Member Info for Richox

HMGs of both colours have used the regulator to ensure that BT does no more than only just survive. Your club has been going for 30 odd years. Don't expect it to be disbanded any time soon.

SP down 2% when ftse is flat. It shows what the market thinks about this appointment.

Not hard for a long term BT investor.

1 year down 30%,

5 years down 40%

10 years down 60%

25 years down 80%

This share has no chance whilst the regulator's role is to ensure HMG's wish to keep BT alive, but only just.

That's always been Ofcom's brief. HMG uses Ofcom to hold BT prices down as low as they possibly can without driving BT out of business. That way prices are kept down across the sector and HMG has a lever against inflation. Don't expect BT's share price to rise much above the 1984 privatisation price until it breaks free of Ofcom.

Where it was 40 years ago and outperformed by the Building Societies.

Hope you're right, but never expect much from BT. The government sold their golden share in BT for around £11 shortly after privatisation and has since used Ofcom to control BT's profits such that it stays afloat, but not much more. That's how they control the price of telcoms across the sector. They won't let BT go bankrupt, but nor will they allow the share price to rise much above the floatation price.

Past performance is no indicator of future performance, but remember HM govt sold their golden share of BT, which they retained after privatisation, at £11+ per share, and then installed Ofcom to keep BT's profit's down, and by doing so indirectly control the prices charged by the whole telecoms sector.

Here's how the price of 1 BT share has performed:

1 day down 1.25%
1 week down 7.95%
1 month down 10.05%
3 months down 25.48%
6 months down 36.15%
1 year down 18.11%
2 years down 15.3%
3 years down 42.76%
5 years down 54.1%
10 years down 55%
30 years down 20%

Seems Ofcom is doing exactly what was required of it. Whatever is going on in the company, whoever is in charge, whatever changes might be made, whatever the potential might be, it's all of little consequence. Ofcom will open or close the tap to suit, and BT will just limp along. It was never really privatised. That was just a ruse to sell back to the public what already belonged to the public while still ensuring that its profitability was controlled.

If you don't agree then believe what you will, and good luck to you all.

1msn is not comparing apples with pears. The price of the share holding bought 30 years ago is lower than the price of the very same shareholding today.

Euiniti - licenced thieves.

Abrdn is likely to be booted out of the FTSE 100 with its dreadful performance this year. Time to cut the BOD's pay starting with Bird.

Abrdn seem to be confirming that their H1 results are a load of balls. Just like the name change.

Share buybacks create the illusion of improved financial ratios so help the BOD by increasing their bonuses. Shareholders just receive the cash value of the share sale imposed upon them at a price they might not be happy with. Meanwhile the value of the company drops by the outflow of cash to the brokers.

Amers,

Yes BT shares were sold for £1.80 per share when the company was privatised, but HM Govt retained a significant stake. They rose well above the floatation price and HMG imposed a windfall tax on BT claiming the shares had been sold too cheaply. HMG then sold their stake about 25 years ago when the shares were over £11 each. Since then they have used the rergulator to restrain BT's profits, and over the years the share price has drifted back to below the floatation price. I wonder whether in this so called freemarket it will ever be allowed to rise much higher.

25 years ago the govt sold its stake in BT for over £11 per share. Since then it's been holding back BT and thereby the telecoms sector to help keep inflation back. Don't expect the sp to do anything while the regulator is in control.

Share buy backs result in higher director bonuses because of the resulting enhanced financial ratis. Whether they make any other difference is the luck of the draw. The investment community is decidedly unimpressed by this company at the moment, so there's not much luck in the draw.

A dreadfully underperforming company with a dreadful BOD and an even more dreadful registrar. When they changed the name to Abrdn, investors should have known it was time to get out. Who in their right mind would call their company a burden, although that's probably about right as far as investors' portfolios are concerned. Getting on for 40% destruction of capital since the name change and about 30% down in the 16 years since Standard Life demutualised. No, the dividends don't make up for the loss, especially after what inflation and share buy backs have done to the capital. A step in the right direction would be to ditch EQ asap, but has the BOD got the sense?

The SP is now below the price when Standard Life floated in 2006. Time to look at the salaries and bonuses of the people running this company.

I guess pacemaker is looking at it as twice the pecentage drop of the second worst performing share in the FTSE. The reason may just be a pullback from the recent good run.

This share is now a burdon on my portfolio.

Yet another UK company run primarily for the benefit of the highly paid BODs.