Member Info for Hexam

Karensky - maths actually is my strong suit. I also know what free float stands for. Many here though are confusing it with retail investment which is why they think it is only 30%.

Free Float % is the percentage not held by insiders (or restricted in some way because of close links to them).

Institutional investors are part of the free float so long as there are no restrictions because of the above. Also some investment listed as institutional is actually retail money anyway.

No, the free float is 57% not 30% - even Happy says it is. If you're talking about how many are held by retail that's different and could well be 30% - or lower.

Because over 700m shares isn't small in my book and you didn't say 'relatively' small before. You are right it is smaller as a percentage of total shares than three of the other four top 5 most shorted shares but that is very different from just saying it is small.

As you say each to their own - just hope you're more right about the 100p by Christmas and then you won't here from me on this board again as I'll have disinvested :-)

No, people keep pointing out it is a small free float which is wrong. I was just correcting this. Again.

Who knows how many of the 57% are willing to sell at around this level (or the 43% for that matter, like Umar who ditched about 600,000 the other day) - and I don't really care - but to say it is a small free float is just factually wrong.

Ultimately though everybody is willing to sell - it's just the price that they are willing to do so that differs and I'm sure there are many that wouldn't dream of selling under £1 whereas I'll be long gone by then.

According to marketscreener the free float is around 57% of shares (over 700m) which sounds about right to me and doesn't seem particularly small?

PS - Nice rise :-)

Beat me to it HC. Yes, all they'd be getting for over $100m is some ageing machines and a mortgaged DC or two. So any purchase price would be much lower and probably at no premium to today's sp - if that.

DTN - It's not even a prediction, simply a target - and a very ambitious one at that. Not one that they think they have a 50/50 chance of hitting.

I agree West that there's plenty of time (and agree it actually goes up to 2029). My point is simply that it is not actually a 'growth plan' for the business as the name implies and as read by some - or even a forecast. It's simply a very ambitious sales incentive target (the highest of five ambitious targets) at which the maximum rewards are given. Basing an actual expectation of long term share price, and one's investment choice, on that basis seems very odd to me especially when most companies are likely to have similar schemes with similarly stretched targets so all would seem to be good investments on just that basis.

They obviously think they can achieve it but it is obviously not what they expect to achieve. A not so subtle difference but perhaps still lost on you . A stretched target in incentive schemes is exactly that - a stretch - so the highest of five is obviously a very stretchy stretch. Nothing wrong with shooting for the stars, and rewarding it handsomely, but it is not very often that anybody actually reaches them.

Do I think they will achieve it? No. Is it possible? Of course. Is it likely? Not in my view. Is it certain? Obviously not.

"I presented you with Boohoo's own share price growth plan that forecasts a 1,096% increase in the SP from today's price albeit within 5 years from February 2023."

More misleading comments. The 'Growth Plan' is NOT a forecast but just a very stretched target (the highest of five) at which the maximum payment is made under the management incentive scheme. The lowest target is 95p (£1.2bn mcap). So it is not a growth plan that forecasts £5bn mcap based on expected levels of revenue growth and margins but the most difficult of all the stretched targets and so obviously not their base scenario or base expectations. It would be a pretty rubbish incentive plan if it was.

At least it's more achievable than the previous 'plan' that was scrapped where the LOWEST target was much higher than the HIGHEST target is now. I suspect this plan may suffer the same fate in time.

An odd statement that you don't think I want the shares to rise too much. There's a difference between wanting and believing. I'd love them to be a 10-bagger but I just don't believe there is any chance they will barring a miracle and that all your ramping is at best wild enthusiasm and at worst something much more sinister. Your desperate and frequent urging to get others to invest is definitely out of order as it's giving investment advice but if anybody is silly enough to take it then that's their lookout.

By the way, why have you revised your 100p by Christmas to now be 100p early in the new year? Losing confidence?

To be fair they've done well to reduce costs and the power credits have certainly helped the numbers but their overall cost per BTC mined remains at about $47k (similar to last quarter). The cash cost per BTC has improved significantly though to $27.5k which means they should be generating positive cash flow at today's BTC price albeit not enough to make much of a dent in their debt or to invest in growth (hence the desperation to sell more assets). These cost figures will also go back up as difficulty continues to rise and then of course there's the halving when it will double overnight.

So I think they are still clinging on by their fingertips but they are clinging on well. Just delaying the inevitable it feels though to when they finally lose their grip.

"Honestly all the 50p by Christmas rampy nonsense is almost as bad as PeePer and his constant deramping."

Indeed Wolf, and I see it's finally getting to you too now - though actually it's been 100p by Christmas rampy nonsense. I notice it's now changed to 100p by early in the new year and that will soon no doubt change to Valentine's Day or Easter...

Looks like good results from RevB but overall they broadly broke-even so negligible impact on the BOO balance sheet and profits from their RevB investment (certainly not £12m).

They are not bound to offer the highest SP in the last 12 months, just the highest price for any shares that they've purchased themselves in the last 12 months. So if they haven't bought any at all in that time then there is no required minimum.

“But with such a big % increase of bitcoin, versus a small increase in Argo's share price, here I am.”

Many would take that as a clue not to invest. Anyway the results tomorrow should help tell whether your choice was inspired or not so good luck.

Investments appear on the balance sheet as assets regardless of how long they’ve been held.

The point here is that since they’ve now got significant influence at RevB the reporting has changed so that it is treated as an investment in an associate. This means that rather than be impacted by the sp of RevB the profit in BOO will reflect the share of the profits (or losses) made in RevB. So, broadly speaking, if RevB make a £12m profit then this will add just over £3m to BOO’s profit. It has nothing to do with the length of time invested or the share price.

This change, the reasons for it and the consequences of it are all explained in BOO’s latest report.

The change in RevB sp doesn’t affect BOO’s bottom line at all (unless they sell the shares).

I think it’s around 600k shares actually or about £200k worth. We don’t know how many he already had before he crossed the threshold on the way up so for all we know he might just be selling what he bought last time.

In any case, I didn’t get excited before when he bought some so I’m not going to worry now about him selling some. It’s just noise. It’s how the company is doing that really matters and the next update will tell us that - although we might get some clues earlier (this isn’t one in my view).