Member Info for Hexam

“If what you said was true then volume (the sum of supply and demand) would remain relatively constant to the market over time.”

That’s not consistent with what I’m saying at all. I would never expect volumes to remain relatively constant. It will vary for all sorts of reasons - for example a day of news or even rumour will tend to up the volumes considerably.

What you both seem to be suggesting is that 33p doesn’t reflect broadly what investors (i.e. the market generally) think the share is worth. So if they thought it was 60-70p for example they would just sit back and miss out what they believe is a 100% potential profit? They must be different investors to me then as I wouldn’t pass up that opportunity (and haven’t in the case of Boo). It’s just that there are enough people around who think the opposite to me.

Again Alex you are misunderstanding what Ronny and myself are saying as I agree with your last comment.

In particular I agree that market price seldom reflects valuation - as for starters nobody knows what that value really is. It only reflects what people THINK it is (on average).

When a takeover happens the bidder inevitably offers more than the current sp to entice the shareholders to sell - else why would they? It doesn't make the bidder any more right about the 'true value' (indeed many end up paying over the odds) it just reflects what the bidder is prepared to pay. It could also simply reflect synergies the bidder can get that are not possible for the existing company.

Nobody knows what the 'intrinsic value' is, everybody is just guessing and some shares will inevitably end up being further away than others. Even Gamestop doesn't invalidate what Ronny was saying as even at the extremes investors were prepared to buy and sell at those prices i.e. "A company is worth what investors value it at" however crazy that value seems to be.

“At either $1 or $350 no one could claim that GameStop was correctly valued by the market.”

And as I just posted, nobody is saying that.

“But what about the company? It would trade in the real world everyday just the same. It would be a case where the market price was disconnected to the "real world" intrinsic value.”

Indeed and there are plenty of other reasons (or ‘variables in play’) as to why the sp would differ from the ‘real world intrinsic value’ whatever that is - including if I was to buy £300m of shares of a random AIM company.

Neither Ronny nor myself are saying the sp reflects the ‘real world intrinsic value’ of the company but that it reflects what investors on average THINK that it is. As you said if you did short a random share so heavily it wouldn’t change the company ‘value’ itself but your action will change what people think it is because, as you put it, of them ‘thinking you know something’. Otherwise any short term hit from the actual shorting would probably be quickly reversed.

I’m not describing a perfect market but just an ordinary market where sp depends on supply and demand, which in turn depends on what they believe it is worth (for whatever reason) and everything else is just short-term noise.

"Ultimately the shareprice is a measure of investor confidence. It represents a lot of research by a lot of people.

A company is worth what investors value it at."

Agreed Ronny. In effect the sp is sort of an average view of investors at a given point in time. Obviously those of us invested think Boo is worth more than 33p (in some cases considerably so) and fall one side of the average, whilst those shorting or who are willing to sell at these prices fall on the other side. Which side is proved to be right only time will tell but that average will move as confidence moves about which in turn depends on many factors (results, company news, wider economic factors etc.).

We are all just guessing and rather like picking horses out in a race we all have different reasons as to why we think we've picked a winner. Let's just hope Boo turns out to be a thoroughbred rather than a donkey!

Glowacki

As others have pointed out already the sell was to fund the tax payable (it actually says this on the RNS). Of course the price is very low and she could have held on to the shares but then she would have had to find around £35k cash some other way. So timing not great but no drama or need to speculate - just normal goings on.

“I think one things for definite, ARB is burning cash at this BTC price.”

Is it? I think it is very likely based on Q1 numbers but not definite.

It is definite though that QBT is burning cash at this BTC price. Mind you if BTC was $1m QBT would still be burning cash.

It’s odd that you keep popping across to troll ARB. It may be an easy target as it is indeed in dire straits but QBT is an even easier one and I really can’t believe that supposedly grown-up people are falling for it. Having said that there is an over-fondness for emojis on that board so perhaps not that grown-up.

Agreed @CPI. I don't like using the filter button, rather prefer to just ignore posters like NoFear (usually at least one like him on each board) - sometimes the temptation is too much though. I'll try to do better, regardless of whether he's in ramping or de-ramping mode. As you say though he seems to be largely talking to himself already anyway.

There's that third person thing again!

The problem is that if you make stuff up about people then those people will know you're lying about them so how do you expect to be credible in their eyes with anything else you say? And if you keep doing it to different people then nobody will end up believing you.

But hey, carry on. I don't need to say anything else really as you seem intent on doing the damage to yourself with each post you make.

I can't decide actually if you are for real or a parody account acting a part - which would explain the strange third person references to NoFear I suppose?

"Many chose not to sell and went on posting that 50p was the next to go to and 60 and so on. Those posters were Hexam, GoCpi, and others that were on their high horses galloping their views that capita was to fly to the moon and hit new highs."

That's simply a lie. I never said any such things (and neither I suspect did GoCPI as he seems a very sensible poster to me).

I also sold some shares at 50p and also 36p, 33p and 28p. CPI sp could go anywhere if they really start getting it right but with them, more than most, I think it is always a good idea to bank some profits as you never know quite when they will mess up next (as unfortunately they keep demonstrating).

“Believe me or not”

I don’t. And that pretty much goes with all the nonsense you write.

One reason I didn’t name you is that you don’t need any more publicity than the shameless self-promotion that you frequently give yourself. Sometimes even referring to yourself in the third person - enough said.

Another reason is that I was quoting you so it should have been obvious.

There are some decent posters on this board making interesting and useful points - both positive and negative. As far as I’m concerned you’re not one of them and it’s hard to take your self-important rhetoric seriously at all.

Btw - in case it’s not clear that’s for you NoFear :-)

Not sure but tbh although the saying goes 'the devil is in the detail', for ARB you don't really need to go to that level of detail to see the problems - it seems blindingly obvious.

So I've stopped digging into their numbers so such as it seems pointless. How much worse can it be whatever you find? And very unlikely to find a golden nugget of hope either (though if anybody does would be delighted to hear it)!

I rather suspect that they already are e.g. the board changes?

"Capita have enough contracts already to make some decent profits."

Do they? I think this is the crux of the issue currently, the uncertainty whether this is the case. Their adjusted PBT was £33m at the half-year, not exactly coining it and that could be eroded if costs rise (even any inflation proofing only provides proof against inflation). They could also lose existing contracts. Perhaps the biggest concern though is that Capita seem accident prone to put it mildly (regardless of whether those accidents are of their own making or not). So it's hard to be confident that there is not another item of bad news around the corner or more one-off costs e.g. yet another re-organisation etc.

I DO believe the sp is undervalued and am comfortable (for now) with my investment but am certainly not blasé about it. We should be in for better times ahead but with Capita they always seem to find a way to shoot themselves in the foot.

For me the next set of results is key in showing they really have got a grip on things and until then I can't see too much momentum building in the sp barring any surprise good news.

Appealing again? Nope, unless you mean as a short-term trade which is fair enough.

In a year's time though ARB will be mining around 40 BTC a month if they are lucky (due to no capital to grow beyond the 2.8EH they have planned and with the expected difficulty increases plus the impact of the halving).

Their cash costs are currently over $4k per month and likely to be higher by then. So they need BTC to be over $100k next year or else are still haemorrhaging cash that they don't have now - never mind in a year's time.

The numbers just don't add up and because of this it's hard to see anybody willing to lend them more money or be able to raise further equity of any significant amount to dig them out of this cash crisis let alone enable them to grow.

So unless you think BTC is going to climb far beyond $100k within a year (always possible of course) then it's hard to see ARB still being around in its current form by then. If anybody has a counterargument as to why they might be though (apart from BTC being much higher than $100k) then happy to be 'proved' wrong - and even if BTC is much higher than $100k then surely other miners with large HODLs, that have capital to grow and more efficient mining will benefit more from such high prices?

"If you don't believe that the cpi share price wasn't manipulated then you haven't understand how the share dealing stock markets works. The markets makers do as they please since it's their show."

If you think the game is that rigged then why are you playing it at all?

It's funny how you are quick to credit any success you have as being down to your amazing insight and acumen but any downturn in your investments is due solely to market manipulation. It seems in your eyes you are infallible.

Personally I take little notice of any poster who is so quick to blame others and so keen to blow their own trumpet - especially when they blow it so loudly and so often - and so frequently off-key.

Hi Broke - I was referring more to those that they are buying back the shares off, who would have effectively been mugged of their shares. Their choice to sell of course and those that hold will benefit from the sp rise in the meantime - though that sp rise will probably have little to do with the buyback itself. If they then do raise again the share price will probably suffer disproportionately compared to how it benefitted purely because of the buyback, so even the shareholders that held will probably be worse off than if no buyback had ever happened - but the main losers will be those selling at current cheap prices (assuming of course the sp does recover as we all hope)!

All academic of course as it won't happen.

And apologies to you Oke for misunderstanding your point although I still disagree with you. I would rather they spent the £150m (or whatever) on a decent growth opportunity (RevB or not) than buy back shares.

"Rather Boo didn’t pay a premium for RevB and as alternative -which I know is not going to happen - Boo buy back 33% of our Shares

The big picture for Boo they need to make the assets they have today generate FCF/ profits not purchase yet more assets"

Oke - how does buying back 33% of shares help in this respect or the company at all? That would cost about £150m (assuming they could even buy that number of shares) which would be a straight hit on cash flow and send them into a net debt position of around £145m. So a hit on cash, a very much weakened balance sheet and no help to future FCF (in fact it worsens if compared to simply paying down £150m of the RCF and reducing the interest payments).

Perhaps worst of all it reduces the scope for further growth.

I just don't get the logic unless you think they are going to raise funds later when the sp is higher and so make a profit on the shares effectively (at shareholders' expense).

It might help the sp but is detrimental to BOO itself as it's not as if it i

I didn't say I couldn't see it. I bought more when it went below 20p so I got it wrong too (for now). But obviously there have been many prepared to sell at these prices so they could see see it. I still think I'll be OK longer term but at the moment sentiment just isn't there for the stock and no amount of nonsense, long-winded, self-important rampy posting from you is likely to change that. Instead what will is some hard data from Capita that shows that they really are on the up and in a sustainable way. That could be weeks, months, I don't know - but I am prepared to wait.