Member Info for fleccy

New Boss with her own ideas on who she wants where, nothing to do with cracks.

Typo, I meant own now not won now.

So Obelix, how many millions of shares do you won now if you're continuing to top up? Going off your historic post's you must be in the teen's million by now?

Savage mid contract price increases are no longer linked to inflation and new customer/churn contract pricing is driven by competition. Inflation isn't as important now as it was previously.

Miners moving into Cloud AI and high performance computing isn't good for Bitcoin, or Crypto in general. The GPU'S to drive AI cloud applications, hosting things like large language models, require a lot of power and as AI grows there likely wont be enough Datacenter energy capacity to mine Bitcoin and host AI too.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might think Bitcoin was hyped as part of of long term plan to finance the building of Datacenters large enough to host planned future AI infrastructure.

Mole_man99, investing for growth and investing for dividends are both valid investing strategies; At least if you receive dividends you can either reinvest the divi's or use them as income, if a growth company share price goes south your options are limited to sell and realise a loss, or hold in the hope that the price eventually recovers. With a dividend reinvestment strategy you can compound your returns over time and should the share price drop, you can buy more stock with the reinvestment and increase future dividends even more.

Of course dividends aren't guaranteed, just like a growth stock isn't guaranteed to outperform. As far as the S&P is concerned, it's well telegraphed that the index is overvalued based on historic metrics, and that there's a good chance of a rotation from growth stocks into value stocks. Personally I'll keep topping up my value dividend stocks as money becomes available, why would I invest in the S&P when it's more overcrowded than dinghies launching from French beaches?

Because of the lack of liquidity GSA would have to close their short in small increments, otherwise they'll push the price up. Currently their short position sits around 8.651 million shares and assuming they are looking at completely closing their position, the current low daily trades/volumes mean they'll have to wait for enough high volume sells to hold the price.

According to Yahoo Finance there are no open puts/calls listed for QBT.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/QBT.L/options/

Not that I can claim to understand options trading.

This has nothing to do with the landline pricing issues being looked at in the CAT case; The current articles are talking about advertisements not showing mid contract price increases prominently enough.

IDoMyBest you'll have to work harder if you want to ferment negative sentiment among readers on here, trying to connect obviously unconnected things together wont work.

0.575, 0.574 was a typo.

Because the trades showing in Black are bang in the middle of the spread at 0.574. The red and blue trades are either side of the spread mid point.

Here's where all the responses can be read:

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/vodafone-slash-ck-hutchison-jv-merger-inquiry#other-third-party-submissions

BT and sky aren't happy, both are requesting the proposed merger is prohibited:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66ffb6e7e84ae1fd8592ee0c/BT_s_response_to_the_notice_of_possible_remedies.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66ffb73fa31f45a9c765f123/Sky_response_to_the_notice_of_possible_remedies.pdf

"However, the last time I checked 0.46 is 0.04 percentage points below 0.5%"

Not if you consider the difference between 0.5% and 0.46% in number of shares terms:

0.5% of 9,968,127,681 = 49,840,638

0.46% of 9,968,127,681 = 45,853,387

49,840,638 - 45,853,387 = 3,987,251

(3,987,251/49,840,638) x 100 =8%

I was referring to the difference between 0.5 and 0.46 (8%), which is nearly 4 million shares and arguably not a rounding difference.

IDoMyBest I'm not wishful thinking anything, in fact I've been accumulating cash should BT drop significantly. I suspect the reason it's taking so long is because the case isn't clear cut. If you think about the case, it's based purely on BT compromising with the OFCOM on landline only customers, plus the part of the case aimed at split purchase line rentals. Since BT is heavily regulated and has been subject to that regulation over decades, there's an argument that OFCOM should be left to decide any punishment directed at BT, otherwise what's the point of regulating BT at all?

I never could understand the case against BT, since our household gave up on landlines years ago and moved to sim only mobiles. There's been loads of cheaper options for customers to choose from, like sim only and BT's basic packages aimed at pensioners and benefit claimants, as well as moving to other providers, BT can't be blamed for customer lethargy. It seems to me this case is aimed at punishing BT for doing OFCOM a favour.

All the CP's rely on customers not being bothered to look for cheaper deals, I experienced it with Sky before my last house move, when I wasn't bothered about checking my annual bill increases. Truth be told, anything said on here is pure speculation until the CAT release their decision.

Savage 0.46 is 8% below 0.5, so a bit more than a rounding difference. Blackrock may still have undisclosed short positions, but because they previously disclosed a sub 0.5% position it's a fair assumption that they've closed their position in the absence of any other disclosure. Maybe they've got a heads up on the CAT case 😉

Well on your list Blackrock reduced their position from 0.57% to 0.46% on the 8th Feb 2024, but still disclosed their sub 0.5% position until the 4th Oct 2024 when they disappeared off the list. Since Blackrock decided to previously disclose their sub 0.5% position, since February, why would they not report a current sub 0.5% since the 4th Oct? It isn't rocket science.

"You can assume that they cave closed it completely, but leaving the list is not confirmation.You can assume that they cave closed it completely, but leaving the list is not confirmation."

The historic record suggests the position reduced by 0.46%, which was their previous disclosed position. As much as I agree that Blackrock may have undisclosed positions, I'm not sure why they would bother to hide their position, since they disclosed their previous sub 0.5% position?

Isn't a decision/verdict separate from any punishment? My impression is that a UK court can release a decision on a case and then decide on any fines/punishment later.

The previous reported position was 0.46%, so already under 0.5%.

I've just noticed that Blackrock closed their short position on the 4th October.