Member Info for Hexam

Yes, thanks Patience, your list looks much better and appears to match up with the accounts and subsequent holdings notified by RNS (including the full disinvestment by Polaris).

The figures also exclude HL which is actually PI money invested in shares. I suspect Aberdeen and Aviva may be similar in that they perhaps represent PI money via mutual funds rather than direct shares.

The Core ‘blah blah’ is very relevant as it mirrors closely the same issues ARB are having - i.e. running out of cash and trying to seek more.

Not sure how mentioning historic profits helps as they are exactly that, historic. Both companies are now running at huge losses with no sign of a turnaround.

Personally I think the place has been a better one lately to discuss ideas - devoid of most of the senseless ramping and annoying trolling that used to dog the board.

It’s just unfortunate that the news of late has been almost unrelentingly bad.

HC - Grim news indeed. Another miner, like ARB, flying too close to the sun.

Also like ARB though they’ve got options to take some of the heat off, at least temporarily.

Next few months will be interesting to see how they each fare and whether any other miners are caught out by overreaching.

Again - what’s your point?

“I'm looking at the balance sheet.”

Actually you appear to be looking at the income statement - and the pre-tax profit in 2021 was £39.27m.

Not sure what your point is though as the first half of 2022 showed a loss before tax of £36.89m.

To get back to profitability they need a much higher BTC value and preferably higher productivity (BTC mined per EH) and lower costs too.

Hopefully the funding is signed off soon that at least gives them a chance.

Thanks AB. I haven't got time to look much at the moment but will do later.

Yes, some miners may be cash flow positive but profitability is a different matter and the cost of machines cannot be ignored. True, depreciation represents money already spent but miners need to keep spending money on new machines to maintain their position - let alone grow (and note the huge amount CLSK did spend in Q2 so actually overall they were very far from cash flow positive). Being cash flow positive on just operations will means a miner should survive, at least in the short term, but longer term they have to be profitable too.

"but the only miners making a profit just now"

I'd be amazed if there are any at all making a profit just now - or even close. Do you have anybody in mind?

"When I retire I reckon it’s the kind of thing I would look to do to keep the old grey matter ticking over."

Wolf - It might keep the old grey matter ticking over but I doubt it will be of much extra use. I think you're better off sticking to P/E ratios etc. to value a company which, after all, are just a view of cash flow (or strictly, earnings) projections in an extremely simplified form (the bigger the ratio the higher the amount future profits are expected to be compared to the current level).

Unless you build a fairly sophisticated model that makes sure all the variables link appropriately, and you have a deep inside knowledge of the financials and the plans of a company, anything more sophisticated is likely to produce less, rather than more, trustworthy results as any small 'errors' soon multiply up. In valuing Regal there are many additional complications including the starting position (what is the position in terms of its profit and debt once carved out) and what is the (true!) value of any synergies?

The value is probably in the low, single-digit billions but anything more precise than that is just guesswork. Also, as Tegop suggests, the lenders can't unilaterally put a binding value on Regal - it would no doubt be haggled over by various interested parties - including CW themselves.

Personally I can't see the sale of regal to CP being a likely option - it's just one of many possibilities and I think the sp will hang around this level until there is more idea about which options may be front-running and what they might mean for existing shareholders. Could be a while though.

Yes, the funding may just be a sticking plaster but it should at least provide a short-term bounce to the sp if it happens.

In my view though a lot more needs to change to create a brighter future longer term - but one step at a time.

“I would wait until it hits 3p”

I think the only way it goes that low though is if we get news that the proposed funding has fallen through completely - in which case even 3p won’t look cheap. That’s the gamble at the moment - it’s all about the funding.

LOL - I think your analysis is excellent anyway whilst my timing really sucks (especially when to get out of stocks when I lose faith but am underwater). So I would be in as I'd be gaining much more from any partnership!

I'm holding out for 10p to add to my trade so that should guarantee you've got in very close to the bottom :)

"It’s got everything to do with the cost of mining and availability that’s why sand is cheaper than gold."

Just daft. I was going to explain the reasons why this statement is silly but I'd just be stating the obvious so cba.

"Well I just took £10k worth at 11.5p for a lil trade, anyone joining me?!"

Tempting but I already did at 16.75p (alongside my LTH) and that's not working out too well so far :(

Seems like a bit of binary play from a trading point of view at the moment with the direction dependent on the placing news. Could go either way - good luck!

"Bitcoin is worth something as it costs money to obtain it- mining" Eh?

Just because it costs money to mine doesn't mean it is worth something. If there is no demand for it then its value will go to zero (and no one will want to mine it anymore). I don't think it will go to zero though - but it's got nothing to do with the cost of mining.

Or maybe not. Like you I've reread it and looking at the various clauses referenced it may indeed be 33% less any that are issued above 33% in any rights issue (so max 66% in total of which max 33% via placing but it is really confusing - so could be either. Here is the full wording so others can try to make better sense of it!

Directors’ authority to allot shares
10. That:
10.1 the directors be generally and unconditionally authorised to allot Relevant Securities (as defined below):
10.1.1 (subject to such exclusions or other arrangements as the board of directors may deem necessary or expedient in relation to treasury shares, fractional entitlements, record dates, legal or practical problems in, or under, the laws of any territory or the requirements of any regulatory body or stock exchange) comprising equity securities (as defined by section 560 Companies Act 2006) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £313,118.22 (three hundred and thirteen thousand one hundred and eighteen pounds and twenty two pence) (such amount to be reduced by the nominal
amount of any Relevant Securities allotted under paragraph 10.1.2 below) in connection with an offer by way of a rights issue:
10.1.1.1 to holders of ordinary shares in proportion (as nearly as may be practicable) to their respective holdings; and
10.1.1.2 to holders of other equity securities as required by the rights of those securities or as the directors otherwise consider necessary; and
10.1.2 in any other case, up to an aggregate nominal amount of £156,559.11 (one hundred and fifty six thousand five hundred and fifty nine pounds and eleven pence) such amount to be reduced by the nominal amount of any equity securities allotted under the authority in paragraph 10.1.1 above in excess of £156,559.11 (one hundred and fifty six thousand five hundred and fifty nine pounds and eleven pence);

Agree @0134. It is better I think to read the actual resolution that was passed (resolution 10) where it seems to suggest 2/3rds can be issued with a rights issue and according to 10.1.2:

"in any other case, up to an aggregate nominal amount of £156,559.11 (one hundred and fifty six thousand five hundred and fifty nine pounds and eleven pence) such amount to be reduced by the nominal amount of any equity securities allotted under the authority in paragraph 10.1.1 above in excess of £156,559.11 (one hundred and fifty six thousand five hundred and fifty nine pounds and eleven pence);"

I'm not absolutely sure though given the legalese wording but if we are correct then I suggest HarChris's option (ii) comes very much into play i.e. re-negotiated placing with more shares but that also depends on other things including what exactly is in the LOI.

“I would have thought all the bad news was priced In?”

Just read the recent RNS’s that should explain all. In a nutshell they are losing money, running out of cash and desperate to raise more.

If those efforts fail then the sp will fall even more. If they succeed then the sp will bounce. In other words much as HarChris said earlier.

Bad news to date is priced in but what happens next to the sp depends on whether that news gets worse or not.

You seem confused as to what research is. It means looking things up, not making things up.

"Hex is a good handle for a poster seeking to hex ARB"

If I've been trying to that then I've clearly succeeded. However, I really can't take any of the credit - that all goes to PW and the crew - it's nothing to do with witchcraft on my part :)

"Always on the attack of posters who are invested, who’ve done their research, who understand what’s going on here"

Not true - I just speak out sometimes against people who spout nonsense, whether they are invested or not, or whether they are pro or against the stock.

"don’t diss those who back ARGO in a difficult economic landscape not of their making"

If you really think that then you clearly are not one 'who've done their research, who understand what’s going on here'. Yes, all miners are suffering but ARB are suffering more because of a position precisely of their own making (overstretching themselves, failure to sell BTC when prices high, abysmal productivity, not dealing with BTC based loan earlier, announcing a placing before it is certain, not taking advantage of the China situation etc. etc.).

As a shareholder I have every right to praise what I believe they have done well and criticise whatever I think they haven't. Mind you I believe I have every right to do that even if I wasn't invested - and so does everybody else. It's sad to see ARB in the position they are in as I think the management have squandered a great opportunity and compounded this by giving out misleading information on many occasions.

The best I feel I can hope for now is that the placing goes through and a that there is spike in BTC so I can at least get out at an sp close to where it was when I lost faith in the company (and yes it was my mistake not to withdraw everything then but being so far underwater I was greedy and fell into the trap of hoping for one more rally).

So I will bail given half a chance (but to me it's just not worth it at 14p). There are some though that are far more underwater than I am and I really hope that by some unexpected means that they can recover most or all of their losses as we've all suffered enough at the hands of this inept management.

It was my choice though to invest in ARB though and my choice to hold on to too many of my shares for too long so I have to own that. But what really grates with me is people like you turning up saying things like it is an 'extraordinary opportunity' against all the evidence and logic that there is. It may well do a spectacular turn around but the odds aren't good and there are other miners (just about all of them) who in my opinion are far better placed to take advantage of any upturn in BTC.