Member Info for Hexam

The mining number is simply in line with expectations despite the difficulty increase as they had two extra days in which to mine and in February suffered significant downtime from the outage at the Cottonwood substation where they said:

“Total downtime from the outage was approximately 77 hours, or 11% of the month.”

The revenue figure also obviously reflected the large increase in average BTC price for March compared to Feb.

So $7m is good, but only what should have been expected and with the halving this month, and no immediate growth prospects, can confidently predict that they will not earn as much in a month ever again (unless BTC goes absolutely ballistic and soon).

But Reardon we know the results themselves are going to be poor as they’ve telegraphed this already so unlikely to affect the price either way.

However there may be some signs in the commentary and underlying detail that could be encouraging (or not) and these may be enough to shift sentiment up a bit (or worsen it still further). We’ll just have to wait and see.

I think this update will be all about the words and the tone (particularly around outlook) and not the headline numbers.

Well T4G this is the second year in a row they’ve missed guidance so I think any credit built up with the market in terms of trust has been largely used up by now.

I agree it would be good if they broke out the companies more, especially Debenhams, and though of course we do get the numbers eventually they are well out of date by the time we do.

That said, Debs only made up 5% of revenue last year so can’t see how they distort the top numbers much. Obviously if they recorded revenue for Debs on total price of goods sold it would be significantly higher but that would clearly be inappropriate.

Debs grew by over 50% last year but it was largely in start-up mode the previous year. Even if they maintained that growth in 2023/2024 it wouldn’t have much bearing on the overall growth/decline - though obviously any good performance in Debs will be disguised by the poor figures elsewhere (if that’s what you mean which would be fair comment)?

Maybe the focus is more on short term revenue as that is the bit that can be seen. The long-term strategic growth has to be taken on trust and with figures for the last year or so poor being so poor can you blame the market for doubting their longer term numbers.

“Interesting that Jambone is unwilling to state a % likelyhood of this happening but rather reverts to form and cherry picks bits that suit their agenda. Shame, we almost had a break out of civility there”

Sums up why I filtered him. Board looks less clogged up and so much the better not seeing the same rehashed, and very selective points, a countless number of times.

I just gave an honest response Garwool with no abuse so take it or leave it.

Would just add though that given the sp the majority of the market seems to agree much more with Brew and me than with you and Awl but best of luck anyway to you in going so much against the tide.

No wonder you’re so keen if you go as high as 75%.

If by ‘pulling it off’ you mean getting a deal based on method B working anywhere near to their claims of 2.6x then would go with Brew’s 1% at most.

However I think the chances of any kind of deal e.g. method A, method C or a heavily watered down version of method B, are much higher, perhaps as much as 50%?

Trisor - I think the percentage is 3% before they have to start declaring. Even for these it is not always real ii money. Anything below 3% to me is not really worth knowing about, certainly if it is not ii money or that of a single PI - unless it's an insider of course but these have to declare any transaction anyway.

Trisor - Yes, but we know that already. We have had no notifications of any significant reductions of major holdings. Also, as I said, most of the data provided is really PI money anyway.

Kudos to you for getting all this data but you haven't explained WHY it is useful. To me it doesn't pass the 'So what?' test. I won't say it is run-of-the-mill data because it clearly isn't, but I don't see how it is helpful at all to me or anybody else in making a decision about investing in CPI. As I said though, happy to be educated by you, or anybody else who finds it helpful in this respect.

Also, again, a lot of that top 20 represents PI money NOT institutional money anyway e.g. HL and Fidelity.

I don't care what institutions hold (other than perhaps what we already get from the major holding notifications anyway).

In particular I don't see the benefit of knowing what the likes of Fidelity, HL etc. have been investing, and when, as all this represents is just the aggregation of what you, I and other PIs are investing on their platforms but happy to be educated if you can identify a particular purpose or use.

Schroders and a few others are different but as I say, we get an RNS anyway for any movements in these.

Reams of data is one thing. Useful information is another.

"So, if you see anything that I post, take it as the gospel truth and don't knock it or dismiss it as useless."

Actually if it's all the same to you I'll knock it and dismiss it as useless. As for gospel truth...

"Why are the deals unlikely Bobcat."

combos - although I'm not Bobcat (though some idiots think I am!) I could give all the reasons I think it is unlikely (again) but that would just be my opinion and would understandably come across as deramping - and set the mob off. Instead I'll just say it is clearly the market's view that it is unlikely. The evidence for this is that nearly everybody (bull, bear or in between) agrees that the value of the company will rocket to many multiples if a deal based on Method B is announced. This implies the chances are slim (else the sp would already be much closer to a post deal price - for example at the other extreme if a deal was considered certain then the price would already allow for it and be in double figures). In other words the low sp reflects the long odds as the market views it.

Of course a deal based on either method A or C (or indeed on method B if it worked much less well than claimed) would not be nearly as explosive so the current sp doesn't tell as so much about the market view of the likelihood of such a deal taking place. So my comments above only refer to a deal based on Method B delivering at least half of the 160% improvement being claimed.

"Hex. If it has stagnated, then move on, you bring nothing to the board, but negativity, sad, sad life."

That's odd as I'm sure it was me that posted a valuation of the company if a deal based on Method B working was announced that demonstrated (on stated and I think conservative assumptions) that the sp would comfortably make double figures and probably a lot more. I thought that was very positive and in fact Jambone agreed as he reposted it over a dozen times. I don't know if he still reposts it as I filtered him as was fed up with his spamming of the board - reposting lots of identical posts (not just my one) over and over again.

I have also been positive on the cash they seem to have in hand which, given their apparent running costs, should give them a reasonable amount of time to pull a rabbit out of the hat without needing to go back to shareholders for more.

It is true though that I've completely lost what little faith I had in them delivering anything following the videos and in particular the last, I thought dreadful, PRN update on 'progress' after which I sold half my shares. I have left the rest in though just on the hope there are enough gullible people to pump this share one last time on the back of a rumour - or not even that. Nothing I say though, however negative, will have any impact on the sp so I don't think I'm shooting myself in the foot. So if it's all the same to you I'll hang around until I'm out and who knows one of the positive posters might actually post something insightful of substance that gives me pause for thought. I'm not holding my breath though as they all seem to follow the same playbook (insults, finger in the air price targets, very selective snippets from PRNs (or more likely videos), daft questions as to why posters dare to post negative things or generally projecting their own appalling behaviour onto others. Still, I live in hope though :-)

"Jambone-I think Bobcat has lost the plot. This is what happens when you have nothing new to say."

And when was the last time you had anything 'new' to say? Not exactly Mr. Insightful are you, just repeating the same old one-liners to ramp the share, abuse other posters or tell us you've seen another green box.

Unfortunately this BB has stagnated as much as the company and its share price.

"Any hint of positivity has to be undermined by the above, its just not allowed in any shape or form, the wroth projected...."

Then explain to me how exactly the new auditor is so much better 'connected' than the previous auditor and why this is so good for the business? Their job is solely to audit the accounts not to promote the company in any way.

It was just yet another piece of ridiculous ramping that deserved to be called out.

"Appointing ACT def a positive move. Better connected with international partners."

1) How are they better connected exactly?

2) Why is that in any way relevant for an auditor?

Changing auditors is quite normal but to dress it up in some way as good for business with such claims is just shameless ramping.

"I see far more reasoned, thoughtful posts from the 'negatives' on here."

Indeed, yet again all the 'positives' on here can do is resort to personal attacks, conspiracy theories, inane questions of the 'why post when you're so negative' kind and just all round general nonsense.

No substance, no insight, no purpose. Different day, same story and will no doubt remain that way for the weeks and months to come in the void between PRNs. So will leave you to it until the next news drops.

"They are just traders or shorters or whatever. Sad existence."

Another made up accusation. I wonder why so many posters on these boards just spend their time doing this but as I said it's tedious and pointless just trying to figure out why people don't behave the way you expect them to.

The most telling thing perhaps for me though in terms of being sceptical about QBT is the lack of substance put forward by the 'believers' to support their argument beyond casual and careless accusations, abuse and selected snippets from an interview (which is at odds with the PRN). Just look through today's chat for example.

On some stocks it's the other way around and it's the 'bashers' that resort to such things and there you can be pretty confident you have little to worry about. Hopefully the next PRN will give investors more to smile about, turn the situation around and those who want to be critical about the stock will be the ones scraping the bottom of the barrel for their cause - but at the moment it's more like shooting fish in one.

Nick, I've posted 78 times in the last 30 days hardly 'ALL day 7 days a week' wouldn't you say? Also my comments aren't 100% negative (though they are about this PRN). As for my reasons for posting I've explained that many times and am simply bored answering the same question.

You are right though that I don't spend much time (and usually none) on stocks on where I make money or are reasonably confident that I will (albeit that could be misplaced). The more doubt I have about one of my choices the more I tend to post which doesn't seem strange to me at all.

However, I don't see what any of this has to do with QBT. I would politely suggest that you focus on the actual arguments being made for and against QBT rather than waste time why posters don't behave in the way you expect them to as that's rather tedious and pointless.