Member Info for Hexam

No, just truthful.

The bigger point, obviously, the statement was that they are pleased to announce the delay in the payment, not the actual payment itself.

And yes, the $ not £ does make it better - by about $20m.

"Cineworld says; they are PLEASED to announce that they are to pay £79 plus million pounds,plus interest and fees.
Something wrong right there with that statement."

Yes - what's wrong is that wasn't the statement. Well twisted. And it's $ not £.

"Not sure how to interpret it."

You and me both Lotto! My best guess is that it relates just to the price of any shares previously purchased by the bidder as part of building up their interest but could easily be wrong.

"my guess would be a company like Core could easily acquire us. No idea on price but my limited understanding is it cannot be lower than highest price in last 12 months?"

Lotto - I don't think that's a rule, or if it is then it's a very strange one. Would have thought any offer would be possible but obviously the higher it is then the more chance it has of being accepted. Otherwise good, honest and thoughtful posts and hope this does turn around for you - and for the rest of us who are currently underwater!

*Sorry, they could also get further BTC backed (or other) loans to help funding but I think the scope for these is quite limited right now and just pushes the problem further down the road anyway.

Blubay,

I think you are saying that everything from the IPO to the galaxy loan has been used already in paying for Texas infrastructure and the deposit and it is just the rest of the stuff ('in no particular order') that they have to play with to meet the $100m (or whatever) balance? In which case this sounds about right but another option is they could get something from their Pluto holding.

In my view though their main, viable options for the first 20k machines remain selling BTC and the one you didn't mention - a further equity raise. I'd prefer a bit of both, with a little help from the other options you listed, but that's just my personal view and without obviously knowing the detail/terms available on some of the options.

"What's the bill for the 20,000 machines and the balance outstanding?"

Trick question? The answer to the first question is a big number and the answer to the second one is a smaller one. Of course outside of Arb nobody knows the amounts exactly although reasonable guesses can and have been made - only to be shot down for being guesses and how dare anybody try to make investment decisions based on speculation...

Hi Wolf, no it's simply that the markets are open at different times. ARBK fell sharply on Friday in the US after the market here had closed. Therefore it was starting from a much lower price there today than it was in the UK - i.e. it had already suffered the falls on Friday that the UK felt today. When both markets are open they move in line with each other (apart from small currency fluctuations) as any arbitrage positions are very quickly closed.

*Friday afternoon

Because in the US the share did it’s falling in the afternoon after the UK market closed so it’s just playing catch-up (or catch-down?) here.

@mwhite22 - I think many feel like you and that's fair enough but that means they need to keep going to shareholders for funds (as scope for loans is limited and just defers the issue anyway). There are other options but they are just loans or dilution by another name (apart from earning fiat revenue and using this - which again, at the moment, is very limited).

It's just not for funding growth either. They need a few million a month just to keep the lights on.

That’s the issue Wolf. Personally I think some of the BTC mined should be used to fund at least part of the growth else the patience of (most) shareholders will run out.

There’s always loans but they attract interest and then need to be repaid so just defers the choice between selling BTC and equity raises.

True Wolf but most businesses pay for that capital expense out of profits but obviously miners are reluctant to use theirs (as it’s in BTC) hence the greater need for equity raises.

It’s hard to judge what a ‘decent’ P/E ratio is though when the model requires so much CAPEX to grow, or even maintain, profits.

@HarChris, I don’t think you’re missing much though if the 3.7EH is only enough to keep pace with difficulty then revenue will still rise with any increase in BTC (and fall if it drops).

Profits will also grow if efficiency improves (e.g. immersion benefits or cheaper electricity - and INTEL news may also help).

Then there is the possibility of increasing revenue outside of mining that you mention.

The investment case then boils down to whether you think all the potential positives above, and others, outweigh the risks (BTC crashing, 3.7EH not materialising to schedule, equity raises that offset the growth etc.).

As you mention, current sp is also key and I think the starting point does look a little cheap on present profitability.

Basically there are lots of arguments for and against but personally I’m optimistic. The only thing I am sure of though is that anybody who says it is absolutely clear one way or the other is talking nonsense.

I actually agree LTH, it’s all guesswork at this stage which is why I’d rather not be talking about it at all but some were giving scenarios and interpreting them in ways that were very misleading and so I felt ought to be challenged.

Better to wait as you say especially, as I keep stressing, it’s not the RI itself that affects value - but sentiment around it and everything else going on.

@LTHcine,

OK clever clogs, tell me where I’ve gone wrong. I’d rather not be spending so much time talking about RIs but there is so much misleading nonsense posted on these boards about them that it just gets to me sometimes and is potentially harmful as some people might actually believe it.

So please, if you think I’ve been misleading in any way by all means step up.

Otherwise it would be great if the debate got back to some of the other issues affecting Amigo.

Hi freekick...I'm saying IF there was a RI and IF it was on the terms that were being suggested (19 to 1, at SP of 3.5p with RI subscription price 0.17p) then the share price after dilution would be EXPECTED to be around .34p, and IF it was, then if taking up the rights (OR selling them) then you would be no worse or better off than you were before the RI.

But there is a lot of ground to cover before then and lots of possibilities so it's all hypothetical. The key message is that a RI does not on its own change the relative value of a shareholding i.e. you don't 'win' or 'lose', it's the sentiment around it and everything else that follows it that does. So yes, if in this example the sp then increases from 0.34p to 3.4p over time then the holding increases ten-fold as does the mcap of the company - but that's a big leap and equally it could go the other way if everything goes pear shaped.

@5532mr,

Thanks, and I agree which is why I think all this talk about a RI is a red herring in terms of value.

As you say it's a gamble. The current SP has factored in a big possibility that Amigo just doesn't survive. If it does survive and becomes a viable company again then I can't see any way that the SP will just limp along indefinitely at today's sort of level of 3.5p (or around a tenth of this which is the equivalent price post dilution if that happens on the terms you suggested). It either flies or dies in my view.