Member Info for fleccy

CityFibre lose case against OFCOM.

"Summary
Judgment of the Tribunal on CityFibre’s appeal under section 192 of the Communications Act 2003 against a decision made by Ofcom in relation to a commercial offer from Openreach (Equinox). Under the offer, internet service providers receive discounts from Openreach if they meet certain targets for the percentage of new orders from Openreach which are Fibre to the Premises (FTTP) as opposed to slower, legacy products. Ofcom concluded that the targets did not create a potential barrier to purchasing FTTP products from alternative networks, such as CityFibre, and that no intervention was necessary. CityFibre contended that a key conclusion relied upon by Ofcom – regarding the overlap between Openreach and CityFibre’s networks - had been inadequately investigated, consulted on and/or evidenced, and that Ofcom had misdirected itself in law by failing to apply its own analytical framework.

For the reasons set out in the Judgment, the Tribunal unanimously rejected both grounds of CityFibre’s appeal. The Tribunal accepted that a court should be cautious about interfering with a consultation process carried out by an expert regulator. While the consultation process could perhaps have been improved on, it was not so flawed as to be unlawful, and the Tribunal found that no prejudice was suffered by CityFibre in any event. The Tribunal did not consider that Ofcom had misdirected itself in applying the tests set out in various policy statements: Ofcom carried out this exercise reasonably, within the margin of discretion accorded to it as a regulator. The Tribunal also found that CityFibre had failed to identify failings in the investigation that established a breach of Ofcom’s duty to enquire and that there was a sufficient evidential basis for Ofcom to reach the conclusions it did.

This is an unofficial summary prepared by the Registry of the Competition Appeal Tribunal."

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/14263321-cityfibre-limited-v-office-communications-judgment-15-jul-2022

"So I have a decent wedge ready to invest when I feel it's advantageous to do so."

You'll be hard pushed to find a better time than now to invest in UK stocks, unless there's another pandemic. The UK has been hammered since the Brexit vote, with many stocks hitting lows in the midst of the pandemic. Vodafone is probably as as cheap as it'll get. The FTSE has pretty much flatlined over the last 5 years, so is already massively discounted compared to the US. If you're looking at investing in the US though, then you might get lucky down the road.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/UKX:INDEXFTSE?comparison=INDEXNASDAQ%3A.IXIC%2CINDEXSP%3A.INX%2CINDEXDJX%3A.DJI&window=5Y

Down to around 68,682,967,522 shares in issue now.

Jansen is doing a good job, as far as I can tell, why would he go?
Sharon White would be the last person I'd want to see in charge of BT, just don't see it happening anyway.

"Engineers get 32k at Bt
To keep a job at 32k in Bt as an engineer these days, you have to work hard, be experienced, adaptable and also have good interpersonal and communication skills."

Openreach Engineers, and BT Engineers, have various different roles with varying skill sets. Some Engineering roles involve repetive work with very little training, other roles require constant upgrading of highly technical skills.
Wages come down to skill set and exportability of those skills.
AbjectPerformer, you said:

"It is very easy for them to get rid of engineers for defects on work. For which there are endless defect classifications that can apply to every job they attend."

If it's that easy to get rid of someone, then they must be easily replaceable: Although what you're describing seems more applicable to contractors, rather than full time employee's.

"After reading this DT and Altice could shout foul about preferential treatment for the Yanks.
Its alright making these laws but..it also has to be thought through.
Clear mandate for a takeover IMHO dyor"

I haven't got an issue with US companies taking over UK companies, as long as research & development. patents, licenses, manufacturing, etc, remain in the UK. History suggests that Foreign companies, taking over UK companies, export the tech, expertise, etc, and wind down the UK business over time. When it comes to Utility companies, foreign takeovers have led to the Parent Company taking excessive dividends, under investing, and then selling when they've taken as much as they can get away with. All the UK Government are doing, is protecting the UK's assets. If there was a UK company big enough to take over AT&T, does anyone think the US wouldn't scrutinise it? UK PLC has been up for sale for years, and now we get compalints when we start looking at takeovers. Look at the rhetoric currently coming out of the US, in respect of semiconductor manufacturing, the US is extremely protective. If a UK company was bidding for a US company, and the US weren't happy, they'd likely have a quiet word with US companies to step in and outbid the UK company, it's what i'd do.

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/interest-of-us-buyers-in-acquiring-uk-companies-grows

https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulation/2021/britain-wary-foreign-takeovers-u-s-companies/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/britain-increases-scrutiny-of-foreign-takeovers-11639314004

https://www.growthbusiness.co.uk/us-takeovers-of-british-tech-companies-rise-by-50-in-2020-2559878/

"The real problem, say experts, in trying to keep British successes such as DeepMind (bought by Google for $500m in 2014 – a price ex-Google CFO Patrick Pichette later admitted was “a steal”) in UK ownership given that pension funds do not invest anywhere the same amounts as institutional investors in the US and elsewhere in Europe."

https://www.growthbusiness.co.uk/us-takeovers-of-british-tech-companies-rise-by-50-in-2020-2559878/

"They are stuck. It is an outrageous tax."

In a perfect world, none of us would have to pay any tax. I just see Stamp Duty as a compromise. If they didn't charge us Stamp duty, then they may decide to view a house sale as a capital gain, it's swings & roundabouts. I sold my previous house for over £500,000 tax free, and bought my new house around the same price; I'm thankful that there's no capital gain on the sale of main residences, since the capital gain could have been a lot more than the stamp duty on my new house. Apparently, In the US, there's a capital gain on sales over $250,000 for a single person, and $500,000 for a married couple, but you have to live in the property for at least 2 years before reselling to be exempt.
Different countries have different rules, Stamp duty is something that's been around as long as I can remember, so I just accept it.

"Most people would rather not pay tens of thousands of pounds to move from A to B. As I said, many are stuck."

I would suggest if they can't afford the stamp duty, then they can't afford the house. Every house I've ever purchased, has required me to pay stamp duty. My last purchase was a Primary residence, falling within the 5% stamp duty bracket, it's just the way it is.

"'For 2nd homes, I expect the stamp duty can be offset against the tax liability.''

When they're sold, the stamp duty will be classified as part of the purchase expenses, along with solicitors fee's, etc. By 2nd home I mean non primary residences.

"are inheritance allowances a tax break? - I would say inheritance tax is a 'steal' - the limit should be a lot higher or no tax at all."

I was referring to the regular gift payment regime, where a Billionaire could regularly gift millions a omnth to their grown up kids.

"Stamp duty when purchasing a property is an outrageous tax - just for moving from A to B. There will be many that are stuck in properties that they no longer wish to be in, but cannot afford the big hit of stamp duty from moving."

It's a cheap upfront tax in my opinion. I'd rather pay an upfront stamp duty, than a capital gain on the sale of my primary house. For 2nd homes, I expect the stamp duty can be offset against the tax liability.

If I was in Government, I'd set an upper limit on that, seems like a tax break for the rich in my opinion.

"each person has that limit - in addition a further £175,000 can be passed to children from property. A married couple can leave £1 million."

I knew about that, what I was asking is if the regular payments exceed £325,000 within 7 years, then inheritence tax will be payable on the excess above that?

"Well you now know better"

I suppose you could pay the entirety of your monthly income, under those circumstances, as long as you can live on your dividends. Is that still subject to the £325,000 7 year limit? Otherwise what's to stop a Billionaire making regular payments of £1 Million plus, a month, under the rule? There must be limiting factors to the rule.

My understanding is that the rule isn't aimed at someone gifting money to their grown up kids, thereby supplementing their children's income's to help pay off their mortgage, or increase their savings. If you're paying it into a Grandchild's ISA, or helping an elderly relative with care home fees, then that is what the rule is likely aimed at.

"My pension is a regular income as is dividend income.
I pay a regular monthly amount"

To a child under 18, or to help with an elderly relatives living costs?

The exact wording of the rule is:

"If you make regular payments
You can make regular payments to help with another person’s living costs. There’s no limit to how much you can give tax free, as long as:

you can afford the payments after meeting your usual living costs
you pay from your regular monthly income
These are known as ‘normal expenditure out of income’. They include:

paying rent for your child
paying into a savings account for a child under 18
giving financial support to an elderly relative
If you’re giving gifts to the same person, you can combine ‘normal expenditure out of income’ with any other allowance, except for the small gift allowance.

For example, you can give your child a regular payment of £60 a month (a total of £720 a year) as well as using your annual exemption of £3,000 in the same tax year."

I suppose you'd have to ensure you fall within the above category's. For example, what's the definition of regular income, and regular payment?

"I already give a 4 figure sum away each month that I do not need. As I said, so long as it is regular and not a one-off large give away from assets them it is outside the scope for inheritance tax"

You must be living outside the UK then, because that isn't my understanding of the Tax rules.

"any regular amount that comes from unneeded income is outside of the 7 year rule"

Everyone has a £3,000 annual gift allowance, after that tax is potentially payable on gifts in the event of death. The 7 year rule is tapered, decreasing down to £0 after year 7.

"if only i didn't have family members to help out"

It isn't as though you can take it with you when you pop your clogs. Ensure you keep a record of the cash you gift out, as it will save problems for your family, with the HMRC, when the time comes.