Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: There are two types of people in this world, the people who whine and complain that everything is messed up in the world -- and the people who see an opportunity because things are 'messed up', and seize that opportunity.

Most of the arguments made against BCE apply to the oil companies, and to the banks as well. Do you refuse to put your money in those firms as well? Seriously, if you're against companies that make a profit from selling a valuable goods and services to consumers, what is left for you to invest in? Groupon? :lol:

I don't think you got what i really said.

As for investment, BCE isn't the only company to invest in.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
18124 posts
2629 upvotes
Langley
desidealer49 wrote: I don't think you got what i really said.

As for investment, BCE isn't the only company to invest in.

Well, yeah, but it seems like a lot of people think they're charging customers far, far more than their costs, moreso than any other company. Charging an arm and a leg, in fact. So they should be the most profitable.
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
i6s1 wrote: Well, yeah, but it seems like a lot of people think they're charging customers far, far more than their costs, moreso than any other company. Charging an arm and a leg, in fact. So they should be the most profitable.

Yeah but what the previous poster failed to understand was my point that if i also pay an arm and a leg for services from the same company and then buy its stock, which gives me dividends that barely even cover a few percentage of the monthly bill, then i am stupid.

I would rather just get my services from a more reasonable source and then invest in another profitable company.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
desidealer49 wrote: Yeah but what the previous poster failed to understand was my point that if i also pay an arm and a leg for services from the same company and then buy its stock, which gives me dividends that barely even cover a few percentage of the monthly bill, then i am stupid.
At the current earnings of BCE (14X earnings), to pay a $100 a month bill, you would only need to invest $16,800 in BCE stock to have your bill taken care of forever! A big upside potentially could occur in BCE's profits/earnings because of higher inflation in the future, which would give a double whammy of depreciating their long-term debt, as well as increasing the rates they could charge for telecom services.

Sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.

If you're like 70% of Canadians, you bought a house to avoid paying for rent, right? Well, this is a way you can own your chunk of Bell.
I would rather just get my services from a more reasonable source and then invest in another profitable company.

I'd never advocate putting anything but a small portion of your investment funds into a single company or investment (even though people routinely do this with their house), but if the belief is out there, and honestly held by the Bell haters, that Bell is ripping people off and earning an excess profit on the services they render -- then just why aren't those same people willing to hold BCE stock? Sounds like they don't really want to put their proverbial (or literal) money where their mouth is.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: At the current earnings of BCE (14X earnings), to pay a $100 a month bill, you would only need to invest $16,800 in BCE stock to have your bill taken care of forever! A big upside potentially could occur in BCE's profits/earnings because of higher inflation in the future, which would give a double whammy of depreciating their long-term debt, as well as increasing the rates they could charge for telecom services.

Sounds like a reasonable proposition to me.
Yeah but $16800 for a student to invest. Forget about it for now :)

That's why i am shopping for reasonable prices, not jacked up rates from BCE.
If you're like 70% of Canadians, you bought a house to avoid paying for rent, right? Well, this is a way you can own your chunk of Bell.
Nope. Not yet. But unless you are planning to flip the house in a couple years and keep doing it, i find "avoiding rent" for 25-30 years turns into an extra few hundred thousand dollars just to hand over a house to the next generation and getting nothing out of it in return. I don't think you can do the same with stocks though, as they are much more volatile. Can't really compare the two directly.


I'd never advocate putting anything but a small portion of your investment funds into a single company or investment (even though people routinely do this with their house), but if the belief is out there, and honestly held by the Bell haters, that Bell is ripping people off and earning an excess profit on the services they render -- then just why aren't those same people willing to hold BCE stock? Sounds like they don't really want to put their proverbial (or literal) money where their mouth is.

Because people do not have enough to buy so much stock to justify this.

Most people here are looking for reasonable deals. We are not Bay street workers being paid handsome bonuses and salaries and hence you see the generally negative attitude about Bell. It is the classic 1% vs. 99% scenario.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
desidealer49 wrote: Nope. Not yet. But unless you are planning to flip the house in a couple years and keep doing it, i find "avoiding rent" for 25-30 years turns into an extra few hundred thousand dollars just to hand over a house to the next generation and getting nothing out of it in return. I don't think you can do the same with stocks though, as they are much more volatile. Can't really compare the two directly.
Actually you can; BCE has been an excellent investment to hold for its 100+ years of existence, and many families have left a legacy to some of the younger people in the family through inheritances or bequests of BCE stock. In terms of Canadian companies to buy 100 years ago, I think you would be hard pressed to find a stock that has done better, and didn't go bankrupt in one of the numerous recessions, and even world wars that Canada has experienced.

In terms of long-term performance of BCE versus real estate, I don't have precise figures infront of me, but it is very likely that BCE has outperformed by a wide margin over a long period of time.

Most people here are looking for reasonable deals. We are not Bay street workers being paid handsome bonuses and salaries and hence you see the generally negative attitude about Bell. It is the classic 1% vs. 99% scenario.

Sure, and I accept that. I often find it ironic though that many of this thread's participants claim to be associated with the technology industry, or studying to be a part of the technology/media industries, yet speak so vehemently against the ability of certain players in the technology industry, to wit: Bell, to exercise pricing power when pricing power is available.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2010
4900 posts
844 upvotes
i6s1 wrote: Well, yeah, but it seems like a lot of people think they're charging customers far, far more than their costs, moreso than any other company. Charging an arm and a leg, in fact. So they should be the most profitable.

Not necessarily. They could simply be the most bloated and inefficient. Which is why the argument that if they charged absurdly high rates, surely we would see a correlation to absurdly high profits is a fallacy.
Deal Addict
Mar 18, 2009
1446 posts
284 upvotes
Renous
Halliburton is profitable also, but I wouldn't invest one thin dime with them. I'm sure if there was REAL choice in Canada, then Bell wouldn't be a wise investment. They can only take advantage of the fact that they're the only choice for lots of people, for so long.
Reserved for future time travellers
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2007
2075 posts
75 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: Do you have even a shred of evidence to suggest that Bell is hiding cash, or otherwise is collecting money from customers and not reporting that revenue to investors in their financial reports?
Bell's been doing tons of unethical practices. I don't know enough about their financial statements but if there is a report that there is something shady, I wouldn't be surprised.
Sr. Member
Aug 11, 2006
851 posts
152 upvotes
Toronto
As an ethical professional, I refuse to invest in BCE because of there lack of ethics.

Life is not all about making money, especially when doing so under false pretenses and by lying.
Bell has lied to me before, and they will lie to me again, all to make a few extra bucks.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Pranman wrote: As an ethical professional, I refuse to invest in BCE because of there lack of ethics.

Life is not all about making money, especially when doing so under false pretenses and by lying.
Bell has lied to me before, and they will lie to me again, all to make a few extra bucks.

Care to share the details of this 'lie'?
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
JustBob wrote: Not necessarily. They could simply be the most bloated and inefficient. Which is why the argument that if they charged absurdly high rates, surely we would see a correlation to absurdly high profits is a fallacy.

Any organization with 50k+ employees is going to have examples of bloat and innefficiency. But overall, Bell salaries really aren't very high. Do any examples of Bell innefficiency and bloat come to mind? They've been laying people off like crazy for much of the past decade, and even use unpaid interns in some of their departments -- so I'm not sure that calling them bloated and innefficient is a blanket statement that can be made.

50,000 employees for $100B of infrastructure means each employee has stewardship over, on average, $2M of investment. Is that out of line with other infrastructure that provides direct service to the public?
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Aug 25, 2010
4900 posts
844 upvotes
I said "could be", so it wasn't a blanket statement, merely a counterpoint to show that high prices do not necessarily lead to big profits.

Now do I believe that prices charged by Canadian telcos are "fair". Absolutely not, especially when a slew of reports invariably all come to the same "slow and expensive" conclusion when compared to other countries.
Sr. Member
Aug 11, 2006
851 posts
152 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote: Care to share the details of this 'lie'?
1.
The lie:
BIG FLYER AD
$30/MONTH + Tax!!!

The Truth:
($50/MONTH + Tax) - $20 promotional discount.

2.
The Lie:
Cx: Sir your bill will show the proper promotional credit next month and an adjustment for this month.

The Truth:
Full Price Charges again and no adjustment for the previous month.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 28, 2005
3903 posts
207 upvotes
Toronto
Pranman wrote: 1.
The lie:
BIG FLYER AD
$30/MONTH + Tax!!!

The Truth:
($50/MONTH + Tax) - $20 promotional discount.

2.
The Lie:
Cx: Sir your bill will show the proper promotional credit next month and an adjustment for this month.

The Truth:
Full Price Charges again and no adjustment for the previous month.

Oh Snap! Also the lie about having the fastest network, which Rogers made them retract all their false ads.

http://www.forgetthebox.net/mag/bell-ca ... anking.php

"Bell Canada needs a spanking: Telecom giant caught with false advertising for the second time in a month"

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/28 ... 86332.html

"Bell Canada Misleading Ads To Cost The Company $10 Million"

Now if anyone stands up to defend this company you should take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself "why do I fight for a company like this".

Top