Member Info for fleccy

"What a load of rubbish! If that is the case how come some other stocks are rising like Aviva, Imperial Brands etc?"

Karak, are you talking about the same Aviva that was £7.23 in 2018?

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/AV:LON?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi35vnexLD7AhWRaMAKHZ5ABOMQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&window=5Y

Or Imperial Brands down 33% over 5 years?

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/IMB:LON?window=5Y

I wasn't talking about today, or this year, this goes back further.

"Too many FTSE 100 companies CEO’s are failing and not worth their enormous remuneration. If they cannot create shareholder value, what is their point?"

Because it isn't their fault. The UK market has been under attack for years, the market appears to group FTSE companies into the bargain basement bucket for their own reasons. It's funny private money is happy to jump in as valuations drop, or make big investments into infrastructure when it suits. Clearly UK listed companies are targeted as easy pickings.
I'm just topping up, where I see value, as dividends roll in. I would like to see VOD reduce their debt though, so my most recent top ups have been in BT and Lloyds, I'm currently just holding VOD and not increasing.

This probably needs mentioning, as there's a possibility it could knock around €5 Billion off the debt next year:

"The Consortium will acquire JV shares from Vodafone for cash consideration of €32 per share. The Consortium has fully committed equity in place to obtain a shareholding in the JV of between 32% and 40%, depending on the level of take-up in the VTO by minority shareholders. The Consortium intends to raise additional equity before completion to reach a shareholding of 50%. The Group’s minimum net cash proceeds will be €3.2bn based on 100% take up in the VTO. The maximum total net cash proceeds to Vodafone based on a 50% shareholding for the Consortium and 100% take up in the VTO will be €5.8 billion. The transaction is conditional on regulatory clearance and is expected to close in the first half of 2023."

"Minimum net cash proceeds to Vodafone of €3.2 billion, based on equity from GIP and KKR that is fully committed at signing and maximum minority take up in the voluntary takeover offer, which would reduce Vodafone’s leverage by 0.2x
Maximum net cash proceeds of €5.8-7.1 billion depending on the take up in the voluntary takeover offer and subject to GIP and KKR raising further equity before closing to increase their stake in the JV to 50%, reducing leverage by 0.4x-0.5x "

https://investors.vodafone.com/sites/vodafone-ir/files/2022-11/vantage-towers-transaction-press-release-9-nov-22.pdf

"There is a distinct chance that these will trade between 80 & 90p for the reasons given."

That's a possibility, but the share price history suggests otherwise. The pressure to hold the stock below £1 for a sustained period doesn't appear to be there. Vodafone could easily stop the dividend, sell assets and reduce debt should they wish to, and Nick Read being an accountant will realise that; I can only trust the reason they don't, is because they don't need too. Should the price drop too low, then it would make sense to divert all excess cash into debt reduction and buybacks, but they don't appear to be at that level yet.

You're likely correct that the price won't stay below £1, this drop is similar to the market treatment of BT on their results and additionally the market seems to view £1 as a Defacto low level mark. If it closes below £1 today, my guess is it won't be there for very long.

"Blockchain is not good technology either"

When I said Blockchain is a good technology, I meant in respect of industry, logistics, IOT, or any other uses not related to Crypto or NFT's.

"I would have to say that , although most crypto coins have little or no intrinsic value, so do have utilitarian value"

My knowledge of Crypto and blockchain is limited, from what I can gather blockchain as a technology is extremely useful, I don't see many real world uses for Crypto currencies.
If you want to use the underground in London, you can use your contactless debit card, or mobile phone, to directly pay for your journey. In developed countries you can use bank transfers, PayPal or similar and credit/debit cards to pay for anything; In underdeveloped economies, phone apps like MPESA have allowed money to be exchanged as easily as cash, so why is Crypto needed for any of those use cases? The only possible use I can see for Crypto, is to transfer money internationally, but even that's a stretch with the volatility and security concerns around crypto, I'd rather use the banking system and pay the charges to have at least some level of safety and security. In the case of the international money transfers, using crypto, I would think there are conversion costs at either end of the transaction, and I have no idea how much those costs might be; The Crypto bull case is that people won't convert, they'll just store their money in Crypto and everyone will use crypto for anything and everything everywhere, what are the chances of that? Let's imagine that there's a future for Crypto, why would the current coins be used? The central banks could create their own stable coins, backed by the currency they're tied to, and all the current coins could disappear.
In summary Blockchain is good, but I don't see real world uses for Crypto currencies in their current form and what's to stop the Central Banks creating their own stable coins, making the current coins redundant.

Earlier this year Sam Bankman-Fried was reported as the Saviour of Crypto.

"Crypto Savior' FTX Is Reportedly Raising Fresh Capital at Latest Valuation of USD 32BN"

"Bankman-Fried’s FTX has been seen as a lender of last resort in the crypto space — meaning that it has given loans to exchanges near collapse — and on Thursday CNBC reported that it is close to a deal to buy crypto lender BlockFi for roughly $25 million. Still, Bankman-Fried said there are more crypto firms that will likely go under."

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/crypto-billionaire-sam-bankman-fried-predicts-more-exchanges-will-fail.html

Now
"“I don’t want to call it fraud,” Scaramucci said regarding FTX’s mishandling of user assets."

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/11/scaramucci-on-ftx-sam-bankman-fried-and-the-worst-week-in-cryptocurrency-history.html

I've been watching some of the recent Youtube videos and the Narrative the bulls are pushing, is that Bitcoin will bottom somewhere between $10,000 and $13,000.
All my investments are currently down, I'm invested in Lloyds, BT and Vodafone, but they're viable Blue Chips with resilient business models and backed by real assets. Crypto currencies are created on a keyboard and then given a value, then pumped up by the vested interest Crypto Bulls, but as far as I can fathom have no intrinsic value.
Now FTX/Alameda research has bitten the dust, who's to say that Binance won't be next? Everyone involved in Crypto must be thinking it, but no one appears to be saying it.
As the price of Crypto falls, Investors with large amounts of cash tied up in the industry will likely look at bailing and feeding the current death spiral. The Crypto fanatics are crying out for regulation, saying it will save this wounded animal, when it's probably beyond saving. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

"Openreach has I believe taken on around 10 thousand over the last 3/4 years alone so I find it hard to believe redundancies will come soon but I can see a package being offered for those wishing to go and hmm possible during these pay talks"

My guess is redundancies will be determined by the amount and type of work required after 2026. The access network will be far simpler and more reliable once FTTP rollout is completed, requiring far fewer staff.

Derivative options were probably designed to allow big players the opportunity to build positions in secret, with Off Exchange trading falling into the same category; The very nature of either of these allows big trades without moving the market. I don't understand why all trades shouldn't be completed On Exchange, that way the stock price reflects all the trades and presents the true valuation of the company.
The game is totally rigged in my opinion and I'm of the same mind now as I was pre covid, I'll just keep topping up while the prices are depressed. Stocks popular with retail are at the mercy of the big players, with nervous retail investors easy prey.
Anyone questioning if BT's price is rigged, only needs to look at the chart going back to February:
16th February, BT's price closed over £2
Dropped to around 162p 7th/8th March (Ukraine War)
Recovered to over 196p by the 12th July
15th July Opened at 191p, VMO2 TalkTalk story, closed around 175p
28th July opened at 171.9, closed 161.85 (Results day)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS4gJMsDAQq9sJ_zHqi_JnoVTryAdb4X64c7Clw12E2sGT3N6dTJfB60O8bc5Ns4burXvSSCVFrLvWC/pubchart?oid=1937898192&format=interactive

The price drifted down from there on various articles and general sentiment, with the market knocking off another chunk with the release of the latest results.
The VMO2 TalkTalk takeover story was manufactured in my opinion. Without any logic behind the story, the media pushed it big time; When the story initially broke, it knocked around 16p off the share price, around7 or 8%. There were various media articles repeating the story going forward, which probably contributed to downward drift post the July results. As expected, the story had absolutely no substance, with recent statements from TalkTalk confirming it wouldn't happen.
The drops accredited to the release of results were equally overdone and without reason in my opinion, why would an already undervalued stock see large drops when the results were reasonable?
It's up to each individual investor to do their own research and make their own investment decisions, but I remain convinced that my stock picks will eventually do well, with my other two stocks being Vodafone and Lloyds.

The US CPI number adding over to 4% to BT, primarily a UK focused company. I'm not complaining, but it shows the extent movements are governed by algorithmic weightings. BT seems to have a high weighting relative to many other stocks.

My missus prefers cats to humans, so she'd go with any provider employing furry employees like the one in the pic. The only problem I could foresee, is that once they come into the house to do testing, the only way you'd be able to persuade them to leave is by shaking a bag of cat treats with the front door open, leaving a few on the doorstep and shutting the door while they chomp.

"The union repeatedly states they want an increased consolidated rise, even in their last update since the confirmation they were in talks."

All that strikes will do is accelerate the inevitable reduction in jobs. Once FTTP is completed, and the large-scale provisioning ends, how many employees do you think Openreach will need? How many Switch Engineers will they decide to retrain with the PSTN switch off? By the time the FTTP rollout is completed, in 2026, they'll know how many Engineers required per area to provide required SLA's and they may even decide to expand the geographic coverage of the teams.
FTTP will mean the Engineers will need very limited training, probably carrying one tester with a couple of modules, including an OTDR module.
You can bet there'll be massive reductions in BT/Openreach's workforce by 2030. If I worked for them, I'd be focused on retraining for the new opportunities, not striking for a bit more pay now and possibly speeding up the rate of redundancies.

You probably need a Furry builder in that case.

https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/cat-builder.html

"Is the pension overhang going to forever have a hold over BT?"

That the narrative the author is pushing, it isn't what I've concluded from articles quoting BTPS Trustees. Here's an article from Jan 2021, where Frank Naylor (ex CIO of BTPS) gave an indication that the BTPS Trustees are aiming for a buyout.

"“We see our role as managing the funding risk in the scheme, and building towards a DIY buyout,” says Naylor, who has been with the scheme for 12 years. Prior to that, he was working for Hermes, with responsibility for building a fund of hedge funds portfolio"

https://www.ipe.com/interviews/how-we-run-our-money-bt-pension-scheme/10049824.article

The pension scheme Equity exposure isn't without some risk, but the FT article appears to inflate that risk dramatically. The article focuses on Equity like exposure, but my understanding is Equities always rise over time, yet the article twists the narrative to make it about BT's market cap in relation to the pension fund equity exposure; For the pension fund equity exposure to be wiped out, we're talking a cataclysmic market event probably resulting from a catastrophic event, which is highly unlikely in my opinion. Should an asteroid hit the planet, or full-scale nuclear war break out, then BTPS equity exposure might be an issue, but it wouldn't matter then anyway; What's more relevant, in my opinion, is the effective management of the Equity exposure in the BTPS rather than BT's market cap, but the article makes no reference to that.

"No it is not absurd as fleecy has been found of posting
on Ryanair previously."

Yes, it's absurd, as I posted about Ryanair on the Ryanair forum. I didn't go on there talking about BT. I could give reasons why BT is a far less risky play long term than Ryanair, and the fact that Ryanair debt due to the purchase of new aircraft will increase in the near future, but I won't since this is a BT forum.
That's all I'll say on it.

The FT has a track record of provoking negative sentiment toward BT, I'd add the Telegraph to that and to a lesser extent Sky. These negative BT articles are churned out on a regular basis, with one intention in my opinion, to reduce investor confidence. As I've said previously, I'll be investing my BT, and hopefully Vodafone, dividends into BT stock when they land in February, so they can talk the price down as much as they want for me.
The author first described how the pension fund hedging worked the way it should, during the bond crash, but then went on to trash the company because it has a low market cap, which is a variable and at the discretion of the market.
If there's one comment in the article proving the authors contempt for BT, it's "BT is a small business supporting a huge pension scheme", which is a comment you'd expect to read from one of the spam posters on here. In my opinion it's just another vested interest spam article aimed at knocking retail investor confidence, just because it's in the FT doesn't make it any less spam like.

"I have heard the same thing , and apparently the pay out will be funded by a reduction in next years dividend"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU

"They've got enough debt without adding more for non productive reasons"

BT don't need to do a buyback, since they have less than 10 billion shares in issue.
I keep reading about BT's debt, but is BT's debt a problem? The articles mention the debt, but I don't think I've seen anything suggesting the capex into Fibre and 5G will fall off a cliff after 2026. Somehow, they've even managed to spin BT's projected £3 Billion annual cost savings, by 2026, into a negative.
Because I keep reading about the debt, I'll keep mentioning the future reductions in infrastructure capex and the cost savings from the PSTN switch off, building closure program, convergence, pension becoming a non-issue and the future potential for staff reduction.

more profitable, more accurately far more profitable than BT
on today's reported H1 results v BT H1 numbers."

LMAO