Simple - the quarterly figure is based on Jan and Feb with lower hashrate than March.
Allow for the extra hashrate being installed over the next 9 weeks and you're at an annual profit rate of 165 (current coins/mth) * 1.55 (imminent hashrate increase) * 12 months * $60k (Bitcoin price) * 84% (efficiency) = $115m.
Fine numbers Bully, except that they don't take account of the fact that hashrate was rising over the period. Re-run your numbers based on March rather than Q1 and you get annual profit of $100m rather than $43m (165 * 12 * $60k * 84%), giving a P/E of 6.77. Allow for the imminent increase in hashrate of 55% and that becomes 4.37 on a forward-looking basis.
I think it'll bounce very nicely, but not necessarily tomorrow, or even this month. If we see £1.60 in the UK I'll top up - luckily for me that'd be averaging up rather than averaging down. I do feel for those that bought at £2.50+ but anyone who did their research, just hold on. If red numbers worry you just don't look. Come back when Bitcoin is $100k and smile. This is an investment not a casino punt. If you think BTC is a decent medium-term bet, no matter what your current average is you'll be more than fine with a bit of patience.
The stock markets are there PRECISELY to provide a mechanism to raise capital. It's why they exist in the first place.
Issuing extra shares is only "dilution" if the value of the company as a whole doesn't increase in proportion with the increase in the number of shares. If the number of shares are increased by 10% but this increases the value of the company by 20% then you haven't been diluted - you've GAINED value.
Issuing shares because you're basically insolvent and need the cash to stay afloat is a bad thing. Issuing shares to raise capital for transformative expansion in a business where size really, really does matter is a good thing.
So, if you're against issuing shares, either you just don't understand how the markets work (in which case run away fast and learn), or you just don't believe that Argo's use of the funds raised is value-additive (in which case sell up and find a company you trust more.)
Me, I LOVE the Texas plans. If bringing them to fruition requires even more "dilution" then BRING IT ON.
Supply is increased due to a well-documented seller; demand is weak for various reasons, not least limited access to US investors who are much keener on crypto investments than we are, in general.
An investment here is a bet that demand will outstrip supply (for example due to a potential Nasdaq listing; concrete increases in hashrate etc) before Bitcoin has a huge crash, which is about the only thing that can drastically harm the fundamentals (and by "huge crash" I mean well over 50%).
I'm not sure that any of the thoughts that have been posted are completely convincing. One of them might be right, or a combination of two or more, or it might be something else entirely. Just because Xenor doesn't necessarily agree with you doesn't mean he's not listening :)
Pedro - do you really believe there are paid de-rampers? That seems so outlandishly unlikely I'm tempted to suggest you buy a tin foil hat. Just because someone is bearish doesn't mean they're being paid to express that opinion.
Nah. Fortunately, the proportion of shareholders who even bother to read forums like this is fairly small. And the proportion who let other posters make their decisions for them is smaller still (because those that do tend to get burned rapidly and go back to premium bonds.)