Member Info for Hexam

But ‘tactical posting’ is just YOUR INTERPRETATION but yet again you present what you’ve simply made up as fact/obvious.

I can’t speak for others but I post simply to reflect my disgust as what I see (i.e. it is just my opinion and not presented as fact) as a blatant fleecing of shareholders with vague and dubious RNS which I firmly believe will never lead to anything tangible by way of deals or products.

Time may prove me wrong but in the meantime your long, AI generated and hypocritical waffle is beyond boring.

"They have already done live testing with method c so there shouldn't be any more major hurdles left.."

Assuming they did actually do live testing surely that depends on whether it worked or not - and as of yet there is no evidence that it did.

No problem AWL. I do know the post you are referring to though not 100% sure myself who posted it but I’m sure your memory is better than mine.

In any event there is no doubting the hypocrisy of Mikey’s posts as he exhibits many of the same behaviour in his posts as those he is constantly whinging about. Even his sad barrage of posts today demonstrate that and breaks several LSE rules including spamming the board.

These boards should be for an honest and reasoned debate of views however opposing they might be without resorting to insults and running to teacher every five minutes - but sadly not.

“What do you see happening first? A deal. A product. Or a fundraise?”

A fundraise as that’s the established pattern and if I remember correctly, like me, you believed the money would run out this quarter.

So I expect an attempt to raise funds in the next couple of months but whether or not it will be successful is another matter as clearly they have not been able to boost the share price with any RNS recently including yesterday’s truly underwhelming effort.

Careful Buffalo, you’re in danger of getting into just the kind of circular, time-wasting argument that you (rightfully) despise. It’s easy to fall into that trap with people who post garbage continually and always insist on having the last word whilst they twist what you, they and others say in order to move the goalposts.

I learnt the hard way and the only solution I found was to filter Bfd. Just an idea.

A really odd RNS which basically focuses on developments elsewhere that might prove useful to QBT in the future rather than anything they’ve been doing themselves.

The good news is that it suggests the NDAs are still in place but the most bizarre thing in this weird RNS is that they say the conference gave the opportunity of “allowing QBT’s management team to engage with those ASIC manufacturers which have signed NDAs with the Company.”

Are those companies not answering QBT’s call and emails? Why do they need a conference to engage with them?

It seems those manufacturers are not that engaged in whole process, NDAs or not - and hence the shift in focus to the open source material potentially being available ‘later this year’.

“What is not known at the moment is if the miners have been received by QBT yet or not.... as per the 5th Dec RNS.”

Now you know MrH. They haven’t I’m afraid.

You seem to be someone of infinite patience and unlimited faith MrH. I hope you are rewarded for those things at some point.

🥱

“Method c is close to delivery as per 5th December rns - we are not waiting another 18 months”

So how long are you prepared to wait for method C delivery if not 18 months?

Is 3 months the max for something ‘so close’ or 6 months a maybe a year?

Btw I do believe all this debate on FG’s earnings is a red herring. FG is obviously getting more than the 41k but as you say, so what? If he does deliver - he would have earned it. And if he never does then even 41k is too much let alone all the other money he’s pocketed via the consultancy payments.

“But the only things that actually matter are what is disclosed, what is independently verified, and what ultimately appears in results”

I actually agree with you for once but you’ve also highlighted the biggest issue with QBT. Absolutely nothing has been ‘independently verified’ after all this time - unless of course you can point to any disclosure that says it has.

“Anything beyond that , positive or negative, is inference.”

So you agree then, you inferred something you presented as fact but we don’t know at all whether any progress or not has been made under NDA.

Thanks for confirming.

And please could you point me to the RNS relating to the previous NDAs if you think they wouldn’t let these latest ones slide without issuing one?

No AWL - they were just quietly forgotten about (like so many other things).

That’s just not the case MrH. None of the previous NDAs that came to nothing had any RNS to indicate they were no longer in place.

Any claim these latest ones have led to anything or are even still in place is just speculation.

“Another new profile with an ingrained hatred for the truth.....”

It’s a very strange post they decided to open their account with. No mention of BOO at all, just attack another poster. Great contribution to begin with! (Assuming it’s not yet another multi-account alias.)

“Since the last business update, the company has, continued laboratory and partner testing”

That’s speculation. We don’t know what they have been doing since the last update as they haven’t updated us since then and there certainly hasn’t been any confirmation that they actually commenced testing with any party (let alone still doing it), just that they had signed NDAs (which we don’t know are still in place or not).

As usual you do exactly what you accuse others of doing. Inferring things as fact without any evidence.

My profit figure is after tax so am also expecting over £50m loss pre-tax.

On revenue declines I have tried to allow for PLT but also the drops you quote are GMV - the revenue falls were lower than these at half year hence my higher number (e.g. KM revenue drop was 18% not 31% and youth brands 34% - not 41%)

Perhaps revenue around £950m so down 20% or so.

FCF still negative unless there is a big positive swing from working capital.

Loss after tax approaching £50m but one-offs could mean it is very different to this.

The £3bn mcap is to meet the maximum bonus amount (though actually it is just over £4bn mcap required).

I don’t think anybody is seriously thinking that can be reached (not even Dan) but he only needs a market cap of just under £500m (sp 35p) for the bonus to start kicking in and 40p sp to be earning in the millions.

With my new positive hat on I don’t think debt necessarily needs to be cleared. As long as the debt is reasonable and manageable I think it is profit/cash generation and growth prospects that will be much more important. Of course they could choose to use cash generation to clear all the debt but they might think it is an efficient use of capital to maintain some - like many other companies do.

All this is academic though if they can’t start generating profit at all and the numbers in March should give a good indication of progress towards that (or not).

Don’t worry AWL, Jamerson5 (or Jambone as he was here along with a ton of other banned aliases) wouldn’t recognise a normal, nice person like yourself even if they were stood right in front of him - having seemingly never been one himself.

That’s the angriest I’ve seen you - please don’t let this board do to you what it does to so many others (including me) and bring out your darker side! 🙂