Member Info for Hexam

Yes, a potential bidder always pays a premium. But the main reason for that is to get shareholders to sell (the other reasons you mention are why the bidder is happy to do so). The lower the sp then the lower the bid is likely to be (current sp plus premium). If they offered me £4 for ASOS shares today I'd say no. If they offered £5 I'd think very hard about it. If they offered me £6 I'd bite their hand off. If the SP was already £5 then all those numbers would need to be higher to tempt me.

As for TS it doesn't have a current sp, we only know what ASOS paid for it and hence what they thought it was worth at that time (which remember was more than anybody else did). So we don't have a current value to start with and so don't have a minimum price either. It may be more or less than they paid for it but multiples? Just can't see that at all.

"So what Asos is worth today is largely irrelevant."

That's just silly. The lower the sp the lower any bid needs to be to tempt shareholders. Also the share price is also meant to represent that potential value you are talking about (whether it does fully is the judgement we each make when we decide to invest or not). I agree companies can and do pay more if they can achieve synergies, gain entry or think they can simply run the business better. Equally though all these reasons are why just because TS numbers have been improving it doesn't mean it's value has gone up (if that was what was already seen in its potential anyway when it was bought).

"Neither is 500p today? Who said 500p today?"

gregpeck at 7.45

"Rampers please stop embarrassing yourselves."

Not going to happen I'm afraid. It's a right old rampfest at the moment and goodness knows what it would be like if the SP gets near 40p, let alone 50p. Best just ignoring else it's just like shouting at the wind.

Yes, Knowbody that would be a good result I think if they get close to £300m, especially as the brands themselves were only bought for £219m. To think of getting multiples is just crazy talk though, and certainly not what the market is thinking (the SP wouldn't be sat around £4 if this was felt even remotely possibly). Still, there's been plenty of crazy ramping talk today and I particularly look forward to the 500p that was promised by the end of it :-)

Can't wait for the manifesto. This BB is reaching new heights of crazy today. Priceless.

Do you know actually what a fact is? It would be good if any of your posts were backed up with facts or even a semblance of logic. As it is they all just sound like gibberish.

Even PDS’s post, which is at least coherent and plausible, is largely hypothesising - not factual.

“100% No doubt about it”

Come on CWWX - you’re suggesting a wild, fanciful and totally unsupported theory is fact.

Only Jeremy is allowed to do that.

"It's possible Argo could have won more Bitcoin if one of its competitors reduced its hashrate, so Argo won more Blocks without increasing its own hashrate."

Fleccy - that could be true but only if the overall hashrate had gone down but it hasn't. It was up around 9% on average in October compared to September. The improvement is simply (as they said) due to them switching off their machines for less time than they did in the previous month. They say they have also been focusing on operational excellence but although they have had, for them, a good month they are still mining a lot fewer BTC than they should be for their 2.8 EH (by around 20%).

To be fair I think it's their most efficient month since 2021 (excluding May when the fees were so high) - though still very poor compared to other miners. So as far as ARB monthly numbers go it's probably as good as it gets, or that could be expected. And released in good time too!

Why thank you for posting something incorrect, incomplete and out of date?

I posted the exact figures yesterday and these stripped out the anomalies, were for Q2 as well and, unlike these, included depreciation and share awards.

Nice try but it’s best to check third party data before you post it and not simply trust it. Always go to the actual accounts to verify anything - including anything I post :-)

Well it didn't have much impact last time and the price is now down around 6p since his buy in August so I won't be holding my breath.

You're right Chae - it's useless arguing with people who clearly have no idea of the numbers or willingness to learn. After all why let that get in the way of a good story!

The costs are $7m a month (as shown by my numbers) so it won't - and any improvements they've made to costs will be swallowed up by the increase in difficulty. I've reproduced the exact numbers in he accounts so if you have any other numbers that you feel prove something else then please share them - otherwise I prefer to put my faith in the reported accounts and what we know of since and not the odd random number that you keep throwing out.

For goodness sake. Here are the actual numbers (excluding one-offs etc.)

H1 2023 ($m)

Revenue 23.996

Less

Direct Mining Costs 13.809

Depreciation 12.047

Staff costs etc. 9.752

Interest 6.335

This adds up to a revenue of $23.996m and costs of $41.943m so a loss of £17.947m

They mined 947 BTC so the costs in H1 were $44.3k per BTC mined (or $41.2m in Q1 and $47.6m in Q2 if you do the quarterly numbers separately).

They are now mining less per month and so it is probably around $50k BTC they need to break even.

I don't know where you are getting your numbers from (or more likely how you are interpreting them) but they need $50k BTC to breakeven (or $100k post halving assuming other miners don't halt production before they do which is likely as they have the weakest balance sheet).

On a cash basis it looks much better (probably around $36k now to breakeven) but that assumes no new capital spend so no new machines and hence the position will continue to deteriorate.

Btw - my average is 34p so I'd very much welcome a move up. But it won't come from fantasy numbers.

The costs were about $7m per month in H1. You're probably forgetting about depreciation - most people do but machines cost money and they regularly need replacing - so you can't ignore it.

Typlcal johnny-come-lately ramper - doesn't understand the numbers. Or the business.

I have looked at the books. They do not make profit at 36k. In Q1 it was about $41K and Q2 is was about $47k. I think you are reading the wrong books.

Up my neck? MKS is easily one of my most profitable shares at the moment. Please tell me what elves, paper cards and the fairy on top of the tree has to do with Christianity? A few tweets from the easily offended (everything draws complaints from somebody or other) doesn't leave me petrified, just with a kind of sad despair about human nature.

In my view comparing to other religious festivals is at best disingenuous (and at worst something far more sinister) since they are not knocking the religious side just some of the silly trappings associated with Christmas.

No they don't. They probably need at least 50k to generate profit. 36k may be enough to generate cash (just) but that's not the same at all (for a start it leaves nothing to invest in any growth which is needed just to preserve revenue let alone increase it).