The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
What? I’m comparing the last year to the year before and using ONS for market stats and BOO’s accounts for their numbers - and that’s it. If you’re saying the market can’t be sized then any comment on here involving the market is meaningless - both good and bad.
It’s odd that if the headline numbers are positive you take them as they are - if not then you try to find any which way to quibble about whether they are representative. Or perhaps it’s not so odd. Just bias.
I was just going by what the company said which was that they held prices to improve/retain market share.
In any event, however many excuses you come up with or caveats you make the fact remains that they significantly underperformed the market in the last reporting year - however you measure that market.
Maybe they can turn it around this year though their not giving a revenue outlook is hardly encouraging.
And for balance at least Debenhams did seem to outperform - posting what looks like a 10% increase or so.
I’m looking at both overall online retail and retail fashion only. Either way the story is similar.
And I’m looking at value not volume as that is what matters and is irrespective of what BOO chose to do with their pricing (as the whole point of them holding prices was to try and boost volumes).
“ Therefore the numbers are bound to be lower than they were a year or two ago.”
That is simply not true. The ONS figures clearly show online sales were higher in the year up to February 2024 than the year up to February 2023 so if BOO sales has been in line with the market they would have gone UP - not been 17% down.
Yes, the market numbers are not yet back to pre-COVID levels but they still up year on year.
I can back it up - with the ONS stats that appear to be your bible. Clearly the online market has not gone down 17% to February and so therefore BOO have underperformed.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/bulletins/retailsales/february2024
BOO revenue is down 17%. I don’t believe the online market (either generally or just clothing) was down that much over the same period (certainly according to comments on this board). That would equal underperformance.
So are you saying that all the comments here over the past year saying how well online was doing have been wrong?
Are you saying that online sales up to February were much lower than they were the previous year? 17% lower?
Bottom line is that BOO has underperformed the market but if you think that’s wrong would be happy to consider any evidence that suggests otherwise - or you could just continue with the insults.
I think the point is that online sales have been pretty good for a while now (as many on this board keep telling us each month) but it hasn’t done BOO (or ASOS) much good so why the difference now - especially as sales are actually down in April?
"Why are people even discussing how many shares they have?"
Because someone who bangs on about honesty and tries to take the moral high ground clearly lied about their own investment. You say that Obelix does have the 10m+ shares he claimed. Fine, I'll take your word for it but that means he obviously wasn't telling the truth yesterday when he claimed he had only recently invested and that his total investment was £2k - clearly because he though he was posting on his other ID.
Can you imagine the flak I would get if I set up another account and pretended to have invested £100k but had sold at a loss because I was disillusioned with progress? And that flak would be fully deserved. But as it is Obelix, who is a ramper, it is OK and he didn't really mean any harm trying to promote his views under a fake ID with a fake story.
Just highlighting the hypocrisy.
I do agree though it would be far better if the messages stuck to QBT but I don't think it would necessarily make the board any pleasanter if the past attacks on posters that do is anything to go by.
Page 24:
"The draft rules of the Incentive Plan will be available for inspection at 49/51 Dale Street, Manchester M1 2HF on any weekday (Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays excepted) from the date of sending this document until the close of the Annual General Meeting. The draft rules of the Incentive Plan will also be on display at the place of the Annual General Meeting for at least 15 minutes prior to and during the Annual General Meeting"
"on another note don't forget the whole quantum side to QBT for which they await the industry, FG said it's ready to roll once the industry catches up"
That'll be method Q then?
Yes, done himself like a kipper. But any behaviour is acceptable as far as the rampers go so long it is done by another ramper. Hypocrisy at its finest. One thing for sure though is that if Obelix dares to show his face again after his little faux pas and continues to spout any more of his sanctimonious, holier-than-thou nonsense about honesty and agendas he may well get the shortest of short shrift...
Yep. And $32,800 is what I got for direct cost per coin.
Full breakdown for ongoing cash costs per coin mined:
Direct: $32,800
Overhead: $9,900
Interest: $7,300
Total Cash: $50,000 per BTC mined
Then there's an additional $21k of non-cash costs (depreciation and share awards).
However you look at it those figures were ok pre-halving but just don't add up post-halving where they all nearly double. They are likely losing about $30k cash for every coin mined at the moment. So six months left at best unless something changes (new funds, much higher BTC or significantly lower costs).
"Now we have passed the halving, this indicates direct costs could be 120%"
CLSK - that's not quite the case. The 62% was based on average BTC price of under $53k so all else being equal the direct costs are probably around 90% or so now. As I said earlier though this does mean that they are indeed close to the point where it is no longer economic to mine (unless those costs have come down - or BTC goes up).
There may be a short-term trader's case here - but there is no longer term investment case that I can see.
"Constancy, is the key for other to believe or not in you"
Obviously that 'constancy' doesn't stretch to having just the one ID. A truly brilliant own goal. Funniest thing on here in quite some time.
"think some change in the hosting agreement perhaps?"
That was my guess. The costs can obviously fluctuate significantly due to weather etc. but they have been sky high for six months now so it seems to be more than just that.
Total cash cost in Q1 was $50k per BTC mined and total all-in cost was $71k. That's before halving so can broadly double those figures now assuming all else being equal.
I did the calculation a slightly different way (using cash directly rather than the EBITDA proxy) but reached the same conclusion - the end of Q3 looks like when the money runs out.
They've done well to string it out this long with good control of indirect costs and running down debt (and interest). What has shocked me though is the rise in direct costs. In Q1 it cost them over $30k to mine each BTC from just direct costs alone - about double CLSK's figure for example. It looks like there was a step change in such costs in Q4 that has continued in Q1. With the halving this means the direct cost per coin mined alone will be nearing $60k so they are close to the point of being better off not mining at all!
It's really hard to see how they get out of the corner they are boxed into without a very sharp and sudden rise in BTC - or a fairy godmother.