Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Yes, my hope is that FOMO trumps reality and common sense, with enough people jumping on (or staying on) the bandwagon. Will be interesting to see how the miners do today with BTC looking strong again but the signs weren’t good yesterday and I don’t think Mara’s results have helped much.
“This really should be in the mid 30s by now”.
Why? Certainly not fundamentals as it shouldn’t be even 10p on those. It can only get to the 30s purely on the back of BTC rising and creating FOMO and the illusion that ARB actually has a future.
Unfortunately though it looks like investors are finally waking up to just how rubbish the economics are for bitcoin miners and the dilution impact to shareholders that is on top of that.
However, sentiment could return and still take ARB much higher, especially if BTC really goes on a tear, but on any rational basis ARB is overvalued now, not undervalued.
How on earth do you figure that ARB will mine at least 30% more BTC in February? Difficulty is up, transaction fees are down and of course February had two days fewer mining than January. Adds up to a 20% fall. You really do take the biscuit - but I'm afraid all you'll be left with is crumbs.
Unless of course you are actually talking about revenue but even there they will be doing well to increase it at all despite the rise in BTC price because - let alone 30%. Simply ridiculous.
Btw ARB will NEVER be 100p again.
"Placings was at 20.50 when BTC was around 38000, next update should see this over 30 depending on how many coins mined"
Will be about 100 or so BTC mined for February - around 20% drop from January so no way will this be 30p. It will probably struggle to reach 20p unless BTC moves some more. In any case the monthly updates don't tend to have much impact on sp anyway - whether they be good or bad.
"It must really get your goat Hexam that the mining youtubers still have wonky calculators"
It is a bit frustrating. Even if the numbers are 'right' they are not usually clear on what they have included which makes them kind of useless. More frustrating though is the number of people who just believe anything they are told by any old youtuber and treat it is as a fact. I see the rising BTC has brought of lot of this type out of the woodwork again as well as the usual crowd that can't believe the ARB price isn't shifting upwards more with BTC - whereas if they spent just ten minutes doing some basic research they'd soon understand why. Still, I suppose it makes it easier for the rest of us...
"He has the post halving mining cost for Argo at over $60k per BTC, I thought Argo was an efficient miner, or is it dept costs or is his data feed incorrect?"
His data is incorrect, or rather incomplete, as Argo's all-in costs post-halving will be around $100k per BTC mined. ARB have never been an efficient miner and actually one of the worst. The actual cost in the latest accounts for ARB was $47k per BTC and the breakdown if you're interested was:
Direct (Electricity etc.) = $12k
Depreciation = $17k
Salaries etc. = $11k
Interest = $7k
Post halving these will be at least double hence will be around $100k. The figures from James probably exclude depreciation which is misleading as to maintain revenue companies need to keep refreshing and increasing their fleet of machines.
"Personally I find it odd that people who apparently have positions here suck up to the negative Bullies"
It's quite simple. I don't like abusive, arrogant, hypocritical or misleading posters - whichever persuasion they are. Just so happens that on this board they tend to be found much more in the ramping crew. Of course, that's just my view.
Calling posters who short arrogant, stupid, amoral and comparing them to arms dealers and drug dealers is not a personal attack? Fair enough but I thought Misty was pretty sensible and restrained in his replies under the circumstances.
Just sick of the hypocrisy on this board and the 'it's not OK to do something on this board unless of course I'm the one doing it' attitude.
Agree Misty, along with projecting his own stupidity and arrogance on to other people. This board in particular is full of it unfortunately - abusive posters who try to take the moral high ground or claim intellectual superiority but instead just make themselves look silly by displaying exactly those traits that they accuse others of having.
Investing in an AIM stock such as this is just gambling and arrogance that you know better than others and can predict market sentiment and the absence of news....not intelligent at all......just lucky.
Works both ways.
“Im interested to hear how you believe the sp value was fixed for the accounting and tax purposes?”
Because that’s the rules. The sp is fixed to give a starting point for all the immediate and future accounting and tax calculations. It’s the selling price that then changes and what the company or shares are actually eventually sold at gives the end point.
Fair enough James, apologies. It was SCB claiming you were backing up his view of an ever moving purchase price that threw me. I agree, the value of what they end up with when they sell will change but that doesn’t change the purchase price which is fixed and will always be reported as the same number.
I know crawshaw - it’s best not to bother. He’s just tried one of his usual tricks of coming up with a different and bizarre angle but his CGT argument only backs up your view not his. Same with the post from James.
They both describe events and changes in value after the purchase price is agreed and fixed for accounting, tax and every other purpose. There is only one price, it doesn’t change (unless there is a conditional element like there was indeed here but that went to zero anyway).
Of course those shares are worth less now (they could have been worth more) but the purchase price remains the same.
You are of course correct Crawshaw - the price was exactly as you first posted. It does not matter what the share price does afterwards in terms of the actual purchase price paid - just the value post purchase.
It’s no use arguing with SCB though as no matter how much he has been schooled he will always think he is the teacher and keep shouting to try to seem that way to others. In vain though as he just digs a deeper hole for himself and the board gets clogged with pointless posts that end up having less to do with BOO and more to do with ego.
All I'm saying is that they would have been better off sticking at 66% and that paying £270m for the last 34% has not proven a great bit of business. Yes, it is with hindsight but even at the time that looks pricey.
404 - I know, I was just talking about the accounting change. It makes thinks look much better when BTC is doing well and (even) worse when it's not. It's actually a fairer way of determining profits, just a more volatile one as well. I agree though, if BTC retraces significantly how it all appears in the accounts will be the least of their worries.