Member Info for fleccy

But Gold is useful, whereas Bitcoin has only one use as a gambling chip. I've already listed Gold's uses in Electronics, medicine, jewelry, etc, what use is Bitcoin other than something to HODL in the hope that the price will go up? Sure you can transfer cash across borders using Bitcoin, but you could do that with any crypto, or by using a TradFi service. The narrative suggesting Bitcoin transfers are free is false, because it ignores the conversion to Bitcoin/Fiat costs.

I'll be really surprised if the US adopts Bitcoin as a treasury asset, since the only way they could persuade other countries to recognise the "asset" would be through coercion. Anyone with any sense can see Bitcoin for what it is, an algorithmically generated "asset" with no real world use and valued purely on belief. Fiat currencies are valued by the market against strength of the economy of the issuer, the narrative comparing Bitcoin to Fiat is false.

Bitcoin will eventually fail due to it's lack of usefulness, it's a case of when not if.

🫤😕🤣

Again you're creating your own narrative, you have no idea how investors might have valued higher dividends over buybacks. Post covid it wasn't clear why Nunn cut the dividend, hurting investors at the time of the cut. Buybacks seem to help US stocks, but appear to do little for UK stocks, maybe UK investors value dividends more than buybacks. Your simple math's is meaningless since it's based purely on assumption, whereas the current price performance is clear to see. Billions spent on buybacks since Nunn took over, yet the share price is down around 17% over the last 5 years, clearly there's something wrong with the plan. Maybe you weren't affected by the dividend cut, I was, so I'm entitled to my opinion.

LTI that's just supposition, you and I have no idea what the share price would be now had Nunn continued AHO's progressive dividend policy, with limited buybacks to cover block listing. What is clear is that Lloyds has underperformed over not just the last year, but the last 5 years, clearly Nunn's master plan isn't working.

LTI you're a real piece of work, there's clearly something wrong in your head since you can't respond to posts without being insulting, you should seek help for that. Clearly you're someone who lives alone because no one would be able to put up with you. Good luck with you're spread bets, because reading between the lines that's about the only thing positive in your life.

Since Nunn took the reins at Lloyds, see what I did there, the share price performance has been abysmal. He debased the dividend and embarked on a buyback program that has done absolutely nothing for the share price. Over the past 5 years Lloyds has underperformed Natwest by over 70%. Lloyds is down nearly 17% over the last 5 years, whereas Barclays and Natwest have both seen significant increases in their share prices.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/LLOY:LON?comparison=LON%3ANWG%2CLON%3ABARC&window=5Y

"BT has dominated since time began and for the first time in the modern era this merger creates an entirely new business which will dominate the market. It's a HUGE deal!"

Savage, BT owns Openreach and Openreach manages the majority of the UK's Fibre connectivity into most of the cell sites, so MNO's have to pay BT/Openreach to provide PIA access. There are three ways to provide Backbone into the cell sites, one is Fibre, another is Terrestrial Microwave point to point links and the third is via the new LEO's orbiting above. Of the three Fibre is the far superior option for bandwidth and reliability. Some of the Fibre connectivity will be provided through altnets, but not much.

Sure Vodafone will become the largest MNO, but you're underestimating the advantage BT have over the other MNO's due to their cable & duct assets, which explains why EE has been rolling out 5G faster than the competition. Three have done well as a result of their JV with BT, I suspect this merger will cause future problems with that.

I used to work on Microwave point to point systems and understand only too well the limitations due to weather and atmospherics, Fibre wipes the floor with RF every time.

I'm invested in both Vodafone and BT, but realistically saying the merger gives the new entity a big advantage is clearly false, which may account for the CMA allowing it to go through.

"Otherwise, why else would there have been such a long delay in judgement?"

If something takes a long time, it's usually down to indecision. Because the law likes to deal with Black and White, anything grey takes serious consideration and usually creates precedents. The eventual verdict from this case will be dissected and analysed by lawyers and academia alike, so you can bet the panel are taking serious consultation and going back through years of previous case law, before reaching and publicising a decision. The easy way out would be to just leave it to the regulator, since they're theoretically more qualified to manage this sort of thing.

Savage I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you, trying to speculate on the cost to BT is a fools game. You could say it will cost BT over £1 Billion and I could counter by suggesting that BT will win the case, in truth neither of us have a clue what the final outcome will be.

As I said in a previous post, if it was clear cut that BT has done something wrong then the CAT would likely have reached a verdict months ago. It's a highly complex case with many variables and in the end it'll come down to opinion rather than law. I'd also suggest that the current state of UK commercial litigation and regulation is starting to hinder the UK economy. It's about the Government got a grip, since it appears that UK Judges are more powerful than God and don't mind overruling regulators and creating uncertainty. Eventually the only growth industry left will be litigation.

"Unfortunately I think the fine will be a record one. I think they'll seek to make an example out of BT"

I have no idea whether or not BT will lose the case, but the amount of time the CAT panel are taking, to release a judgement, suggests it isn't clear cut. They can only make an example out of BT if they've clearly done something wrong, but has BT done anything wrong? For example, saying that landline's are a market in their own right is a matter of perspective, in our case we ditched our landline years ago and use mobiles instead. BT clearly had deals with the regulator and Government to offer discounted services to low income customers and pensioners, if the customer isn't bothering to take advantage of targeted discounts then that isn't BT's fault. As far as split usage and business, OFCOM view these as engaged customers and have previously declared them as being more than able to find better online deals.

In the end the verdict from the CAT case will be based purely on opinion, rather than law. Since BT is one of the most regulated companies on the planet, maybe things like this should be left to the regulator.

Https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1812824850&format=interactive

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vS0oSavIsBjHgD7k6NMyk7Z591Cm2IrevvLI-Jq95gOmESrOI0Vi_NhA8LIO9rMz90Y5zCOCoFuEItG/pubchart?oid=1451011517&format=interactive

"Bharti alone have 29%+!"

Not quite, didn't you mean 24.5%?

Fibrelad there's only one Fleccy on here, without pseudonyms, me. Unlike you I've only ever used one username since I joined the site in 2013, why would anyone who gives honest opinions need more than one name?

You're the one who's come back with multiple different usernames, for reasons unclear to any sensible person. Considering I'm heavily invested in BT you'd think I'd post more than most, but I have a life off here, unlike you who appears to live on here; Do you just sit and do refreshes every 5 minutes, throughout the day, to post about a stock you're not invested in?

You seem obsessed with trying to convince people that BT should be taken over, but to what end? It's a bit like Don Quixote of La Mancha challenging Windmills, it was meaningless and everyone thought he was just mad. No one on here cares if BT is taken over, the reason people don't see it happening is down to Government policy, simple as that.

Probably taking their Crystal Ball in for repair.

Who said anything about futures, the figures I quoted and links to savings products refer to the present. As far as the accusation that me and Phat are the same person, I'll put that down to the rambling of a delusional person.

"Fleccy. Please can you elaborate on your share holdings against your £25,000 dividend income.

It is all well and good repeatedly stating you have a combined income of £25,000. But that is only good if the yield is say 7%, the ftse average"

We're currently yielding around 5%, which I consider to be ok. There aren't many savings accounts that would return 7% income, tax free, against £500,000 invested. Also my yield will likely increase from here as Lloyds and BT increase their dividends, even Vodafone say they want to operate a progressive dividend policy following their recent cut.

You'd have to pay tax on a portion of the interest from these Fixed rate Bonds

https://www.raisin.co.uk/s/fixed-rate-bonds/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=uk_sea_generic_td_savings_accounts&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAuou6BhDhARIsAIfgrn6ULyOAMF6sJX0iDgOIW5P8n76TgKcFoS3aFQyT6TWTIndyCpQwp7MaAhBiEALw_wcB

Any cash ISA's would have to be accumulated over a long period to see the the same advantages as our stock ISA's and not many exceed 5%

https://www.money.co.uk/savings-accounts/cash-isas/pm-1?track=885130&inset-cookie-banner&utm_accountid=2259221394&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=best%20cash%20isa%20rates&utm_cmpid=11081487548&utm_adgid=114274950368&utm_tgtid=kwd-498638190&utm_mt=e&utm_adid=680017409403&utm_dvc=c&utm_ntwk=g&utm_plcmnt=&utm_locphysid=1006539&utm_locintid=&utm_feeditemid=&utm_devicemdl=&utm_plcmnttgt=&gclid=Cj0KCQiAuou6BhDhARIsAIfgrn60WDxw78xwi5wNdyGppLtC69g1aI_9bxuijnUALu5q5tJq_HJehiIaAu1rEALw_wcB

Dividend Yields - FTSE 100Current FTSE 100 yield: 3.62%

https://www.dividenddata.co.uk/dividendyield.py?market=ftse100

"He doesn't count inflation, either. His top share picks are, wait for it, BT, Vodafone and Lloyds. Three of the worst FTSE performing stocks in living memory"

No complaints from me, between me and my wife we're pulling in around £25,000 a year tax free dividends, and that's taking into account Vodafone's recent halving of their dividend.

I've just had Solar Panels with battery storage installed using a portion of our dividends, and I'll be upgrading our heating system next year also paid for using dividend income. I don't care how my chosen stocks share prices are currently performing, because we have a substantial annual dividend income to either spend or reinvest. Because our chosen stocks have massively underperformed, it's allowed us to buy cheap and build a large holding with a substantial dividend income, what's not to like about that?

Paper gains can give people a nice warm feeling, but they have to sell to realise a capital gain and then they have to pick another winner to build on their previous gain, assuming they reinvest and decide not to spend their profits. To live off capital gains you have to win consistently, whereas purchasing cheap dividend paying stocks requires less attention with the money rolling in year after year.

If our chosen stocks doubled in price over the next couple of years, to diversify our holdings we may decide to sell a portion of our stock, but that wouldn't be an easy decision since we're doing ok with our current holdings.

As far as Covid reducing our dividend income, I agree it was disappointing, but the drop in stock prices gave us a great opportunity to substantially increase our holdings at bargain basement valuations, so when dividends were restarted our dividend income was much higher than pre covid.

Savage it's impossible to predict the direction of a stock without insider knowledge. The current market appears to value Individual Stock prices based on narrative, hype and dare I say manipulation, rather than fundamentals which appear to have gone with the wind.

I don't even attempt to predict the direction of my holdings, I consider it a fools game. As long as I keep receiving income from my investments, I have the choice to reinvest or buy stuff; For example I've just used a portion of my dividends to pay for a Solar/battery system to be installed, a different type of investment.

True, but the race never ends and I'm being paid to watch as each Furlong is passed; And should I decide to reinvest my winnings at each Furlong, I get more winnings as future Furlong's are passed.

Toff you'd be correct if a paper loss was the same as a capital loss, but it isn't the same. Imagine you was a Rolls Royce investor, who'd bought your shares in 2019 at around £2.50 a share, you would have seen your investment dip by 85% in a year, and had you sold then you would have seen massive capital erosion, but had you held all the way through to today you'd be sitting on a paper gain of around 120%; If you decided to sell today you'd realise a capital gain of 120%.

"If you invest in an index do you get dividends?"

I was referring to investing in dividend paying stocks within the index. If a stock is cheap, is relatively safe, and has a good dividend yield, why not invest for the dividends and then reinvest as the dividends roll in? The cheaper a stock, the more stock you can buy through each dividend reinvestment and see compounded returns with each reinvestment.

People hype up growth stock investing strategies, but reinvesting dividends grows your holdings with each reinvestment, if that isn't growth what is it?

Because of ISA'S you can invest and receive dividend returns tax free and over time you can build substantial holding's, generating an ever larger dividend income, there's more than one way to realise growth.