Member Info for fleccy

"Fleccy, No not a fund, just a fraction of a bit coin."

Haha, tomayto, tomahto. Don't ask me why, but it reminds me of Something about Mary for some reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB2di69FmhE

"I must point out that you don't have to buy a whole bitcoin, you can buy a fraction of a bitcoin"

Couldn't that be defined as being in a fund? The fractional dissection would determine the number of other investors sharing the "fund". In Stanno's case, he said he'd invested in 10 different Crypto's, so I assumed he'd done it through a "fund" anyway.

"Once the dust settles we will see how things pan out. With this in mind I have invested in ten different cryptos, treating them as any part of my portfolio."

Stanno, may I ask, why did you invest in Crypto?

Jamie Dimon says Buyer Beware:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jp-morgans-jamie-dimon-buyer-beware-on-cryptocurrencies-200700048.html

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey view:
"Cryptocurrency investors should be prepared to lose all their money, Bank of England governor says"

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/07/bank-of-englands-bailey-crypto-investors-risk-losing-all-their-money.html

"Bitcoin blow as HSBC vows to steer clear: Bank boss cites its volatility and lack of transparency"
"Quinn added that his sceptical attitude towards crypto-currencies arose from the difficulty of working out who owns them, which could leave the bank vulnerable to money laundering. "
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9613713/Bitcoin-blow-HSBC-vows-steer-clear-cryptocurrency.html

OK, I'm always sceptical about market participants statements, in relation to any investment, but in the case of Crypto all the warnings are out there for anyone who wants to hear them. If Musk farts on the toilet Bitcoin reacts, so is Bitcoin an investment, or a coin toss?
In 50 years, what are the chances that history will congratulate Bitcoin buyers as shrewd investors, or will it be remembered as another example of a FOMO bubble catastrophically bursting?
Unless someone's filthy rich, they aren't "currently" going to pay around $37,000 for a single Bitcoin, so I assume you've invested in a fund, along with other retail investors, "invested in ten different cryptos"?
I don't like investing in funds, it gives the vested interests even more control over your money, and allows them to work against you while charging you a fee, just my opinion. The more retail cash investing in Crypto Funds, the easier it is for the big players, involved with the funds, to de-risk their own investment. They can use the money coming in through the funds, to either inflate the value of the Crypto's, or sell their own crypto into the fund when they perceive things are topping out. Because they have visibility over everything, they have God like views unavailable to us mere mortals, so in Jamie Dimon's words "Buyer Beware".
As you can probably tell, i'm suspicious and cynical by nature; I wasn't always this way, but after getting burned from investing in an Endowment investment fund many years ago, I've vowed to never invest through a fund ever again. If I was to invest in any sort of fund, it would likely be a passive tracker when I perceived the markets were on their rrse, where the fund manager worked to a visible set of criteria so no surprises. Good luck.

"Well curiosity get the better of me, so after searching the website for the answer and drawing a blank i have emailed Investor relations direct to ask."

Any response yet Day? It's been a week now.

Just adding to my previous post.

Should subscription Media/content providers be treated the same under Net Neutrality rules, as maybe free news outlets, etc? Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney + could be classified separately as broadcasters, and potentially treated differently under Net Neutrality rules. Makes me wonder what Ofcom will be looking at.

BT are definitely going Green, and at some point that should show in the price.
The move to PON will reduce BT's power consumption massively.
Openreach are moving to an all electric fleet.
BT/Ofcom are looking at power consumption due to Content providers.
As far as normal operations, BT seem to be heading toward Carbon Neutrality.

Something I hadn't thought of is the effect of media/content providers, and how they cause issues for Telecom providers trying to move to a greener operating model. With the move to carbon neutral should the Telecom companies take the carbon hit for companies like Netflix, or should there be a mechanism for the carbon hit to be directed back at the source? This has recently raised questions about Net Neutrality, and how this carbon transfer might be dealt with. I suspect content providers might be facing some sort of carbon transfer mechanism in the future, back from the Telecom Infrastructure providers. Another possibility is that Content providers may be forced to move their servers closer to the customer, thereby forcing the content providers to manage their own local power/carbon consumption.
Lets imagine Amazon build a server farm in the Republic of Ireland, due to the low corporate tax regime, with maybe 100GB links feeding into the UK. Now there might be a Pay per View live event and the server farm uses some power packetizing the live stream, and streaming it down their 100GB links; The live stream data hits the telecom provider network, but then needs distributing to hundreds of thousands of households. The content provider takes a small carbon hit from its server farm and the 100GB links, and takes most of the profit from subscription charges, but is shielded from the power/carbon hit the telecom provider suffers from distributing the content. This raises interesting questions in relation to Content Distribution/Net Neutrality/Carbon Neutrality, and might be something to watch.

"Therefore whether we like it or not. Soon or later we will have to accept these new forms of currencies."

Are they really currencies though?

"and satellites leaving the Solar system into the outer space. 18 billion kilometres, even light would take more than 20 hours to get there."

Are they satellites? No , they are Space probes since they don't orbit anything. I would liken Crypto currency to Rectal probes, as either could be used to shaft you.

"The market cap of bitcoin needs to rise exponetially to store enough value, and there are not many left to mine. Bitcoin at $1m a coin is not out the question."

Honestly, I don't see any value in Bitcoin. Blockchain has its uses, but why as a store of value? I can see why ransomware pirates like it, but what use is it to everyone else?
I can't remember the last time I paid for something in cash, I pay for everything using my Debit card, so we already have Digital Currency. I can understand why banks and institutions might use some sort of Blockchain for large internal transactions, but you don't have to use Bitcoin, or any Crypto Currency.
What they appear to be be doing now is slicing and dicing the Crypto's, putting them in funds and marketing the funds to retail investors. Because of the Retail fan boy element, seduced by the hype, the sky high valuations are maintained. My wife told me that one of my neighbours have invested in Bitcoin, and I've previously talked to people at the gym that are invested in crypto. Should the bubble burst, which probably wont happen until the institutional holders have left, then the retail fund holders will be the biggest losers. All this is just my opinion, of course.

"At least a Tulip is physical and beautiful to look at. They were at one point trading at $2500 each lol"

Indeed, but as we know plants need nitrogen which makes me think about fertiliser. I've had an idea, that might fuel a new Tulip Mania type bubble.

Here's the idea:
Step 1
Develop a new technology called PlopChain
Step 2
Build a range of C rapto currencies based on Plopchain
Step 3
Target the US Manure market first, with the C rapto currency I'll name $ hitcoin
Step 4
Buy my house on the Riviera from the profits

What could go wrong?

"Crypto's are just one asset class that is looking into an exciting and bright future."

mole_man99, your post suggests you know something about Crypto currencies. I'm interested to read your view on why Crypto is worth anything?

I think i'll create the Telecom equivalents of Bitcoin and Dogecoin, I'll call them Bitish Telecoin and Dogephoine. Neither of these companies will own any infrastructure, their assets will be entries in a database that I'll update every time a DB entry (asset) is traded. No doubt my database entries will be traded to stratospheric highs as more people become aware of my amazing new companies, that have an "exciting and bright future.". I'll be a Billionaire in no time, which will allow me to start an exciting new online clothing retail outlet, which I think I'll call "Emperor new clothing LTD.

"If fleccy is saying that share prices are driven too much by graphs & algorythms"

What I was basically getting at, is that all the liquidity entering the market is chasing Unicorns. Throw in Rainbows and a lot of valuations are at fantasy levels. Gamestop's initial climb was due to coordinated buying, forcing Hedge funds into a short squeeze because they'd shorted more stock than there was in the company, in other words some of the stock was shorted and then shorted again.
The strange thing with Gamestop is that it's still high, maybe shorters have once again moved in and they're being targeted yet again, but a highly risky bet for the non shorters I should think.
As far as Bitcoin, and Crypto in general is concerned, you only have to look at Dogecoin; Dogecoin started out as a Joke, and is currently worth $44.85B, it just confirms that we're witnessing a real live tragicomedy.

I think the title of this thread is misleading, it should read "What is wrong with the Stock Markets?"
In the US, Gamestop is currently siting around $243, in January it peaked around $347, but just one year ago it was sitting between $4 and $5. Why is Gamestop currently sitting just under 5000% higher than one year ago? My view is that the market's transformed into some sort of surreal state, where imaginary numbers rule over fundamentals. At some point Crypto, surreal valuations, etc will be seen in their true light and investors will want to invest in cash generative companies, with hard assets.
It isn't Vodafone, it's the ridiculous amounts of cash chasing pots of non existent Gold, at the end of the market rainbow. At some point, people will realise that complex numbers don't apply when it comes to valuing investments.

"Well curiosity get the better of me, so after searching the website for the answer and drawing a blank i have emailed Investor relations direct to ask."

Any response yet Day? It's been two whole working days now.

"Any reasons?"

I wouldn't currently define this as a big drop. To see it in perspective, view it on a 6 month chart.

"I never thought mobile could replace cable but if conditions are right looks like it can?"

If everyone streams content 24/7 over mobile, the bandwidth wouldn't cope. It's ok if you're in a semi rural area, and a limited number of users are utilising the bandwidth, but mobile won't replace FTTP.

Something else to bear in mind; The pilot has a duty, above all others, to ensure the safety of the passengers, It would have been the pilots call on how to respond to the situation, and the safest call is to follow orders imo.

I don't see how Ryanair could get sued under the circumstances. They were diverted whilst in Belarus Airspace, and followed the directions of the relevant Air Traffic Control I would think. I suppose they could have made a run for Lithuanian Air Space, Hollywood style lol, but this is reality. Ryanair appear to be blameless in this, unless something obscure comes out disputing that.

"What a joke, if only BT/Openreach was allowed to cream off the most profitable high density population like cities and towns and ditch the rest of the country"

I'm not so sure CityFibre will survive long term, they're a one trick pony in a highly competitive market. From what I can tell they're just installing the Fibre, and relying on wholesale deals from the likes of Vodafone and Talk Talk. The reason they keep looking for funding is because their current operations aren't generating enough cash to fund expansion, so they will have to grow debt with no guaranteed return on investment.
BT have scale and generate income from existing operations, and once the move to FTTP is completed, their operational efficiency will be level with the likes of CityFibre, and better than Virgin Media who aren't moving to a full PON model.

Interesting that the Telecom providers are using power consumption, and the climate change agenda, to present their argument against Net Neutrality. What the Telecom companies are saying is quite right, the more data the routers have to deal with, the more their power consumption increases. Either way the consumer will foot the bill, either through paying more for their broadband, or paying the content providers more for the content. The fair way is for the content users to pay more, otherwise all individuals, and households, will be subsidising the content users. We use Netflix, Prime, and Disney+ in our house, my mother doesn't use any of those, and even though I realise that she could use a slower service, it doesn't work out that way in reality.
It will be really interesting to see what OFCOM come up with, it's interesting that the content provides are keeping quiet.

"Mr. O’Leary load and proud in the Mail this morning and can’t find fault with what he says."

He comes across like a dodgy Encyclopaedia salesman, for the people that remember them. His words are obviously aimed at encouraging people to take a chance on booking holidays, to Amber countries, rather than waiting; Smacks of desperation in my opinion. Every time he says something, people have to be warned that Insurance, obtaining refunds, etc, etc may be problematic; Of course O Leary doesn't mention any of those issues.