricity each year and what does all that energy produce? Some code that people can store in a cold wallet in a safe. The Bitcoin once produced doesn't fuel cars, it isn't used in food production, it does nothing until it's sold and transferred into another cold wallet and stored in someone else's safe, with each transaction using more electricity. I would say Bitcoin mining is probably the worst use of energy on the planet, because the product derived from the mining has no meaningful use.