Member Info for Globex

It's mega to see this $50k, gets us past that ETF launch day high, if it holds we only really have potential resistance at ~$55k final fibonacci level, before (not to jump the gun or anything) it's ATH time 🥳

January payroll was made but market still awaits further news on funding. From RNS last week: "the Group continues to need to secure additional capital prior to the end of March 2024."

This near term funding requirement arguably only reason why share price is so low, so depending on how you view their chances of resolving this predicament, a potential opportunity.

The one thing Argo has going for it is the gift of this insane market cap. They should smash it down by raising as much as possible. These silly £5m raises are just treading water. Helios deal expiring in December is existential.

I reckon a US funder will somehow come to the rescue here. Even though this is a high risk share right now, it does everything going for it in terms of sector, semi-conductor related company valuations have never been hotter. By US standards the market cap is laughably small.

Revenue halving overnight for all miners is bad news on the one hand and is likely to kill some of the weaker ones in time. Any that aren't profitable now from late April will need btc to at least double in price to compensate.

But it does mean increased scarcity in the underlying asset, supply/demand becomes more tilted towards latter, and we get these classic 4 year cycles where btc price so far has adjusted accordingly. Miners then become a leveraged bet on btc as ultimately the strongest miners generating decent yields and with good btc holdings are the ones that most stand to benefit.

Btw anyone could have nominated a NED for these awards, the shortlist isn't industry selected but by way of # of nominations. Like Boaty McBoatface. Sunday Times being a sponsor means some of Moulding's pals have clearly had a bit of fun putting Allen up.

Funding wise one thing it does have going for it is the CEO holding such a large proportion of shares. The fact he would be more hurt by a discount or dilution than anyone could well minimize the damage here. He has a huge incentive to sort it by way of financing or moves like getting buyers to bring forward payment. If he can manage that rather than a capital raise this would re-rate quickly.

Allen is essentially unsackable so him remaining in position isn't itself an indicator one way or another.

The only reason the company even has a separate chair was because Moulding succumbed pressure around poor optics of his dual CEO/chair role after this floated. With that background even Moulding would be self-aware enough to realise it would look terrible to oust Allen with 2 years of his appointment. Plus it suits everyone for him to be there, he's a nothing really, a placeholder or empty vessel enabling that token nod to proper governance.

In what might be an apt metaphor that remains not built

I see the Ashley buying less as a route to making an offer as article implies, more a strategic hedge against the heavy physical retail exposure of Frasers, which they're also growing with moves like buying Arndale Centre.

There's also the Debenhams factor, I'm sure he views indirectly reclaiming a stake in its present owner as a bargain next to the ~£180m he lost when it folded. The paper gains he's made in boo so far arguably moot as it was probably his buying itself that supported the bombed out share price, so equally if he offloaded it would be vulnerable again.

Sh*tty spy wouldn't even get that from onlyfans

This is one of those companies that could within the year just as easily be bought for £100m as going bankrupt. Potentially decent odds with the bombed out share price, mulling whether to buy, but not one you'd want to put in more you can afford to lose.

Ultimately the reason the best US tech companies are so highly prized is because of their growth as well as being so highly cash generative. This company is a different kettle of fish and I don't think we can extrapolate here the typical cliched LSE/UK stock market hating story. Yes there are more tech companies in the US, it's like how the French are good at cheese, who cares. More practically potential investors here will quite reasonably have reservations about its ability to continue as a going concern. At best there has been financial mismanagement and regardless of how good the tech is not being able to remake payroll is woeful.

Not sure about Betaville, they've been mooting an Asos takeover for years, if it gets acquired through unrelated event in 2030 they'll probably say I told you so. To be fair though they're much better than the twitter blagger who you can tell is just playing dress up.

@Trotsky reducing the dividend wouldn't reduce corporation tax, that would be a gift of a loophole. Corporation tax is essentially paid on profits, so in RGL's case it would be a miracle if they had any liability this year. Distributable reserves always come after the tax man in pecking order.

It's a legendary re-rate for clsk, and a 2021 style euphoric day for miners all round

Final note about those guidelines is they do say "early adoption is permitted", so seems bottom line is they're all free to do it, Michael Saylor will be delighted about all this.

I missed your post there CB so have duplicated!

I know you asked Hexam CB but checking clsk filings they say

"Effective October 1, 2023, we adopted ASC 350-60 which required bitcoin to be measured at fair value"

They also refer to the new ASU 2023-08 standard, guidance for that was only finalised in December (below link) but in clsk's case it seems they've been able to apply it to whole quarter because it's "effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024, including interim periods within those years".

https://dart.deloitte.com/USDART/home/publications/deloitte/heads-up/2023/fasb-issues-asu-crypto-assets

Wouldn't surprise me if clsk are taking advantage by applying this accounting change already, but as guidelines only changed in December you'd think they'd wait until clean FY25 start. Makes previous quarters like-for-likes a bit useless.

Holdings gains (as long as btc goes up) formally becoming part of statutory bottom line is defo bullish for the big guns as I mentioned before. Even if it makes no actual different to us, for those using traditional metrics like p/e miners with decent hodl will - in theory - go from looking like basket cases at times, to something more investable to the wider world.

Mostly though what I was getting at is I never quite trust adjusted EBITDA, often they'll can chuck in a load of 'one off' costs that are anything but, knowing we know about management in this space that leeway makes it the most smoke and mirrorsy of all.

Everyone can forgive a profit warning when conditions suddenly decline. The issue here is he issued 3 of them last year alone (July - https://archive.is/CQBII September - https://archive.is/ACHLW November - https://archive.is/5mrWR ). That many in as short timeframe is atypical and the market judged it accordingly. On the back of auditor delay it added to the perception of all not being well here and him sadly being a doddery type figure without a firm grip on the group.