The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Just to add, there's nothing special about Telefonica, their share price is getting hammered along with the rest of the sector.
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BT.A:LON?sca_esv=566330112&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB882GB882&output=search&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiL4IeLuLWBAxW6R0EAHU7NB64Q0pQJegQICxAB&comparison=BME%3ATEF&window=5Y
Telefonica own half of the JV, VMO2, so would be rejected on Competition and National Security grounds lol.
Another example of what I'm talking about is the recent blocking of BT from managing the EU's TESTA network, on national security grounds, after complaints from Telefonica and others. The EU first awarded the contract to BT's EU subsidiary, and then took it away from them after complaints, there's no way the Government would allow a foreign takeover of BT, especially an EU based one.
I don't disagree that the current UK political class are a waste of space, but it changes nothing in respect of a BT takeover being waved through. One of the reasons they recently strengthened legislation, around protecting companies from takeover on national security grounds, was to give them a excuse to block takeovers of companies like BT. The odds of a BT takeover are extremely low, in my opinion.
Poker it makes no odds what's possible through coercion, or bribery, it's the perception of allowing foreign entities to take control of a company like BT. In reality, does anyone believe that politicians would allow a foreign takeover of the UK's main telecommunications provider? I don't see it myself, and any political party allowing such a thing would be crucified by the press.
"An "owner" is merely a majority shareholder ... I can take over BT but just hold 51% of the shares thereafter for voting rights"
Any entity taking 51% control of a company, would only do as part of a strategy to take full control; Once full control is established, and the company is privately owned, the owner can insert staff where they please and give them remote access to systems carrying network data. Workers with access to sensitive data and systems should have various levels of vetting, but if you own the keys to the kingdom you can let people in through the backdoor when no one's looking.
Poker, communications can't be compared to water or Electricity. Once the network is fully IP, sniffing off data will be as easy as typing some commands on a keyboard. Currently switch engineers can receive legal orders from Government Agencies, to capture telephone calls associated with individual numbers and directing the digital voice data to numbers where the authorities can record the calls; There are legalities around doing such things but a bad actor could easily circumvent that; It will be just as easy for data network providers to do the same with data associated with IP addresses, VLAN's, etc and direct the sniffed off data to storage devices anywhere. Because of the security sensitivities associated with Telecommunications networks, it's unlikely Governments would allow foreign entities to take over and manage a national incumbent. I don't see the German Government ever allowing a foreign takeover of Deutsche Telekom, or the French Government allowing a foreign takeover of Orange either.
I'm not against BT being taken over, but I don't see any foreign based entity being allowed to take control of the primary national communications infrastructure provider, and there are no UK based companies left with enough firepower to takeover BT. UK PLC has been whittled down to a shadow of its former self, many of the utility companies are owned by French and German companies, even the national Airline is now owned by a Spanish company. The reason I don't see any Government allowing a foreign takeover of BT is due to the security implications of allowing it to happen, foreign entities may hold shares in the company, but they don't control the network. Ringfencing teams and network only goes so far, ultimately whoever controls the network has access to the data; Look at the Government actions banning Huawei equipment off the networks, as an example of what I'm talking about. I do have issues with UK PLC being sold off piecemeal, until there's nothing left, but that has nothing to do with my opinion that no Government would allow a full foreign takeover of BT.
"BT must change and fast in order to survive"
Are you asleep Mandy, what do you think the current yearly capex and rollouts are about? BT are retiring their legacy network and moving to a fully converged IP/Cloud network, if that isn't change I don't know what is. The number of Exchanges will reduce from 5000 plus to around 1000, the access network will be mainly Fibre, and the mobile network will move to 4/5G only. You're obsessed with the CWU, but the pay awards are now covered until 2025 and the CWU have no power to prevent BT from shedding staff, whose role becomes redundant as legacy network disappears.
All any of us can do is speculate on the range of possible outcomes; I base my opinion on what happened with the cable companies in 90's, which gives the current Telecom environment a Deja Vu feel.
The author of those posts has painted a picture presenting a narrative that suits their own view of what might happen, but their view is extremely speculative and narrow. Sentences like, "I cannot see how BT can easily compete with CityFibre (that has the potential to take half their customers - and the best ones) and so they will have to slash jobs and costs", is what I'm talking about; The reason BT have more staff is because they have a far bigger network, providing far more services to varied customer types accessing communications via a range of different technologies. The main reason CityFibre are offering XGS-PON is more to do with supporting many more customers per OLT, rather than offering enhanced speeds.
CityFibre are looking at becoming a wholesale competitor to Openreach, so the author of the posts should have referenced to Openreach, and not BT as a group; BT is a customer of Openreach, just like Sky, Talk Talk, Plusnet and ZEN, and just like the Altnets are supported by venture capital, Openreach is supported by its parent BT.
BT are going to take on more financial debt while funding 5G and FTTP rollout, another £850 Million this year, but I wouldn't describe the debt as "monstrous" and lease liabilities are currently reducing by around £400 Million a year; Lease liabilities will reduce as exchanges close and the building footprint reduces. BT are also looking at reducing costs by £3 Billion per year by the end of 2025 and I've always said BT is about cost saving's rather than revenue growth, with costs set to reduce dramatically as legacy network disappears. The chap who posted those comments has his opinion and I have mine.
A recent report by the INCA suggests that Altnets are struggling, even suggesting that BT should be forced to sell off Openreach and duct/pole infrastructure, time will tell how all this unfold.
https://www.inca.coop/sites/default/files/policy/INCA-Policy-Report-Sept2023.pdf
Just took a look at Lloyds for Friday, 410,881,995 shares were traded in total and out of those 372.82 million shares were traded On Exchange. Vodafone was a similar story on Friday, with 183,227,964 shares traded in total and 156.49 million of those On Exchange. Such high On Exchange trading volumes are unusual and may well be associated with retail investors reinvesting dividends.
The volumes were high on Friday with over 123 Million shares traded, 113 million of those On Exchange. Currently the majority of today's trades appear to be Off Book.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS4gJMsDAQq9sJ_zHqi_JnoVTryAdb4X64c7Clw12E2sGT3N6dTJfB60O8bc5Ns4burXvSSCVFrLvWC/pubchart?oid=457705223&format=interactive
"But the charts do not reflect the reality on the ground. They predict. "
The chart I've linked to don't predict anything, I've used them to demonstrate the power of dividend reinvestment when a share price drops by half with the dividends maintained. No predictions.
Mandy, I think we've previously covered the logic behind dividend reinvestment when price drops occur. A while back I did some charts, for BT and Vodafone, comparing dividend reinvestment differences between two different Fleccys in different Universes. In one universe the price halves and never recovers, in the other universe the price stay's the same, with the dividend reinvested in both universes. In both cases the dividend remains the same at 7.7p.
Vodafone chart
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQj9wKosCgo6erMyJEc_gCjyxKL1oDTTVNPyDejnbsTzKNpjfFTZ6_f9h1NDG6LmZiLuh-Yq22JBrDo/pubchart?oid=1399088825&format=interactive
BT chart
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRYwu6rv7Vk2093vnE9975iJIfiNBDGYW08VmYU2MK2tsi0o9bA3rDwV9NV0XA6QJrkQeqet_jppwWg/pubchart?oid=1399088825&format=interactive
The point of the charts are to demonstrate the power of dividend reinvestment when the price drops; The unexpected effect is that Fleccy 2 actually benefits more after many years of them both reinvesting. Obviously the yield determines the steepness of the curve, the higher the yield the faster the benefit when significant price drops occur. Where the price drops by half, the dividend yield doubles and the value of the accumulated stock eventually overtakes the valuation in universe where the price remains the same.
"As Fg has said none of the big miners are doing what qbt are doing"
There could be good reasons for that, like scalability. The phenomenal speed's big mining farms are crunching numbers, may render pre-processing techniques ineffective. What works on a small Bitcoin mining farm, may not scale up for big farms using thousands of mining rigs.
"I am assuming I can drawdown on it and pay the tax on it, if I opt to do that will the fact I will get 50k"
I did drawdown on a pension with £64k, I took the money over two installments, over two years, with the tax relief split across installments, that was the most tax efficient way for me to drawdown within the scheme rules.
No significance, I just did the 2nd trace to see if the routing for minerone.co.uk was similar to the fake company minerone.pro, clearly their routings are completely different. It makes sense that minerone.co.uk is hosted in Italy, the fake company website appears to be hosted in the US.