Member Info for fleccy

It isn't Jansen's fault, he's doing what's required with the hand he was dealt when coming in as CEO. He was faced with private equity funding Altnet Fibre rollouts all over the UK, so he did the right thing and used CAPEX to fund the BT/Openreach fibre/5G rollout. I'm not sure people realise the scale of transformation BT is going through. Like Jansen said, copper infrastructure has served its purpose for over 100 years, and he isn't making that up, Fibre will likely be used for far longer, unless Physics finds a new means of communicating from the realm of science fiction. If you look at what's coming:

PSTN switch off

Full Fibre rollout

Exchange closure program

Full Cloud convergence with Voice, Data and Video sharing the same infrastructure

It a complete network refresh that'll be far more power efficient, require far less staff than the current legacy networks, and far cheaper to run. Telecommunications is all about scale and much is made of the Altnets eventually going through a consolidation phase, but that carries its own costs with geography, and integration costs, determining if many of the Altnets are attractive to a consolidator.

If some posters on here think Jansen could have done anything differently, to ensure BT's long term future, I'd be more than happy to debate it.

Indeed, we need a Government with some b@lls who'll stand up to the woke left who're slowly ruining this country. Both Conservative and Labour are useless, with a hair between them in terms of policy, possibly because the Civil service are the ones who really run the country with a few senior figures in charge of that.

As I've mentioned previously, Gordon Brown finally killed off Private sector DB pension schemes, sold the Gold at rock bottom prices and the Labour answer to everything is to create more public sector jobs.

The Conservative ideology has been correct in some respects, but they went too far in privatising the Railways/Electricity/Water companies and shied away from sorting out the NHS, which is a bottomless money pit. The Conservatives are also responsible for allowing the sale of many UK companies to foreign entities, on their watch, which are then asset stripped ensuring that we're now blackmailed by foreign companies to subsidise anything and everything before they'll build plant in the UK; Of course it isn't just the UK being blackmailed in this way, look at the subsidies Germany are giving to Telsa to build a Gigafactory there, but in the meantime we're subsidising Tesla's built abroad and purchased by UK motorists.

Again, what does that have to do with UK house prices?

The population in other countries is irrelevant in respect of an Island with limited resources and already unable to service the needs it's own citizens, due to high population density. For example mainland France has a population of 65.8 million and an area of 551,695 km², whereas England has an area of 130,279 km² and a population of 55.97 Million. As I said, is it any wonder house prices in the UK are expensive?

"What did the world's population reach as of 2011?"

What's that got to do with UK house prices?

I was pointing out that the England is effectively overcrowded, and already passed the point of being able to service the needs of its current population; The problems are apparent in housing stock, available agricultural land, reservoir and sewage capacity, etc, etc. UK Governments have been on a mission to increase the UK's GDP at the expense of quality of life, I think it's safe to say that England is full.

This is from the 2011 census, which is now out of date:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

England's population has increased by 3.5 Million since 2011.

House price crashes in the UK are historically so short lived as to be hardly noticeable. As someone who had their first mortgage in early 1988, purchasing a three bed town house and moving a further 4 times since, I've had a front row seat. Mortgage rates went through the roof around 1990, yet in the midst of that we sold our town house for double the purchase price in the space of two years, moving up to a smallish new build 4 bed detached. We purchased another property in 2009 in the midst of the financial crash and also sold that for a profit in 2019. Our current house has increased in value since we purchased it, so as the Mandalorian's would say, "This is the way".

The current population density for England is 278.05 people per square kilometer, with most of the population crowded into urban and surrounding areas, it's a no brainer that there'll always be a demand for housing in this country, so any price drops will be short lived.

Anyone a view on how the Governments plan around creating a UK Pension superfund will affect BT's pension schemes?

https://www.pensions-expert.com/Investment/DB-pension-superfund-regime-gets-go-ahead

BTPS is already under the umbrella of a Crown Guarantee, so might be an easy target to pull into a superfund. The trustee's have been saying for a while that they'd like to to manage the scheme toward an insurance buyout once in surplus. Also BTPS Management have recently rebranded to Brightwell, with the EE pension scheme listed as their first client. Rebranding as Brightwell is probably aimed at distancing the management company away from the BT brand in preparation for an eventual buyout, whether or not this is in some way associated with the recent superfund headlines is anyone's guess.

According to Google data, the lowest price during Covid was 23.59p on the 22/09/2020:

Date .......... Open. High. Low. Close

22/09/2020 24.26 24.74 23.59 24.29

If it was a weighting related spike you'd expect BT to have also seen a volume spike, but it didn't:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS4gJMsDAQq9sJ_zHqi_JnoVTryAdb4X64c7Clw12E2sGT3N6dTJfB60O8bc5Ns4burXvSSCVFrLvWC/pubchart?oid=2085752711&format=interactive

Podcast discussing BT

https://telecoms.com/interview/the-telecoms-com-podcast-bt-ai-and-digital-id/

The Blackrock notification said the transaction took place on the 13th July, yet a high volume of trades went through on the 12th July, with 412,049,065 shares traded.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQ49B8X4hFFdtXb6WUx45CDRcgMt5FBglgZCFc5UnApKRpOX8cznaVjvfKeIWdC6xr70q5wCbdhpFe7/pubchart?oid=2085752711&format=interactive

Anyone know what caused the spike on the 12th July?

"What’s the percentage required for a successful takeover"

https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/global-public-ma-guide/europe-middle-east-and-africa/united-kingdom/topics/effecting-a-takeover

Daily volumes are currently low, so no evidence anyone is accumulating stock.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS4gJMsDAQq9sJ_zHqi_JnoVTryAdb4X64c7Clw12E2sGT3N6dTJfB60O8bc5Ns4burXvSSCVFrLvWC/pubchart?oid=2085752711&format=interactive

I suppose it's possible that many are holding and there's no opportunities to accumulate in quantity, if we're to assume the takeover narrative has any truth to it..

I meant on any reinvestment around the current price, I should have made that clearer.

" I also don't doubt that BT may well rise to 390p once FTTP and the expected cost cutting is completed, but we could be in for a long wait until 2026 - 2030. A bird in the hand and all that."

In the meantime though you're pulling in more than 6% Yield and any money reinvested back into stock will benefit from any percentage increases in the "2026 - 2030" period.

Vodafone is my worst performing stock in terms of paper loss and brings in around £6,350 dividends per year. I've been accumulating VOD for many years, going back to 2013, so the recent price drops have particularly affected the value of my VOD holding.

"XRP wins its case against the SEC"

Not entirely:

"Federal district judge Analisa Torres ruled that programmatic sales to public buyers and distributions of XRP to Ripple Labs employees did not constitute the sale of unregistered securities. The court did not address secondary market sales of XRP on cryptocurrency exchanges."

"The judge, however, did conclude that $728 million worth of contracts for institutional sales did constitute unregistered securities sales and those investors "would have purchased XRP with the expectation that they would derive profits from Ripple’s efforts.""

https://decrypt.co/148460/judge-rules-ripple-xrp-securities-institutions

"Entry point is key."

You'd think so, but the chart says otherwise. Think of it like this; For someone starting out early in their career, imagine they squirrel away any spare cash at the end of each month and then top up their ISA dividend stocks once a year, preferably before the dividends are paid, and going forward also reinvest any dividends they receive; The chart shows that even if the price of the stocks drop, post purchase, the dividend reinvestment has a counter effect since the reinvested dividend's buy more stock while the price is down, as will any new capital top ups. The chart also shows that an investor investing a windfall lump sum and then finding their investments plummet for a number of years, will benefit more over time than if the price had held around their original purchase price, again because the dividend reinvestment would buy more stock while the price is depressed, leading to greater dividends at subsequent payouts. I used one stock in the example to keep it simple, but the risk could be spread by holding a basket of dividend paying stocks and reinvesting more into the stocks seeing higher yields, as long as you feel the dividend is safe. One of my stocks is Vodafone and I'm receiving dividends from my holding, but I perceive Vodafone's dividends as uncertain so I've been directing my Vodafone dividends into Lloyds and BT; Vodafone currently has a yield greater than 10% and if I was a 100% certain the dividend would be maintained, I'd be putting everything back into VOD, but I have doubts and I want to prioritise reinvestment where I see a safer dividend, since a slightly lower yield from reinvestment is better than reinvesting back into a stock where the yield may drop off. Hope all that makes sense.

Don't take my word on this, DYOR.

"I think this para summarises the fact that the SEC now acknowledge that BTC is not going away (sorry F !)"

Even if they approve spot ETF's in the US, it wont change the fact that BTC will eventually find the level determined by its fundamentals, and since it has no fundamental value it tells you everything you need to know.

I get all that expat and agree with the sentiment of your post, but large UK companies are now thin on the ground and any innovative startups, with good prospects, are being snapped up by foreign entities. My personal view is that we're being sold out for whatever reason, I want to see a few UK companies grow to become giants, but it feels like an impossible dream.