Member Info for Hexam

It wasn't me that raised the concern on cash - I was just trying to be helpful and address it. Personally I not concerned about cash for BOO (low debt and may be cash positive this year anyway).

In terms of managing the bottom line via the treatment of capex another option is to capitalise more of the spend in the first place if this is possible (there are rules but also grey areas). Any option like this (or messing around with depreciation schedules) only moves profit from one year to another though - so long-term has no impact on overall profitability as it will even itself out over time (before any possible tax funnies).

"I'm surprised they don't do cleverer stuff with capex allocation to improve the bottom line profit, but that is a choice that remains open"

Not sure what you mean? Capex doesn't (initially) hit bottom line profit. Do you mean depreciate it over a longer period for example?

"Hexam in general terms when someone mentions cash burn its the rate at which a company is losing money per month... Boo doesn't lose money per month."

I agree that in some cases if you are talking 'cash burn' it can relate more to regular expected outgo whoch means excluding capex and possibly some of the other items I listed, but not all of them so cash burn still does not equal EBITDA or any other measure of profit and so they shouldn't be mistaken for eachother). However, the context the point was raised was in terms of liquidity which means ALL cash items should be allowed for including capex.

Further to last post if you are starting with Adjusted EBITDA the things you need to allow for to get to net cash flow are:

- Capex
- Changes to inventories, trades and receivables (can be positive)
- Tax Paid
- interest Paid
- Lease Payments
- Adjustments excluded from EBITDA (can be positive)

If starting from PAT the adjustments will be different (and a fall reconciliation is actually in the accounts) but the end point will be the same.

In 2022 net cash flow was £255m negative and in 2021 it was £130m negative. These are the numbers that are important for liquidity and the possible actions they might lead to (e.g. raising capital or paying it back). As I said my own estimate for FY 2023 is an improved position due to expected reduced capex and improvements in inventory control and it could well be positive overall. But this is my estimate so DYOR if something you are concerned about.

"I'm not sure they knew what they were talking about though as cash burn is when a company is LOSING money"

No - Cash flow and profit are two different things. You can make money (profit) and still suffer net cash outflows (before allowing for changes from share issues or repurchases and borrowing). Main difference is usually capex.

BOO has been in exactly this position for at least the last two years.

"Positive cash position (I feel the market will pick up on potential future liquidity issues if the cash balance is further depleted)"

I think this is too tight to call. Using their FY EBITDA guidance and allowing for all the cash items not included in this, suggests a small negative cash flow is likely but this is before any change in inventory (and recs and pays) which they say has already been improved so may well be enough to ensure a positive cash flow. Could also be timing issues as all the above is based on FY. Either way it doesn't appear to be a large number (unless there are shocks)?

Btw cash burn for FY 2022 was around £250m (including Capex).

T4G - We probably agree on a fair bit on BOO itself just not on what is driving the sp.

The market is not perfect but I'm just not a great believer in the manipulation theories as personally I've never found any of them very convincing and I just think they sound more like excuses or sour grapes. Even it there is more to them than I think then I don't think there is any point in whingeing about it endlessly - better I feel to deal with it by accepting it, not playing the game at all if unhappy with the way it is played or, if you can, find a way of taking advantage of it.

So I'm just tired of reading posts about shorters, MMs, UTs, individual trades, late trades, buy v sells (especially as the info on this site is not credible anyway), paid posters etc. etc. - but just a personal bugbear with me.

"Surely being under water is irrelevant if you see better propositions elsewhere?"

Logical yes, but psychologically very hard to do. Can also be very risky as could be a very quick way to the poorhouse if you leave one share after it has fallen heavily but get it wrong again and go into another one that does exactly the same thing.

Personally I would only do it if I really believed the share I was in had little chance of any meaningful recovery but I don't think this is the case with BOO. Just may take some time with all the headwinds affecting BOO (and many other companies) at the moment.

Very useful thanks.

They seem to be in a similar position to ARB - expanding and selling off BTC to reduce BTC back loans and also to fund operations. Now has a similar HODL.

One of the differences though is productivity. Average of 3.7EH in July produced 500 BTC.

Even if ARB added no miners in July to be comparable ARB would need to mine 2.2 / 3.7 * 500 = 297 (and that's without allowing for zcash and, as I said, no rigs installed in the month - probably closer to 350 with both of these). And some here are estimating less than 200! Just shows the amount of ground that needs to be made up on the likes of BITF - hopefully July shows a start (heatwave permitting).

One last thing. I don't lie and I don't insult (gratuitously) on these boards. I may challenge the content of what posters say and call it nonsense but that is different and of course it is just my opinion.

I think we've clogged up this board enough for one evening with this 'debate' - probably boring to others. I've made my points - you obviously disagree - so be it.

Btw - CCL, TUI, MKS, SMWH, GOG, FGP, TUI, NEX, IAG, EZJ, RNK, WTB, JDW, MAB, FEVR, CINE, GRG, RTN, DOM, CARD, BOO

Some winners, more losers but only one worse than BOO (CINE). But hopeful of all - given time, but if they don't turn out well it's my fault - nobody else's.

"When I said MM's get paid by shorters, you said that was just speculation." No, I didn't.

"You actually tried to compare Aim to main market" - No, I didn't.

I know exactly what a UT is and I posted the link that backed this up. You posted nothing to actually counter it but as usual just deflected and claimed victory. Unfortunately there is someone like you on most boards.

"The answer is obvious who is losing money.

The poor old pi's who sit at the bottom of this particular food chain and are taken in by all this manipulation

Thankfully there seems to be very few who are falling for it now"

Again you are making stuff up and contradicting yourself to boot. PIs will lose money if they sell at a lower price than they bought. That is their choice (of investing and timing) and they have no-one else to blame. If supposing you are right and the sp is kept persistently low by nasty MMs and shorters then yes the PI will get a poor exit price but they surely will have got a good entry price too for the same reason? For example they could get a bargain today at around 64p!

And then you contradict yourself by saying very few are falling for it now - so very few are now losing money then so this means the MMs and shorters are not making money out of them. So I ask again, who is losing from all the shenanigans you're claiming went on today?

"I remember a conversation with you a couple of months ago, where the average aim UT was about 5% and Boo was over 20% of all shares traded"

So do I and I ended up sharing a link describing exactly what a UT is to try and convince you that what you say about them makes no sense. It clearly didn't work as you are still saying the same bizarre things.

"Its fact that MM's get paid for every transaction."

Now you've got me confused. I agree - that's how that get paid but you said they've killed the market. Which is it?

And someone, somewhere must be losing money in this merry-go-round. Who exactly? And how?

"I've already answered that. The MMs get paid by the shorters."

No, that's just doubling down on the speculation.

"Pls explain how an observed trading pattern can ever be baseless speculation?"

Because you've made something up that doesn't make sense of the observed pattern. I could say the pattern is due to hedgehogs not crossing the road safely at night but it is just baseless (and silly) speculation.

I just gave you an example?! Another one:

"MMs need to remember that their job is to make a market, they have killed this one atm"

Well they may have killed it through incompetence but to do it deliberately is a very strange thing to do as you are right -it is their job and how they earn money. Any 'salesman' that doesn't sell won't last very long.

“If that isn't collusion I don't know what is.”

You don’t know what is.

“Less than 4m shares traded by 4 o'clock, then a massive dump to drop the sp. All of which are sold back in the UT, just at a slightly lower price to enable the merry go round to continue.“

Good example of the nonsense ramping you asked for earlier. Baseless speculation which makes no sense whatsoever all to try and ‘justify’ why the sp has gone down today rather than just accept that it’s just not been a good day due to poor demand. It happens. Tomorrow may be better (and will the MMs be blamed for that too)?