Member Info for Velo

Did you spot the 'deliberate error' :) to see if you were paying attention?
(That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it).

Bleedin' decimal points fell off my keyboard!

THIS -
" ('Adjusted' Pre-Tax) Profit:
Consensus Average = £22.955bn
Minimum = £21.110bn > - > Maximum = £24.310bn "

Should have read as > > >

('Adjusted') Pre-Tax Profit:
Consensus Average = £2.295bn
Minimum = £2.110bn > - > Maximum = £2.431bn

Don't confuse, if on the day, you see media reports focussing on/ bemoaning or comparing "BT down against last year" viewpoints.

Most headings will look worse in comparison to last year. That's a given.

What's more important, is not disappointing against market expectations (shown below).

Below is the market guidance from the analysts "crib sheet" for use on Thursday morning. The target is to either beat all averages, or acceptably come in as "in line" if only just a small amount above/below each heading.

(Have left out cashflows etc., as thought the main key headings are what the general investor is interested in).

Bear in mind BT will report both adjusted and reported under some headings. (For instance some media may report net debt as in the circa £11.5bn's because it accounts for lease liabilities).
Most media will focus on the larger circa £18bn total, so that's what I've shown.

Consensus data culled from here -

https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/investors/financial-reporting-and-news/latest-consensus/btgroup-consensus-30-apr-2021.pdf

( Posting these now as I won't be free until v late Thurs evening; so print this off and keep near your keyboard for Thurs morning).

BT is probably the only stock in the entire FTSE whereby they arm you to the teeth with data for comparison purposes on the day. Most other stocks you have to take on trust what story you read in the media, as to whether market guidance has been met or not.
IMO at least the FTSE100 stocks should do as BT do, in the interests of transparency, instead of keeping investors in the dark ).

So, congats to BT's finance dept - leading the way where other companies should follow too!

=================

(Reported) Revenue:
Consensus Average = £21.370bn
Minimum = £21.252bn > - > Maximum = £21.540bn
----------------

('Adjusted' Pre-Tax) Profit:
Consensus Average = £22.955bn
Minimum = £21.110bn > - > Maximum = £24.310bn
----------------

(Net) Profit:
Consensus Average = .£1.521bn
Minimum = £1.651bn > - > Maximum = £1.236bn
----------------

Pension Deficit:
Consensus Average = . . . £9.75bn
Minimum = £7.5bn > - > Maximum = £11.3bn
----------------

(Reported) Net Debt:
Consensus Average = £17.906bn
Minimum = £17.011bn > - > Maximum = £19.315bn
----------------
'

Thanks for filling in a little on your investing background Rojen3.
I'm tied up all next week, so almost posted late last night (to put something straight :) but can spare a few moments this morning, to post now, instead.

And that is:
I wasn't sure my post to you would be taken in good spirit and hoped it wouldn't be misinterpreted as possibly accusatory, or somehow unwelcoming; so I'm pleased to see your post this morning is robust and confident.

Again, your start in investing is off to a good start (impressive) and IMO an above average start, and by buying in March of last year (hopefully the latter half of March :) is with hindsight, the seedling that no doubt provided the perfect launch to your investing career.

So here's what was omitted from my initial post - Welcome to these forums/boards :)

Although I lack the expertise to claim so, I have a sneaking suspicion that last year's deficit was a complete balls-up by the trustees/pension committee's etc.,

Because for half a dozen years the deficit has been mostly in the £7bn region and £6bn. With a break in the earlier part when it came out with a daunting £9bn that the media went crazy over.

So the out of the blue ridiculous £1+bn presented last year stunned me with its senselessnes. Compounded by almost instantly the CEO advising don't expect that to carry on next year - we already know it's going to much higher.
What went wrong?

No one questioned it in the media but it stunk to hell. 7's and 6's then bang barely visible at 1bn odd. To now be followed by a corrective potentially explosive increase?

Was last year a fk-up and just an inaccurate fouling up in the books with a corrective bill to be suffered this year?

Larry - quick note on the market's pension deficit expectations. It's not £7.5bn.

- It's an extremely heavy £9.75bn. That's their "average" forecast.

£7.5bn is their extreme lightest forecast whilst £11.3bn is their worst outcome expectation; but overall their view is to expect nearly £10bn as most likely at £9.75bn.

I prefer no worse than £7.5bn not because I've calculated it, but because it's their best, lightest most bearable to me if they've been too pessimistic.

Statistically their consensus favours an £9.75bn outcome than £7.5bn.

Of the 20+ analysts £7.5bn might at best be the forecast of only two maybe just one in-house analyst (Berenberg) the bulk of them lie in that middle average of £9.75bn. They're quite dour and pessimistic on this occasion.

Are they wrong? We'll soon find out.

Well, except for the "by Christmas" reference. That bit was poetic license.

But the fact they discussed getting back to £5 can not be without coincidence :)

You're welcome Mark.

Thanks for the appreciative mention Rojen3.
You ask:
"... does anyone think there will be some kind of pullback .."

The responses of:

------------------------------------------------------------------
" ...History suggests that spikes if sharp will pullback... "
&
". . . Does seem two steps forward and one back.. ."
------------------------------------------------------------------

- highlight a truism of the stock markets
- that they're one of over reaction, and subsequent corrective reaction.

============

Well done on your trading in SLP.
Your query sounds most innocent given it was your first ever post, and only recent membership to these LSE forums, but your superb trading record related in your post, suggests experience far beyond mere beginners luck.

So c'mon, tell the truth and shame the devil :) How long have you actually been investing/trading?

If you are a newbie, then the instinctive feel you have with SLP means it is us, who should be asking you :)

I'm thinking that you ask: if 'in the next week', because you may already know that the SP is currently in overbought condition and/or a combination of the mantra: "Sell in May and go away, and don't come back until St Swithin's Day" :)

- However, I'm more concerned about a stronger pullback in June than a smaller corrective reaction to this intra-month high.

(I have a lower expectation for the final % gain for the actual month end to May
- however, Stoodio's feel for the price is holding sway to being on track to meet his expectations).

Whatever, the SP is in a longer-term predominant bullish uptrend, so all is just noise in an overall, ultimately rising trend.

markinvestor @
" Morning All, Anyone know when LSE are going to update to the current P/E Ratio for SLP? "

----------------

Yes, once a year, every September when the finals are published.

It's a free site so all you're ever going to see on this site are historic P/E ratios, based on the previous year's earnings. That's why their P/E looks so high.
Simon from the IC and all on here who ruminate on the likely true valuation are incorporating the likely year-end earnings which are usually seriously well up on last year's, as they have done for the past half dozen years.

So, LSE is out of date historic.

Inv Chron et al, are into forward P/E ratios.

-----------------

Luna - thanks for that link. It does say 'historical key ratio chart' which explains why I think the P/E ratios on there look a bit high; they're historic, not forwards. ie., Not based on this year's likely earnings, but the previous year's last set of accounts (see reply above to Mark).

Sirus50 - again, same response as all above - P/E's based on outdated last year's accounts so all figures look far too high. I'm seeing far lower using forward P/E ratio's based on the current earnings/likely year-end earnings.

Also thank you for showing the reply from the prof. I counted at least 2 mentions of his work being based on the sectors - not the industries.

Sector P/E's are entirely different. We need the smaller universe of industry averages only .
Sector averages are too far ranging, too wide as they encompass a wide range of industries within each sector. So again P/E ratios looking too high. Plus they are historic. I have the forward P/E ratio for the industry that SLP inhabits much less. If I looked up the "sector" only average I guess it would tie in with the prof etc.,

------------

Stoodio - Intraday high was 141.50p not 143
- The intraday high showing on this site (above) is usually quite accurate once the first half hour computer glitches have settled down. LondonStockExch is showing intraday high as 141.5 too.

As of today (Friday) Investors Chronicle demolishes the evergreen, handy catcall roast of: '£5 by Christmas' as a term of abuse. They (IC) reckon it's on!

- but not by Christmas, but possible; they just don't know when.

Flying visit to Sainsbury's today and only had chance to glance at the non-bubble packed, loose edition of this week's IC out today. A nice piece on BT. Only had time for quick skim. But appears a realistic piece concluding with a buy recommendation for BT at £1.64

There's a first by IC - recommending BT as a buy; how many years has it been? :)

So that's it. The end of years of abuse from the financial media - the mighty IC has spoken. The others will do as they always do, fall into line, and not contradict the IC.

However, the bit that caught my eye was a sub-heading in the middle of the article in Bold asking:

"Will BT ever return to £5?"

- They then, detail the pro's and con's of that likelihood, but I didn't read them. But they conclude that, with words to the effect: "so it will be a rocky road back to £5"

Well there you have it. The mighty IC has spoken. £5 is possible, they just won't be drawn as to when.

Any trolls who come on this board have just lost a neat roast, and will show themselves up as under-researched, behind the times, with out-of-date thinking, if they even dare hurl so much as a 'pfft £5 by Christmas?' as a LOL roast/taunt.

Been a great insult to hurl about though, through the years - but it's time has gone.

(Cue theme tune from either: Gone With The Wind, or Roy Orbison's warbly:'It's over', to close on what had been a great catchphrase roast)

Been over to Simply Wall Street for a look at their unbiased valuation in their DCF valuations for SLP, THS and JLP.

I grouped those because the latter two nearly always contain posts comparing themselves to SLP and bragging they should be valued better than SLP in the future.

Maybe so - so time for an outside party unbiased view. And for THS, they (Simply Wall Street) have it undervalued - and show a fair valuation of 193p

JLP they maintain as already over valued and show fair value as 17p

And SLP? Sit down first.

They state undervalued and show a fair value of £7.09 ! ! !

Let me repeat that in case you think I mistyped. They calculate fair value for SLP as £7.09

Now who sells extra large calculators? Because we need a big 'un. Our valuations are too low!
No wonder those two are always full of posts saying they are worth more than SLP
- they'be been keeping shtum about SLP's true and fair valuation LOL! :)

Watch JLP & THS posters say it's all wrong, and watch both of them agree on much higher valuations. Ha! And watch both of them downgrade SLP's valuation. Maybe they should be on the Bloomberg TV finance channels :)

" The other issue here you should always look at a companies EV ( enterprise value ) which in SLPs case is much lower than the market cap "

—----------

Yes, that's because there's no debt; so no surprise.

EV will always greater than MCap when a company has substantial debt.
It's the opposite here - SLP is in surplus :)

" Velo, I have it around 2030 too. More than happy with 9 years for the board to figure out what they'd like to do next :)"
----------

When the abundant cash pile is often brought up I wonder if it's a war chest buildup for the long term future change of the business?

Whatever, in't old'n days when asset strippers like Goldsmith and Slater stalked the landscape, having a large cash pile was testament to putting out a sign saying: 'take me, take me' as bait for the takeover merchants, as Goldsmith was fond of asset stripping to pay for the takeover (and joke he got the company for free) hence the banks would loan him anything he asked for as he stripped lardy companies to the lean and mean category. Both asset strippers were hated but they did trim fat from companies that need sorting out. Some spent their cash unwisely racking up debt to make themselves unattractive.
So with few asset strippers about these days large amounts of cash isn't the same kind of bait anymore.

"Maybe they all pile in at the peak?"

---------

But what is the peak?
Imagine these earnings beats keep on indefinitely for some years yet. Imagine by then, the PE is bang in line with the industry average. Would that be the peak?

Because if earnings kept increasing as they have been to date, then a full year's earnings from that point on, would reduce the PE back to undervalued, so the SP would continue rinse and repeating to increase the SP just to keep in line. Perhaps more modestly but increase it would, otherwise the PE would start falling back into being undervalued.

So is a rating to merely average, the peak?

Of course as the years go by the company comes up against this end of life thingy which hasn't been discussed much on here, but I'm going with circa 2030 as a guesstimate unless others have an informed opinion as I'm not a natural rare earth metals investor.

All it confirms is that out of all those highlighted, SLP has the potential to increase by the larger % in its SP than any of the others in the race to be viewed as merely average in comparison to the industry averages.

For the others to increase similarly to SLP they would have to be rated above the industry average and given a premium market rating, as currently they are all undervalued in comparison to the industry average.

All of them are having a tough job getting appreciated by the market as worthy of an industry average rating. They're all undervalued. A premium rating is out of reach for the foreseeable by all of them. So the race is to the industry average as a first step. There, some or all, may remain if ever that is granted by the market.

SLP keeps on producing commendable earnings as do most of the others. There is no sign any are being re-rated to premium status - ergo: the race is one of attempting be be rated merely in line with the industry average - and in that respect presupposing that day ever comes, SLP would have the greater %gain from this point just to achieve that.

The others would achieve not quite so high a % gain from this point, to arrive at the same destination, as they are closer to it.

Repeat: For the others to maintain a greater PE ratio than SLP, the market would have to rerate them as a premium stock. None are rated at that level yet, as the PE's show.

The %growth capability in SLP's SP will be amply demonstrated by end of August/early Sept.

Run this test again at the end of August :)

Interest rate confirmed to remain as is, and continue further at its record low of 0.1%

So not helpful in last minute changes to the pension deficit.

- A case of as you were.
Otherwise they're quite optimistic in overall tone for the future.

Ooh, I'd be doing somersaults.

Although any onlooker would say that's a combat forward roll! - I'd reply nonsense that's an athletic somersault.

" Poxy little rise today :) "

-----------

Ha! Hee hee. That means you saw your initial investment from back in the day, actually double today - in one day flat :)

Been admiring my holding today, everytime I clicked in here. But can't imagine doubling your initial holding in one day - that's superstar status. Were you doing somersaults? Or somersaults and handstands? :)

My stuff is showing the same as up above, at 133.

The bible of prices the London Stock Exchange itself is also showing it was 133.

Don't recall randomly viewing 133 at any point.

- 132 was about 9:00am