I am not allowed to post on this bb this weekend by order of the bb Junta.
When I say order of the bb junta what I really mean is the polite suggestion from one individual but why let the truth get in the way of propaganda?
"This leads to the increase of purchasing power per unit of that money. The result is that prices fall and all participants in that economy become wealthier." Not so clear cut I'm afraid.
This is the definition of deflation and not everyone will become wealthier. There are many articles that argue deflation is a good thing but many more that argue it is not (just google and make your own minds up reading both sides of the debate). I believe it isn't (e.g. because of the pressure on jobs as companies make less money for selling their products but employee costs stay the same) but that's just my view. Others will disagree but the point is that there is not universal acceptance that it is good or bad. And it is certainly not true that all participants in that economy will definitely become wealthier - there will be winners and losers as always and ultimately I believe more losers.
So whilst the full article is interesting I personally didn't agree with a lot of it including the title of this thread. I suspect I may be in a minority though amongst posters here!
Nice try Smithy but there are still plenty getting the jab and yes if they haven’t got a jab they can’t fly but if they do want to fly then they’ll get the jab. They won’t let a little pin prick stop them jetting off and having fun.
Also yes it’s the older generations taking up the hospital beds but that’s far more likely for those unjabbed than jabbed for which thankfully there are much fewer at these age groups - as you agree.
"I will remind the board of the reality and truths."
You have every right to an opinion and to express it but you don't have a monopoly on the "truth". You frequently state your opinions as absolute facts (e.g. "masks do not prevent the virus spread") and of course can find articles/evidence to support you - whilst conveniently not mentioning articles/evidence that don't.
The truth is that you have your truth and your narrative and that's fine but that's all it is. I usually ignore you not because I think you are telling lies or even that I necessarily disagree with you. It's because you believe you are right all the time, there is no room for any other opinion and it is clear you have an agenda (whether that is for your own purpose or somebody else's I neither know nor care). The same could be said of course of some other de-rampers and also some rampers and I ignore them too.
Bottom line is don't expect people to believe you just because you insist something is so (ad nauseum) - actually by doing so repeatedly and with such self-belief probably has more the opposite effect. So by all means keep trying.
Spaceman - "Trying to pinpoint what future growth will occur and assume what Sp we'll be at is pointless. You'd be far better off concentrating on how undervalued we are at least that's present day. As for anything else you pay your money/take your chance."
The first part of your statement though is how institutions look at it and is exactly what brokers are doing when coming up with targets. But for PIs I agree, it's over the top and what you say in the rest of your statement makes far more sense. I did the calcs though not to try and pin point what I thought the growth and sp would be but simply to give some substance to the sort of levels that COULD be achieved. This was in response to a specific question but also as an antidote to all the predictions that DO pinpoint a future sp but have NOTHING to back it up.
Lotto: I was just doodling and wasn't intending to send such a rambling note but hit post on the first by accident and then couldn't leave it hanging. I was just going to edit it down and give a set of assumptions that I believe gave £5 (or £10) and that I thought was plausible. Everybody will have a different view of the assumptions, which is great, but I just get fed up with the endless line of predictions (both from rampers and de-rampers) that have either no substance at all or rely on soundbites. To get from £600m mcap to £2.3bn or £4.6bn mcap doesn't happen on a wing and a prayer.
oops pressed post half way though!
won't bother with the rest of the calculations but £275m revenue and 80% mining margin gives £220m mining profit then take perhaps £70m off for other expenses (including depreciation on machines) to give £150m profit before tax.
This is only half the required £300m but there are a lot of assumptions (all marked *) and tweaking these can easily get to £300m and on top of this there are other sources of revenue (BTC appreciation, hosting, return on investments such as Pluto) less interest on loans assuming this is how the machines are funded.
So the point of the thinking out loud calculations (which I never meant to send at all!) is that a £5 or £10 valuation is possible depending how aggressive you are with the assumptions. For example a bit of FOMO or exciting plans we don't yet know about could mean a valuation of the company of 20x earnings or more is possible.
Of course there are also lots of risks and the assumptions could turn out much worse too. On the other hand some here would clearly be much more optimistic on the assumptions than me and could justify much more than £10.
But the conclusion is that it is possible to answer Chuz's question without getting the pitchforks out.
"Maybe it's the first sign of insanity but I think my posts are way more grounded and based in reality than the 5-10 pounders."
Can't argue with that (not the insanity bit but the grounded part). Certainly much rather read your posts (and quite a few others on here) that give much more balanced view than one gets from the rampers or trolls where the numbers are just plucked out of the air (whether it be BTC value, the sp tomorrow or in this case the sp next year) and everything is either rosy or rotten in the garden.
To answer your very reasonable question though perhaps it better to work backwards:
£5 valuation on *467m shares = mcap of £2.3bn (nb assumes no further dilution)
Forward P/E ratio of *10 suggests this would need £230m net profit, or assuming *25% tax implies £300m profit before tax
So question becomes can the company be expected to make £300m PBT in 2023?
We know they are aiming for at least *3.7 EH by the end 2022 but we also know mining difficulty is likely to at least *double but we also expect ARB to be more efficient by then. So maybe they could double what they are mining now so 330 BTC pm.
Assuming *£70k per BTC (so approx $100k) this would give an annual revenue of 330x12x70k = £275m
With an 80% mining margin
Hi iParsnip - Yeah, it's annoying the value of shares can't be seen until they are allocated but if you want to know what your total is worth just multiply the total number of shares you have (including the ones you purchased with the rights) by the share price and ignore any value of rights still showing. It'll look pretty ugly at the moment but at least you'll know how ugly.
Not too fazed by the drop as think things will turnaround but now regret not selling the rights when their value was riding high :(
Agree with a lot of what you say Rory but not sure where you have got the 240 coins mined from though - unless you're talking about later months as October won't be close to that. Once all the new machines are up and running for a full month then quite likely - maybe December?
Find it hard to believe that the IPO churn is still having a big impact so not sure a lock-in period would have helped. Besides I don't they would have raised as much money if they had forced everybody to hold for at least 3 or 6 months. I certainly wouldn't be interested in buying shares under those conditions whoever the company was - even with the discount on offer.
fordm - The third booster jab is simply because the effectiveness of the jabs wears off hence the need for another one after 6 months. As for not doing the job the vaccines have been very effective in terms of reducing the chance of serious illness which is why the numbers in hospital have been much lower than previous peaks despite the high number of cases.
Agreed Amanensia - not sure what the confusion is.
And yes, large institutions hold rubbish shares everyday. Every major listed company has at least some large institutions invested in them and some of them will turn out to be rubbish. Of course I don't know which ones but the point is neither do they.
If someone believes that institutions investing in a stock is a great indicator of success then they must believe every stock is a golden ticket.
Also it is not exactly a secret where big fund managers are putting their money. They disclose it.
So totally agree that there are plenty of good reasons to invest in ARB, we don't have to make up bad ones.
Like Rum I don't agree with all of what you say but I think you've hit on a very good point and one reason why we shouldn't assume that ARB will just go up (or down) with BTC.
Investors are getting more and more opportunities to get exposure to BTC. If BTC rises all investments linked to its value should ultimately benefit but with so many to choose from it's probably not enough anymore to be one of the crowd but instead need increasingly to stand out from it. Yes, there are lots of good things posted on this board to suggest ARB does indeed stand out but is that really true for newbie investors? ARB hasn't increased mining capacity since February and has just diluted with a heavy discount. Also potential investors to any BTC related stock may simply have in mind what happened last time BTC reached an ATH.
So I'm not discouraged or even that surprised we're not motoring with BTC at the moment. ARB are playing a longer game than most in this space (focusing on infrastructure, diversifying etc.) which although it should mean better returns in the long run may mean we are overlooked in the short term. As those plans start to come to fruition though and the reported profits climb ARB will be very difficult to ignore. And the first step is getting those new machines that are due up and running.