Member Info for Hexam

"I get it that ideally it should had rebounded over 21p by now, but that's not something that me, you or others could had forseen."

Clearly, plenty did.

Hi Buffalo, I was looking more at the All-Share which covers a lot more stocks but agree the UK stock market has got stuck at around current levels. It does mean though that the majority of stocks (main listed anyway) are closer to highs than lows though obviously not true for all sectors with some still on their recovery path post Covid (e.g. travel).

Hi Oke,

I agree that down the line a buyback is certainly possible (for the reasons you give), I just don't think it will be anytime soon. We still don't know why they have drawn down the whole RCF but whatever the reason I don't think it is consistent with a potential buyback in the near term. If they start paying it down then I think that would be more encouraging in terms of possible shareholders buybacks etc. though as I said I'd prefer they invest in growth while they think there are good opportunities to do so.

"most stocks are way off highs and closer to all time lows."

Some may be but the main UK indices are close to all time highs which suggests the majority of stocks are doing at least OK at the moment. Not so true of AIM but that's probably more a reflection of the difficulty of finding any winners there.

BOO is odd as I think it is really a main listing stock dressed in AIM clothing.

I get what you are saying Broke I was just making the point that not all placings are bad (and hence not always an effective weapon of trolls). It depends on what the money is for and how well they do actually use it. I agree though that at this sp it reduces the odds of us ultimately being better off (and more immediately it would almost certainly damage the sp whatever reason they gave). As I said though, I don't see it happening anyway so probably just an academic discussion.

It may be the 'rallying cry of the bears' but personally I wouldn't mind a placing IF it was used to support ambitious (but also sensible rather than reckless) growth that provides greater returns for shareholders in the long run. Would think though that they have pretty much enough cash for that already.

"They don’t need more cash ideally they start thinking about returning excess cash to shareholders moving forward"

Really can't see that happening any time soon Oke. Their net cash position is only £5m so giving any meaningful amount back to shareholders would mean them moving into debt but more importantly surely it's better for them (and us) to use the cash to support their growth ambitions? I'm pretty sure they didn't draw on any of the RCF simply to fund payments to shareholders.

Once the company is more 'mature' and producing regular, positive FCF's then I can see what you suggest being on the agenda but for now I think growth should be the priority.

I don’t think I have got the wrong end of the stick at all. You asked for an explanation other than MM manipulation of why BOO went down with bad ASOS news but not up with good ASOS news. I gave one, unhooked gave another. They may not be the full explanation or even right at all but both are very plausible. And your response rather than to embrace these possibilities is simply to deflect which just adds weight to my contention that it’s a waste of time arguing with a conspiracy theorist.

And I was responding to Unhooked’s post not yours.

This is a response to your post but I’m free to do so. I said I would largely ignore you and I do ignore you. Largely.

“couldn't this be a simple case of bad news getting excessively punished and good news not getting credited rather than any great conspiracy?”

Or it could simply be that the fall for ASOS was driven by industry factors but the positive was driven by specific company actions (which indeed it was with those actions leading to profit despite falling revenues).

It’s the same with all conspiracy theorists though. They see an outcome and simply attribute the cause to their theory rather than look objectively at a situation and all the possibilities and only then coming up with the most likely explanation.

It is a waste of time arguing with conspiracy theorists though as whatever ever case you put forward they will still insist they are right. There are even people on these boards who genuinely believe the earth is flat. You cannot change their view whatever you say so it’s better not to waste time trying.

Filter button?

The 'true vale' or intrinsic value is subjective (unless you call the current sp the true value - for which there is an argument for). So to say boldly that the true value is 77p is just silly. As investors we all believe the true value is above the current 37p or else we wouldn't be invested here and any bidder will therefore need to offer more than 37p to get enough of the shares off us. That is why bids are usually at a premium and a healthy premium at that.

As to market manipulation theories I think this is mostly just investors upset that the market doesn't value the stock as highly as they do and they are the type that can't accept that they may be wrong. The same sort of people that if they lose a game of cards think the other person must be cheating, if the horse they back loses thinks that the race must be fixed or if their football team loses that it is down to the referee (or VAR now)!

We all (as investors) currently think BOO is undervalued, and that we are right, but we will only know that ultimately if the sp goes up and how much we are right depends on whether it reaches our target SP to exit - which will be different for each of us.

So 'manipulation' MIGHT explain a penny here or there but it won't explain why the stock is 10% of historic values and it should be of little interest to long-term investors - any more than hourly or daily price movements.

I think it is actually EBIT that Chae is describing as he has included Depreciation and Amortisation but not Interest and Tax. (Whereas I would include interest too to get full profit before tax and that is what the $40k breakeven I quote relates to).

Either way I agree that timing is particularly key in this industry - for both businesses and shareholders.

I think you may be right - MARA had gone from 2 to 5 years but looking at their latest report it seems to have gone back to 3 years now which I believe is the norm from the ones I've looked at so maybe this isn't as much of a factor as I thought - though I couldn't find RIOT's schedule (assume it is three years rather than 5 though else their depreciation doesn't make sense unless they paid really sky-high prices for machines). I know less about RIOT though as never been much interested in them and have never invested there.

HC - I think the costs used by Chae are as you describe from looking at a few of them (though I'm not sure interest has been included in all of them) but Chae can obviously confirm what he has used.

One thing to be wary of though is that different companies have different depreciation schedules and this will have a big impact on the numbers and may be part of the reason why RIOT looks comparatively poor in that respect. Also I don't think it is possible to work out RIOT accurately due to it having other business activities and although some costs are split by these activities others (i.e. the overheads) are not. I think this may be another reason why RIOT stands out.

Otherwise I think it is reasonable to say that miners currently have an all-in breakeven of around $40k BTC price and cash breakeven (before any capex spend) of around $20-25k.

I expect the all-in costs to be approaching $100k per BTC mined though come the halving - if not more.

However in terms of profit one big thing missing is any appreciation or depreciation in HODL - though for appreciation this is only recognised in profits if the coins are actually sold (apart from for ARB). So obviously if BTC is rising quickly enough, and they are selling HODL, they could show decent profits even if they are operating below breakeven. And if they are not selling HODL any losses shown may be misleading because of the understated value of the HODL.

That said I'm sticking to my view that long term the businesses are just not viable and it's just a case of making hay whilst the sun shines - however short or long that sunshine may last.

HC - I agree the costs themselves are hard to predict but the main driver of cost per BTC mined is the difficulty level which historically has roughly doubled every year almost regardless of BTC price - and that’s even before you take into account halving.

Just hard to see them making profits from mining for any meaningful length of time.

"Bitcoin is in it’s infancy stage, in 7 or 10 years time Bitcoin should be between $250k and 1m dollars"

Even if it is that high (which is debatable), so will be the costs per BTC mined. That's the problem Those that manage to keep HODL will benefit from appreciation too but likely at the price of heavy dilution for shareholders in order to grow and maintain that HODL. And if a bear run then comes the revenue will fall a lot faster than costs per BTC which may mot fall very much at all. It's a crazy game in terms of financials that possibly no companies can win.

Primark are only taking online as far as click and collect so not really comparable or relevant to Boo’s full online offering. I believe they ‘dabbled’ with ASOS before but otherwise can’t see any evidence of appetite for a full online offering. The margins just don’t make any sense for them and they’ve stated this themselves.

Yep, the numbers are scary. From latest reports it looks like $40k and rising is the current breakeven price for BTC and that instantly doubles on halving.

So the bull run has got to be very bullish to flip them in to profit (though those with significant HODL get an extra kicker of course).

So I agree these are not businesses to get wedded to long term but present great opportunities if you get the timing right.

Agree Oke, slick automation is key and even then margins are tight which I think is why Primark has only ever dabbled in it as they could never make money from it at their prices.

Boo seem better placed than most though to make it work and hopefully can get (back) to double digit margins in time…

I agree that post from Pedro is as bad as the stuff you and SCB regularly dish out to him but no worse.

Interesting that you don’t comment on SCB’s laughable trolling there so that’s ok is it so long as it’s not on the Boo board?

Anyway, there are good comments from the decent posters on here so thankfully it’s not all hypocritical, nonsense ramping and persistent, annoying trolling. Filtering out both extremes is probably the best way way to go but for now I’ll just go back to (largely) ignoring you, SCB, Pedro and the rest of the bickering class.