Member Info for Hexam

"No miners in Helios and Canada, no cash, no interest in Pluto or Argo labs, okey dokey, got ya"

You clearly haven't as I didn't say that. If you add all those things up they may come to $79m but personally I don't think they do and therefore I think their net assets (i.e. assets MINUS liabilities) are around zero. If you think the value is much higher than $79m then fair enough that's your view - though I'd be interested in how you come to that conclusion in case I've missed something.

OK Poor I'll keep sticking to facts and you keep making stuff up. Sounds good to me :-)

Poor - once and for all just provide any proper evidence of just one number I have posted that is inaccurate. Just one. And just saying a number is inaccurate is not enough - back it up. I have explained why your attack on my CLSK number is misplaced (as they hadn't taken advantage of all of the financing facility that you referred to). Any others?

OK Quant I'll play the ball.

At the end of September CLSK had Net Assets of over $400m, that's about $400m more than ARB have so a much stronger balance sheet. It's cash costs per BTC mined are currently around $20k per BTC compared to $30k per BTC for ARB so its cash burn is much less. CLSK is growing rapidly and is on course for 700 BTC mined in January whereas ARB may get back to 200. Perhaps most crucial of all though is CLSK have plenty of scope to grow further because they have a much lower cash burn and access to more capital (via equity raises and loans against assets). By contrast ARB have little chance of raising any capital with the sp so low and no more assets to use as collateral, and only enough cash to last 12 months if they don't spend anything on new machines at all.

You have chosen one metric to compare the companies' mcaps - if you compare them all then CLSK looks a bargain to me to compared to ARB. But just my view based on the above.

Quant - you're not Kessla by any chance are you?

Sorry Poor - keep trying to catch me out and keep failing. I don't know why you would think a press report from April is more accurate than official SEC filings in September but in any event the financing you refer to is a facility to be drawn upon and as at September they had only drawn $20m - this from the SEC filing:

"On April 22, 2022, the Company entered into a Master Equipment Financing Agreement with Trinity Capital Inc., as the Lender (the “Financing Agreement”). The Financing Agreement provides for up to $35 million of borrowings to finance the Company’s acquisition of blockchain computing equipment. The Company received a loan of $20 million at closing, with the remaining $15 million fundable upon the Company's request, if requested no later than December 31, 2022, subject to certain customary conditions."

Try again.

How do you know if the figures are inaccurate if you don't have access to them? It's like the ARBK price you quoted the other day without even bothering to look first. Your posts just get more bizarre. If you do have an issue with the figures I suggest you take it up with the SEC as it from those filings that they have been taken - apart from the monthly BTC production - and which are very easy to access even if you're not invested in the company!

Tbf Chae on mining costs alone (i.e. power basically) the cost per BTC was about $9k per BTC which is pretty good. Just a shame about the other $40k or so of costs on top of that.

Quant - yes mining profit was $1.19m in December but what is your estimate of overall profit (or rather loss) for the month and of of net cash outflow during the month?

Apologies, I know this is an ARB board but CLSK has had repeated questions asked about it today so to help clear things up:

As of last reporting date (30/9/22):-

Total Assets - $452m including $20m cash and $11m HODL
Total Liabilities - $48m including $21m loans and borrowings
Net Surplus = $404m

Total cost per coin mined (in quarter to 30/9) ~ $45k
Total CASH cost per coin mined (in quarter to 30/9) ~ $20k

Coins mined in December = 464

Looking pretty healthy I'd say and much more likely than many others to survive the Crypto winter but please DYOR..

"Nah, some of this deramping eclipses the worst of the ramping, truly moronic."

Still sure about that HC? :-)

Oh please Suthy - your predictions are just as ridiculous as those of the nutty rampers but in the other direction. So stupid they are easy to dismiss.

"I said 35 million short term debt."

You didn't but if you did then you got that wrong too I'm afraid. It's actually zero (barring any trade creditors) in case anybody is worried that they have to pay anything back in the next 12 months.

Poor - my posts are there for all to see if they can be bothered and I'm sure they are capable of making their own minds up rather than rely on your lies. If they come to the same conclusion as you then fair enough but I'd welcome any evidence of anything I've got materially wrong as I'd rather learn from my mistakes than hide from them.

Likewise they can make up their own minds about your credibility. I know I have.

I don't think the RNS is quite as bad as all that. Yes, they confirmed cash is only $20m but this is only what should have been expected as the deal only freed up $21m and they told us they were running on fumes before that. Debt is confirmed at $79m - but again as expected.

The number of coins mined was disappointing but there was a clear reason for the drop.

The big positive though was the sharp drop in direct mining costs (i.e. power basically) which fell from the roughly $13k per BTC mined of the last few months to under $9k in December. Part of that may simply be because they were forced (or chose) to turn off at times when the costs were higher but it is encouraging nonetheless as this drop comes ahead of any PPA agreement.

So personally I think the drop today is an overaction to the confirmation of the net debt position whereas the fundamentals actually do show signs of some improvement.

ARB is still in a very precarious position though and I remain pessimistic of its long term future given its weak balance sheet, high overall costs and lack of growth potential. At least there are some signs of life though.

"You had the debt at 90 million, but that’s ok? Lol"

Yet another lie Poor. Here's what my response was to your suggestion that the debt was only $35m:

"Hexam

Posted in: ARB

Posts: 3,358

Price: 3.75

No Opinion

RE: Chaebol28 Dec 2022 08:06
PI - Your quote just says it pays all indebtedness to NYDIG and North Mill. It has not repaid the notes (£33m) or the mortgages (£3m). So total debt with the new loan is around £65m - less than what the assets they have left are worth."

And what do they say the debt is? £65m. So I was spot on. See, it pays to do actual research and proper calculations rather than just pluck numbers out of the air to suit your ramping.

To be fair it was only one particular ramper saying $35m and people should know by now to avoid his estimates.

@0134 - I think you're into ifs and buts at any of these levels as it is probably not economic to keep mining at any of them. So then becomes a question of whether they just switch off machines or hibernate completely - though there may not be much difference between the two now that Galaxy own and run Helios. We don't know the hosting terms but if the fees can go to zero (which I very much doubt) if all machines are turned off then cash costs could reduce to less than $1.5m a month assuming overheads reduce to the sort of levels pre-Helios and interest on the Galaxy loan is not too penal. As they freed up over $20m of cash with the deal this means they could still last around a year perhaps?

BUT I can't imagine Galaxy would be too happy with that and surely there must be a minimum monthly fee in the hosting contract - and we still don't know if there are any outstanding cash commitments to intel/epic?

So short answer is it could still be around a year or so whatever the level of BTC is but probably somewhat less depending on the terms of the hosting arrangement in particular and any intel commitments.

Of course a very good PPA could mean it is still economical to mine at $12k and maybe lower and that might add a few months. It could also be longer if they have more cash than just what they recently freed up.

Bit waffly but into extreme scenarios with too many unknowns.

Suthy - yes the cash burn is horrendous but they have enough to last at least 6 months now and quite possibly a year. Please do some basic research or at least show your expert calculations that come out with your strangely precise prediction.

Just because PW called it 'transformational' you don't have to keep repeating it like a parrot.

The only way it was transformational was in turning what was once a swan of a company into an ugly duckling - as the only means of survival.