Member Info for Hexam

As usual you have nothing meaningful to say about QBT and I like that you think it is somehow bad to dissect RNS. Heaven forbid that people should try to understand the company that they are invested in.

All your comments seem to be more about yourself and, if they disagree with you, other people and if that is the sort of 'engagement' you are after surely there are more suitable platforms for you do that on than an investment forum?

Or do you have anything at all meaningful to say on QBT's unfulfilled promises, the drop in 160% improvement for Method B to just 'north of 10%' (and 10% to 3% for method A), the issue of mining with the improvement in a pool when others can dilute your rewards as they piggy back for free on your technology, how on earth they demonstrate the improvements without actually mining any BTC, how they can claim revenue after summer but not to have announced any deals yet (which AIM rules would compel them do regardless of any NDAs), how soon the last placing money will run out (hint: the latest in Q1 2006) etc. etc.

In fact anything that indicates you have any clue as to what QBT are up to and hence help you evaluate your shareholding or contribute to a potentially useful discussion? Anything?

If I could just 'dissect' your post a little - you say I have clocked 7,000+ posts. Correct, but it's taken me over four and a half years to do that whereas you've posted a staggering 4,000 almost, just this year, many of which are painfully long (like the unfunny 'sermons'). Far more waffle than me, discussing anything and everything apart from any meaningful discussion about the companies you claim to be invested in. So boring, self-importance and irrelevance suit you very well I think but others are of course free to judge for themselves.

Actually I think that better describes the posts you make OSD except 'jargon-filled' part should be replaced by 'self-important', 'irrelevant' and 'boring'.

Phimx - I think you may have misunderstood what they are saying. They are claiming a material advantage compared to the 'same real-time hardware' mining without AI Oracle i.e. against another FPGA without Method C and NOT against ASIC without Method C.

The question then becomes how can they actually measure such improvement and another question is how can they obtain all the benefit of that supposed improved performance when others in the pool will automatically share in that success.

The suggestion to email the company is clearly just mischievous nonsense as QBT never give any evidence or any decent explanation of anything to shareholders or the market in general (as can be seen by all the vague, waffly, jargon-filled, contradictory, goalpost changing RNS they release).

I thought mt was talking about the term loan being paid early, not the RCF.

The new RCF will not be enough on its own to fund lots of capex, the increase is needed mainly just to stay solvent unless they raise other funds as well (from PLT sale or whatever).

Yes, the £122.9m is the amount drawn down as of 28th Feb which is actually all of the facility (the £125m) as fees have been deducted. I think the odd two-way £35m movement is probably just recycling part of the previous arrangement whilst the other £90m has simply rolled over and so doesn't show up in the cash flow movements.

As I said, I don't think they would have had much choice in repaying the term loan early as otherwise it makes no sense as you rightly point out.

"They could have held on to the £97m for at about 5 months."

We don't know that and indeed the fact they repaid early and took the RCF at higher interest suggests they had to as part of the refinancing they needed over a longer period.

Mt - That's not the total amount drawn just movements (which admittedly look a bit odd). The RCF was £125m at the time of the accounts and has since been increased to £175m. At the time of the accounts all the RCF was drawn (£125m with £2.1 costs deducted) to leave a closing balance of £122.9m and this can be seen detailed on page 158. The £122.9 also appears in the balance sheet as the amount of loans and borrowings under liabilities.

With cash flow still negative it is almost certain that more than £125m will now be drawn down of the new, higher £175m - and possibly all of it.

The RCF is £175m, most of which will already been drawn (certainly a lot more that £30m).

I don't disagree Ocean but if there were any going concern issues they should have been raised already in the FY report which is only a few weeks old. They are certainly struggling for cash but they still have options (to sell assets etc.) so cannot see them being in too much danger whilst that's the case. That can only keep them going for so long though and eventually they need to start making money again.

Ocean - I don't think there are any going concern issues for the interims as otherwise they would already have been covered in the recent full year results - surely things couldn't have gone south so much in a just a few weeks?

I agree though that it will be bad news for the sp if results are indeed delayed again and also that evidently the market has yet to be convinced by any bull case.

"The question is more why a £400 UT is required"

A question of absolutely no importance, at least to anybody who has any understanding of what a UT is.

Indeed Reardon though to be fair they did support the raise fully. It was the subsequent retail offering that diluted their holding.

Agreed FED, turning to cash generation is the key thing and the savings from Burnley could be pivotal to this so long as they can halt the revenue slide and control costs elsewhere. I suspect most of the RCF will stay in place but any reduction in interest will also help of course (though not as much).

"Selling property to fund cash burn is hardly a positive for the company value"

That's nothing compared to selling down their RevB holding at current prices!

"why do you doubt Burnley would net Debs more than £50m"

Well for starters any figure that you come up with is bound to be several times overstated! Like the 10m sq ft - where did that come from? One nought too many perhaps?

Yes, (ongoing) businesses are valued on a lot more things than just future profitability but it is by far the biggest thing.

Even if they sold Burnley for net proceeds of over £50m (which I very much doubt) it wouldn’t make much difference to the sp as businesses are valued on future profits not present assets - unless the business is being broken up.

It will buy them more time though to try and return to profitability (or even a clear expectation of it) and that WOULD help the valuation of the business - big time.

That makes no sense. They would get as much as possible but more than they absolutely need immediately (else they would need even more tomorrow), And I didn't say 'seriously' distressed. All academic anyway as I suspect it will be drawn fully very soon (to act as a prudent buffer) if it hasn't been already..

Depends on your definition of distressed but an interest rate of over 11% (plus flogging assets on the cheap) sounds like they were pretty distressed to me without some journalist or investor stating it (although I think several did allude to it at the time). The fact they hadn't drawn it all so soon after getting the facility is neither here nor there. They are clearly still losing money so it won't be long before they need to do so and if they are prudent then they will draw it sooner than that anyway (as they did with the much larger £325m).

I think in the short term, cash flow remains their biggest issue and needs to be resolved either by another asset sale or equity raise - or by returning to profitability as soon as possible (but with no guidance that doesn't appear a very likely option).

"Who has claimed that there is distressed access to cash flow"

It's quite simple.

The very high interest rate on the RCF is one clue and another is the discounted sale of assets and the equity raise just to stand still.