Member Info for Hexam

MNS - One thing I don't miss from the old board is the minute-by-minute commentary of the BTC price/share price/individual trades etc. Seems to be back though.

I get the enthusiasm and excitement with the ETF approval but all this running commentary is just inanity bordering on hysteria.

"Hex. I know what you are saying about LTHs, but, I think some are happy trading as well"

I agree, and I'm like that too but that really wasn't my point. It's ok to be one or both, just a choice we each make, all I'm saying is that posters who only post in line with their self-interest i.e. ramp a stock purely because they want it to go up and troll a stock purely because they want it to go down offer nothing to the board as there is no objectivity in anything they say and they just see the same (but opposite) agendas they have in everybody that disagrees with them.

Witness all the hysteria, accusations and slanging matches today as the ETF approval adds fuel to the fire.

"Was worried this may happen. What is the bb's view on the hypothesis that if people want exposure to bitcoin that they will now buy an etf and not a minor. In the states you can now buy bitcoin etf in your pension. If this happens here who will switch from miner to etf?"

Speel - this was exactly the hypothesis I posted the other day and the replies you've had have missed the point. Yes, the miners themselves will benefit from BTC going higher because of the ETF but that doesn't mean the shareholders will too. For example arguably miners are overvalued at the moment (huge mcaps despite many still being loss making and with halving coming up the prospects of future profitability are questionable unless BTC goes beyond $100k).

So even though their prospects improve if shareholders shun them in favour of ETFs as their route into BTC then the share price could fall and (arguably) overvalued stocks become less overvalued or even undervalued.

I suspect in practice the rising ETF tide will lift all boats but I agree that what you suggest is a possible risk as far as miners' share prices are concerned (not so much miners themselves).

Plutuq - I don't think it is being a LTH, shorter or a trader that is the issue. They are all just backing there own hunch. It's those (whichever group they are in) that only post out of their own self-interest, i.e. line with how they want the sp to move, that I think are the problem. Objectivity and honesty go out the window and they spin everything to suit their own agenda and shoot down anybody who posts anything that goes against that agenda (ironically accusing them of the very thing that they are guilty of themselves).

That's why I have no time for rampers or trolls though I admit the worst are those that switch sides depending on whether they are in or out - they also tend to be the most extreme.

I also find it amusing how LTHs look down on traders as if LTHs would never sell. Everybody aims to sell eventually. If they do should they then immediately become an enemy in the eyes of those still holding?

Thanks @0134 but as I said the mechanics to me are not important as long as you understand what it in essence means.

In this case these funds track the BTC spot price so broadly (after all the complicated stuff) the price of the fund will rise and fall in line with BTC. This effectively means the funds buying and selling BTC so the assets of the fund match those they are trying to track as more money goes into or out of the fund.

So if these funds are popular then this will provide additional upward pressure on BTC price as these funds will need to buy more BTC. If they start declining then they will exert downward pressure as they sell BTC.

It's obviously a LOT more complicated than that in practice but, unless I've misunderstood, the above is the crux of it and beyond that is detail I don't need really to know (and probably couldn't understand fully if I tried).

@growthinvestor - I don't know the detail but I presume these funds are well seeded i.e. they have a big fund to start with from the investment house or backers or whoever so your example seems unrealistic as any new investor at most will only make a small difference and before long you'll have sells that are increasingly offsetting some of the buys.

In any event I don't see it as any different to a FTSE Index tracker in principle. In those the fund has to mirror closely the investments of the index so needs to buy those assets if the money is coming in or sell them if they are going out. If they get too out of line then the performance of the fund doesn't match that of the index it is tracking which is the whole point of the fund and so it will quickly lose appeal.

To do this is much more complicated than it sounds as you don't just simply buy the assets the fund is tracking immediately any new money comes in from an individual investor (or sell if any money goes out) - that would be impossible. Instead there is aggregation and all kinds of other things going on. But it still boils down to having assets mirroring those that are trying to be tracked so will involve buying and selling BTC in this case to keep in step and if these funds are growing then that will help drive the BTC price up (hence all the excitement) which in turn will then be reflected in the value of the fund. If no net new money is going into the funds (or even if money is going out) then its price will still go up if BTC is going up without any 'driving' help from the fund itself as the value of the BTC it already holds is going up.

So short answer is yes, net new money flowing into these funds will help drive the price of BTC up which in turn will be reflected in the price of these funds - but equally the price could go up even if there is no new money into the funds as it depends also on the demand outside these funds that is driving BTC. Similar arguments apply to selling and downward movements.

Hope that helps but the above describes the principles' in very broad brush fashion - the practice is a lot more complicated as your post since I started writing this and the investopedia link suggest!

However, in my mind the mechanics don't really matter. What is key is that the price of these funds should track BTC price closely (to meet their objectives) and the more popular these funds are the more the price of BTC will be driven up. Of course though the more of this money that is simply recycled from money that was already invested directly in BTC then the less the impact will be.

Unless I'm missing something then surely the price of these ETFs will simply track the BTC price more or less no matter how much is bought and sold (that just increases or decreases the assets under management in these funds). How can their price go up 25% unless BTC goes up 25%?

Maybe the dip in BTC is just from some people rushing to sell BTC to put it into an ETF as soon as they start trading? In which case it will soon reverse as this money is recycled as well as being joined by those going into BTC (via the ETF) for the first time that didn't want the hassle of investing directly.

Haha - I really didn’t think such a simple word like ‘before’ could be misinterpreted at all :-)

Agree BNS - the key thing is not to take it as any clue which was the point I was trying to make before dictionary corner got to work. Oops, there’s that word again :-)

Cheers Phil, and I think my last point has just been amply demonstrated :-)

You inferred, I didn’t imply. In fact you said ‘just before’ and I deliberately omitted the ‘just’ part in my reply for the very reason that it wasn’t just before.

I think August is before October? Also some posters (and one in particular) went on and on about how the update couldn't be bad and 100% that guidance wouldn't be lowered simply because Umar had bought in. All I'm saying is that this shouldn't be taken as a sign, one way or the other.

"While I agree with a lot of things that you say, it's considered.. you have to admit that that is an assumption."

Thanks, and I admit it is an assumption, in fact it is not even that, it's just my guess at a very possible explanation and outcome that could both be completely wrong.

I agree there is precious little by way of facts to go on here hence everybody filling the gaps with speculation. My own speculations may be close or way off but we can only act on what we believe not on what others try to tell us. Reasonable discussion might help us all reach better conclusions but unfortunately this board seems to be full of people who are polarised and become very upset, childish and abusive if anybody dares disagree with them.

"It's only a tiny top up and takes him back to where he was a couple of months ago, but it's interesting that it's just before a trading update"

He first went over 3% when he invested before the last trading update...where they lowered guidance. Let's hope he's got it right this time!

@Lambinator

€2.7m is small change IF the 2.6x is true AND they have any reasonable deal (or deals) lined up based on this. They also wouldn't have to set aside money now if that was the case as it repayment is still 11 months away. It suggests to me that they aren't confident of a decent deal soon so personally don't expect any news this month or even Q1. Just my take though and of course they could just be acting ultra-prudently and happier to be better safe than sorry and pay the extra 2% interest that's been added (and the extra two years' worth). So news still could land anytime I just think the extension makes it less likely that it will be sooner rather than later. Cue RNS tomorrow :-)

Personally I don't take much extra comfort in options etc. being aligned with SHs as they generally are (good example was CINE but that didn't turn out so well).

Still, as you say, we all read news through a different lens and of course you have every entitlement to be bullish as I do to be bearish about this news. It's all just opinion and we just have to be comfortable with our own reasoning - not anybody else's. Still holding though...for now.

And I expected a comment about green bars with my comment. This board really is comical at times and not in a good way sadly.

Except the extension doesn't increase the capital for 2024 so suggests to me they don't expect that much by way of revenue this year to help with any such expansion next year (if that is indeed the aim).

I think you owe Bobat an apology and your optician a visit.

"If that’s no MM games what is it?"

Last night's RNS? The fiasco over the BTC ETF approval? Another day without news?

It's only a small drop anyway. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Cheers Awl. Either way, not long to find out. Personally I don’t think there will be much reaction one way or the other…