Member Info for Hexam

It's you that blatantly lied about clearing debt Percy so your moral high ground is just a pile of sand. And no, I am not short on BOO. I am long, and still have hope, though the update next month will be key in seeing how much substance is behind their hype.

Mikey - as usual you have twisted what I have said to your own agenda and not what I actually said at all - despite me being very careful and precise with my wording.

I am NOT saying verification means commercial milestones being met at all. And I am certainly not treating “no revenue yet” as equivalent to “no technical progress” but instead just that we have no verifiable evidence of that 'technical progress'.

There are many verifications they could give of any breakthrough but they have given none. All they have done is talk about discussions and NDAs and potential testing with other partners none of which verifies that anything works. This doesn't mean deals need to be in place, for example they could have published results of their lab testing that could then be independently verified (but all we have is a graphic). Or they could quote a named, potential partner commenting favourably on their work - or even just an independent expert.

I know that some of the above will be covered by confidentiality, maybe even all of it, but its absence (for whatever reasons) means there is ZERO verification of what they have achieved. If you can show me some then I will of course hold my hands up and apologise but so far I have seen none myself. And no, a signed NDA is not evidence of 'working', it is just evidence that someone is interested enough to talk to them and potentially find out for themselves if their claims have any credibility.

Hi Oke,

Largely agree but my point is they need the extra cash to bridge that gap. Without it then they would either fall foul of the lenders via the covenants or simply run out of money completely (they had £30m of cash at half-year so this is likely to have mostly or all disappeared since August given the rate of cash burn. So they would already have used more of the RCF (if possible given covenant position) or be running on fumes. With this extra cash they MAY have enough before they become cash flow positive - which means FCF of at least £25m positive). Then they should be home and dry but they are some way off FCF of +£25m so no guarantee that they will get there before end 2027. Also the £35m may not be enough to tide them over until then - though they have other options (notably further, possible assets sales).

So it all comes down to performance over the next one or two years. Do well enough and they will be ok but if the revenues continue to struggle then the £35m is just a temporary sticking plaster and something much more surgical will be needed instead.

The negative narrative of broken promises IS verifiable. For example they said revenue in 2024 and we can verify from the accounts that it did not happen. Many other examples can be quoted to verify that unsubstantiated claims remained just that or were revised (160% to 30% to north of 10% etc.) or abandoned completely.

On the other hand NONE of their claims have been verified in any way. That doesn't mean they are all untrue but as of this moment it is an undeniable fact that only the negative narrative has anything to verify parts (NOT all) of it.

“Clearing the small debt legacy that remains”

That is not what is happening here and they have explicitly said so - so that’s just deliberately misleading on your part (as usual).

“a cash raise to speed up the recovery”

But it is very clear that this is not the primary reason for the fund raise, just something tagged on to make it seem more positive.

They were low on cash in the last reported accounts and are still losing money so they need the raise just to stay afloat and keep the lenders off their backs.

If the recovery does come, and comes quickly enough then they will be ok but at the moment they continue to sail very close to the wind.

The trading update in March should give a lot more clues as to which way that wind is blowing - assuming they put enough detail in it.

“and i highlight this for the sake of other readers.”

Wow! Not just pompous and arrogant but has such a dim view of the intelligence of others on this board that he thinks they can’t make up their own minds about what is written here without his direction.

For the record I also think the technology cannot work but freely admit I am no expert. It is simply my opinion based on a basic knowledge of BTC mining, the repeated failure of QBT to deliver anything tangible that has been independently verified or proven, the many broken promises and examples of backtracking, the ever moving goalposts and engaging my brain for more than five seconds rather than simply accept the PRNs as gospel.

Of course I could be very wrong and some evidence from QBT could quickly show that I am.

"You obviously didn't know the version of SCB before, a version I much preferred tbh but the polar opposite. It's like they are not the same person."

SCB posts in pretty much the same style now that he always has (forthright, frequently and including Caribbean holiday references) except he often used to be way out in his predictions when he was positive on BOO but now is uncannily accurate now that he is negative on BOO. So basically you prefer it when he is wrong to when he is right. Odd.

It's hard to say Oke, though you seem to be mixing up FY26 and F27 numbers a bit.

For FY26 they are saying capex is £16m, lease costs are £17m and interest in £20m but, as I said, for the FCF they report they do not allow for lease or interest payments so your sum simply becomes for FY26:

Adjusted EBITDA £50m less capex £16m = £34m

so significantly positive BEFORE working capital movements and adjustments. The RNS strongly suggests working capital movements are negative in FY26 but not by how much and the one-offs/adjustments are likely to still have a sizeable impact on outflow too. So they COULD be FCF neutral in 2026 but impossible to know and of course that is before the £37m in interest and lease outflow which means true cash flow will certainly be negative even if the reported FCF isn't.

Yes Oke, it buys them time but longer term it all depends on whether they stop the revenue falling otherwise they will always be chasing their tail and eventually will run out of options.

Their FCF number is also misleading as unlike many other companies they exclude interest and lease payments from it so it overstates their cash position. So even with £15m FCF they would still actually be losing money.

“At last update, pulling the PLT sale was presented as a positive”

They present EVERYTHING as a positive - including this fund raise, the previous raises the falling revenue, the £300m+ loss, the proposed sale of PLT, the non-sale of PLT etc. etc.

It always pays to look beyond what they (or any company) says to fluff up their results and actions, and spend some time instead looking at the actual numbers and other facts behind their hyped PR headlines.

It was obvious if you did that they needed to raise funds at some point soon regardless of the position of lenders. The lenders may have helped bring it forward a bit but it was always going to happen.

"The fundraising is not at a big discount but the reasons sound ominous and it's very short notice / unexpected"

The one thing this fund raise isn't is unexpected unless you've had your head in the sand and have been ignoring the poor state of the balance sheet, the continuing cash losses and the failure to raise cash by selling assets like PLT. The raise was inevitable and the price isn't horrendous so not a lot has really changed.

Once again though they've managed to come across as amateurish and panicky in the way they have announced it as well as confirming with their wording that GMV is still shrinking without giving any actual numbers. Not to mention confusing the issue with some bizarre waffling on switching to FCF as the primary metric which makes little sense as their current, primary 'profit' metric (adjusted EBITDA) doesn't include any lease numbers or any other depreciation or interest anyway.

If only they were a bit more upfront about their metrics, numbers and forecasts rather than hide behind waffle and ever-changing presentation they might get a bit more credit instead of inviting suspicion.

Another own goal in communication for something that should have been straightforward and no surprise.

This may be good long-term but there is no way the sp will ‘hover upwards’ in the short term. This firmly anchors the sp to around 20p or a bit lower for the foreseeable future.

“First, reduce everything to outcome framing, “it’s down, therefore it’s rubbish.””

No, I don’t think that’s what anybody is saying. You’ve got it the wrong way around. It’s rubbish therefore it’s down and there are lots of reasons why it is rubbish which have been covered many times already.

Well, if there weren’t persistently disappointing PRNs with a persistent lack of tangible deliverables that lead to a persistently falling share price then perhaps there wouldn’t be such a persistently negative narrative from some?

“Obviously you view my posts, pointing out the obvious flaws and failures of Gardin's RNS, as as too close to the truth.”

That’s just the problem - Mikey can’t handle the truth.

… or it’s simply the precursor to the raise.

Good question. It’s odd that a few have returned at the same time but maybe it’s just the very low price, though I seem to remember that a few of the old regulars knew each - possibly working in the same office - so perhaps it was a collective decision?

In any event I think it close to the end game now. They are low on funds and haven’t been able to lift the sp with any of their recent lacklustre PRNs. So unless they announce an actual deal soon they will have to raise at an extremely low price which at best will be highly dilutive or at worst fail altogether.

This is the same Anxiety who said of QBT less than a week ago that ‘this investment is going nowhere fast best to get your hard earned into the metal sector and make yourself a few bob’.

What’s changed so much in just a few days?

Actually they just seem to be one of the ten a penny rampers that infect these boards screaming their own book. No doubt will quickly move on once they get bored in the next week or so. Still at least they’ll always have their disturbing obsession with ‘leather joy boys’ to fall back on.

Mikey, you say so much and yet you say so little.

You don’t happen to pen QBT’s PRNs do you?