Member Info for Hexam

I can’t see what they can prove though unless they are mining on hundreds of rigs - which QBT don’t have as far as I know?

TTMBTC - yes, I think it was a refreshingly balanced post which is always good to see.

On the revenue point it is generally recognised when it is earned - not when payment is acoreceived which could be much later or (like with airlines and advanced ticket sales) much earlier.

So any earnings should be recognised immediately when each BTC is mined (obviously a share of it if part of a pool).

Like you I can’t see how live testing can be carried out unless they are mining for real as part of that test. I also agree that any revenue generated should lead to an RNS.

Someone with better technical understanding might be able to suggest how live testing can prove a method works whilst still not mining but I haven’t seen a good answer to this when this has been asked before - though what Woody says could make sense - namely they are allowed to mine by third parties but in return those parties would retain call the income as the price of that cooperation?

Broke - I agree that liquidity is not an issue yet but also agree that it looks to be possibly heading that way.

I’ve just checked and the £75m of RCF that was reported as not being extended will need to be repaid in March 2025. That won’t help matters along with (as I believe) any overall cash outflow over the next year.

I don’t think the company themselves have confirmed the situation with the RCF though? Besides there still should enough leeway so long as they can turn things around quickly enough and keep a tight rein on working capital in the meantime.

“I can only assume it was one man band companies as no proper company would use an unqualified person to do their numbers.”

Actually something I agree with you SCB! Problem is I never said I was unqualified.

It shouldn’t matter what I am or am not and I doubt anybody is remotely interested. I only mention such things because you keep throwing out lies about me and I don’t go into more detail as that’s my business and I would just come across as a dick probably anyway (cue obvious reply).

If you or anybody disagrees with what I write then happy to debate sensibly but just attacking me rather than the content of what I write is just boring and clogs up the board.

Happy - Free Cash outflow in FY23 was £63m but overall cash outflow was just over £100m. The difference is mainly interest, EBT share purchases and lease payments all of which are excluded from FCF. These will be similar in 2024 (or a little less maybe) so again overall cash flow will probably be £30 to £40m less than FCF.

This assumes no new capital raised or repaid (not sure offhand when the £75m RCF that hasn’t been extended will be repaid).

“Oh come on Heaxm - you stated you have done the numbers for companies and advised them... None of which should be done without qualification (numbers) and experience (owning and running companies)”

I’ll try and make it simple for you - again.

I have prepared accounts and written commentaries on them.

I have not advised companies only the CEO etc of the companies I’ve worked for and prepared the accounts for.

I am not a qualified accountant nor have I ever owned (or run) a business but neither is necessary for what I have done.

It would be nice if you could challenge me on the content of what I have written rather than just throw out childish, petulant and irrelevant insults.

For example to you think overall cash flow will be positive in FY25 and why?

I thought my summary of the financials was balanced in the circumstances but if there was any element you think was unfair or wrong then let’s hear it?

Broke - I am not a qualified accountant nor a company advisor as SCB keeps telling everybody. As you say understanding FCF is investing 101 so perhaps you’d like to answer Happy’s question - I already have but he seems to have ignored my answer.

“It's not a weak promise. And how will overall cash flow remain negative if FREE Cash Flow is positive?”

It’s weak because there is no mention of any profit expectation for FY25 and a positive FCF should be a bare minimum. It seems a headline they’ve put in for people (like you) to latch on to and keep interested. And it worked. They could have said we expect negative overall cash flow for FY25 or another loss as their one headline but I suspect neither of those would have gone down so well?

The reason overall cash flow is likely to be negative is that FCF excludes share purchases, interest and lease payments.

So unless FCF is over around £40m then overall cash flow will probably be negative.

Results look poor to me overall but with a few positive bits of encouragement.

They missed the already downgraded revenue target albeit only just (by less than half a percent).

They did hit EBITDA guidance though - just sneaking in at the bottom of the range.

Cash flow was very disappointing (over £100m overall outflow) though part of that was the understandable increase in inventory in the US. It means a sharply increased net debt position and the mention of fixed assets to promote its balance strength is to me a hint of desperation. Overall they say FCF will be positive for 2025 (helped by reducing capex) but this weak promise suggests to me overall cash flow will remain negative as will profits.

Talking of profits, they made a huge overall loss of just under £138m not helped by chunky impairments. One bright spot though was that the RevB investment made a £3.1m contribution to profits. Also the focus on costs should help them get back on track in time.

Overall though the results look at the bad end of expectations and the expected recovery seems to be pushed further in to the future.

I said simply how I interpreted the comment. He said ‘go for’ or ‘got at’ which to me is the drawing down part. He never said ‘used’ in his original post - unless I’m going word blind.

I’m not defending him just explaining why I didn’t think it needed challenging. Of course if he actually meant used despite his wording then that would be as silly as saying there was £290m left in the first place - especially as nobody ever gave a decent reason of why they drew it all down and incurred additional charges in doing so.

And if anybody thinks I look silly saying what I do then so be it. I’m not bothered what anonymous strangers on a bb think about me especially those that I have a very low opinion of anyway. If I got their approval then I probably would be concerned :-)

See, you just can’t help it.

Incidentally the only way the comment was wrong about the RCF (given how it was phrased) was that it said there was only a few million to be ‘got at’ (or something similar) when actually it has all been ‘got at’ already as it is fully drawn down. It hasn’t all been spent or otherwise ‘used’/allocated though - and we don’t know how much has been (it’s not just a case of simply looking at the cash balance).

So in my view the comment was at best correct (bar a few million) and at worst ambiguous in its meaning.

I bother as I’m fed up with you trying to pretend you understand the company’s financials so well and what they mean when most of the time you come up with gibberish.

I mean if I boldly talked about marketing in the same way and said nonsense like most advertising is done on a Thursday as that’s the day it’s most likely to have an impact then I’m sure you’d soon pipe up to correct me. And if I still insisted on standing my ground whatever you said I suspect you wouldn’t just leave it there.

My comment on advertising is obviously silly but some of your comments you make on the numbers are just as silly to someone whose background is that area - like the suggestion that BOO only report the revenue in the way they do for Debenhams because of the way they segment the business.

So I object much more to your nonsense than other nonsense on here as nobody else tries to make out that they are such an expert on a subject when they are clearly not and whenever challenged never backs down.

It’s ok to be wrong. Maybe I did misunderstand the ‘faux pax’ context - if so then sorry and I’ll own that and yes, it does make me look stupid if that’s the case. Better that than stamp my feet or try to wriggle out of it. Try it.

“Remind me, what is a faux pax, why can't you spell "desperate"”

Says the person who keeps spelling faux pas incorrectly. If you’re going to be condescending about other people’s spelling it’s probably best to get it right yourself.

Looking forward to tomorrow as can’t wait to see in what new and inventive ways you manage to mangle the numbers and try to give the impression you actually know what you’re talking about.

So T4G - you are happy then if I say Debs has a margin of under 10%? Laughable.

What I am saying is perfectly correct so not sure what that jibe is about especially as you and T4G are the ones making yourselves look silly. And besides I have never advised businesses - just another one of your misunderstandings to add to a very long list (along with the appropriate figure to use of revenue).

And Debenhams last reported margin was just under 49% so not better as you claim than the other brands. If they did include the overall price of the goods and not just their cut of the income (ie THEIR revenue) then that margin would probably be less than 10%.

Now that really would be apple and oranges (not pears as it has nothing to do with stairs).

No - by doing that it’s apples and apples - which I why they do it.

What’s wrong with statement from SHS? He’s correct in what he said about Debenham’s revenue. Of course you could look at GMV instead but that would be somewhere between meaningless and stupid. Besides if that was (inappropriately) considered as revenue then of course the gross margin figure would absolutely tank. At the moment though I think from memory that the gross margin figure (based on the correct definition of revenue) for Debenhams is comparable with the other parts of BOO - of around 50%?

Spk - Fair enough, I can see how a day-trader looks at other things unrelated to the business itself (as that then becomes largely irrelevant of course) but I’m not one. I’m basically a LTH though that includes swing trading within that.

On why MMs are stifling trade I guess that’s where we differ as my starting point is that they are NOT stifling trade - it kills their own revenue. In my view it is simply a stock at the moment that there is not a lot of interest in and MMs seem pretty powerless to create it when it just doesn’t exist. They could of course try by increasing or decreasing stock sharply in price but the big risk for them is that they either end up with too much unwanted stock themselves (if go high) which they then have to sell at a loss or it dries up trade even further (if they go low) as no-one is willing to sell to them at such low prices - as you can tell, I’m not a great believer in the ‘tree-shake’ theory.

“There's no market being created Hexam that's the point.”

Why are they shooting themselves in the foot? It would be like BOOHOO stopping all marketing spend or doing anything else knowingly and deliberately to reduce sales (unless for the benefit of profitability such as small price increases perhaps or charging for returns).