Member Info for fleccy

Yeah with crossed legs 🤣

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion Daniel, this is what AI says:

"is compounding through dividend reinvestment a good investment strategy

Compounding through dividend reinvestment is generally considered a highly effective long-term investment strategy, as it can significantly outperform simple capital appreciation. Over the long term, reinvesting dividends increases your total number of shares, which in turn increases the value of future dividend payments, creating a "snowball effect" of wealth accumulation.

For example, over a 20-year period ending in 2021, the FTSE 100 raw index grew by approximately 40%, while the total return with dividends reinvested reached 193%—nearly five times the return.

Key Benefits of Dividend Reinvestment

Magnified Returns: Reinvestment captures the "growth on growth" effect, turning passive income into an active driver of portfolio value.

Dollar-Cost Averaging: Automated reinvestment ensures you buy more shares when prices are low and fewer when they are high, smoothing out market volatility.

Cost Efficiency: Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs) often allow for commission-free transactions and the purchase of fractional shares, ensuring every penny is utilised.

Simplified Management: Most brokers offer automated tools that handle reinvestment without requiring manual intervention, promoting disciplined investing"

The truth is that investing for growth can give higher returns, but at significantly higher risk. People who invested in the Mag 7 ten years ago have done spectacularly well, but things could easily go the other way. Would you currently invest in growth, bearing in mind the very high P/E's? Especially since some of them have unachievable forward earnings reflected in the share price.

We're invested in Vod, BT, Lloyds Bank and BP. BP's the more recent addition, but we're currently showing significant paper gains across all investments in all accounts now. I realise that Growth has outperformed dividend stocks, but there's more risk with growth and you don't get the compounding benefit of reinvesting dividends in growth stocks that don't pay dividends.

I agree with what you're saying Daniel, I just can't be bothered to change. We also bank with the Halifax so we can view our investments through the banking app, and £72 a year total admin charges set against a portfolio value of over £740,000 doesn't really move the needle. Our annual dividends will also tip over £30,000 in the next financial year so it just isn't worth the hassle.

Indeed Snoopz

"Filling those large unknown orders, given the size must be an institutition or high net worth individuals"

No large institution, or high net worth individuals would be interested in trading QBT. The volumes and stock value is too low, no professional trader would bother trading QBT for fear of being locked in with any returns too low should the price hold or go up slightly; I mean you could buy a million QBT shares for £5,800 and a trade of that size would likely push the price up by a good percentage, with the price likely falling back as quickly as it went up. To make a sizeable return a big investor would have to buy 100's of millions of shares and although that would send the price rocketing the investor would likely lose on the trade.

In December the total value of trades was £426,000 for 60 Million shares traded, hardly worth trading for big money in view of the lack of volume buyers.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/QBT/quantum-blockchain-technologies-plc/trade-recap

HL probably updated its price based on an Off Book trade reported after UT, the correct closing price was 187.10p

Now who's creating their own narrative Mikey?

I asked AI the question:

"in business terms does product/service delivery suggest revenue is being generated?

In business and accounting terms, yes, the delivery of a product or service is the primary indicator that revenue is being generated and can be officially recorded.

Under the accrual accounting method—the standard for most mid-to-large businesses and public companies—revenue is recognized when it is earned, which occurs at the moment of delivery, regardless of when the customer actually pays.

Revenue Recognition Principles

The relationship between delivery and revenue is governed by the Revenue Recognition Principle (standardized internationally as IFRS 15 and in the U.S. as ASC 606). These standards state that revenue is recognized when a company satisfies its performance obligation by transferring control of a good or service to a customer.

Product Delivery: Revenue is typically recognized at a single point in time when physical possession or legal title transfers to the buyer.

Service Delivery: Revenue is often recognized over time as the service is performed. For example, a monthly subscription service generates revenue incrementally each day the service is available to the user"

"This isn’t analysis fleccy, it’s narrative framing. You bundle together years of disparate R&D work, ignore what has been delivered and disclosed, then conclude “jam tomorrow”"

I can see the disclosure, but where's the delivery? QBT haven't delivered anything tangible as far as I can see, maybe you can enlighten us as to which products have been delivered and currently generating revenue?

Was anything I posted about QBT incorrect Mikey? Admittedly my view on the future of BTC mining is speculative, but it makes perfect sense what I'm saying. You're correct that I do bash QBT, but you could argue they deserve some bashing in respect of their failure to commercialise their products. So far the only thing QBT have done is promise Jam tomorrow.

We're happy to pay the £72 a years admin charges, since it pales into insignificance compared to the size of our portfolio and dividends. I realise there are cheaper brokers, but we like the security of being with a large entity and we've been with them for as far back as our early days of investing. For us, It just isn't worth the hassle of changing.

I've watched QBT for a good few years now and the music's still playing, but the record's stuck. I'm curious to know why anyone still believes that QBT's business model will lead to anything commercially viable? Am I wrong in saying that the company has released a series of varying narratives over the years, but no evidence of any real substantive progress? You've had Method's A, B, C, SAAS, ASIC development and Quantum, with commercialisation usually touted to arrive in the following year, but then it all goes quiet before a new narrative comes out. I'm not saying QBT aren't trying to achieve their commercial goals, but are those goals viable on their budget? How many registered employee's does the company have? Are the researchers and developers just working on the projects in their spare time, more like hobbyists who might reap future reward?

My view is that the miners who spend Billions building datacenters and filling them with rigs, likely have far larger budgets to develop their own proprietary software and systems to enhance their mining operations, and protect the secrecy of their systems to maintain advantage over competitors. Something else to consider is that with each halving mining profits reduce and Datacenters are likely to move operations away from mining and into AI.

I've always believed that Bitcoin is built on false narratives and will eventually fail for whatever reason. Maybe power hungry AI will displace Crypto mining as the next big thing, since AI appears to be the next big thing to bubble up; I can see how AI is useful, whereas I view Bitcoin as useless. Will AI finally kill Bitcoin? Maybe. AI is as power hungry as BTC mining, the Datacenters will likely choose one over another dependent on ROI, I believe AI will win over BTC mining.

David

(18-E=A)=(24-14=10)

The man DavidPhilips is quoting is called Albert. Snoopz you must be talking about Before Christ, or maybe a Benjamin Button character 😜

"they are putting me on their core plan which will cost 14.99 /month so that's £180 a year"

Just had a look, do you mean the Plus Plan? The core plan is only for portfolio's up to £100,000 and is apparently £5.99 a month.

"Do you know 9x10 = 91? Worth remembering, have a great day"

Do you know that A+E=18?

"I think fleccy is with H.L. so time for him to move on as well I think"

We're with the Halifax, the annual admin charge is £36 each covering standard share dealing and ISA share dealing accounts. Because we only deal a couple of times a year we're not bothered by the £9.50 dealing charge.

https://www.halifax.co.uk/investing/start-investing/share-dealing-services/charges.html

Why BT is currently down nearly 5p?

Volumes aren't particularly high, so it isn't immediately apparent what's causing the drop.

Time will tell how easily Altnets will consolidate, it'll very much depend on location, customer density and systems used. From an Engineering point of view Telecom consolidation can be expensive, dependent, workforce amalgamation/downsizing, installed equipment and compatibility between different Network management platforms.

"the consolidation is as much about bringing all the customer numbers together into one consolidated company to achieve the customer scale from which the operation profits can be achieved ..1-2 years after the consolidation ..woof..the operational profit turns upwards and away you go. The past is history, as they say"

In some cases that could be correct, but in others it might hit obstacles. You can buy the infrastructure, but integration and operational costs will also be part of the business case for justifying a takeover. The telecom sector is highly competitive and scale is one thing, but subscriber density is just as important. History teaches some important lessons, most of the pre 2000 cable companies went bust and went through a couple of phases of consolidation; First CWC took over most of the Cable companies and consolidated before selling them on to NTL for over £8 Billion, NTL didn't have an easy ride following the takeover going chapter 11 two years later. Cable & Wireless also had issues in the US after purchasing MCI Tier 1 Backbone In 1998 and Exodus Communications Assets In November 2001, incorporated into C&W America, with C&W America bleeding money and going chapter 11 in 2004.

Just because assets are cheap doesn't mean the purchasers will get an easy ride, or that the venture will be successful following the purchase. Sometimes trying to build scale can become a slippery slope to bankruptcy, even with the debt overhang removed.