Member Info for Hexam

AB - If that was the only thing I felt needed to go right I’d probably hang on too but in my view it is one of a list of things and definitely not on its own enough to turn it profitable. Hope they get the deal you’re looking for though - and soon!

Thanks but it's no big deal - just a company I've lost confidence in. Not the first time and won't be the last.

I'll still post here, but less frequently and more to just counter what I feel are really misleading posts (either way). As I said I'll still keep a small interest anyway once I've exited the rest but it will just be a bit more back drawer unless things do start to turn. And if they do then I'll probably try to come back on board before it's too late!

"From some writings today it seems a few holders may move on based on this news release."

AB - I think I'm certainly in that bracket. I won't list the reasons why as that will just come across as a de-ramp but in essence they (and the sp) seem to be wholly reliant on BTC to get them out of trouble. Although it could be argued that has been the case for a while some of the news and numbers today have just brought it into stark focus. In my view there are now just too many things that need to go right in order for them to turn the tide in the absence of a significant BTC uplift - and too many things that can still go wrong. Plus I didn't think of investing in Mawson the other day as I didn't trust them and the way ARB reported some things today was every bit as bad I feel as what put me off Mawson in that respect.

Problem is I'm sitting on a loss so I think I'll just try to get out on some spikes in BTC (and maybe trade a bit too to try and lessen the losses) and leave a fraction in for the long term for if/when the BTC recovery happens. Hopefully for those that stay I'm wrong (and if so I hope it is quickly before I sell so that I don't make the mistake)!!

And no Limp, I'm not being a drama queen, I doing what every investor should do and reassess their investment based on the news available and what they feel the prospects for the company are - and what was in today's news was in my view the breaking point.

Tommy - they report their interest payments and give a complete breakdown of loans and rates applicable. You don't have to guess and last year it was $227m i.e. quite a bit higher than the $139.2m you estimated.

I agree though it is not large in the scheme of things however much the trolls like to make out it is.

Many companies do indeed have much higher debt (IAG has four times the amount for example) but it is the lack of liquidity that CINE also has that it is causing the issue plus the failing of one of the covenant tests.

So yes, debt isn't in itself necessarily an issue but how you manage it is - and CINE haven't done a good job of this. Given that the underlying profitability should be OK (from 2023) I'm hopeful a reasonable outcome can still be sorted but it is hope rather than expectation and in my view any new investment here is more a high risk gamble.

Yes' but I thought that was just one of the ways they were thinking of monetising the power until they could use it themselves. So would only be temporary.

mike - the ROU assets are exactly that - they are not owned by the company, it is just the way it is presented for accounting purposes. There is a corresponding liability also on the balance sheet in respect of these of $4bn.

Hi Jamesy - these are a few other things from the call that include a couple that may answer your questions:

- No overclocking yet - apparently not wise/possible to do it when it's so hot :O) - but as the weather cools they will start
- On the PPA they reiterated that it wasn't a good time to agree one whilst prices were so high but hopefully will be possible in the next couple of months or so as prices fall. They still think 2 to 2.5c is achievable longer term
- The 3.2 EH (primarily in Texas) uses up 120mw and they are looking for ways to monetise the excess power (up to the 200mW)
- Looking for a 'rockstar' chairman and is taking time but hope to progress in the 'short to medium term'
- Transformers for next 600mW already on order [though clearly no funding in place for anything else]
- They still describe their mining margin as Tier A and at one point the best and compared it to average of peers of 61% - but sorry I just don't believe it. Figures from other miners say otherwise and we know their efficiency is very poor and their electricity costs are currently high - it just doesn't stack up
- General and Administration costs increased significantly in Q2 but largely due to temporary things (an impairment and staffing at Helios to build it up). There will be some write-down required on old s17s that were decommissioned, but not much
- Pods and nearly all infrastructure complete for the first 200mW

I actually got the impression they didn't want to be there at all. PW was hampered by a problem with his voice but even so it seemed much more downbeat and lacking in conviction than usual - but maybe that's just because they were presenting bad news or is me projecting my own disappointment in that news. Will be interesting to see what 'more optimistic' holders like AB thought?

Just been on the investor call and my take is that the second 0.9 EH has not been delayed but cancelled (maybe others have a different view)?

They also said that they need $25-$35m to complete the first 0.9EH and reach 4.1 EH - which they are looking to do via loans of some sort it seems.

"@eddiemorra777 again evidence please? showing that? You cant make statements like that without something to back it up"

@AJones - In 2018 CINE made a profit after tax of $284m. In 2021 interest payments were $227m. In 2022 they will be higher, maybe more than $284m, maybe not. So the statement that interest is now more than CINE ever posted in profit could be true - it could be false.

Point is the original post was just yet another throwaway troll comment that is best ignored. Especially from someone who boasts that's they posted 8 months ago warning about CINE but joined LSE today, apparently just to gloat. Either they have rejoined under a new name or are just making more stuff up. Who knows? Who cares?

If that's the case AB then they are not far short of being able to pay the final 0.9EH - though they would want to leave themselves at least some cash/HODL in hand and of course they have used up about half of their HODL since June (though maybe some of this also went to ePIC or Intel)?

So maybe they do still have around £30m or so to find?

PI - the delay is more than a 2 or 3 months as we have no timescale yet for the final 0.9 EH.

It is still claiming in parts of the report that intel rigs will be installed this year but I think these are just sloppy mistakes (i.e. they have forgotten to take them out from the last report).

I'm surprised none of these machines at all will be installed this year now but this may be because of the delays with ePIC they quote rather than the funding issues that they also quote.

It appears they have pre-paid £4.1m to ePIC and £15.1m to Intel but it is unclear how much is outstanding. I'm guessing the first 0.9EH in Q1 next year can be funded from the advance payments and cash/HODL available but that the remaining 0.9EH (which is not mentioned at all) cannot. If that's the case then they will need more funding (as current operations won't contribute much and indeed will probably act as a further drain on funds).

So instead of the promised 5.6 or 5.7 EH by the end of the year we are now getting 3.2 EH caused by the removal of the old machines and the delay of all the intel rigs. Not great but it looks to me they should get to 4.1 EH by end of Q1 with the funding they have (and assuming no more ePIC delays) but after that I think it's all up in the air.

AB - I think you've mixed up your £ and $?

FP - there are (at least) several reasons for this:

1) You should compare a weighted average of the numbers not a straight one
2) The monthly % is based I think on the dollar numbers but the 71% is based on pounds (it does make difference)
3) But yes, they have mangled the numbers in some way and this was clearer in Q1 where I think the real problem was (and not just with the mining margin)

*you're

Paul - I think your missing his point. Correct me if I'm wrong FP but I think you are suggesting the 2022 number of 71% is not consistent with the monthly numbers that have already been published?

The cost reductions weren’t that big and they may have been offset by inflationary pressures. Plus they are paying more interest (though not huge) and they are probably deferring less rent so more cash going out for that too.

All guesswork but the point is that whatever figures we guess surely the fact that we have had the announcements we have had means cash flow hasn’t been enough (or is not likely to be enough) to meet all the demands on it.

jimmi - the weighted base case scenario assumed 85% of 2019 admissions in the US but you only need to look at BO Mojo to see that the US Box Office was well short of this in the first half of the year i.e. the film slate has NOT been strong enough.

They have 3 months from the end of June to confirm if they passed the RCF covenant test but as I said they know they cannot meet it and made this clear already in the accounts last year and again since - so no need for an RNS as technically they are still in the 3 month window and are working on a solution (just a very much more dramatic one than they envisaged) plus they had effectively told us already that they weren't going to pass it anyway.

Don't believe me though - believe CINE and presumably they know (rather than are 'guessing')..

LTH - I believe it was around $300m (65% of $462.5m).

As I said though (assuming the CINE IR responses were genuine) this option was not possible and they were seeking a waiver or refinancing. Perhaps they did get this but it is then hard to see why they would be in the serious position they are now in unless they have simply run out of cash (or are expecting to before the revenues start rolling in from Black Panther onwards).

"So that left them with the waiver option or refinancing (as a more recent RNS confirmed)"

Apologies - it wasn't via an RNS but from responses to requests by posters to CINE IR.