We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
"Bonjella- It looks like you have HUGE support."
New ID, 60 posts so far today, over 50 upticks on one post, yet no questions asked by the rampers. Can you imagine if this was a 'troll'??? Actually it might well be...
So funny :-)
"but they were ignored for silly questions like ‘is Argo thinking about paying a dividend this year?’"
Haha - reminds me of some of the 'challenging' questions PW fielded back in the day about football teams and superheroes or some such like!
On a more serious note one thing I can't ever remember seeing is the terms of the hosting arrangement. Perhaps these are the more the cause of the rise e.g. maybe there was a limited time when they were on a better deal and this has now expired? I know the power credits also cause volatility but I'm at a loss to rationalise their numbers - though one thing at least that is clear is that they are doomed, and pretty soon, if they persist on this basis.
"The $31k direct costs from Q1 does not include depreciation so let's move on from this idea that they are still generating cash - that's simply not the case!"
Blimey - that's horrendous. The obvious follow-ups are why is it so high and how has it increased so much since they last reported (only a minority part of it is due to increased difficultly) and is such an increase temporary (due to weather etc.). So happy to admit I was wrong but in my defence I don't think anybody would expect their mining costs to have increased so much in such a short space of time. It also leaves unanswered the peculiar Q4 depreciation numbers.
So on these numbers they are barely breakeven cashwise even before interest and overheads. What's the saying? "They've got two chances. Slim, and none. And Slim just left town"?
HC - I agree the $18m is a real concern but as I said I'm not so sure that they are burning cash at the moment. It all depends on what that $31k 'direct cost' per BTC in Q1 actually includes. If it is just electricity/hosting then yes they certainly are but if it includes depreciation then almost certainly not. I can't believe their costs have shot up so much (or that they had next to no depreciation in Q4) but it all looks very strange (wrong?) so I can't be sure either way.
I thought we would know a lot more from the FY results but actually I'm much more uncertain now - at least until they, or someone else, can shed any light on what on earth is going on with these bizarre (to me anyway) looking numbers.
Flatliner - The new management have done a good job but nearly all of that improvement is simply down to last year's figures having both a big devaluation of BTC assets in them (when they had a HODL) and the huge losses incurred when they sold HELIOS and new machines at such a high discount.
So they've done wonders steadying the ship but the big numbers in the improvement have very little to do with them and those improvements won't be seen again.
I would say the blind belief in a company that has delivered absolutely nothing so far along with a refusal to consider any negative view or doubt isn't normal and suggests more of a need for help - but I suppose it all depends on your own personal perspective.
Not sure how 'sicking' a doctor helps though - would have thought that would guarantee needing to seek one :-)
CB - I prefer a top-down approach to costs i.e. looking at what it has actually cost them but it gets much the same answer.
I agree that CLSK etc. should be mining at around $30k per BTC (post-halving, normal fees) just allowing for electricity costs (and is another thing that makes the current $31k for ARB pre-halving look silly/misleading/wrong). Other cash costs would perhaps (up to) double that so I would think most miners are slightly cash generative at today's price - they don't need it go up to $100k. However, this doesn't leave much to invest in growth so they need a higher BTC to do that (and show profitability allowing for non-cash costs) or fees to remain so high - though of course they haven't been shy to issue equity to fund growth instead!
"Something that stood out for me was the sky high direct bitcoin costs in Q1, $31k direct mining costs in Q1, that's a huge jump and would suggest that cash break even is actually more like $100k post halving right, Hexam?"
I'm struggling to make sense of some of their numbers including this one. $31k direct mining cost is ridiculously high for Q1, and before halving, and much higher than last year (it was less than $12k in the last reported figures). One possibility is that this includes depreciation which some companies include in 'direct' costs but ARB hasn't before - but their description of costs in the financials of 'power and hosting costs' instead of 'direct costs' suggests they do now?
In addition their Q4 numbers seem inconsistent with end Q3 with depreciation of mining hardware only going from $18.2m to $18.7m but their cost of mining has shot up from $24m YTD Q3 to $36m full year. This implies virtually no depreciation for Q4 and a 50% uplift in mining costs. I can't see any notes though of a change in treatment/methodology.
My best guess is that the $31k DOES include depreciation and that this change of approach has somehow screwed up the presentation in the financials (hopefully it is just presentation/me missing something and not an actual mistake)!
So I think the $60-70k still holds but if the direct cost does only includes electricity and hosting then it doesn't and they are in big trouble - especially as they say they have $18m of further debt service obligations to be met before the end of June.
In the meantime if anybody can make more sense on what on earth is going on with their numbers then please shout - hopefully I've just missed something or messed up somewhere?!
"Are you clued up on when their debt matures?"
I'm afraid not but they only have (just under) $13m left of the Galaxy Debt now so I wouldn't imagine this is nearly as pressing as it could have been. It's still a lot obviously in relation to their cash position but even if a fair chunk of it was due soon they may still be ok especially (as I think) they are still generating cash at the moment (so Galaxy may not be as hardball as they overwise might)?
"I'm sure a while ago you said Argo's cash break even was around $35k so i'm surprised you still think $60k-$70k post halving with how much difficulty has adjusted upwards since"
I probably did because it was (or pretty close to it). To be fair to the new management though they've done a decent job of controlling costs especially on overheads and better terms on electricity (via Galaxy). That said it is hard looking at one quarter as it can fluctuate a lot (fees, curtailments/rebates etc.) but the trend suggests $60-$70k) and you're right it could easily be higher, especially as Q3 was over 6 months ago.
For reference the cash breakeven in Q3 2023 was $27k (which was much lower than the $33k in Q2) so my range still assumes quite an uplift from this - partly difficulty, partly as Q3 benefitted from some handy rebates more than offsetting coins lost through curtailment).
Q4 should tell us more (especially on further overhead savings) although that quarter had the benefit of high fees and they actually mined 20% more than in Q3.
I think ARB's cash breakeven is around $60k to $70k (should get a better idea tomorrow) so $100k would give a comfortable margin though still not a lot to play with in terms of manufacturing any growth. That assumes a more normal level of fees and so at the moment they should be generating cash because of the current high fees instead.
So they look to have some breathing space at the moment but that's probably all it is. With fees likely to come back down and difficulty still rising they need to find some way to grow but that looks very challenging with the debt still high, poor prospects as far as raising goes and uncertainty over the Galaxy deal.
"Their constant negativity is never backed up with genuine evidence."
That's an odd statement but rather apt as absolutely nothing from the company itself is backed up with genuine evidence and this is the main point of disbelievers like me.
“Gone are the days of solo mining at $77,000 electric costs and an overall cost around $244,000..... Crazy......”
The $244k referred to the overall reward (due to the extremely high transaction fees) NOT the overall cost.
Also of course the big miners like MARA, CLSK etc don’t have electricity costs anything near $77k per BTC mined - more like $25k (and much, much lower whilst transaction fees are so high).
"What I've said is that it's a viable business at the operational level"
Disagree I'm afraid as to be a viable business at the operating level it's got to be making enough money on that basis to at least cover its interest and lease obligations which sit outside that figure. Fair enough you can exclude D&A from this as that money has already been spent but that doesn't hold forever as at some point the assets will need replacing for the business to continue to remain viable.
"Hexam thanks for your view, I'm not sure I buy it but each to their own and it's good to have a civilised debate"
Agreed but the depreciation and amortisation point I'm making is not really a view, it's simply a fact of how it works. This will continue rise for BOO unless the company starts to contract and I'm assuming you don't think that's very likely? Even then there will be a lag before it starts to fall (unless there are a lot of immediate write-offs).
So you will see it increasing this year and next year etc. just as it has in previous years.