Member Info for fleccy

As far as the class action's concerned, no doubt any big investor interested in BT, like Bharti and Carlos Slim, will have had their lawyers scrutinise the case transcripts to form an opinion on the outcome.

It's been well publicised that Drahi's businesses have financial problems, it could be argued that the market was holding the price down and betting on Drahi being a forced seller; With Bharti buying up Drahi's stake, it's possible that one of the forces holding BT's price down has now gone.

As far as UBS downgrading BT, the market is probably getting tired of their repetitive uber bear opinion. UBS appear to focus on the revenue decline narrative and ignore BT's potential to grow the bottom line through lower operating costs. Personally I've never disputed that BT will lose a percentage of their revenue to competition, but BT's potential to cut costs is massive.

UBS have consistently been a BT bear, in the past they've been wrong as many times as they've been right. If BT goes up from here, then UBS will soon change their recommendation, but the only thing I can see knocking BT's share price is if the class action verdict goes against them, It's nearly 6 months since the class action ended.

I agree foggy, they'll likely have dedicated fibre connectivity feeding all the Government offices. A Starlink connection will be for some niche use, or political reason. It wouldn't surprise me if Downing street has 10G connectivity serving the combined offices. I also doubt they'd use WiFi within the offices as it's insecure, all their communications will likely be screened internally and encrypted externally.

We get it AimMaster you think BT isn't worth the current price, and you're hoping the price will drop to around £1, I think you've labored your point enough. For me this is all Deja Vue, the cable companies, Mercury/C&W, and others, were all supposed to eat BT's lunch and what happened? I had a front row seat, because I joined Mercury in the late 1980's and witnessed the various competitors that were supposedly going to damage BT. I watched C&W take over various cable companies, before selling the combined cable businesses to NTL; And I also witnessed the various telecommunication hierarchical evolution's, from the 1980's through to 2019, before retiring.

I would say that we've now reached a final Telecommunication hierarchical evolutionary point, within our current understanding of physics, where future developments will be small changes rather than full hierarchical change; This explains why the Altnets are now rolling out FTTP, because the fibre infrastructure will provide services for generations, with any future upgrades limited to the equipment on either end of the Fibre.

In Telecoms scale matters, the biggest disadvantage the ALTNET's have is that they're one trick ponies without ownership of their own mobile networks. I expect EE, VMO2, and Vodafone, to start offering competitive converged products, utilising a combination of Mobile and fixed line service that the ALTNET's will struggle to compete with; The ALTNET's could offer combined Mobile and FTTP services, but they'd have to compete as VMNO's on the MNO networks.

Something else to consider is that all these other companies rely on OFCOM to hold BT down. Given a free hand BT could easily outcompete the rest of the competition, otherwise why would OFCOM regulate BT so tightly? At some point OFCOM will have to take their boot off BT's neck, at that point it'll become apparent just how viable the competition is. By 2033 BT will have far less staff, and a far more efficient network with far fewer buildings and the same coverage, so their operating costs will be much lower which may be a significant problem for smaller scale competitors.

Personally I hope BT does drop from here, because I'll pile in and buy loads more stock, I'm not sure I'll be that lucky.

"Otherwise it's just weird you would spend so much time on this. Like weirdo fleccy"

Me posting on here is no more weird than investing in a company that used to run Leisure parks, that then decided to reinvent itself in the midst of a Crypto hype bubble, picking a name that would play into the prevailing hype. Now 3 years on and no real demonstratable revenue, or data, proving their method's work; I ask you, what's weirder.

This post will no doubt disappear, just like that.

https://makeagif.com/i/W8caAt

Brew there may also be dynamic fee's, based on the Blockchain transaction charges when the trade goes through; So there's a possibility of additional charges on top of the quoted fixed fee's, although I'm only guessing that may be the case.

Zesty the only sure thing about Bitcoin is that it'll eventually fade away, that said it'll probably outlive QBT if my opinion's correct.

This isn't a valid use case, Mastercard are just looking at making money out of the believers. I can't be bothered to check the associated charges, but I bet it isn't cheap to use your crypto in this way. It's likely just a frig to milk the enthusiasts and doesn't change my opinion.

Are you stupid LTI? I made it very clear where I was coming from. You're either thick or looking for an argument, I'm done on the subject and the thread.

No I'm not saying UK investors shouldn't be allowed to invest in the likes of US Tech, they'd just have to do it in a standard share dealing account. Why should a UK investor benefit from a UK tax wrapper, when they're directing investment outside of the UK? Arguably money invested in US tech damages the valuations of UK listed stocks, I don't see why someone should be rewarded for that. US companies see much higher valuations than UK/European companies, and much of US tech growth has likely been achieved by selling stock, then buying good undervalued foreign companies with the proceeds. I haven't got a problem with UK investors buying US Tech, as long as they pay capital gains tax when they realise profits.

"EE LAUNCHES GAME-CHANGING 5G STANDALONE NETWORK AND NEXT-GEN WI-FI 7 ROUTER TO OFFER CUSTOMERS THE UK’S BEST CONNECTIVITY IN AND OUT OF HOME"

https://newsroom.ee.co.uk/ee-launches-game-changing-5g-standalone-network-and-next-gen-wi-fi-7-router-to-offer-customers-the-uks-best-connectivity-in-and-out-of-home/

That about sums it up LTI, so stocks like Alphabet and Microsoft wouldn't qualify to be held in ISA's.

Just to clarify my last post, I'm talking stocks starting with "LON:" being allowed in ISA's, not ones showing the market as "OTHERS", CDI's, or whatever.

"not this again - most of the Ftse 100 revenues come from foreign investment"

What's that got to do with anything I said? If they're listed on the FTSE then they should be allowed in an ISA, if they're listed on the NASDAQ/S&P/CAC/DAX and not on the FTSE, then they shouldn't see tax relief? I did specify UK listed stocks in my post, rather than UK revenue generating stocks.

Ukraine isn't invading Russia, they're cutting out a chunk as a bargaining chip when it comes to negotiating a peace treaty with Russia, over their land grab. Russia invaded Ukraine, knowing it was breaking a previously agreed treaty, it isn't as though Ukraine started this by invading Russia.

I don't agree with Labour on much, but I do agree that the British/UK ISA was a gimmick. Most people wouldn't be able to afford to invest £25,000 a year in an ISA, so the average investor interested in UK stocks would do it in a conventional ISA anyway, as I do. What they should do is ban any future foreign stock purchases in ISA's, making them UK focused only. 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.

dan i do get out a lot, and not just plugged into my computer as you suggest. i walk to the gym 4 times a week and train hard; on the days i don't go to the gym, weather permitting, i do at least a two hour country walks. i live on the edge of a country park and fortunate to be able to roam the countryside without meeting any ****ney market traders who think the expression "cheap as chips" somehow implies junk.

don't you think it's slightly mad creating an issue out of me using the expression to describe cheap stocks? makes me wonder whether you need to up your medication dan; sorry, "but you do invite it."

"Fleccy. Who the hell is Al?"

Copilot in that particular case.

AimMaster, you're post suggest that Sky taking BT customers is a one way street. We used to get Sky broadband and TV, but a few years ago Sky notified us that the prices were going up so we moved our Broadband over to Plusnet; More recently we've binned the TV package too, again after being notified of a price hike. We had the Sky signature package and my wife mainly watched Free to Air channels and Discovery plus, we were informed that the price was going up from around £29 a month to around £36 a month, so we thought enough's enough; We now use Freeview and subscribe directly to Discovery plus for £49 a year. My wife tells me she prefers the direct replacement Discovery Plus Application, and only misses the facility to pause live TV on the Free to Air channels, so we've saved £383 a year and noticed little difference in viewing. I mainly use Prime, Netflix and YouTube, and only miss SkyGo where I used to watch CNBC, I've found a free alternative to SkyGo for watching CNBC. Sky are part of Comcast, a US company, but if they were UK listed I'd worry more about Sky losing market share rather than BT. Freely will be another nail in Sky's coffin, as it gains traction and becomes more widely available; On the TV side Sky are likely losing market share to streaming competitors as time goes on, It remains to be seen if Sky Glass will give Sky a competitive edge going forward.

Polo Tang is a BT uber bear. I don't know why they don't just ban him from the shareholder briefings, since he sings from the same hymn sheet irrespective of any update's from BT.