We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
"This will be a gamechanger for miners with decent stacks for sure, appearance wise at least."
Great whilst BTC goes up but carnage if it retraces significantly. With great transparency comes great volatility...or something like that.
"PLT made a profit of £75M in the 2022 FY, which is more than a quarter of the total price paid. That doesn't seem like a shabby deal to me."
Actually I take my earlier comment about it not being a bad deal back. It does look a poor transaction in 2020 as they paid £270m for just the final 34% of PLT. So the £75m profit in 2022 quoted above doesn't look so good in that context and the £22m profit in 2023 looks even worse. So the original 66% stake was a very shrewd bit of business but buying the rest for £270m appears well over the top, certainly now.
"Ive been kind and also omitted the additional £54m cost they will have to pay should this sp stay at 491,"
I think that condition runs out next month and since it needed to stay above that for 6 months then it has already lapsed effectively. So the purchase price of £273m is the final one and to be fair didn't seem bad at all at the time but with the profits from PLT falling fast it doesn't look quite so hot now.
Looking forward to buying a cheap watch off Elvis in Benidorm and meeting his friends...
That's my point Alex. It's not CINE I agree. It's not Rolls either though. Just because Rolls went from being at a very low sp with 'no-one calling its recovery' (actually there were plenty if you read the board back then) to the lofty place it is now doesn't mean BOO will do the same. Likewise just because CINE also found themselves at a low sp (with plenty of people calling its recovery) and went on to fail completely doesn't mean BOO will do the same. They are both very different companies to BOO and it's a fatuous argument that could be applied EITHER way to ANY stock where the sp is currently in the doldrums. The rampers can say look at Rolls (or whoever) and the trolls could say look at CINE (or whoever). It means nothing.
I agree though it's all about the results. If BOO can demonstrate the start of a sustainable turnaround the sp can start to motor, if that can't and the results actually get worse then it will continue to wither away.
Unfortunately given that they've already said that they are on track to deliver the previously reduced guidance for full year we are going to have to wait some time until we see much evidence one way or the other. Hopefully they'll still be a few clues in those results but unless there is some M&A type activity to boost the sp it is likely to continue to wobble around in the 33 to 43p kind of range for some time and in the absence of news this board will continue to drown in drivel, abuse and irrelevant discussion.
True Alex but it's a meaningless comparison. Could easily pick another totally unrelated company and talk about how it's now gone bust. Doesn't mean BOO will go bust - doesn't mean anything. BOO could follow the lead of RR or follow that of CINE. There is no reason to connect BOO to either and if the argument for BOO taking off is 'Well, Rolls did it, so can we' then that's not something I'd be very encouraged by (and I say that as a very happy Rolls holder from below 80p).
"I believe ARB have a lot of Intel machines"
They have just under 3,000 so hardly a lot - enough to mine around 10 or so BTC a month. More than enough to notice a difference within weeks though if all using Method B and that works as claimed. ARB would be a prime candidate to hook up with given their dire, almost hopeless, financial situation but would have thought we would have heard something by now if they were actually mining BTC with somebody on a meaningful number of machines (especially if it was ARB given how leaky their boat has been in the past).
I don't know if they are 'live testing' now (regardless of the videos) or what they actually mean by 'live testing' (and that debate has been done to death already on here). All I'm interested in is the results from actual mining with the software as those are the only figures that really count.
"Nobody has ever said anything different"
That's certainly not true. Some keep insisting that most of the risk has now gone. It's a huge risk, huge reward stock and it will stay that way until there is definitive news - one way or the other.
"So it was a pointless post then."
You are clearly incapable of reading. I only posted to correct a misrepresentation about what I had said. I have no interest in getting into yet another endless pointless debate about whether the 2.6x claim proves valid or not. We shall see soon enough.
I have little IT knowledge and freely admit to that. My reasons for disbelieving the 2.6x will be replicated in real life have nothing to do with IT but instead my interpretation of all the other indications as I see them - which I could list (again) but this would just been seen as trolling and rightfully so.
My post wasn't meaningless, I was just correcting something quoted about me which was very misleading as I hadn't said what I was claimed to have said.
I do not believe they will be able to replicate anywhere near 2.6x in real life, others like Jambone, do. Fair enough, it's just a different view and shouldn't be anything to get excited or upset about. We will soon see anyway who is right soon enough and only then can bragging rights be claimed. Until then it's all opinion and hot air.
"Hexam said 20p is on the low side, he isn’t a ramper by a long shot."
To be clear I said I feel 20p is on the low side IF there is a news of a deal AND that deal is based on the 2.6x being proved true.
My own view, and it is just my personal view, is that I don't believe for one minute that the 2.6x will be replicated in reality. So whilst there may be some kind of deal I think it will be based on something much less and so the sp will be much lower. But if I am wrong and the rampers' belief ends up being fully justified then 20p will indeed seem very cheap to me.
For goodness sake Jambone. I'm not saying the cost doubles! Are you just being obtuse now?
If halving happened today:
Yes - electricity will cost the same
Yes - Staff costs remain the same
Yes - Machines costs stay the same
BUT
Yes - you only get HALF the reward.
So YES the cost of mining overall doesn't change BUT the cost of mining each coin DOUBLES as you are spending the same cost producing half as many coin. So cost same but unit cost doubles. In in other words your total cost stays the same but revenue halves.
What BTC price does who knows. It probably will go up but it needs to double as well to offset the impact of the loss in revenue of only mining half the number of BTC.
What I find really odd is that you are ready to trust unquestioned my valuation which you keep promoting but the much more basic calculation of mining costs per BTC you try to ridicule?
I've unfiltered thePain just to see what nonsense he is writing and basically the research he references only includes cash costs (this is clearly indicated). These cash costs exclude what goes through the accounts for the machines (the cost of new machines is spread over fives typically and appears in the non-cash cost depreciation). It also excludes stock-based compensation which is significant for miners. Only by adding these two items in will you get the overall cost that determines profit.
I have committed no 'schoolboy' error as I agree and have stated that the costs remain the same. It is the number of coins mined that changes. The same costs divided by only half the number of coins means the cost of mining PER BITCOIN doubles. It really is that simple and I'm just amazed that you still don't get it.
As I said - look to the accounts as these are the source figures that can be relied upon rather than a third party's view of them. I've attached CLSK's latest quarter and you also need to know that they mined 2019 BTC in that quarter.
Double your answer and you should get $80k (CLSK view is another efficient one).
https://investors.cleanspark.com/news/news-details/2024/CleanSpark-Reports-First-Quarter-FY2024-Financial-Results/default.aspx
In fact looking at the table on the link you posted I'm not sure what costs they've included as the numbers look strange with MARA's in particular looking ridiculous compared to the others. They are one of the most efficient miners-cost wise (largely because of their scale) but are shown on the graph as one of the worst. I'm almost certain the numbers exclude depreciation (so basically assuming the machines are free) and given the variations do not allow properly for one-offs.
Basically a joke set of numbers which shows the value of sense checking the figures on any link before you post it.