Member Info for Hexam

“It’s not a question of who is wrong and who is right Hexam . It’s a question of what is right and what is wrong” - but then you give a view as if it is fact that nobody can disagree with that the company is stabilising after years of turmoil. That’s your opinion not ‘what is right’.

And then instead of believing that the market thinks this report is very disappointing and have acted accordingly you go into conspiracy theory mode and suggest the drop was unwarranted and coordinated.

In life usually the simplest answer is the correct one. The market thinks the report is rubbish and so the price has fallen.

It’s not so much the reported numbers Trisor which I agree were forewarned but it’s these combined with the outlook. As my earlier post tried to show, it looks like 2026 will be pretty flat as far as generating (underlying) cash is concerned which is not good at all - and that’s assuming they hit their outlook.

A very disappointing report for me and unfortunately the market agrees. Is it really a case of nearly everybody else being wrong and you being right?

“No justification for this kind of sell off”

Sadly there is. Just look at all the actual numbers and don’t just read the selected headlines and the bullish commentary which is exactly what they want you to do.

All companies talk up their results, that’s to be expected, but CPI go above and beyond.

As usual with the results a ton of words showering praise upon themselves and promising the earth, a shed load of adjustments obscuring the actual performance and when you dig deeper everything is not quite as rosy as they paint it to be.

So for me yet another set of results that fail to deliver on the hype and the big giveaway is the FCF figure. They claim it was positive at the end of year but with no detail. And if it was indeed positive why is the outlook only £20-£40m (just £2 to £3m per month) in 2026? That indicates little to no improvement. This is confirmed if you look at the FCF of £54m outflow for 2025 excluding business exits. If you also exclude “the cash cost of delivering the cost reduction programme (£53.2m), and the direct cash flow impact of the cyber incident (£13.6m)” then the underlying FCF was £13m and yet the outlook is just £20-£40m this year.

So for all their bullishness it looks to me like they are not really making much more headway and a fairly flat performance this year is on the cards.

I was going to say I had finally had enough and was getting out of this mess once and for all - after one underwhelming set of results too many that fails to match their bravado. Unfortunately since I started typing this the market has opened and it seems as disappointed with the results as I am so I will wait a little longer in the hope of some bounce back before jumping ship (and hoping it doesn’t sink further instead).

You may want to look at your numbers again. It’s a lot but not quite that much. Not sure why you had to use that complicated way to estimate the revenue from mining rigs as we pretty much know exactly what the total revenue is per day (450 x bitcoin price) plus some transaction fees so around $30m per day or $10bn per year.

2% of this therefore gives around $200m as the ‘opportunity’. Still a very sizeable one - if it works.

And yet you Obelix are the poster that once set up another ID just to pump this stock as a fake poster pretending to be a newbie who had invested in a small number of shares only to hilariously expose yourself by posting under the wrong ID.

Nobody knows for sure whether QBT will succeed or not even though many have very strong views on each possibility - but that’s no excuse for consistently making up stuff which is what you have been proven to have done in the past and are still doing now - including with that last post of yours. Pathetic.

“The fact that independent testing is now underway also implies a high degree of confidence from both QBT and those evaluating the rig.”

Testing is not underway yet and, if and when it is, it will not be independent. A blatant and misleading ramp in stark contrast to miker444’s cautious but very reasonable and positive post.

You said “live testing now underway” Mikey. It is not so yes, you lied and are still lying. They have several steps to go through before they can start live testing and these are all given in the RNS - the first of which is the delivery of the rig next week to the lab in Milan.

So why not just admit you lied and move on.

…or down

“The reality is fairly simple”

Yes Mikey, that you lied about the RNS yesterday saying that it stated that live testing was already happening.

And no what I said isn’t a contradiction. It IS good news (that for once is tangible) although personally I don’t believe it will lead to any deal. ‘Good’ news though also often comes before a placing and everything IN MY OPINION (i.e. I’m not claiming is fact) points to a placing in the next week or so. Not just the news, but the accounts and cash burn, the price action and the reappearance of RKB. We’ll soon find out if my prediction is correct or if I’ll have egg on my face.

I wouldn’t sweat it AWL. Like you I read the other board but am not on it, one madhouse is enough for me!

It is amusing though to read the comments by all the ramping fruit loops over there who routinely make things up like this. Apparently I’m also linked to Peel and am an account used by GSA to bash the stock (despite there being no evidence and instead me proving before that I’m actually an investor here).

My favourite though is one clown who keeps boasting that he continues to add to his free carry!?! But if you add to what is a free carry then you automatically REDUCE the amount of free carry and if you keep adding it inevitably stops being a free carry at all at some point (unless the price keeps going up) and that point arrives even more quickly if the price keeps going down as it has done here.

So I wouldn’t take seriously anything said by that shower (though I know you don’t anyway 🙂)

As to the RNS I agree it was for QBT a very encouraging one and the price action was a little surprising but we’ve seen this pattern before, especially before placings as news is released to pump the sp before the placing, is then forward sold against that higher price and day traders are also in the mix to exaggerate the pattern.

Maybe this time is different though and there isn’t a placing next week? Instead it is just day traders taking brief advantage of a bullish RNS but the spike being small and not lasting long as the market is so sceptical now about anything QBT says given all the unfulfilled hopes and promises of the past and despite, for once, the tangible event this time (of a rig for testing being delivered next week).

We’ll find out which soon enough…

Value of liabilities - £33m

Value of assets - zero

Just as well it is a 100% owned subsidiary!

“The market has spoken 5x more buys v sells”

First this data can’t be trusted as these figures are just guessed from the price.

Even if they are accurate though there could easily be a big seller in the background (e.g. forward selling of a placing) or other good reasons why what you see on the published trades doesn’t tie in very well with the price movement.

The market HAS indeed spoken - it wasn’t impressed.

“The RNS states that a mining rig has been delivered and live testing is underway”

No it doesn’t, stop making things up. Even when the rig does arrive in Milan there are quite a few steps before live testing can begin - as the RNS clearly outlines.

“QBT has never raised money at these levels — every raise has been above 1p.”

Until next week (or possibly the week after)…

I said less than a fortnight ago that I wouldn’t be posting again until the next attempted raise (or the attempted pump that precedes it) but that it was only a matter of weeks before that happened - and lo and behold here we have the RNS right on cue!

And if there is still any doubt that a placing is imminent we have RKB turning up after such a long absence - a guaranteed sign!!

To be fair though I think this is the most promising RNS that they have ever released about any of their developments since it is the first to have an actual tangible outcome in it (i.e. the shipment of a rig).

Any testing still has to show it actually works though (extremely unlikely in my view) and FG himself says at the end that he thinks this is a pre-condition of ENTERING into contractual discussions (i.e. confirming that there have been no such talks at all so far).

Still it’s a step in the right direction and plenty of the usual day traders have turned up - but not enough yet to bump the share price up to my exit level - so must try harder!!! A penny or even a bit less would do it and time is running out before the placing (likely in my view to be next week so it really is a game of chicken now).

So keep those ramping levels up please 🚀

“Nastygal

Revenue 5 million”

But is it? Look at the split by region on page six:

USA - 4.718m

UK - 2.206m

Rest of Europe - 0.162m

Rest of World - 1.356m

Later in note 2 (pg 27) there is a table with different numbers that DOES add up but it looks they are having trouble with their calculator again 🤦‍♂️

“The subsidiary accounts can be very telling indeed”

I agree it does give us detail on the revenue of individual companies that the reported group accounts don’t show but my point was that the profits they show are pretty meaningless.

Even the revenue information is reduced though as most brands are now reported under Debs with fewer companies being reported separately.

Bon - the non-appearance of any accounts is a concern, as they take it to the wire again, but not too much to worry about - I’m not sure just how much trouble they’ll get in if they are late. Besides the subsidiary accounts are not audited and the group accounts just repeat what we already know. Besides, they have a wide scope of how to allocate expenses so in anything they do submit it would be easy to make one company look better, either at the expense of another one or by simply keeping more expense at the group level. So I wouldn’t read anything much into them at all when they are eventually released.

I would argue though that the audited accounts ARE ‘stage managed’ - but then again every company does that at least to some degree (lead with positive headlines, fluff up those headlines, focus on best looking metrics, bury bad news, change segmented reporting to best advantage, use adjustments in the unaudited numbers (like EBITDA) etc. etc.

Boo though take it to an extreme (frequent huge adjustments, changing how they segment regularly, including, excluding then including PLT, switching metrics, hyping poor numbers as if they are great, over promising on guidance or not giving any at all and so on.

This isn’t doing anything ‘wrong’ since as long as the statutory numbers are ok and signed off by the auditors they have an awful lot of wriggle room on the other numbers and on the commentary they produce so they just take full advantage of that - which why I focus so much on the underlying detail rather than just what they want us to hear - especially as they also keep making errors in the unaudited numbers and presentations!

“Debenhams isn't growing organically as it’s been bolstered by the group and has added to the group losses, and they have done multiple placings to fund the business - that is not organic.”

When I said I wasn’t sure whether Debs was growing organically or not I was thinking more of the cannibalisation of BOO’s own business contributing to the numbers but you make a good point on whether the growth is self-funded. However, I’m not sure how much of that outside funding specifically went to grow Debenhams so I remain on the fence on this question (despite apparently me being both ‘right’ and ‘wrong’) 🤷‍♂️

Similarly I don’t think you can say for sure Debs has added to the group losses. Debs is showing a profit which would indicate it isn’t adding to losses but that depends on expense allocation and how much of the overhead expense held at group level is actually down to Debs.

So again I think it’s unanswerable and because of green boxes I can again only see one side of the argument. It’s almost worth unfiltering to see the other side - but I don’t want to go down those rabbit holes again!