Member Info for Hexam

Strange article. It doesn't actually give any evidence of miners selling BTC. It says the HODL of miners has fallen from $114bn to $75bn since November - a fall of 34%. But then it says the value of BTC has fallen 45% since November - more than the fall in HODL value so all of the drop could be caused just by BTC value dropping. Of course it isn't as more coins have been mined since then and we know some companies have sold but whilst it is right to speculate that miners will be under more pressure now to sell BTC it doesn't demonstrate that any actually have.

"I also mentioned that AMC report on Full Year results on Tuesday 1st March. The worlds largest cinema chain & our main competitor in the US. Someone commented it was pretty errelivant, i had to dissagree."

I think the point that poster (Fun?) was simply trying to make is what will these results tell us that we don't already know?

We already know the box office and concession revenues for CINE up to the end of 2021 and we know the US, UK and global admission figures since then. So not sure what else we can get from competitors' results? They will probably affect sentiment in the sector but I don't think they'll give us much information that will give us any more clues about CINE results as things like expenses and other profit drivers will differ significantly by company.

...unless it's a straight one

"doesn't a flush beat four of a kind?"

no

FP - you're reading may be correct but would have thought it would have been more explicit if that was the case and the upfront deposit is necessarily in advance. It would make sense though for remaining payments to be linked to actual deliveries in some way so hopefully you are right.

I agree, BTC level makes selling them unattractive at the moment and likewise so is an equity raise at the current sp. Scope for loans is also limited though for similar reasons. So will be interesting to see how they play it and whether there is a pluto or other rabbit (e.g. selling properties, JV) they can pull out of the hat.

Hi FP,

I thought the rigs were being paid for in instalments (rather than on each actual delivery) with a deposit already paid. So in a sense the first batch may already be paid for depending on the size of the deposit and how many are in that batch.

We obviously don't have much detail on any of the costs so hard to speculate - though there is clearly a reasonably significant funding gap which Pluto alone is unlikely to fill. My best guess is that they will sell some HODL and/or raise some funds externally to meet the ongoing payments but just guesswork. We should know a lot more though when the results are published as these will make clear the actual costs and what funds they currently have available. They might even talk about future plans a bit in any forward statements.

"based on the raises and my best guess from scraps of RNS I think we can self fund around 85MW."

I think that's very optimistic. Little, if any, of the IPO raise was put aside for new machines (they made this clear at the time with most going towards Texas infrastructure) which leaves just the loan note and whatever remains of the Galaxy Loan - so maybe $60-80m towards machines which is not nearly enough for 85MW - unless you're including selling their HODL or other things they could do but haven't yet?

@beta - some good points though I think one other key thing to highlight is that the base case scenario of 90% 2019 admissions is precisely that - the base case. This means it was the management's most expected scenario and is NOT the minimum scenario that they think is needed to satisfy the covenant test - that could be 89%, 75% or whatever, we don't know.

As you say as well, it's not just about admissions (though presumably they factored in any expected increases to other revenues in the scenario) but in any event getting further waivers should be easier if the excellent film line-up later this year brings cash flow back to much more encouraging levels - even if the tests are not met temporarily.

@jedclampit - agree, the company's main concern will be to raise as much money as possible should they do an RI and the discount offered will reflect that. The bigger the discount the cheaper the price to existing shareholders for new shares - but also the more the value their existing shares will fall by, so that they are effectively in no immediate better or worse position financially. However, that's before sentiment kicks in which is usually negative for this type of RI and so shareholder value usually drops. As I posted earlier though, I think this can be avoided in any case - but just my opinion.

"Furthermore, the Group must use best efforts to raise equity if leverage is above 3.0x before the later of January 2021 or 3 months before the redemption of the final commercial paper issuance."

RH - January 2021? This seems old and out of date. Basically I this refers to the covenant terms of loans with the leverage here being the ratio of net debt to EBITDA. If net debt gets too high compared to EBITDA then this means it is more difficult to meet interest payments and pay back debt. So the loans usually come with tests which if they fail then the lenders can potentially cause problems, even for example call in the loan. One effective way to avoid failing a test is to raise equity as this immediately reduces net debt. I think these may be the latest tests (from interim report) but someone may know different?:

"Under revised covenant terms, the Group must achieve defined Net Debt and EBITDA targets, measured on a monthly basis until March 2022, following which the business will move to quarterly covenant tests of Interest Cover and Leverage. Covenant thresholds are phased to return to 2.5x leverage and 2x interest cover by January 2023."

With cash flow now returning much more to normal I would hope that even if they don't temporarily meet the required tests they would be waived as the future looks a lot brighter than it did and lenders would probably not be as concerned as they might have been before.

"EBITDA numbers are post-IFRS.?"

I agree that the numbers are encouraging. In relation to the question mark above - the IFRS treatment of leases means outstanding lease payments now show up as liabilities, making these look higher but also it makes EBITDA look higher too. This is because the impact on profits is no longer through actual lease payments but is now felt through interest and depreciation, both of which are excluded from the EBITDA measure.

So they give figures pre-IFRS too as these show a fairer comparison to previously reported numbers.

AB - I've written far more bullish posts in the past, especially pre-NASDAQ. I am still confident in the stock but just have a few more doubts than I used to. In any case I don't care much for those that either make out everything is wrong with the company or nothing is at all. I simply prefer to look at both sides, as with any investment, and try to ignore both the hype and the bashing.

But you're right - I was amused and bewildered by the crazy maths :)

AIG - I actually do share some of the concerns you've raised but for me it loses impact from the one-sided way you present it. I tend not to take much notice of those out to just knock the share just as I don't those who are always seeing only rainbows and unicorns - in fact maybe I'm just odd but I find the out-and-out ramping more annoying usually than the trolling.

So to add a little balance you could have mentioned:

- Unlike some miners argo is already showing healthy net profits
- Current operational costs are very low compared to most peers and cheaper electricity in Texas plus immersion benefits could improve efficiency still further and significantly (don't understand why these were actually a concern for you)
- Current order for machines SHOULD mean that argo do not fall behind in the mining 'race' this year
- Recent link up with Intel could be very advantageous, especially with chip shortages, such that argo may have a more reliable supply of machines going forward than many other miners
- and more (Pluto, alternate BTC view, relatively low debt etc.)

So there are plenty of plusses and minuses, risks and opportunities. Same with all shares and the question too is always the same - does the current sp look cheap when weighing the good against the bad. I think it does - but could very easily be wrong...

To get back to peak mcap the sp would need to get to 260p NOT 460p.

The 468m shares includes NASDAQ shares already.

A 366% fall is impossible.

+ other mistakes

Hard to take the rest of your message seriously when your 'maths-is-gone'.

The previous RNS told us that they'd asked for a deferral so surely they should be 'pleased' to announce they'd got it (and would have been unhappy if they hadn't).

I agree $79m doesn't sound big in the scheme of things and would have hoped they'd had enough on hand to readily cover it anyway, so it is a bit concerning that they did ask in the first place - but personally I can't see anything wrong with the particular wording today.

Just think ARB is at crucial crossroads at the moment.

Successful delivery in Texas with promised 3.7EH and significant benefits from immersion plus cheaper electricity, funding plans that are 'acceptable', more positive news from Intel tie-up, more on diversification etc. etc. then I think the sp should comfortably outstrip BTC rises. But if these things don't go as planned then could be much more pain on the way. So all to play for in my view and although I'm hopeful, and even reasonably confident, of better days ahead there is a lot of uncertainty around at the moment.

(Just as finished typing we lost power due to today's storm - hopefully not an omen)

Agree Bonkers - especially as they had already issued an RNS saying that were seeking a deferral. They could hardly then keep quiet with the payment date fast approaching.

ok

No - the misleading bit, as I already mentioned, was saying "they are PLEASED to announce that they are to pay £79 plus million pounds" when what they actually said was that they were just pleased that it was being deferred.

As I've said I'm under no illusions and indeed far from being very close minded I try to look at the good and, especially, the bad and won't hesitate to bail out if what I see makes me much less confident in a recovery. In the meantime I won't be influenced by scaremongers like yourself who also from your last line seem to like to gloat at other peoples' losses. Or equally by rampers.

"Well tell the truth then"

Are you suggesting I have lied, if so when? Yes, I'm well aware of the sp, the court case, the debt, the low attendances so far in 2022 and plenty of other difficulties and challenges facing CINE. That's why the sp is as low as it is.

In my view the RNS was good as we already knew they were seeking a delay and now we know the have got it (would have been bad news if they hadn't). It is only a three month delay but if they don't have the cash available now (and I suspect they may not after the poor start to the year) then they should comfortably have it by June provided attendances pick up closer to 2019 levels - which they should do with the films coming up as it looks a much more lucrative line-up than what has already been released so far in 2022.

That still leaves plenty of obstacles, not least the court case and potentially needing more waivers on loans at mid year, but I believe they will make it through this. I could easily be wrong but I've paid my money and taking my choice.

I'm under no illusions though, I was just correcting your own misleading phrasing of what was actually in the RNS.