Member Info for fleccy

"Looking forward to the next stage of strike action, lets strike like fury

(apologies to handman, this is costing you a fortune in incontinence pants, your far too easily triggered, clench your buttocks"

In view of your "clench your buttocks" comment BeeTee, did you really mean f@rt like fury? Since you'd probably have more success with that.

"Fleecy without reading through your waffle I’m 109% right in the pension scheme was scrapped to new starters over 20 years ago FACT"

GRS, are you illiterate, and require a text to speech app to read posts? The reason I ask is I realise that pasting text into a text to speech page doesn't help with reading the links.
Didn't you see the link I posted, to the article on the BTPS website? It wasn't my "waffle", it was from the link.

"Joe boy you Buffon it’s been closed for over 20 years to new people . look it up"

Actually you're wrong GRS. I didn't realise it, but it appears Sections B & C closed to future accruals in 2018, I thought they were still allowing accruals. My guess would be that all section A members are now retired.

"With effect from 6 April 2009, members of Section B and C were contracted into the State Second Pension. Members of Section A weren’t affected by the change and remained contracted out until 6 April 2016.

• Section A closed to new members from 30 November 1971. Active members, however, continue to contribute and get future benefits.

• Section B closed to new members from 31 March 1986 and closed to future accrual from 30 June 2018.

• Section C closed to new members from 31 March 2001 and closed, for the majority of members, to future accrual from 30 June 2018.

• The BTPS is not being wound up."

https://www.btps.co.uk/MediaArchive/SchemeDocuments/BTPS%20Scheme%20Information%20factsheet%20(v2.0)%2001.12.21.pdf

"However, if the BOD insist on makeing this into a stubborn, irresponsible fight rather than properly negotiating a fair package then I need to sell up at some point."

Why don't you sell up now? Since the BOD have made it clear there'll be no further discussion on pay.
The Union have no chance of winning this, and the Union are hurting the lower paid employee's who'd get the least benefit from a pay rise. The only one's who'll benefit from winning this action, are the higher paid older staff lucky enough to be members of the Final Salary scheme, seeing the highest monetary payrise and benefiting from increased pension income at retirement.

"If banks start earning more as a result of higher interest rates I forecast banks being hit with windfall taxes soft target."

I'll argue against that with the same argument I used last time it was suggested. If the banks are hit with windfall taxes, it will limit their ability to lend to business going forward, and will also limit their ability to support businesses and mortgage holders who are struggling with repayments; Clearly it's highly unlikely Banks will be hit with windfall taxes.

"It’s too simple to say if you don’t like it go and get another job, if you do you never were rewarded for the contribution to the business success."

Employee's get paid for doing a days work, they can choose to invest if they wish to be "rewarded for the contribution to the business success". I haven't seen a single covincing argument explaining why Employee's should benefit at the expense of shareholders.

"Yorkshire regular saver max 500 a month pays 5%"

So you can save a maximum of £6000 a year, which will pay around £161 in interest in the first year, according to a regular saver calculator. It isn't a great return in the scheme of things.

Shareholders have as much right to receive dividends as employee's have to receive pay rises. Since shareholders received zero income during the pandemic, and had their income cut in half post pandemic, why should shareholders further suffer for the benefit of employee's? There's two sides to every coin and long term shareholders have already suffered. Dave Ward and Andy Kerr can bang on about inflicting more pain on shareholders, where's their pain? Listening to Union rhetoric, you'd think all BT shareholders are rich and can do without dividends, but many rely on their dividends to supplement retirement income. It's irrelevant anyway, I worked in telecoms for over 30 years and I've got a pretty good idea of the operational impact the strikes will have, it's very little in my opinion so the likelihood of Union success is remote.

"So cut the dividend would be a start don't you think so the workforce can get a fair deal and they can invest more in the network."

Ok smasher, I have an idea; Why don't BT cut the dividend completely in tandem with stopping employee pay rises? Then once the transformation is completed, BT could restart dividends and employee pay rises at the same time; Would that suit you and don't you think that'd be fair? Since shareholders who depend on dividend income would take a hit and employee's would miss out on pay increases, that way everyone loses; Do you think the unions would go along with that? The Union seems oblivious to the fact that pensioners, like me, may rely on the dividend income more than BT employee's need pay rises. BT shareholders already missed out on dividends during the pandemic, and had them cut in half when they restarted, so shareholders have already suffered, why does the Union think it's ok to bash them even more?

The only accounts I can find, offering over 4%, are easy access accounts. The majority of fixed rate bonds are 3.5% limited to £5000, £10,000, and one around £25,000. I looked at Raisin and they offer a 1 Year bond at 3.5% up to £85,000 and a 5 Year bond up to £85,000 at 3.55%. The Raisin accounts look pretty good, but they're not currently yielding as much as stocks. Assuming Lloyds increase the Final dividend by 19%, like they did with the interim, then the full year dividend for Lloyds will be around 2.38p giving a 5.4% dividend yield.

"Pay for a few beers over the winter period and the odd steak meal for the Mrs if she is good :-)"

I'm reinvesting our dividends, along with the Vodafone dividends still sitting in the accounts.

"Not to mention our rented nukes, which will only work if the US deigns to share the codes."

What absolute b0l0x, if you believe that you'll believe anything. If London was nuked, do you really believe the UK wouldn't retaliate irrespective of what the US said? I guarantee the UK would have work arounds, even if your codes myth was true.

"Not only has UK UK fallen behind India we're on the brink of falling into a recession, Liz Truss takes over tomorrow she got some big shoes to fill as for Lloyds investors going to be another year going sideways"

Again who cares? Recessions are part of the capitalist mechanism, shaking out the zombie companies and weak players. Look at the 2008 financial crash, amazingly we're still here and we'll still be here after any recession that might occur this year, next year, or in 10 years time. Recessions come and go, but life goes on. All these people who bang on about recessions and depressions imply they're some sort of armageddon event, which they clearly aren't, it's part of the market cycles just like bubbles and other events. If you think your investments are that unsafe they wont survive a recession, then I'd suggest you shouldn't have invested there in the first place.

"Let's all kneel before the great man for taking a nice 32% slice because he has such a stressful job ( get the violins out chaps) compared to engineers because apparently they don't have stress and only work 9 to 5 "

As a BT shareholder, I'm more interested in Jansens progress in streamlining BT into a more efficient business, and from everything I've read he appears to be doing a good job. If Jansens job is that easy, why isn't everyone dropping out of paid employment, starting their own businesses and becoming employers instead of employee's? Probably because they can't be bothered, or wont take the risk; I include myself in that category since I've always been an employee and never an employer. CEO's of Blue Chip companies can be categorised as both employee and employer, since people work for them as the head of the company, but CEO's are employed by the BOD and shareholders. Targetting Jansen and camping outside his coastal property is hardly fair, since he's doing the job he was employed to do which is running the business on behalf of the shareholders. It's clear that the Unions are politically motivated and these strikes are targetted more at the Government than the affected businesses. The left wing were given false hope during the Corbin era and still haven't accepted the UK is politically right of centre, so they're trying to revive 1970's sentiment by any means possible.

"Holding by our finger tips to stay in the G7. Soon be part of the lower ranking countries."

Not while we're a major millitary and nuclear power we wont, don't assume they wont expand the G7 to become the G8, G9, or G10 as more countries grow in power. The only way the UK would become insignificant is if we degraded our military capability, which I doubt we would.

"Britain has dropped behind India to become the world’s sixth largest economy, delivering a further blow to the government in London as it grapples with a brutal cost-of-living shock"

Why does it matter if we're the 4th, 6th, or 20th largest economy by GDP? This way of thinking is meaningless. India has a population of 1 billion, so it stands to reason at some point their GDP would exceed the UK, and even the EU in time. My personal view is that GDP and Growth of GDP is meaningless, what's important is the ability to produce enough for your own population and export any surplus. Overcrowding is a problem for any country whose resources can't support its population, the UK's problem is too high a population. It isn't like you need to import labour either, since AI and robotics will reduce future workforce requirements anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AAUrMuMPlo

Indeed, I assume you too can see the attraction of Rogecoin.

I've changed my view on Crypto Currency, I've found a coin that suits my style of investing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUs5y9leCyA

Oracleofoldham ignore the Crypto related part of this video. At 1 minute 50 seconds the interview talks about Marxism and everything that's wrong with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlLH-CxzzZQ

You compare CEO's, like Jansen, to someone who climbs a pole, connects wires, goes home and leaves the job behind until signing in and given a new job the next day; If the average worker makes the occasional mistake and a job they've don develops an issue, they'll just go back out, sort the problem with nothing more said and no articles anouncing it to their mistake to the World. If Jansen makes mistakes it would find its way into the press, his reputation would be trashed and since he's already rich I'd suggest that's more important to him than his annual wage.
If you're a football supporter and buy season tickets, possibly subscribe to a sports channel, or enjoy watching films, why don't you complain about the amounts Football players, Actors, Sports celebrities and celebrities in general earn?

Presenters
Gary Linekar earned £1.35 Million for hosting Match of the day and Euro 2020.
Zoe Ball in second place on £980,000.

Actors pay per film
Tom Cruise $100 million for Top Gun: Maverick
Ryan Gosling - $20 million.
Chris Hemsworth - $20 million. ...
Brad Pitt - $20 million.

Footballers
Cristiano Ronaldo (Man Utd) – £515,000 per week
Kevin De Bruyne (Man City) – £400,000 per week
Kylian Mbappe (PSG) – £1,600,000 per week
Lionel Messi (PSG) – £960,000 per week

All of the above are either paid for kicking a ball, talking, or pretending and have far less responsibility than a CEO managing a company with 100 employee's, never mind 100,000 employee's. CEO's of major Blue Chip companies are celebrities in their own right, with far more responsibility than any of the Footballers and media celebrities I've listed, so comparing them to the average worker's who do a days work and leave it behind at the end of the day is a misleading narrative.