Member Info for fleccy

You're the one with a problem Mandy, you should look inwards at the root cause of your flawed personality; Your posts show lack of detail, and you're clearly a sad individual as demonstrated by your need to insult others. You likely think yourself funny, but you come across as juvenile and lacking life experience, you should take your own advice.

"He has been here for quite some time, previously called Supersonic boom"

Stop being delusional Addi, I've only ever come on here as fleccy. My posting history stretches back nearly 10 years, why would I come on here pretending to be someone else?

In answer to the people who ask why I post my opinions here, it's simply because I choose to.

You've got a vivid imagination Mandy. I was actually a member of the CWU for many years, but more for the legal protections should something happen in my career, I left when I retired. I don't see national pride as "red", I see UK based companies as important for the future of this country. Once we completely lose our industrial base, Engineering and Science skills will fall away and we'll only have services left, it isn't like we're rich in commodities to fall back on. The industrial debasement of the UK isn't a new thing, I've watched our industrial base decline over decades to become a shadow of its former self, once services are exported abroad we'll have nothing left. I don't know if you have children or grandchildren Mandy, but I have higher hopes for my grandchildren than working at McDonalds or Costa Coffee.

I don't mind being filtered by people who can't bear to read the truth.

Intothedeep, what's sad is the hype attracting believers into something that has no intrinsic value. Unlike a computer game that gives enjoyment, BTC is purely a bet on the price increasing. BTC can't do anything better than alternative technologies, so what use is it really? BTC has been most useful for criminal enterprise, and has shown itself to be of little use for anything else.

I'm not desperate Jam, I'm just applying common sense in relation to unbacked Crypto. The valuation of BTC is based on nothing more than belief, relying on a cult following to support the price. Without any tangible value and nothing backing it, it's just a matter of when not if BTC fails.

Arriving for the Rwanda votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIVNke1QCbo

It's a rubbish article, and the author's claim that a takeover would somehow speed up fibre rollout is completely wrong; Workforce constraints would suggest the UK is already rolling out fibre as fast as it can. UK PLC is obviously up for sale under this Government, it seems nothing's off the table for foreign entities or private equity, and any guarantee's given to the Government are meaningless which all parties would have known at the time, is it corruption or incompetence?

Cobhams is the latest one I've read about, making my blood boil, and I keep being reminded of ARM's soon to be IPO in the US, with Nvidia as an anchor investor; Anyone see a pattern here?

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-12292701/French-plunder-Cobhams-aerospace-business-850m-deal.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/12/nvidia-talks-arm-anchor-investor-flotation

No wonder the World see's the UK as a laughing stock, we're an easy target for the asset strippers enabled by weak Government and regulators.

"You disregarded many factors but you didn’t consider that dividends are often cut or lowered"

Abject, it was a fictitious example to demonstrate the effect of compounding due to dividend reinvestment. It was meant to be simple and easy to see a pattern, I also didn't account for dividends increasing or many other factors. The example demonstrates that dividend reinvestment, when the price drops, buys more shares meaning more dividends at the next and subsequent payout's, with the pattern repeating over successive years. The lesson to learn from the example is that dividend reinvestment buys more shares, when the price drops, giving more dividends at subsequent payouts. For someone who's just starting out in their career, an ISA with dividend paying stocks and dividend reinvestment really would pay dividends when they retire.

It's struggling to break $31,000 and liquidity's low. You'd think with the publicity around ARK, Fidelity and Blackrock ETF's, and Larry Fink describing it as Digital Gold it would have smashed through £31,000, the fact it's struggling suggests entities are dumping when it gets close.

The Halving next April will wipe out a good proportion of the miners, and because the reward will be so low it's likely the big miners who survive will have to sell Bitcoin to finance operations. The whole ecosystem is teetering in my opinion, wheeling out some big guns and trying to pump the price will only go so far. Survival of BTC is dependent on attracting new retail and institutional investors into the space, fans like Cathie Wood and Michael Saylor must now be close to being fully invested. MicroStrategy has bet the bank on BTC, if BTC doesn't see big rises around the next halving, it could be the end for the company.

"The market value of bitcoin assets form 95% of the market capitalization of MicroStrategy and net of debt raised to buy BTC, equate to about 49% of the market cap of the company, the report added."

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/microstrategy-only-needs-liquidate-bitcoin-085842789.html

I expect some big vested interests will try and pump the price around October/November and the BTC marketing hype machine will go full throttle to convince the crowd that this will be the next big bull run for the token; The only problem now, is that the last bull run burned so many investors most of them will never return. There's probably a dwindling supply of Sheeple left to round up and "fleece".

"As you say, the joy of life comes first. None of us know how long we're going to be here.."

So why do you waste your time insulting posters on here Mandy, you clearly have little of substance to add, so why do you bother?

"My points are you haven’t taken account of inflation and as a consequence the impact on real spending power"

Again, that wasn't the point of the exercise, stamp duty, dealing charges, inflation, etc was intentionally disregarded. The whole point was to demonstrate that reinvesting dividends buy's more shares when the price drops, so price drops with dividend reinvestment balances things out out over time. Who's to say that fleccy 2's share price doesn't double at year 20, taking his valuation at that point up to £440,872 at which point he decides to take income, or sell his stock, or any other scenario?

Bluepete, It's a fictitious example to demonstrate how share price drops are compensated for by dividend reinvestment. Obviously a price wouldn't stay low for 30 years, or hold its price for 30 years. The example demonstrates the compounding power of using dividend reinvestment during price drops. Fleccy 1 & 2 might only be 30 and already own a large house, so they can take their profits at 60 when they retire, in answer to your fictitious scenario. Alternatively they could have invested in a growth stock that goes t 1ts up, or any number of other fictitious scenarios.

I thought I'd build a chart to test the effect of reinvesting dividends when the share price drops.

The chart looks at two different Fleccys, in two different parallel Universe's, each buys 50,000 BT shares for a £100,000 initial investment; In Fleccy 1's Universe the price stays at £2 for over 30 years, but in Fleccy 2's Universe the share price drops by half as soon as Fleccy 2 buys the stock, and stays at £1 for over 30 years. Stamp duty and dealing charges are ignored, but I don't think it'd be relevant to the end result anyway. The dividend also stays at 7.7p, in both Universe's, for the full duration and both Fleccy's reinvest all the dividends back into the stock.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRYwu6rv7Vk2093vnE9975iJIfiNBDGYW08VmYU2MK2tsi0o9bA3rDwV9NV0XA6QJrkQeqet_jppwWg/pubchart?oid=1399088825&format=interactive

Assuming my formula's are correct, a funny thing happens; As you'd expect Fleccy 1's investment initially looks good and Fleccy 2's looks dire. Here's the funny thing, at year 20 Fleccy 2's valuation catches up with Fleccy 1's, and by Year 30 Fleccy 2's valuation beats Fleccy 1's by £152,255.49. If I've done it correctly, over time a drop in price with dividend reinvestment beats the stock that holds its price and dividends reinvested.

I'm more than happy to be corrected if I've done something wrong.

I'd agree with you in the case of a pure growth stock without dividend income, but stocks paying dividends pay you to hold and offer compound income possibilities with dividend reinvestment; And if someone sold out to invest elsewhere, they could just easily move the cash into a "Growth" stock that falls flat without the benefit of dividends.

"More likely is a break up of the company where the various divisions can be sold"

That would require a big payment into the pension scheme/schemes, so probably zero chance while BTPS is in deficit.

I was out, so missed it lol.

Which post?

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu2qCpR3soQ

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10sWkAIUpLc