Member Info for fleccy

But you didn't answer my question.

Why the links to Alphabet and Google, are you suggesting that proves they're UK listed?

If you weren't allowed to have cash in a Stocks and Shares ISA how would you buy stocks? 🙄

I was just making a point, he'll always ensure he gets the last word. He defends his position in this particular case, by saying I contradict myself using the expression "foreign investments", but in the context of my post it was perfectly clear I was referring to non UK listed stocks when using the expression; In fact I actually clarified that I was referring to non UK listed stocks. To add context with further text I said:

"I never could get my head around giving tax relief on foreign investments, any future investment in foreign stocks should only be allowed in standard share dealing accounts. Any foreign stocks currently held in ISA's could still realise tax relief when sold, but as soon as they're sold any ISA reinvestment should be in UK listed stocks only."

LTI's response to that was "not this again - most of the Ftse 100 revenues come from foreign investment", which is a general response mentioned by Merryn Webb's in her video podcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPLTXA4-NIo&t=1540s

Am I wrong in thinking he's disagreeing with what I've said? Because it seems to me he was, and he later backed up his contrary opinion by comparing Shell to Alphabet and Microsoft. He's clearly an intelligent guy, with an apparent personality disorder, he seems to thrive on arguments and will create one out of nothing, never admit when he's wrong, and will go around in circles until you give up.

Ok LTI, since you're now saying you weren't arguing against my opinion that ISA's should only allow UK listed stocks, does that mean you agree with me that only UK listed stocks should be allowed in ISA's?

Ok LTI, since I made it perfectly clear that I was suggesting only UK listed stocks should be allowed in ISA's, why did you argue your point and not just agree with me? You either enjoy arguing, or there's something wrong with your thought processes, where you shape your thinking on the fly depending on how you feel at that moment; Is it a left hemisphere, right hemisphere thing? Do you hear voices?

"Correct - the rethink is about you saying only for UK investment - with me pointing out that they invest in the UK. Understand?"

Since we were discussing stocks that should, or shouldn't, be allowed in ISA's I understood exactly what you were getting at.

When I tell someone to have a rethink it's because I disagree with their opinion, I expect most would agree with my interpretation of the word rethink.

As far as who is Merryn Somerset Webb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merryn_Somerset_Webb

https://merrynsomersetwebb.com/

"longtimeinvestor

Posted in: LLOY

Posts: 28,544

Price: 57.94

No Opinion

RE: Labour scrap UK ISA5 Sep 2024 16:02

Flec

''Alphabet and Microsoft wouldn't qualify to be held in ISA's.''

but they have invested Billions in the UK.

you need to have a rethink, don't you think."

So you're saying that telling me I "need to have a rethink" isn't disagreeing with me?

If I told someone that they need to have a rethink, it wouldn't be because I'm agreeing with them, it'd be the opposite.

You also tried to trash my opinion by comparing Shell to Alphabet and Microsoft:

"Lets be clear, Flec is happy for SHELL to be allowed in an ISA where it is virtually all a foreign overseas investment, with foreign overseas shareholders, but not Alphabet or Microsoft who have invested Billions in the UK"

It explains in the podcast that investments into UK listed stocks pull money into the UK market as a whole and increase liquidity, irrespective of where the companies earn revenue.

Hopefully ISA's will be limited to UK stocks soon if the politicians have any sense, which would be good for your investments too LTI.

Remember the discussion we had about ISA's and you disagreeing with my opinion that only UK listed stocks should be allowed in ISA's? Looks as though Merryn talks Money agrees with me. The relevant point is around 26 minutes into the video, which is where I've set it to start in the link below,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPLTXA4-NIo&t=1540s

You also argued that the US tech giants should be allowed in ISA's because they spend Billions in the UK, but they invest to make profits in the UK which they then export since they're headquartered in the Irish Republic. This country has become a joke because our politicians don't seem to have a clue, or they have other vested interests.

Butmac my understanding is that the Quantum Secure press release refers to detection of point to point intrusion's, like light being sniffed off the Fibre, not preventing cyber attacks; Things like DOS attacks and hacking attacks are dealt with at a different layer. I would think the product advertised here would appeal to customers who need super secure point to point communications, maybe Government and companies wanting to transfer extremely sensitive information with as much security as is possible.

Once things like self driving cars and AI controlled management systems come into their own, I suspect they'll require more security at all levels.

A very good article.

https://www.lightreading.com/5g/bt-opens-gulf-with-rivals-in-true-5g-but-needs-to-make-it-pay

Is there something in Italian law that stops BT from just winding it up?

"MILAN (Reuters) - Telecom Italia (TIM) has put forward a non-binding bid for the remaining operations of BT in Italy, seeking to get about 100 million euros ($110 million) from the seller in order to take on the assets, two sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters"

Am I reading that correctly?

6 month chart doesn't imply that.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BT.A:LON?comparison&window=6M

Garwool the debt won't be written off unless the creditors write it off. A company can only get significant tax relief if they're generating revenue and making a net profit, does that apply in QBT's case?

Just to add I have no idea if the panel will consult with others in the background, post trial, but I suspect they are taking advice/opinions from other judges and possibly experts in various aspects of competition law. Since BT is heavily regulated there's an argument that decisions like this should be left to the regulator, since they're supposed to be the experts.

The most likely reason it's dragging on so long, is because it's a highly complex case and the verdict could affect competition law going forward. BT is probably one the most regulated companies on the planet and the CAT decision will be heavily scrutinised by Lawyers everywhere, as well as being taught in Universities, there must a lot of pressure on the CAT panel to get everything right.

I bet you already knew what a type 43 connecter is Erik 😉

Indeed Erik, I've talked about electronic scrap containing a wealth of precious and rare earth minerals before.

https://www.commsbusiness.co.uk/content/feature/tackling-e-waste/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CJeM9Z3oJ8

Each redundant exchange will also likely have tones of easily recoverable 2002/2003 coaxial cable too, meaning a lot of copper.

"BT recently stated that it remained “confident” of being able to “recover” an estimated 200,000 tonnes of copper from their old legacy network through the 2030s."

https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/06/openreach-to-extract-200-tonnes-of-uk-copper-cable-in-2023.html

https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/coaxial-cable-illustrated#:~:text=Coaxial%20cables%20have%20concentric%20layers,either%20solid%20or%20braided%20copper.