Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
"The ultimate battle between the great guru of share investment and also mandy."
I'm not an investment Guru, I'm just a retail investor who has an opinion based on what BT have been saying over the last three years. I do believe in the compounding effect of dividend reinvestment, used as a means to grow stock holding's and future dividend returns in the event of price drops. If people believe Aus and Mandy's view of BT's future then they should listen to them and follow their lead, I have my own opinions and will invest accordingly.
Mandy keeps attacking my investment choices in BT, Lloyds and Vodafone, and is correct that I'm currently sitting on large paper losses, but that comes down to initial investment timing and market sentiment directed at UK stocks since then. My initial investments were quite large, but the price drops over the last 3 years have allowed me to double our dividend returns and reduce average cost per share, now on target for over £25,000 tax free over the next year and the choice of taking income, or dividend reinvestment. Sure dividends could be suspended or dropped, but that's the chance you take when you invest; Anyone who invests in non dividend paying Growth stocks that stagnate, or go backward, are either locked in or faced with selling at a loss, at least with dividend paying stocks you still get something when the price drops, and have more choices.
Aus I'll deal with some of your points:
"I was reading last week about satellite backhaul for 5G Vodafone being at the forefront. It’s probably not quite there, yet aside for exceptions rather than the rule, this could be the beginning of several services BT ( according to you) rely on coming under pressure."
Backhauling 4/5G, via satellite, is something BT are trialing with OneWeb to provide service to remote areas where population density is low, there's also talk about them possibly using it as a backup system for critical services. RF backhauling has bandwidth limitations, so what might be feasible for remote low population areas isn't sufficient for urban use.
"Openreach are only one large scale wholesale contract away from disaster, even if they share network providers & play them off against each other. & right now, i’m struggling to see how BT will complete their FTP schedule in time, without buying smaller operators."
BT are Openreach's biggest customer and if other CP's want to use Openreach then they have to use BT's ducts and poles, alternatively they can use their own approved contractors, as I believe Sky are doing, or use BT's infrastructure via the PIA product offerings. It doesn't make a lot of sense, what you're suggesting, since any CP wanting national coverage have to use BT/Openreach.
As far as BT reaching 25 million premises by December 2026, it's just a number, I really don't care if it takes them until Dec 2027 to meet their target. I live in an area that is littered with BT manhole covers, yet we don't show on Openreach's rollout plan, we are already covered by VMO2 and CityFibre have recently installed Fibre around this area; This would be a really easy area for Openreach to upgrade to FTTP, yet they've held off, I think they're leaving some easy rollouts to the end and will probably increase their rollout speed in 2024/5.
I'd say the risk isn't with BT/Openreach, but with the Altnets and to a certain extent VMO2; Granted VMO2 and Nexfibre are privately owned and not publicly traded, but they have their own debt issues and are limited by the economics of their business. It isn't like we haven't been here before, UK Telecom history is littered with has-been's that were going to destroy BT's dominance, yet BT's still dominates and they're bust or under new ownership. BT has an amazing array of assets and is worth far more than the market is currently assigning to it.
More throw away comments from Mandy with nothing backing them up.
Mandy I think you should enlighten us all with the technical analysis backing up your assertion, that "Without a bid, BT will continue to be in terminal decline". I'd be really interested in debating your analysis and seeing if it has substance, but I doubt you'll produce anything since you don't appear to know anything.
One thing I will add Mandy, in the unlikely event a bid does materialise, I'll look at selling sharpish before the Government kick it into touch and the share price drops back, at which point I'll refill my boots.
"Even on the managements own 'adjusted' metrics, they plan to reduce EBITDAL by 9% and adjusted FCF by 31% in 2024 year, compared 2023."
You're not wrong, the F24 guidance does show a reduction in EBITDAal from €14.7 billion to €13.3 billion (-9.5%), and Adjusted FCF coming down from €4.8 billion to €3.3 billion(-31%); Whether or not they decide to reduce the dividend on the back of that isn't clear.
In the FY23 figures there was an adjustment to FCF of €2,467 Billion for Spectrum and licences, which might not be replicated next year, meaning actual FCF may be higher. Equity dividends aren't part of the FCF calculation and is subtracted later as part of the Net Debt calculation, so FCF isn't really relevant to paying the dividend. The share buybacks have now ceased, which were also accounted for exclusive of the FCF part of the calculation and lower down in the Net Debt calculation.
What I'm saying is it's too simplistic to just quote EBITDAal and Adjusted FCF, as there's more to the sustainability of the dividend than those two figures alone. The cash Flow calculations are accessed via the Cash Flow tab at the top left of the web page linked to:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSNxkKmgR2PzSL1NH5uvhJAIl6TyUm-PpH2hChEFWELeB8mLB-V562E7qRdDL0lOSa8NyAUBbokBjVp/pubhtml
Here's the thing with Mandy, he claims to own BT but gets upset when dividend reinvestment is suggested as an investment strategy; Clearly dividend reinvestment is a bad strategy in companies in terminal decline, but is BT in that category? I think not. He claims to want a bid and takeover of BT, but why get upset by investors reinvesting their dividends while the price is low, since it has no impact on any external bidder's decision to make a bid? Reinvest dividends, don't reinvest dividends, it makes no odds to me personally I'll just pursue my own strategy.
This fantasy about posters on here being associated with the CWU is clearly ridiculous, so I have no idea why Mandy pushes this stupid narrative.
I'm not sure why any of us engage with Mandy, after all he/she is:
A few bricks short of a full load
As thick as a brick
A blunt tool
As thick as mince
As mad as a hatter
Away with the Fairies
Somewhat Dolally
Barking mad
A few sandwiches short of a picnic
And has Bats in belfry.
Need I go on?
"I was told patch leads in fibre build have been offered voluntary redundancy with a deadline to go by end of December."
Abject, I notice you use the term "Patch Lead" in reference to Installation/Provide teams who do the patching within the Network sites; I've always used the term patch lead when referring to a lead connecting between two points, not the people running jumpers. We used the term Jumpers in reference to permanent connections to the rear of the DDF positions and the term patch leads (patches) for temporary connections to the front of the DDF positions, usually when a high order fault occurred and temporary connection's were required. Do BT actually use the term patch lead as a job description for someone who supervises teams who install jumpers (patches)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_cable#:~:text=A%20patch%20cable%2C%20patch%20cord,are%20connected%20with%20patch%20cords.
"As the internet has become an essential part of our daily lives, net neutrality has played a critical role in allowing people to access the content and services they want, from web browsing to watching streaming videos to uploading content on social media. It has also enabled new content providers to reach millions of new customers and achieve scale quickly – for example, four years after its UK launch, TikTok had almost 19 million UK adult visitors.
However, because the net neutrality rules constrain the activities of the ISPs, they may be seen as restricting their ability to innovate, develop new services and manage their networks. This could lead to poor consumer outcomes, including consumers not benefiting from new services as quickly as they should, or at all. These potential downsides might become more pronounced in the future, as people’s use of online services expands, traffic increases, and more demands are placed on networks.
We want to make sure that as technology evolves and more of our lives move online, net neutrality continues to support innovation, investment and growth, by both content providers and ISPs. Getting this balance right will improve consumers’ experiences online, including through innovative new services and increased choice."
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/net-neutrality-review
" Infrastructure is dead and buried in real terms, metaphorically and literally."
Good look providing services without infrastructure. The business models of Meta, Alphabet, Netflix, Amazon, etc are supported by regulation, in other words the regulators are controlling Telecom providers to allow the Tech Giant's and Broadcasters subsidised access to consumers, while at the same time the Telecom providers are forced to increase bandwidth capacity to support the new online services.
Broadcast services have historically been transmitted using Radio Frequencies, so Broadcasters have had to pay to send their channels to the mast, and then pay the mast owners money to mount antenna's as well as maintain the transmission equipment. The BBC have to pay a Telecom provider to carry the digitised video to the masts and also pay the mast owner, now they can choose to stream it over the internet for a fraction of the cost, requiring the Telecom providers to increase bandwidth to support all these new streaming services; Currently we're in a transition period where some Broadcaster still use RF to transmit some service, but that'll soon change and all Broadcasts will soon be streamed over the internet. It's the same situation with Sky, soon they'll no longer need to provide TV over satellite and will instead stream all their content and cease broadcasting via satellite.
The Telecom providers are currently pinned down by Net Neutrality regulation, which wasn't meant to subsidise broadcast services and Net Neutrality regulation is currently under review so things may change in the future.
Abject, the move from legacy to IP will make all the coaxial DDF's redundant, so all the 2002/3 and TZC coaxial cables will go; You'll still need fibre patching between ODF's, but my guess is that far less Engineering resource will be required once coax is gone.
Calokey, as far as BT's share price relying on takeover interest to climb from here, I don't see a takeover happening as the Government have made it clear they wont allow it to happen. In my opinion, BT will climb once the cost savings and reduced capex show around 2026/7; Another possibility is that the market rerates the whole Telecom sector and starts pushing the stock price's up before then.
I think big market players are playing the long game and purposely damaging sentiment in the Telecom sector, while mopping up stock on the cheap; Private equity is buying into Telecom infrastructure and pouring Billions into Altnets wherever they can, so there's a mixed narrative in relation to the sector. As I've said previously, events like KKR taking a 20% stake in Telecom Italia's Land Grid, or their purchase of a chunk of Vantage Towers along with GIP is evidence that there's value and interest in Telecom assets.
Now showing as 168,259,637 shares traded,
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/VOD/vodafone-group-plc/company-page
"Has it ever been said that method A and B increase hashrates?"
They've suggested that method B could theoretically increase speed by 2.6 times, so the take from that is it'll theoretically increase the speed of finding a winning hash. If QBT are correct in what they're saying and their method B scales up to commercial levels, and the big miners use it, post installation the difficulty level will increase proportionally dependent on the percentage increase in network block processing time; If it works and all the the big miners decided to use it, any advantage would soon be nullified by the network difficulty algorithm.
Clearly the Falkland war was due to Argentina invading. I have no doubt the Iraq war due to oil; The duty rumour was that Iraq was going to trade Oil in other currencies, instead of the US Dollar, which may have been a currency WMD if it started a trend at the time.
"I is very good at share dealing and I knows what I is doing"
Spoken like someone who sits in his bedroom in his elderly Mother's house; Still using a worn out gaming chair, with an open packet of biscuits and a stained coffee cup to the right of your keyboard. Just replace all occurrences of I in your content with Idiot and it all makes perfect sense:
Idiot is very good at share dealing and Idiot knows what Idiot is doing.
Avo cat 321 - Idiot is not worried about my posts took down.
They was all rubbish anyway.
Idiot does not care about what happens on hear.
Idiot has not come hear to make enemy's however.
You can do what you want.
Idiot is waiting for mid October death slide and then by some shares.
Not Vodafone though.
"The other application that FG mentioned in the PI interview, I can't see this registered as yet?"
It's still pending:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/ApplicationNumber/GB2310704.8