Member Info for Hexam

The example here may be redundancies (certainly not not McCabe though) but to say leadership shake-ups always involve redundancies is simply not true. In fact if the leadership shake-up is just related to the top team then they usually don't involve redundancy (pay-offs yes, but not redundancies). Instead it is just a change of one or more of the CEO, CFO, HR director etc. The roles aren't redundant.

Compulsory redundancy is only necessary when people don't volunteer and whatever the position, if that position no longer exists and the person doesn't volunteer then it's the only option left.

I think you are confusing redundancies with getting a pay-off.

"Daytradenovice, you have clearly never worked for a large company.

A leadership shake up always involves redundancies."

I have and it doesn't. It depends on whether that shake-up involves fewer jobs and/or different roles rather than just changing personnel.

Just to follow on from the discussion on the change in accounting rules in recognising increases to the HODL value in profits, I think the impact for MARA looks to be just shy of $300m if they were able to adopt it (and did) in Q4. That number (with BTC where it currently is) is heading for $400m if they waited until Q1! Kind of dwarfs the $36m benefit that CLSK saw in their Q1 numbers!!

CB - Not sure about when Mara can start adopting but my guess would be from their Q1 (Jan to Mar).

One clarification on my comment of CLSK not making a profit if BTC flat, it obviously depends on the level that BTC is flat at! In their Q1 (Oct to Dec) numbers, had BTC been flat throughout then CLSK would have shown a loss BUT with BTC starting their Q2 much higher that shouldn't be the case for the current quarter given that the Q1 all-in costs were about $40k per BTC mined. So good to see that some miners seem to be moving to profitability now even without the rule change.

I see your post said the accounting change led to a $4m benefit - that is only the amount for the backdated impact of course. The other $32m benefit in the $36m that I quoted all happened due to soaring BTC price in the quarter to the end of December. It should be possible to work out roughly the total impact for MARA but haven't got time at the moment.

"CLSK's profitable quarter bodes well, especially including two months largely sub-$40k, fair play being the proper GAAP type too not only adjusted EBITDA smoke and mirrors"

Actually it is a bit smoke and mirrors as the accounting rules have changed allowing them to now recognise the positive change in fair value of bitcoin held (rather than only the negative change or only the positive when it is sold) in their income. This added $36m in Q1 and without it they would have shown another loss. So the big improvement is largely down to the accounting rule change. In other words if BTC is flat they still run at a loss. And of course those benefits begin to reverse if BTC retraces. At the moment though it is looking good!

Bottom line is that companies that adopt these new rules and that have large HODLs will now see published results improve significantly if BTC rises which I think is fairer and MARA for example will benefit big time. Those with small HODLs will see little difference (note ARB already reported this way anyway as not US based so wouldn't impact them even if they had a decent HODL).

Zolander - I’ve answered that question many times including at 16.46 today.

...in fact looking at the latest projection for the next change in difficulty it appears Feb mining is heading for about 100 (give or take and depending also on how much curtailment there is in Feb compared to Jan). Grim.

HC - Transaction fees have also continued to fall. I think 110 is on the optimistic side if the rest of February carries on like this.

"So you are invested but think it will go down."

Where did I say I think it will go down? I've been invested for years and am sitting on a loss - and I think it will go bust in 6-12 months. Its SP does fluctuate wildly though so I am simply trying to trade myself out of a loss but just need to make sure I'm out completely come what may before the guillotine finally falls. I am mainly focusing on the much more secure US miners though and have got back my losses on ARB with them already but I'm just stubborn and would like to see my holding on ARB go blue as well. Time is running out but I still think there are a few pumps left for ARB - just not a very bright or long future.

Seriously - you’re going all the way back to the IPO to measure growth? It may have grown the fastest since way back then but it is not the fastest growing now!

If this rockets I’ll be very happy as I’m invested but I’ve set my sights on far more achievable sp targets (60p) though if a bid comes in that should be exceeded.

If it does ‘rocket’ though and you make lots of money then good for you. I’m not concerned by what total strangers win or lose. In the meantime I’ll just go back to ignoring you.

Blimey - you are Mr Cliche aren't you?

Why are we here? Because we're interested in crypto and crypto stocks. Some (like me) are even invested in ARB.

Why are we negative on ARB? Because we've done some research.

"The pandemic actually fuelled a drop near 100p, the figures then drove the rise to 400 plus"

Actually it is more accurate to say the pandemic caused the stock market to collapse (including BOO) but the sales figures then shot up because of the pandemic lockdown and hence so did the sp. There have been plenty on here that have been seen saying that they couldn't expect to maintain sales after the high street reopened and I agree - this is the first time I've seen an argument that the pandemic harmed BOO rather than helped it.

And now you believe BOO is better than Next and is the fastest growing of the lot (with sales forecast to be down by 17% this year)!!! It WAS the fastest growing once perhaps but that is history now.

Exactly - and it was the pandemic that fueled that £4+ high. They can't rely on another one and since then the landscape has changed with much more competition, rising costs and they've suffered more scandals than the tory party (ok - not quite perhaps). It can recover somewhat (and I expect it will) but I believe £4 is simply not attainable again. Yes a smattering of others may have done it but it is far from the norm and I don't see BOO being one of that select few - as opposed to being one of the many that don't.

I'm annoyed for allowing myself to fall (again) for your usual tactic of focusing on one, unrelated detail to distract from the initial point which was your belief that people only bash good shares which is simply illogical and ridiculous.

So to save another 20 posts back and forth on the Lloyds rights issues which has no relevance to BOO and where you did not understand my point anyway, let's stick to the initial comment. If you believe people bash only good companies then, as absurd as I think that is, you are of course entitled to believe that.

And if you think that it is normal for companies to regain their peak sp having fallen by over 90% you are entitled to believe that too. There are many companies that have tried and failed but I can't think of any (certainly outside of mining stocks) that have. Perhaps you can list some examples?

In the meantime nothing will convince me that BOO will get back to over £4 but if they do then please feel free to laugh in my cake splattered face :-)

"Ridiculous when lloyds had a rights issue doubling the share issue"

You obviously don't understand rights issues but I'm not going to try to be your teacher. Somebody else can as I know it's a futile task.

What shorts? I think "short squeeze" can be added to those from 404x and to the ramper's book of idiot clichés along with 'it's gone NT', 'to the moon', 'the price is being held down', 'last chance under Xp', 'paid de-rampers' etc. etc.

Alex, I can only speak for myself as someone who is often negative about BOO and sometimes may even 'bash' it. Not just BOO either, I do it on other stocks.

The reason is simple. I am invested in such stocks but resent being told over and over again that all is well when clearly it is not, or when people make misleading, vacuous or rampy statements that have no substance whilst my holding declines in value. I'd much rather posters were objective and both the good and the bad could then be discussed sensibly which I think is more helpful for all investors than just looking at one side. Of course out and out trolling is just the same but opposite but personally that doesn't bother me as much as the ramping. There are stocks I'm invested in that I'm very positive on but I don't tend to post on those because I'm happy with how they are doing so just let them be.

So not everybody that is negative is manipulative, insensitive or possibly paid. Some, like me, are just disappointed investors that want to hear facts and opinions from both sides and make decisions that way rather than rely on the posturing and lies of others.

"Let's just see, not selling under 250p."

Then you never will. Your comment is so silly though I assume it's tongue-in-cheek?

Maybe it's more accurate to say people only bash stocks that were once good but aren't anymore?

As to Lloyds and BT I don't know either well enough to comment much but I doubt that the right issues made up that big a part in their decline (and usually rights issues are needed because of a decline in the business, rather than the cause of it and their mathematical impact on the sp depends only on the discount offered - any fall beyond that is just sentiment about the business).

So they are probably valid examples but if not there are plenty of others where the sp has tumbled but shareholders still expect the glory days to come back but will likely never arrive because the world has moved on. Maybe BOO can be one of the rare cases where they can get back to their peak after such a big fall but personally I think they will struggle to get to a £1 and I'll be long gone before that.

It does seem to be a common theme on these boards that people invest (or continue to hold) purely or largely because an sp is much lower than it once was without appreciating the reasons why. What goes down doesn't necessarily go up.

So I imagined all that shorting activity on CINE and the bashers that were regularly on the CINE BB (now bust) etc. and on companies still going like Capita (nicknamed 'Crapita')? Many other examples are available.

I don't short but if I did I would probably pick a bad company. Makes a lot more sense to me than picking a good one but hey, maybe I'm just unusual that way? Certainly don't see the appeal of making negative comments on a 'good' company as would just open me up to looking like a fool when the numbers proved me wrong.