Member Info for Hexam

"selling this business for 5bn and leaving equity holders with zero"

debt is now $6bn, not $5bn

HNS - Agree it's all speculation but that's why I responding to a poster saying effectively it WILL be sold AND for over $7bn. He cannot possibly know that and equally even though I think it is very unlikely, for the reasons I gave, I do not know either.

Opinions are great but stating opinion as fact is less so.

Yes, it would be very appealing if they could get all their debt repaid immediately via a sale transaction but my point is I don’t think anybody would be willing to buy it for enough to make that possible. What is more likely is that any sale would be a partial one (e.g. Regal) or be for much less but with existing lenders retaining or foregoing some debt - but these weren’t Ian’s suggestions.

Btw the lenders would never get any profit on top of their debt repayments from the sale price - any money left over would go to shareholders. The only way lenders can share in future profits as well is via some kind of D4E which I believe is still the most likely option (together with a partial sale perhaps).

A full sale but at much less than the price that enables all the debt to be repaid immediately is also quite a likely option I feel.

Basically we don’t know except that I think anything Ian says is not likely at all based on his illogical reasoning and previous track record.

No - as I can’t imagine any new owner will run the business debt free so there will very likely be new loans to service. Besides, even debt free I think $4bn would be pushing it.

The 2 to 4bn does take into account the cash it generates and I do believe it could be worth a bit more - but what it is worth, and what somebody is willing to pay for it and risk with hard cash is another thing.

I already mentioned the additional, just under, $1bn so not sure why you say 'Plus $0.9bn'. They paid $1.9bn in total. $0.9bn was to provide extra funding and pay off the RoW loans. The other $1bn was paid to themselves and rather than dilute their investment it strengthened it as it moved those loans to the top of the priority ladder.

As for the hedge funds chucking money at it pre-covid it was obviously a less risky looking business then (no CP judgement, $11bn US box office rather than $8bn and only slowly recovering). So not sure that is particularly relevant.

HC - Plenty turned off during the summer and didn't inform the market immediately, just part of their normal updates (as it is after all just an operational thing). This assumes it is believed to be temporary like it was when power costs were high but if they are thinking of much longer term shutdowns (like full moth-balling) then I agree there is more of a case for making it public straight away.

Jeff, if the lenders didn’t put in the extra money (just under a $1bn as some paid off their own loans) then the company would have run out of money and they’d be fighting over the assets in a liquidation scenario (worth far less than the value of their loans). So the extra money was certainly worth it in order to get much more of their original loans back. How much more who knows but I believe a full sale is not their best option and if it is then we’re unlikely to see anything from it - but of course I could be wrong!

Indeed it doesn’t AB - all I was suggesting is that it will be interesting to find out if it was.

Jeff, the $7bn is simply the current debt that Ian said would be paid immediately (just under $6bn), at least something to cover CP fine (anything up to a $1bn - though may end up being nothing) plus enough to give shareholders a ‘nice’ sum (anything up to $1bn).

If you really think there is someone with deep pockets out there willing to pay around $7bn for a business with its level of profitability then fine. Perhaps if it was a risk-free investment but it’s hardly that.

I’m still invested as I still see various ways we could end up with more than 5p per share (maybe much more) but a full sale I believe is very likely to lead us to being out of pocket. Just my view though - but at least I have logic and numbers behind it - unlike Ian who just invents stuff (he’s already moved us hearing all about this definite sale from last week until December).

Can't see Bitfarms turning off as they seem one of the most efficient miners so they'd make a bigger loss if they did (unless they moth-balled completely).

Yes, the next set of updates will be interesting. Perhaps somebody’s finally blinked.

Still on track for 11% drop and now nearly halfway through this cycle.

Well, it certainly wasn’t me that brought up the Romans. Just because the current system is far from perfect doesn’t mean a particular, different system will be better. Maybe a BTC led system would be better but I’d just like to see a convincing argument as to exactly why that is likely - rather than just ideological sound bites.

In any event all I’m saying is that whatever that ‘better financial system’ is it can’t possibly solve everything for everybody.

For the simple reason of how can what you say actually translate into making life so much better for everybody in the world? There are enough people suffering in countries with those strong economies and currencies you are talking about. Inequality can’t just be solved by the way the financial system works. And I hope you’re not using ancient Rome as an example of a fair and equal society.

Whatever BTC turns out to be, it’s not a panacea for the world’s many problems.

Really think it’s going to take an awful lot more than BTC to ‘level up’ the world.

Agree on the second one but the first one is a bit chicken and egg. I think HC’s point is about it being a store of value without a real use.

In any I think it’s still a long way from demonstrating it is a store of value - or at least a good one.

To be fair Ian is not saying that - he is saying all shareholders will benefit nicely from a full buyout. But he is also saying all lenders will be immediately paid off. That me means a $7bn+ price and I can’t see anybody stumping up that kind of money on a business not making profits currently and has never made one of more than a few hundred million dollars. Just doesn’t add up.

There are plenty of options that could see us coming out of this quite well. I just don’t think Ian’s route is one of the more likely ones (anyway, according to his previous posts we should have had the RNS and sale timetable already)!

It may do but, again, how does that help your house buyer? Gold doesn’t.

Once again Ian you are making statements as if they are facts. They are just pure speculation and, in my view, poor speculation at best. Who is going to pay $7bn+ for CINE so that shareholders get a good price?

I'm confident that CINE will come out of Ch 11 in one way or another but in what way exactly and what that means for shareholders is another matter.

"Say for example in El Salvador bitcoin becomes the main currency used, a rise in the price of bitcoin is technically a rise in inflation"

Isn't it the opposite? If BTC price rises then presumably it can buy more goods and services (so not inflation but deflation which arguably worse for an economy).

If BTC rises but it still costs 1BTC to but a loaf of bread (an expensive loaf - only for illustration!) then there is no inflation - unless you are holding the currency that BTC has risen against. All enough to make the head hurt...

That's fair enough AB but how does BTC help in that situation?