London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

You miss the point Skier; My point was that they're going after Banks to increase interest rates on savings accounts, for people who probably have a few thousand pounds and little to gain, yet say nothing about the injustice of Public sector pensions versus Private sector pensions. In the example I used with the chart, the person receiving the public sector pension would receive a total of £2,960,892.41 over the 30 years, whereas the capped Private sector pension would only pay out a total of £1,050,086.62. Most private sector pension schemes are now Defined Contribution schemes, and there are no guarantees on future payouts. Although I was fortunate to join two final salary schemes during my career, my second and by far largest scheme was altered over the years and then cut short while I was still in the job, and I was then moved onto a DC scheme. It was Government policy that destroyed Private Sector Final Salary Pensions, why do they still benefit from something they ruined for people like me? Don't get me wrong, I'm in a better position than many who were, and are employed in the Private sector, but why aren't the Treasury Committee looking at Pension injustices where they clearly benefit from far superior pensions, than people like me and many others, due to a situation that they the politicians created? Wage increases drive inflation, so there's an argument that Public sector pensioners, receiving far higher inflation linked rises, drive inflation higher doubly disadvantaging Private sector pensioners seeing far lower increases.

I changed it a bit for the email, took some out and added some:

Dear Sir

I am writing this email due to the recent comments aimed at putting pressure on the Banks and disregarding average retail investors like me and my Wife, who have invested a considerable amount of our life savings for dividend income.

"Harriett Baldwin, chair of the Treasury Select Committee looking into banks, said: 'The time for weak excuses is over. We will continue to monitor closely, especially when banks report half-year results.'"

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-12327087/Lenders-boots-new-rules-rates.html

All this talk about interest earned on savings accounts, holding insignificant amounts, and generating little income even if interest rates were considerably higher, but no mention on the Treasury Committee website of the inequalities politicians have created in the Pension systems? Public sector pension increases were over 10% this year, yet my private sector final salary pension increases are capped at 4.235% and since I can't go on strike for a higher pension, I can't do anything about it. Here's what Public sector pension increases are currently:

"In April 2023, public services pensions increased by 10.1%, in line with the

annual increase in the Consumer Prices Index up to September 2022 (except

for those public service pensions which had been in payment for less than a

year, received a pro-rata increase)."

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05434/SN05434.pdf

If inflation stayed at 10% and it became the new norm, then a public sector worker starting out now with an £18,000 Pension would see that increase to £285,535.67 a year after 30 years; A private sector worker capped at 4.235%, like me, starting out on the same pension would earn a mere £59,933.01 a year in comparison:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vR7BdUTF5R7o-pLglgSqc-Svezc1z6IL0fW6XeIU63DT6Rg03ov9cTp_8z4-Tu_F13Fk61yWdz5KxBn/pubchart?oid=593070434&format=interactive

As can be seen from the chart, the private sector pension increases flatten the curve massively in comparison to full inflation linked Public sector increases. They used to say that Public sector workers get better pensions, than their private sector equivalents, because they earned less than could be earned in the private sector, I'd suggest that's no longer the case, if it ever was.

"Harriett Baldwin, chair of the Treasury Select Committee looking into banks, said: 'The time for weak excuses is over. We will continue to monitor closely, especially when banks report half-year results.'"

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-12327087/Lenders-boots-new-rules-rates.html

Politicians are totally detached from reality and focus on insignificant headline grabbing things, saying nothing about the inequalities politicians have either contributed to, or allowed to continue.

All this talk about interest earned on savings accounts, holding insignificant amounts, and generating little income even if interest rates were considerably higher, and no mention on the Treasury Committee website of the inequalities politicians have created in the Pension systems?

Public sector pension increases were over 10% this year, yet my private sector final salary pension increases are capped at 4.235% and since I can't go on strike for a higher pension, I can't do anything about it. Here's what Public sector pension increases are currently:

"In April 2023, public services pensions increased by 10.1%, in line with the

annual increase in the Consumer Prices Index up to September 2022 (except

for those public service pensions which had been in payment for less than a

year, received a pro-rata increase)."

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05434/SN05434.pdf

If inflation stayed at 10% and it became the new norm, then a public sector worker starting out now with an £18,000 Pension would see that increase to £285,535.67 a year after 30 years; A private sector worker capped at 4.235%, like me, starting out on the same pension would earn a mere £59,933.01 a year in comparison:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vR7BdUTF5R7o-pLglgSqc-Svezc1z6IL0fW6XeIU63DT6Rg03ov9cTp_8z4-Tu_F13Fk61yWdz5KxBn/pubchart?oid=593070434&format=interactive

As can be seen from the chart, the private sector pension increases flatten the curve massively in comparison to full inflation linked Public sector increases. They used to say that Public sector workers get better pensions, than their private sector equivalents, because they earned less than could be earned in the private sector, I'd suggest that's no longer the case, if it ever was.

Now the bit that really infuriates me, is the like of Harriett Baldwin getting on a soapbox and focusing on something irrelevant, since savers have a choice to move to a different bank if they're unhappy, I don't have that choice with my pension.

Since I knew my pension was going to be rubbish, I've invested over many years to compensate, and politicians seem intent on double punishing people like me who take control of their own finances, because of inequalities they've created, what a useless bunch they are.

Any new pay rises are yet to be negotiated and are currently unknown, just like next years CPI+3.9% rises are still unknown. Even if BT take on further debt, it doesn't change the fact that cost savings are already feeding through, and capex will drop off a cliff from 2026 onward. As far as OFCOM's concerned, clearly regulation on BT will reduce as FTTP rollout reaches saturation, since market forces will dictate pricing in locations having more than one FTTP provider, and there'll be no reason to regulate BT.

BT own Openreach which clearly has value in its own right, but separately BT own all the ducts, poles wayleaves, etc. Openreach manage the provisioning and maintenance of the Access network for all their customers, including BT, so Openreach's value is determined by the earnings from providing those services. Eventually I expect Openreach to be IPO'd, but as I said BT separately own the ducts poles, the installed BT Fibre, etc and therefore benefit from rental from those assets, which will likely continue after BT sell the whole or a portion of Openreach. Debt can be paid off and reduced over time, but the assets will still be there and increase in value with inflation, as will the cost customers pay for receiving service. I don't see BT doing anything with Openreach until the pension deficit is resolved and no longer an issue.

I agree, a dividend increase is unlikely until the CAPEX reduces.

Makehappen were recently rolling out Fibre on behalf of CityFibre in my local area, but have recently gone into administration, so Im not sure how that'll affect CityFibre here and it demonstrates the pressure that must be falling on the industry in general. I presume CityFibre have a plan, but some of the local rollout makes little sense. I live on a road that's semi rural, they've micro-trenched along the road and installed small boxes outside the properties; The properties have big garden's with long driveways and I don't see any easy way to provide service to the properties. The reason I mention this, is that BT have the area well covered by manholes, poles and an extensive duct network, yet they're currently choosing not to rollout fibre in this area where we already have VMO2 and now CityFibre, why is that when it'd be an easy rollout? I've mused that BT are leaving many of the easy cheaper rollouts until later, which means CAPEX may reduce quicker than many think; Of course I'm basing this view entirely on my own location and it may not be the case elsewhere.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for fleccy

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)