Member Info for Patient

Daniel, even if it is a little, a profit is a profit. You have to do it a few times and then it all adds up.

As for the ski jump, it is more likely, after a rise (such as today's) that there will be a fall. Not always, but most of the time. You don't need a crystal ball for that, surely. I agree that the recent rise from a little over £ to the 120's was pretty steady, but that was happening around the results etc. Now that there is not much news, I think it will bob up and down for a bit, until there is another bit of news one way or the other.

So, my crystal ball says it will go up then down tomorrow. That does not mean that will actually happen. I do recall when my crystal ball was wrong. I might end up with egg on my face tomorrow... I am only posting now because I am desk-bound this week, catching up on paperwork, and not up and down ladders like I usually am.

I will dream of VOD rising a penny or so, then dropping 2.5p later. That would be a good day. All going on without any special VOD news to affect the price.

Could be an interesting day again tomorrow. As VOD is going up on the Nas at the moment (and if it maintains this today), and if the Nikkei also rises overnight, the start of tomorrow's inevitable ski jump could be from a high(ish) point :)

Not spread betting, just buying and selling. No a 1p gain is not much, but better than nothing. All I need is about 10-20% p.a. compound to keep me happy.

Job done :)

Nice day for day trading. Hopefully my 126.49p purchase will see a rise to over 127.5p soon enough.

Mikey. All the more surprising as the £ is soaring high post Brexit!

Stewie, don't count on it!

To the astute day trader, that is an opportunity :)

Safe but not exciting would be my view. Holding up at the mo despite the £ appreciating, so that's a positive sign. If VOD can at least maintain its income, rather than a steady decline recently, the shares should appreciate.

Others on this platform have said that interest in VOD is in its towers not in the dog eat dog commodity of selling comms services. However, if the towers become obsolete because of Elon Musk's satellites, then all bets are off (not that I know anything about that).

I was talking about those specific years in the past 50 years when we had the highest rates of inflation. Sorry if I did not make myself clear. There would be very little point in discussing the effects of inflation if one ignored those years when it was most rampant.

Hi Daniel. I think you are deliberately missing the point. The highest years of inflation were 1974 to 1981, as I referred to in my post yesterday. After all, these are the crucial years to use as an example if we are discussing inflation, no? (hyper or not). It appears to me that you are discussing the topic of inflation for a period when inflation was not particularly rapid compared to the mid to late 1970s.

House price increases (other than the 1980's boom and early 1990's bust) only kicked in in earnest in late 1990's, initially due to increased foreign demand for safe UK assets, as the UK was seen as a safe haven for foreign cash. This massive flood of foreign currency underpinned the central London boom, the owners who were not necessarily resident, and later, funding all the dreadful new flats around Battersea. Thereafter the increase in immigration after the relaxations under Blair, Brown and Cameron, still continuing to this date, has caused an inexorable demand for basic housing, which pretty much makes the current housing market bust-proof. If you have any doubts about this, I can say that Bulgaria has lost around 2m population (out of 9m) since 1985. Such that one of my tenants has just bought two detached houses on generous plots in a town on the Danube, for less than £10,000 for the two. Anyone who has a job in this country can afford a home, but not necessarily in this country.
Clearly these factors are much more significant in affecting the housing market than the simple rate of inflation and monetary policy.

Daniel. I have lived through it and benefited from it. As for doubling, it works like this for a house costing £100: deposit 20 mortgage 80. Doubles so when you sell, your deposit for the next house is 120. So instead of a 20% deposit, the second time round you have a 60% deposit for a £200 house, or a 30% deposit for a £400 house, if you choose to trade up. Don't forget that your wages (back in the day) also went up by the same amount, so, relatively, houses were just as affordable.
If you can't see that, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Smithy. Don't worry. The way things are going, in the near future, pensioners will no longer have any cash savings to worry about.

Daniel. Hyperinflation? No. We had 10-20% inflation from 1974 to 1981. Hardly hyper. Say in 4 years prices doubled (also wages back then). Your house after 4 years not only had doubled in price, but your mortgage halved (compared to your wages). Please explain how that was a disaster. It certainly wasn't a disaster for me at the time. Dyor :)

At the end of the 1980's, 15% mortgage rates were a bit harsh, as house prices were crashing and wages not keeping up, but that was a time of lower inflation. Are you conflating the two periods, perchance?

Hi Daniel, it was great when inflation (goods and wages) was 10% or more from 1974 to 1981 approx. You bought a house, the next year it cost you 10-15% less in real terms, for a number of years (!), and it was worth way more. That made it really easy to trade up as well, as inflation increased your equity by a disproportionately generous amount!

Poker, nothing wrong with inflation, but it is likely to be an inflation of asset values first, as we have already experienced, and wages and goods are way down the queue there. So general inflation (cpi or cpih) will remain low, especially (in my opinion) if the current trend continues and the rich get richer and the poor are left behind. I am therefore bullish about a company like VOD with substantial income-earning assets, not that this is the main reason why I am holding on to VOD at the moment.

Daniel, both the divi and interest on bonds are business expenses. Shareholders demand a higher rate (divi) than bondholders as divi can be reduced for any reason but bond interest is (usually) fixed. Therefore if all bonds were converted into shares then the same amount of money currently paid out would mean that the divi would have to be reduced. If VOD can issue bonds at a lower rate than their current divi payout then VOD will save money.

Poker, it doesn't look like inflation is an issue right now. It galloped nicely in the 1970's and '80s and we all did well out of it. Now the main difference is globalisation (cheaper products and services available from China and India for instance) and an over-abundance of immigrant labour in Europe, happy (or at least prepared) to work for low wages, and in the UK, keeping house prices higher than they should be. Inflation, what inflation? On top of that, robots and Elon Musk's satellites.

Daniel, VOD are paying a lower interest rate on their bonds than the rate they are paying by way of dividends. Therefore, theoretically at least, the lower rate on bonds is supporting dividends. The rate on VOD's bonds is clearly a lot higher than cpi at the moment, given VOD's BBB rating, but it is still nowhere near the 7% or so that the shares yield.