Member Info for Hexam

Cheers Chae. My mistrust of MARA is probably irrational as let's face it they all have their trust issues. Tbf it's more though because their sp has been comparatively sluggish of late - but also simply that I haven't researched them as much as some of the others yet. One thing they clearly have is muscle though and that is going to be very handy.

I've just finally come to my senses though and rather than focus on getting my money back on ARB by keep on backing the same nag (which is more of a pride thing), it would be far better backing the thoroughbreds in the race that have at least one of good efficiency, HODL or growth potential...

Chae - I think a case can be made for pretty much any of the miners at the moment, they all have their different strengths with none of them excelling at everything and all have their weaknesses too.

The exception is ARB who are lagging behind on just about every metric. I was trying to get my ARB losses back by trading them but instead taking a scattergun approach to the others seems a much better option - and paying off nicely already :)

Just haven’t bitten the bullet on MARA yet though - maybe on the next dip ;-)

Naughty :-)

@LTHamigo - As I mentioned below, the actual interest payable on loans was $276m in 2021, so an effective interest rate of around 5% or so. The 18% that Imulhare mentions was just his way I think of saying that the $900m was silly, he wasn't saying they are paying 18%. Clearly they are not.

"he mentions interest payments on loans of 900 million dollars
and says only 200 + millions was paid that doesn't make sense am i missing something"

He hasn't looked into the $900m properly. Only $276m relates to interest on loans and this is the figure that should be compared with the interest actually paid ($227m). So much closer and well within what might just be normal timing differences between interest accruing and timing of actual payments. So that, at least, is nothing to worry about.

Most of the rest of the $900m he mentions relates to leases where no interest is actually payable (instead rents are the actual cash payment and this show up elsewhere in the cashflows).

He is clearly much more knowledgeable on financials than the (feted by some) Mr White but he hasn't looked deeply enough into the numbers to understand them properly and has made a few howlers including the one above. The other thing though is that I don't understand why he is even focusing on 2021 when the interim results for 2022 have been published and they are releasing monthly financials as part of Chapter 11.

These financials show they are still making losses now but with the film slate improving, and rent reducing, hopefully that will turn to profit by the end of this year...

As usual Bitfarms fast out of the blocks with their monthly update. They mined 486 BTC in January, slightly down on December and coins mined per EH of 110, down 3% on December. The 3% drop is in line with the increase in average difficulty in the month (the real pain from the increases in difficulty they mention in the release will be felt in February).

So BITF still very much at the front of the pack when it comes to efficiency and if ARB had the same level of efficiency they'd mine around 275 in January - but sadly they don't come close, though should still hopefully manage over 200 provided the handover to Galaxy went smoothly.

https://bitfarms.com/investors/news-events/press-releases/detail/177/bitfarms-mines-486-bitcoin-in-january

“That last trade will reflect in the opening price”

Nope.

I’m not trying to convince anyone - just stating a simple fact. Tbf it was you who were trying to ‘convince’ me by ‘assuring’ me - even though you were wrong.

I agree though, there are far more important things in life - and to do with CINE. The closing price doesn’t matter at all as you can’t trade at that price.

The closing price by definition is set by the UT not by any individual late trades or late reported trades.

Closing price is 4.007. This site is not always correct but today it is.

No problem Wellington and right on cue maidit comes up with a perfect example of 'less than credible ramping'. Couldn't make it up - except he does. Any bid must be in the region of $10bn. Seriously? And $20bn??? Come on now please.

Pretty sure he wasn't being serious! Wellington is one of the more balanced posters and much more clued up than most. I don't think he's likely to be carried away by some of the optimism on show here which tends to range from the understandably hopeful to the less than credible ramping.

AB - Surely the margin will go down as the cost will not now only include just power but also whatever other costs of Galaxy running Helios, plus margins, are loaded into the hosting fee? This is likely to comfortably outweigh any reduction in electricity costs unless they have got a stellar deal on the agreement.

As you say though we have a while to wait and will get to see all the other miners' updates first - some of which will be very interesting.

AB - yes difficulty continues to rise and figures for Feb won't look great for any miner (unless they are one of those adding the EH) especially as it's a short month too. ARB may make 200 this month but next month is unlikely to be over 175. Most interesting thing though will be to see what impact the hosting arrangement has had on their direct mining costs - assuming they will still publish these?

Would also love to know the 'insight' that suggests why the sp should 'surge' today here and in the US? All seems very quiet at the moment with BTC so hard to see why there would be a big movement in sp today either way on no news.

“A TRADING UPDATE WOULD BE NICE MOOK”

What? They have given more updates on trading in the past few months than in all the last few years put together!

They give detailed figures every month of revenues, costs and debt with the one for December due out in the next couple of days.

They supplement this with occasional presentations including the very informative one on January 4th.

I know of no other company giving as regular updates on trading as CINE are at the moment but it’s all due to chapter 11 and the requirements of this so don’t expect a separate update outside of it but what more could you possibly want (apart from details of ROW performance which isn’t covered by chapter 11 reporting)?

"Prime or not prime not really relevant" - I'd contest that. Renting or buying is just the equivalent of blockbuster (in the day) or HMV (or indeed Amazon the 'shop') but in the form of streaming rather than dvd. All it means is that all the films you mentioned are now available anywhere on dvd or streaming if you want to buy or rent it.

It's quite clear we can't convince eachother so let's just see how it plays out.

I'm afraid I also can't agree with your $625m being achievable for Feb but again I hope it's you that are right.

Smile and Lyle are not streaming on Amazon Prime they are just available to rent or buy - I was meaning included within their streaming subscription.

As you say, there’s no harm in disagreeing and it will be interesting to see if a major studio does make a move for CINE (or any other multiplex chain).

Interesting RI but not sure that 'proves' it can exist in today's streaming world, and in the US with multiple studios owning cinemas. It is an interesting debate and I could be completely wrong but I would be amazed if any studio (including Amazon and Netflix) put in a bid for CINE or large parts of it. Though I actually hope I AM wrong :)

HNS - I just think it would get very messy to say the least and would think they would be much better off having a one, two or maybe (at a pinch) three screen cinema just showing their own, new content (where the big plus is that they keep all the ticket revenue), independent/smaller studio films and maybe a select film or two from their back catalogue. I don't think the analogy with Sainsburys is appropriate and even with Amazon Prime, scrolling through I couldn't see any films from other major studios (that have their own streaming platforms) apart from very old films?

I just can't get my head around why Amazon or Paramount or even Disney would want to own a 10 screen cinema let alone 500 of them. Maybe I am missing something but really can't see a Disney cinema trailing and showing Universal films whilst down the road a Universal cinema is trailing and showing Disney films. The negotiations around fees, promotion, showtimes etc. would be challenging to put it mildly. We'll soon see though if a major studio does take an interest in CINE and if it does then I'll happily hold my hand up!

The point is I can imagine Paramount or whoever owning a one or two screen cinema but not a multiplex. What would they show in 10 screens? Other studios’ films? Seems unlikely - apart from independent films, especially if Universal and Disney etc had their own multiplexes in the same city (though of course not enough audience to all have one in most places).

So I can see a lot of appeal in owning boutique cinemas that show only their own films but can’t see them making a multiplex work or pay - so would expect little interest in what CINE has to offer (except perhaps some Picturehouse properties)?

Just my view though and if anybody can suggest a model with studios owning 10 screen cinemas that could work I’d be interested to hear it.