Member Info for Velo

Cont... Incidentally, I won't be alarmed if come Monday the SP trends lower into the single digit 200's - it wouldn't be enough to disturb the still young shorter term positive trend lines that are in play at the moment - as there was a nasty selling volume in the closing 8 minutes or so on Friday - stealing the 211p down to close on 210p. Would have been happier closing at 211 and would have regarded that as a success, but 210p to me shows there are still bear sellers about intent on doing their worst. Don't think it was market noise - it was a huge volume sell in that last 8 minutes or so making the day's volume higher than the long term average - and the SP closed lower than it opened at. In fact Friday's volume was far greater than the terrific day on Thursday. So I'm not nervy, more 'concerned' but with a bullish outlook. Let's hope that concern is unwarranted and Monday sees the SP continue to raise up :) So bridges to cross first for me, (they can be crossed I'm just saying ' show me' that's all) Whatever, the balance sheet shows that there IS value in BT - it doesn't translate as an automatic buy - merely that in all the write-up's such as IC which said sell, that maybe it's become easy and lazy to regard everything about BT as "bad" which would be a serious error - the balance sheet, overall is full of value after putting to one side the two big issues - debt and lack of growth. Have some issues with the two analysts reports posted tonight; wonder if I can stay awake to pontificate on them before turning in for the night..

Your welcome F/man. I've Just about time left to squeeze in a reply - Must admit when I got to: "... you have convinced me that ..." I paused and broke into a fearful cold sweat. But when you continued with: " ...you have convinced me that my own personal decision and opinion of holding and reinvesting the dividend is the correct choice for me at the moment,..." I relaxed and exhaled, relieved. " What's the general opinion at the moment? Buy, Sell, Hold? any thoughts?" Thoughts? Bridges to cross first. Honestly, I don' know what the market consensus is - mixed I think (short term trend lines are now clearly in bullish trend). That's what I live, eat, and die by - trends. Personally, for myself, I have a sort of split personality approach to BT at this moment. Nothing as of yet has damaged the long term down trend. So, buyer beware. On the other hand - I'm of the opinion the biggest bullish opportunity ever, in many a year is hoving into view with the search for a new CEO. Historically the market has always reacted kindly in the early stages towards a new CEO replacing a forced-out old CEO, and by association the SP. I'm waiting for two things really before firming my own decision making. The first is that biggie waiting to see who will be the new boss, the result of his first review action plan - and this platforming area the SP is currently flirting with. Given a preference I would elect for a continued range bound bumping along this floor of low 200's FOR SOME MONTHS until the new boss gets in. The reason for that is (IMO) flat lining along a floor of an already depressed share price almost always results in a meaningful true break-out to the upside - eventually. However, it's a fine line. Close on 200p itself and I'd be ****ting myself; because that would be a bad omen. In my very personal view it must never close on 200p. Additionally I don't want to see it spike up to say 220's for example, only to then lose steam and come back down to the 201/202 area. If it did that more than a couple of times - I'd be sure to be out as whilst it's okay to stay range bound along a low floor - it's the exact opposite when the SP tries on several occasions to break away, only to revisit that floor again and again; in my experience if it does that once too often - it always gets it's way and breaks through down past the floor. It's okay to spike up (mini rally) to a similar area and subsequently drift back down to mid 200 single digits or higher ie., 205 to 209 - as I have that marked down as above the support area of 201 - 203 - and therefore it would not be revisiting the floor - but closing on a HIGHER LOW. Hope that's readable as it's been a long day and tired. (Cont...)

(Cont...) And BT comes out with a rating of 5.95 Well to the good, well clear of 1.0 with room to spare! Spare that is to increase debt without going under if the pension debt crisis gets worse in years to come. (Just checked against one of my good shares; 140% up in 4 years and unbelievably it's got a minus figure! Friggin' L !!!!) Know you can see why I prefer my charts and TA to the preference of 75% to 25% fundamentals :) @ "... , I say remove the focus because there doesn't appear to be a quick solution to these issues, or is there? Have no answer to the pension debt only that of sheer luck - interest rates rising. Lack of growth - Only way I see out of it - is to 'cheat'. Acquisitions! Acquisitions! Acquisitions! Everybody else does that. Buy some add-on's/acquisitions - it worked out well with EE. (Watch out for the Monopoly Commission though with future "add-on's" ?)

Hi Faultsman, you posed a couple of questions: @ "... however, if I may, you round up by saying "because I see nowt too bad at the moment - just nil growth and a heavy debt " as an outsider looking in I see both these issues as very bad,..." Yes, you're quite right and I agree. Tacked the 2 'baddies' onto the end in case anyone was speed reading and didn't want to leave an impression that everything was fine in the balance sheet department. @ "... and you also mention that the pension issue is nothing to be concerned about, my thoughts are that all these bad points are going to be just as bad, possibly worse in 10 years time, what do you think BT's strategy will be to remove the focus from these stale and unrelenting issues? I mean the market might be more concerned with the lack of growth than the pension situation. Yes, the net debt is too high but the repayments of interest owed on that debt are manageable, is more what I mean (unlike by comparison, Greece, who the other year who got into trouble not for the humongous size of their debt - but their defaulting on one of their regular repayments of interest due on that debt). Another "check" on whether the current debt is manageable is a little metric known as the "Interest Cover" ratio. I never usually look at this but it's test of the liquidity of a company to see if it has enough cash to pay its way (already covered this in the Free Cashflow bit) but here's another one that shows not only does BT have the liquidity to meet it's pension commitments, but it could in theory afford to increase that debt and still not be in trouble; should that debt be worse in years to come - but that would be undesirable and the market would howl. Here it is: Interest Cover is a useful way of measuring a company's ability to meet its debt obligations. When the interest coverage ratio is smaller than 1, the company is not generating enough profit from its operations to meet its interest obligations. The Company would then likely have to either use cash on hand to make up the difference or borrow funds, and thus increase debt further! It is seen as a possible advance warning sign to the investor before disaster is imminent - when interest coverage starts to retrace and falls below and between 2.5 and 1.0 Obviously below 1 means unless the company can get a bank loan extension the company will default on any payments due and thus become insolvent. In essence it's a liquidity measuring tool. Let's see if it contradicts the Free Cashflow I mentioned. (Until this post I found it too boring to look at, but it's real nifty - but got a shock when I used it just now on my best performing stock!) And BT comes out with a rating of 5.95 Well to the good, well clear of 1.0 with room to spare! Spare that is to increase debt without going under if the pension debt crisis gets worse in years to come. (Cont....)

Seen the posts on here at odd times throughout the day, but racing to get chores done as up at 4:00am tomorrow (for work) and then at the other end of the country all next week, on other matters, so if I didn't make an allowance now, that would be it, days would just float by. So while I have the chance - a hearty thank you to one and all for some generous compliments. Much appreciated. I didn't think I warranted such compliments, so am relieved to see Rod has popped up with some ahem... counter balance :) Which reminds me. I keep half an eye on BT even when I'm not invested in it, because the recently widowed mother of one of my best friends, depends on the dividend from it. I texted him about the CEO getting the chop, for instance. He has zero interest in shares or these forums, but last summer, I found out slightly different to what he had previously told me. We met up for a coffee, some business chat and general talk etc., I casually mentioned something from a copy of my portfolio which I keep on this forum, LSE (was showing the portfolio on my phone) to which he declared he never looks at the daily price movements of BT, nor does his mother. I said I don't blame you, they say LSE stands for the Lunatic Asylum. I then attempted to regale him with some of the outrageous things Rod has hurled not only my way but to others as well, but didn't get far, as upon mentioning the name Rod, he broke out into uncontrollable laughter which brought on a coughing fit as he tried to talk. Thinking he had misunderstood me I said in what must have cast me in a Frankie Howard light. "Ooh No, you don't understand he's called me this, and that..." I never finished as my mate was in absolute tears of laughter by now, and had to turn away to compose himself, as he caught a glimpse of my dark look which one of: "Well thanks a bunch for the support - mate!" which just made him worse! Honestly, his heaving laughter was so out of control now, I had difficulty in hearing what he was trying and failing, to reply with. Finally he said: "Yes, I know. I do look in on the BT blog sometimes". - But you said you never looked in! Uncontrollable laughter again. "I know! I know! But I took a peek once, and that was it! Couldn't believe what that Rod comes out with, so now he's the only reason I look in, I'm more interested in what he comes out with when he's having a go at someone, and ignore everybody else". Uncontrollable laughter again. And finally: "You're all stark staring bonkers on there, you know that, don't you?" Mates - huh?

Thanks Pacey, Kadv, and all. Appreciated.

Why thank you P/player. Must say, after typing out that lot I'll be pleased to get back to my charts. Faster and easier.

Fundamentals 1) In conclusion, BT's SP is undervalued, primarily because it's not growing revenue or net profit. Flat lining, stagnating. Therefore the market sentiment dial-needle is hard set to negative sentiment against BT. But such is the behemoth that is BT it can AFFORD to flat line it's revenue and profit without damaging the balance sheet, helped no doubt, in that time, by years of low inflation and low interest rates. The market has it marked down in sentiment because to stand still is to move backwards. So although it's an ex-growth company, non-growing, flat-lining, yet despite that, net profit is still a very impressive £2.5 Billion per year! Fundamentals 2) It can pay it's dividend - WITH EASE. The reason the divi looks "too high" is due to the undervalued SP - the dividend looks unsustainable to the market. But is it? The dividend yield cover is sustainable and it is with relative ease that it is able to meet payments from earnings. In fact its yield 'cover' is better than most. It was fine in previous years; it's just getting even better, that's all. Concerns about the dividend being a problem are a red herring. It's fine and in line. But it is likely it may be sacrificed somewhat and 'raided' to service the debt burden. Fundamentals 3) The balance sheet is "full" of numerous goodies that often put its industry sector competitors to shame by comparison, and in some cases betters the whole of the stock market too! But not all of them. Debt, whilst still manageable NOW, may not be in the future unless it is more actively managed now. BT is not growing in fiscal terms, it's static, it's ex-growth, and it has a large debt - but others in it's sector have an even worse position when it comes to 'manageable' debt, that however is no defence. The market fears that say, rises in inflation (and or interest rates) could potentially harm that net profit, where it hasn't to date; hence the current under valuation of the SP by the market. Growth - it's all about the lack of it. That's the problem in one sentence. The pension debt is still "manageable" but the market wants to see more growth. I doubt the pension debt concerns the market that much, it's the lack of growth that upsets the market. Finally, overall BT is healthy. (despite the debt). I'll repeat that. BT is in a healthy condition. If you can find the can of worms in the balance sheet - go find them and tell me where to look, because I see nowt too bad at the moment - just nil growth and a heavy debt. PS. It occurs to me, that one way to engage with growth when organic growth is hard to come by - is do what everybody else does - buy the talent - by acquisitions.

cont.... And so it goes on Price to Sales of BT beats the stock market average (bit bored with that one, so no explanation) even the ratio I hate most of all the EV to EBITDA - Mouthful coming up - the Enterprise Value to Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation - and not only do I hate it, but so does Warren Buffett. He says he gets up and walks out if a CEO starts telling him how good his company's EBITDA is, as it's the work of snake-oil salesman (Google it - he literally gets up and walks out). The only people in real life I know who use a spin on EBITDA is my local back street garage who when asked a price always gives me what appears a terrific quote but when I pay it's much higher and the mechanic explains 'Ahh that quote is the price BEFORE Vat is added'. Grrrr! Well I say the same about businesses. What use is knowing how cheap something is when there's still add-on's at the foot of the bill? - these ratios come and go with fashion and this EBITDA malarkey is rife and you'll see it in almost every analysts report - snake oil salesmen's potion. Now Having thoroughly just disowned EBITDA and got that rant off my chest I have to sheepishly advise that using the EV to EBITDA ratio BT actually wipes the floor with everything that moves in the stock market by a considerable margin, and then some. So a win again for BT.. ROC (Return on Capital) ROE (Return On Equity) and the Operating Margin - all of them expressed as a percentage - all of them are better than their industry sector and the stock market as a whole. Will someone please tell me where the can of worms is hidden? - A lot of high quality, positive, hidden surprises in the balance sheet. I thought earnings per share growth might be poor and it was at - 1.57 - but guess what? - the rest of the industry sector is slightly worse than that. The whole stock market average of course beats BT on this occasion as anything positive would beat a minus figure. So in essence the whole of the industry sector that BT is in, on average has inferior metrics to BT. Time to look at the debt or I'll never fit this lot in one post. Net debt has pretty stable these last 3 years, but concerning at £10.7Billion - as the MCap of BT is now "only" £21.24Billion that means if Bt was to be sold today, instead of receiving £21.24B in your hand you'd be left with just over half of that sale after debts were paid off. That's too high, and a little algo by a guy called Professor Altman - has his Z2 score of BT showing as very poor for debt and is labelled with this warning: "BT has an Altman Z2 of 1.55 indicating the company is not entirely safe from financial distress, caution should be taken". If you think that's bad you should see Vodafone's - he's giving them 2 years top sort it out or they go to the wall! (Actually Vodafone's debt is worse than BT's). Going to stop here and start a summary - to err ....sum it all up :)

Recap: Revenue and net profit have shown no growth for the last half dozen years, and it's that, that appears to be the main problem the market has with BT. Dividends, are not causing a drain on the balance sheet; they're easily paid for, from earnings. Dividends is a red herring, it's not part of the problem. And so after looking at those, now what's on the balance sheet? The first thing that strikes is that apart from debt, the balance sheet looks mighty fine in a lot of places. Earnings per share are historically fine (better than Vodafone's for instance). Seeing a total of all assets and liabilities is boring and tells nothing. What's needed are some simple ratio's that make sense out of it and have proven to be useful in giving investors a handle on things. A lot of horrible acronyms to follow, but two I always check are the P/B - the Price to Book Value expressed as a ratio, and FCF - the Price to Free Cash Flow. "The price to book ratio is a financial ratio used to compare a company's book value to its current market price and is a key metric for value investors" - but it's disliked by growth investors as it tells them nothing. Well we know growth is absent from BT so is there value, instead? In short it's no more than the company's assets less its total liabilities, so.... The lower the ratio the better, but it's rare to get below 1. BT's is a very pleasing 2.06 and narrowly beats the industry sector average (2.18) and is itself narrowly bettered by the stock market average as a whole (1.76) I'd say that was healthy and good to go. Score point one to BT as that is not a fail, is it? Next the Price to Free Cashflow - " Free Cashflow is the amount left over a company can use to pay down debt, distribute as dividends, or reinvest to grow the business. This ratio is similar to Price to Earnings, but omitting purely "paper only" expenses." - Again the lower the number the better (No minimum is given but searched the internet once, and found something saying it's rare to get 3 or below, so expect above that. Right so as low a number as possible. BT's is 13.6 which is better by some margin than both it's competitors in it's industry sector average (20.0) and also beats the wider stock market average ( 20.8) A convincing showing by BT - Score point 2 to BT? Forget the running scores or I'll never finish :) So in essence the debt (come to that in a moment) is currently still manageable according to the Price to Free Cashflow ratio - but it's not so simple as looking at one ratio on its own, as the debt IS a problem. And so it goes on Price to Sales of BT beats the stock market average (bit bored with that one, so no explanation) even the ratio I hate most of all the EV to EBITDA - Mouthful coming up - the Enterprise Value to Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation - and not only do I hate it, but so does Warren Buffett

Wrong? Yes and no. The market is tired of multiple years of no growth, stagnant, flat lining for the most part. So it's sentiment is poor towards BT which in reality is an ex-growth company, but being in telecoms the market is having none of it. To stand still year after year in the market's books - is to go backwards. So, the SP rating is under valued (on paper) with the side effect of making the dividend look "bad" ie., "too much". It's not - the dividend is absolutely fine, on paper - and could be paid out indefinitely no problem at all, year after year, by the sheer amount of earnings (£2.5 Billion net profit per year now; how's that for standing still?) but I'm jumping ahead to the summary. Night night.

LOL! Aus - I can see from the figures on the screen and thought through what I want to write - but writing it up - Geez! It takes yonks - be far quicker, instantaneous even, just speaking it into a podcast , anyway just time for Fundamentals 2 tonight with the more tricky stuff in Fundamentals 3 to follow tomorrow. Fundamentals 2 A word on dividends before moving on to the balance sheet proper. The forward dividend yield is 7.39% The forward PE ratio is 7.8 That's screaming loud and clear the market doesn't believe things can continue like that for much longer; otherwise they'd all pile in for a 7% dividend and drive the SP sky high (and in doing so, reduce the yield percentage) if they believed it could be maintained. - Incidentally IC ran a piece on the "Sinful 7's" a couple of weeks ago (read it for free in the supermarket) and it highlighted all the companies that usually cut their dividends or reduce it, as most can't sustain a PE ratio and a dividend % that are at parity with each other, and in that instance they highlighted companies that disappointed usually had both the PE and the divi at 7 for each of them. As is the case with BT. Either the SP goes up which increases the PE and lowers the dividend % - or usually the dividend gets cut or suspended. So how safe is the dividend? Surprisingly after what I've just said, by modern yield cover ratios it comes out quite well indeed, the dividend cover comes in at 1.7 projected for both this year and next. And that is well 'good'. So it's not being paid with borrowed money. Below 1.0 is the cut off point, above 1.0 and it's generally reckoned a company is well able to meet it's requirements of paying the dividend, so on one hand the dividend is not over stressing the balance sheet, but there are debts to be reduced and every little bit helps, so the new boss will defo be eyeing up the divi. But one thing is clear -the dividend high as it is - is not damaging the balance sheet. Unlike BP for instance, currently it's dividend is only covered at 0.6 and from 2014 to currently, it's never been above 1.0 and was running at 0.5 roughly; and unbelievably at 0.01 one year!!! It was and is, borrowing money, increasing debt, just to pay out a dividend. Bad housekeeping or what? Not so with BT - the dividend is paid out of earnings. So the dividend is not the problem, but it's dual 7/7's suggest the market thinks it is! Moving on to the balance sheet next (fundamentals 3) but doubt that'll be tonight, tomorrow maybe.

.......So don't become overly optimistic when analysts say BT's SP is undervalued - it is, that much is true - but undervalued for a reason - no growth at all. Perhaps it can be argued a shade to severe So with bad debt, pensions is it all over for BT? Well lets go look at what the immediate future holds: Projected revenue for 2019 = £ 23.4B Well that's down on the year just finished (GP had to go with those projections after 6 years flat lining the city had had enough!) Projected revenue for 2020 = £23.4B Ye gods! Will some one please ride to BT's rescue, eight years of flat lining revenues? And net profit - projected net profit for 2019 = £2.5B " " " for 2020 = £2.5B So at last a significant increase in net profit from the cost cutting exercise GP announced prior to his demise - but see how in 2020 the cost savings bring the same old story - no growth in the profit despite cost cutting savings. So what will the new boss find in the balance sheet to give him or her some time to come up with a plan. Anything or nothing, let's take a look... (Part 2 later tonight or tomorrow).

Just a quick post on BT fundamentals. Is there anything good on the balance sheet, or is all overshadowed by debt and pension costs and stagnant growth? Well some good and some bad so from the balance sheet and P&L acc - but first: Is BT undervalued? Well with a forward P/E ratio of 7.8 it's definitely well below the telecoms industry sector average of PE 14.4 AND it's well below the whole UK stock market average of PE 14.6 So just to get parity with the rest of the "average" the SP would have to increase from tonight's close of 214.8p to gain a PE of 14.4 the SP would have to rise to 396p (45% undervalued). I'm not saying it's undervalued myself just pointing out 'on paper', by PE ratios alone at how far below the average of other shares in it's sector, it is. However what does a free site like the 'Simply Wall Street' outfit say if you go on there for free, and enter BT? Just done that and they say (not based on P/E ratios as I've just done)- but based on Future Cash Flows (I'll be coming back to Free Cash Flow later, so don't start yawning just yet) they come up with £4.02 as quote "about right" (So only sixpence more than my figure :) And they go one further - they put yesterday's closing SP of 208p (well it is a free site) in the undervalued section clearly as "Undervalued" and below that a huge graphic displaying 48% undervalued compared to their 402p. I have access to half a dozen algorithms using various methods of the great gurus and other metrics to value BT - but quite frankly they're all over the place from 0.0p yes nowt! others 207 to 294, and the highest at 424p So SWStreet, one algo, and myself, all come in with circa £4+ as "fair" so for the purposes of this post I'm going with approx 400p - so a long winded way to finally answer Pacemaker's question earlier today - yes, on paper BT is undervalued as of tonight's closing SP. Next question is - why? And there are good reasons. Let's start with the top line revenue - here are the last 6 years revenue and net profit: 2013 = £18.3 Billion 2014 = £18.2B 2015 = £17.8B 2016 = £18.8B So 4 years straight of no growth, flat-lining, but look out here comes the EE acquisition 2017 = £24B 2018 = £23.7B And flat lining continues, despite the addition of EE revenues. So there's one reason for the "undervaluation" - no growth for 6 years straight. But what about the net profit? 2013 = £1.9B 2014 = £2.0B 2015 = £2.1B 2016 = £2.4B 2017 = £1.9b 2018 = £2.0B Much the same story as revenue almost flat-lining, despite the infusion of EE's contribution. So without any further fancy delving into the figures - there's your reason for the undervaluation - under-performance! No free lunches in this market. Is something undervalued due to an oversight or for a genuine reason? So don't become overly optimistic when analysts s

Noticed that there was an explosive volume peak at precisely 9:00am (the biggest of the day so far) - that ended the early retrace and set it off on a non-stop rally in small measured steps. That Ofcom news item is timed @ 12:45pm release. SP was already over 212p by then anyway. There was another buying volume peak at 12:30pm but only one third as strong as the 9am peak. Those are the only two large bullish buying peaks today so far. So the 12:30 peak must have been reaction to that news release. So who the hell was that at 9am on the dot? More buying going on here than mere reaction to a positive news item release.

Yes, Ofcom pleased with progress by BT in separating itself from Openreach. And who's handwriting is all over that succesfull result? Yep admit it. Even though it sticks in the craw. All credit goes to outgoing GP. He'll be running his hands through his locks of hair wailing: I ran out of time. I just needed more time, the impatient beggars! I just needed more time.

Pacey, future near term growth is projected to be less than the year just ended to March 2018 and flat for the next 2 years, but yes even on those terms it is a little below the average valuation for the industry sector - will pick up on that further with some numbers tonight. Sentiment rules the valuation at present - not fundamentals. A good CEO can change sentiment.

Spot on leas. - Yes, that's undoubtedly the reason. Some on here have expressed concern at so little response to the old CEO being forcibly removed, but it looks like it was a slow-burner response to that event. Here's how I THINK 4 chances of decent rises might unfold (based on personal experience of some of my holdings) 1) A decent % rise on news the old CEO is to go. (Possibly 10% or so?) Afterwhich if a long exit contract has to be worked out by the new CEO before he/she can take up the reins that small gain meanders and disappoints again. 2) Just the mere publication of the final decision of the chosen name of a half decent new CEO should result in a restart of another small gain % wise. After that gain, another dissapointing wandering aimlessly of the SP if it's another long wait before the new guy can start. 3) Just the mere announcement that the new CEO has arrived and is now officially at the helm results in once again a modest % gain. There then follows yet again a meandering of the SP in the long wait between the commencement of the new CEO and his personal announcement of the review of 'kitchen sinking' of cuts and changes he proposes and tells the awaiting media this means a further REDUCTION in forecast revenues/net profit. 4) The market goes wild on hearing of less revenue and less profits, and believe it or not the SP shoots up % (for awhile). So I see 4 occasions for temporary rises. After 4) It's normal market rules apply, so anybody's guess from then on - but if the new guy starts to deliver in interim after interim, he gains mythological guru status aongst grateful shareholders and then it's a continuation of the little rises on a more prolonged term outlook - And it's game over for the long term down trend.

Bursting balloons be damned - that's a very pertinent question mishmos. On the face of things there appears to be nil growth planned for the next 2 years. That's forecasts, so that's bad, yes, maybe but .. However, there are some very surprising and positive facts in the balance sheet. If time tonight, I'll put my fundamentals hat on only (no charts :) and highlight a lot of the good (and the bad) as with all the long term down trends and media bearishness there are some VERY surprising positives in there that are in danger of being overlooked - so if time and I'll probably use up two or three posts to cover a reply to you, I'll attempt from a balance sheet and P&L perspective only, to list up all the pros and cons that might make the nil growth projection for the next 2 years either more palatable or more nuanced.

Yes, I too know of Archie Norman too (both of us used to work at the same company him as CFO me as a lowly branch manager - so never directly met him. He soon departed pronto for greater things and I've since come to 2 conclusions about him - He's a top turnaround guy and specialises a lot of his success on basic cost-cutting. Also after he turns a company around he buggers off pronto so he's personally ambitious and not married or long term loyal to any one company and soon moves on. Knew the moment he left ITV I should have sold (his leaving a company is ALWAYS a red flag sell signal) but I did nothing about it as per uusual much to my cost. So he would bring short to medium term success to BT and reward the shareholders. Soon as that's done he soon ups-sticks leaving a company's glory days behind it. But there's no better specialist at quickly turning a company around. If he leaves M&S and you hold M&S - sell immmediately :)