Member Info for fleccy

I don't care Poker, I'd just make sure that any investments in foreign companies and markets are done outside of a tax free wrapper, and any funds that want to qualify for ISA's would also have to hold only UK listed companies, so any global, S&P, NASDAQ, or whatever funds like that would be outside of any tax free wrappers. If people want to invest in Google and Microsoft that's ok, but they can pay Capital gains tax when they decide to sell. The Government could also separately give tax incentives to funds who focus on UK listed stocks only.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just talking about their reported short positions. If they have a long position, then that's something else and nothing to do with this thread.

I should have said they must be shorting around 79.5 Million BT shares meaning they'll be on the hook for a dividend bill of around £4.5 Million,

"I reckon shorters will get this below 120 before ex div date"

The dividend isn't good for short sellers. To use Canadian PPIB as an example, they must be holding around 79.5 Million BT shares meaning they'll be on the hook for a dividend bill of around £4.5 Million, assuming they are still in play on Ex Dividend day. They are probably currently showing a paper loss of around £12 Million on their short sells, and the risk for them is that BT shares could resume an upward trajectory post Ex Dividend. All I can think is that they're betting on the court case result pushing BT back down to around £1, or lower, otherwise they struggle to make a profit on their bets, if I'm understanding things correctly.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSzpntXIbDbv3WIJxMzgrF484U08WUxqoWPJuzrHhTKoVPC-2NGC_bsiH4p5RVM3E8LnsOtS6NazImN/pubchart?oid=1398899881&format=interactive

The main reason I believe Labour would be better for companies like BT, is that Socialist Governments tend to be nationalistic and more supportive of home based companies. I would expect the Altnets have more to worry about with a Labour Government than BT does. Personally I think the Conservatives have been bad for UK listed companies, they've nurtured a regulatory environment to nobble companies like BT and allowed others to steal BT's lunch. I wont be voting Labour, but I'll watch with interest to see what they do to take the boot of our home grown companies.

If it was down to me I'd immediately take away any tax benefits associated with investing in other markets, like making ISA's exclusive to UK listed stocks only and introducing a friendlier tax environment for UK based funds to invest in UK listed stocks.

I used to believe the Conservatives were the party for UK business, but they clearly aren't. I think the Conservative free for all market mentality has ruined the investment case for UK listed companies, it's about time they were out.

I agree Savage, a Labour Government would also likely direct national contracts in BT's direction too. The CWU will also probably quietly ask the Government to support BT due to the large Union membership. In the case of companies like BT, I suspect a Labour Government would be supportive.

They demonstrated a video call, but I'd suggest offering a full service would be extremely difficult. No doubt eventually the service will be useful for someone exploring the Himalaya's, or in a very lonely isolated part of Africa, but the bandwidth would be limited due to the distances involved and very few calls would be possible within a geographic area. I suspect to service that one call they've had to utilise a large area (number) of the satellite's phased array antenna's, since the mobile phone can't contribute to the overall gain. If they're using a large number of the satellite's antenna's to service one call then they can't use them for anything else. I suspect the service wouldn't even be useful for servicing remote villages since there are better alternatives, like a microcell with a small satellite base station aggregating the service and relaying via the satellite's, or using High Altitude Platforms for supplying services in remote areas. No doubt artic explorers might find it useful, but sat phones already exist to service that need. Basically, in my opinion, direct to satellite cell service will have very limited utility and could be likened to a gimmick.

I'm aware of Tesla's offerings, like self driving software and the battery side of the business, but I'd suggest the competition will chip away at them too over time. Time will tell with Tesla and Starlink, but the competition for Tesla is catching up and I have serious doubts about the business case for putting 12,000 satellites 550 Km above the Earth.

"I have just voted all my Tesla shares to give Elon 50bn"

I don't disagree that he deserves the payout agreed many years ago, but I believe Musk's facing future problems. Tesla is at the mercy of cheaper Chinese EV's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybl8IvhGAJ4

Even though the Starlink satellites have survived the recent solar storms, I'm left wondering if the satellites will see a reduced lifespan due to using excessive fuel during periods of atmospheric drag. I've not seen any articles discussing the effect of atmospheric drag affecting Starlink due to the recent solar storms, but Hubble is around the same altitude and has been affected; I can only assume Starlink satellites have had to use more fuel to compensate for the increased drag.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/northern-lights-hubble/#:~:text=Originally%20launched%20to%20an%20altitude,decay%20due%20to%20atmospheric%20drag.

I've add the new Canada PPIB short, based on yesterday's closing price of 128p.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSzpntXIbDbv3WIJxMzgrF484U08WUxqoWPJuzrHhTKoVPC-2NGC_bsiH4p5RVM3E8LnsOtS6NazImN/pubchart?oid=1398899881&format=interactive

AKO have reduced their short positions so that chart will be out of date.

If Drahi was unloading stock you'd expect an RNS. I believe the disclosure rules are 3% and every 1% after that. I assume if Drahi unloaded more than 1% of his holding he'd have to notify it.

"Disclosure Thresholds

Thresholds

UK-incorporated issuer: 3% of total voting rights and each whole percentage (4%, 5%, etc) point after that OR non UK-incorporated issuer: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 50% and 75% of total voting rights. From holding: (i) shares; (ii) financial instruments referenced to shares (entitlements to acquire and financial instruments with similar economic effect); or (iii) aggregate of (i) & (ii).

Change in nature

Disclosure required where a holder of a previously notified financial instrument acquires the underlying shares and a shares and/or financial instruments threshold is tripped but overall % held is unchanged.

Issuers in scope

UK or non-UK incorporated issuers whose shares are admitted to trading on a UK regulated market and UK incorporated issuers whose shares are admitted to trading on a UK prescribed market (e.g. AIM).

Interests

Direct and indirect holdings of: (i) issued voting shares; (ii) financial instruments which give the right to acquire or the discretion to acquire issued voting shares; and (iii) financial instruments with similar economic effect to (i) or (ii), whether or not physically settled"

https://www.aosphere.com/aos/shareholding-disclosure-united-kingdom-summary

Are you guys saying there'll be insider trading going on?

Poker I haven't any issues with internal transfers between funds under the same ownership. I've transferred shares to my wife, but our share dealing accounts are with the same broker so even though we're the beneficial owners, the shares will be registered under the broker name and the transfer would be internal.

To be specific what I'm talking about is Off Book trading between unconnected entities, where it can be used to distort the price setting process. As I said previously by controlling order flows between sells and buys, it potentially allows entities to game price direction. Entities defending Off Book trading will argue that they trade where the volumes are, but if Off Book trading wasn't allowed all the volumes would have to be on the exchange anyway; Meaning that every single trade would be price setting, instead of the current situation where entities can do backdoor deals to mop up a quarter of a companies stock, and barely move the price. Drahi building his stake in BT is a good example of what I'm talking about, it wasn't his purchases that raised the price to around £2 back then, it was speculative trading betting that he'd attempt a takeover; Once the speculation died down BT's price dropped back to a much lower level; Had Drahi been forced to build his entire holding On Exchange, BT's price would likely have gone a lot higher than £2.

I get the argument about Institutions holding say a Billion shares in a company and wanting to get the best price, but why did they accumulate a Billion shares in the first place? Did they view it as a long term investment, or was it a trade gone wrong; If they have to sell the stock and it pushes the price down then that's ok, because it's part of the price setting process and there's no distortion, it could be that the stock is in demand and they unload their holding without driving the price down and that's ok too. Just my personal opinion for what it's worth.

LTI everyone has a right to an opinion. Telling someone to give it a rest displays a high level of arrogance and belief that your opinion is the only one that counts, you should get over yourself.

Not quite, the Dollar is controlled, managed and backed by the FED and US Government. Bitcoin isn't backed by any institution and isn't linked to any commodity or entity. Theoretically the US Dollar valuation is linked to the strength of the US economy, although I do agree that the US is printing new money at an alarming rate; But that doesn't mean that Bitcoin is any safer than the US Dollar. In my opinion, Bitcoin is nothing more than a gambling chip for speculators to bet against the true believers.

Could just as easily go to $10k, or $10, or $1. Bitcoin is nothing more than a free floating manufactured entity, so it could literally go anywhere since its value is based entirely on belief.

We all have our own opinions, I just think all trades should go through the stock exchange and be price setting. Off Book dark pool trading and non price setting negotiated trades distort the price setting process in my opinion, it allows the big players to move large volumes with little affect on the price.

I wasn't referring to cases like Vodafone, using third parties running algorithm's to buy stock on the open market; I was referring to brokers and big players who trade vast amounts of shares with various options allowing them to game flows and prices.

I would allow special cases of transfers between spouses, or transfers through inheritance in the event of a death, but in the case of business type transfers where it's just a transaction between parties, like you and your friend, they should be On Exchange in my opinion; In your example where you sell your friend stock at a discounted price, that shouldn't be allowed in my opinion, you should be made to sell your stock On the Exchange at whatever the market price is and your friend can buy his stock On the Exchange at the market price. In the case of your friend, I believe he'd still have to pay stamp duty whether it's On Exchange or a Negotiated trade.

The SEC is a US Regulator and has absolutely no oversight over BT director dealings. In the UK it's the FCA regulatory environment that counts, as far as I know there's a 30 day closed period before results are published.

How do you distinguish between the market and the Algo's?

I believe Algo's could be used to move a stock price in a given direction, by controlling order flows between On Exchange and Off Book. Algo's could direct buys into dark pools and sells through the Stock Exchange, or Vice Versa, and alter their trading profiles on the fly dependent on the volumes and the providers goals.

My personal view is that all trading should be On Exchange, that way every single trade would be price affecting. Off Book might as well be called back door trading, because it distorts the market in favour of the big players, allowing them to skew stock valuations in their favour. I don't believe the excuses used to justify the existence of Dark pools, or the need for the various financial instruments used to game the system.

Depends on the type of Stablecoin and how it's backed. If a company created a stablecoin based on say the US dollar, then I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as they held more dollars than they issued stablecoin's, and ensured that they could cover the full cost of every user cashing in their coins at the same time; But pigs might fly too.

CBDC's are similar to Stablecoin and would be backed by the issuing Central Bank, I would trust them far more than a company issued stablecoin.