Member Info for Hexam

All $3bn was from sales. Any credit drawdown is shown clearly and separately. Suggest you look at the accounts if you wish to check.

"How do you explain the £8m late and late reported trades last night? Did a whole mass of PIs suddenly decide that the IPO price was too low and sell out within a couple of hours of each other? Why didn’t they sell yesterday, or the day before?

That is far more incredulous than MMs walking the price down."

To you maybe. I'm not saying the MMs are always above board, far from it, but I don't believe the almost daily mantra for months now that MMs are holding the price down (and on just about every stock too it seems if you read other boards).

To me it's just an excuse and people looking for someone to blame other than themselves or the company.

"But Bull, that is also like saying sales equates to net positive income. That is not necessarily the case. That is why the market and investors can only go by the last set of published data."

Yes, and the last set of published data showed positive cash flow of around £3bn from revenue for the first half of 2021.

tomahawk - I agree the LTH benefits have been well (and not so well) articulated here and like you I believe in them.

I think though the stagnation has little to do with MMs (always a too convenient and incredulously frequent excuse) but could simply be down to the fall-out from the heavily discounted dilution plus no news of actual increase to hash rate since February which is an eternity in BTC mining.

Hopefully we'll get news soon of the move to 1.7EH and further details on Texas. I don't think either of these are being held up by the quiet period as both new orders and some Texas details have already been communicated during it. The quiet period though may be preventing other good news from being released and this of course would also help.

Hi Bull,

Agreed. I think he is referring to the RNS which says - "Cash operating costs for quarter 2 of €190 million per week".

As you say this is before revenues are included (the clue being the words 'costs').

From what I can see from the accounts for the first half of the year the operational cash outflow (including capex) was under $1.2bn euros so less than $50m euros a week. Still not great and capex unpredictable so not sure what Q3 will show but with revenues picking up the picture is nowhere near as bad as Fugazi paints it with his misleading numbers.

"Iag is burning 195m€ per week."

How do you know? It wasn't according to the latest accounts so what makes you think it is now?

"We are now almost into November burning through approx 28m€ per day."

And where did you pluck that number from? Another twister of facts at play.

Exactly - these posts do not say what you stated. Twisting words.

"..... and it's back. Claims that IAG have ruled out a RI, and forever."

Where? - I've seen no wave of claims recently that there will never be another RI. Don't project your own behaviour onto other people (in this case "word twisting" and "sort of low level psychology a cheap used car salesman uses").

Of course there could be a RI at some point in the future, and maybe even quite soon. We don't know but what we do know is that it's not top of the CEO's list from his response after 3 of the brokers gave their views.

Possibly though all travel stocks, and most other recovery stocks, doing well - so more likely I think due to easing of covid fears now the numbers appear to be dropping again.

Not that it matters much in terms of the good point that was being made but Mat was actually right. 100% is the max drop you can have. For example 4.4p to 1.1p is a 75% drop i.e. the fall is 3.3 which is 75% of 4.4.

I am not allowed to post on this bb this weekend by order of the bb Junta.

When I say order of the bb junta what I really mean is the polite suggestion from one individual but why let the truth get in the way of propaganda?

"This leads to the increase of purchasing power per unit of that money. The result is that prices fall and all participants in that economy become wealthier." Not so clear cut I'm afraid.

This is the definition of deflation and not everyone will become wealthier. There are many articles that argue deflation is a good thing but many more that argue it is not (just google and make your own minds up reading both sides of the debate). I believe it isn't (e.g. because of the pressure on jobs as companies make less money for selling their products but employee costs stay the same) but that's just my view. Others will disagree but the point is that there is not universal acceptance that it is good or bad. And it is certainly not true that all participants in that economy will definitely become wealthier - there will be winners and losers as always and ultimately I believe more losers.

So whilst the full article is interesting I personally didn't agree with a lot of it including the title of this thread. I suspect I may be in a minority though amongst posters here!

"I will remind the board of the reality and truths."

You have every right to an opinion and to express it but you don't have a monopoly on the "truth". You frequently state your opinions as absolute facts (e.g. "masks do not prevent the virus spread") and of course can find articles/evidence to support you - whilst conveniently not mentioning articles/evidence that don't.

The truth is that you have your truth and your narrative and that's fine but that's all it is. I usually ignore you not because I think you are telling lies or even that I necessarily disagree with you. It's because you believe you are right all the time, there is no room for any other opinion and it is clear you have an agenda (whether that is for your own purpose or somebody else's I neither know nor care). The same could be said of course of some other de-rampers and also some rampers and I ignore them too.

Bottom line is don't expect people to believe you just because you insist something is so (ad nauseum) - actually by doing so repeatedly and with such self-belief probably has more the opposite effect. So by all means keep trying.

Spaceman - "Trying to pinpoint what future growth will occur and assume what Sp we'll be at is pointless. You'd be far better off concentrating on how undervalued we are at least that's present day. As for anything else you pay your money/take your chance."

The first part of your statement though is how institutions look at it and is exactly what brokers are doing when coming up with targets. But for PIs I agree, it's over the top and what you say in the rest of your statement makes far more sense. I did the calcs though not to try and pin point what I thought the growth and sp would be but simply to give some substance to the sort of levels that COULD be achieved. This was in response to a specific question but also as an antidote to all the predictions that DO pinpoint a future sp but have NOTHING to back it up.

Lotto: I was just doodling and wasn't intending to send such a rambling note but hit post on the first by accident and then couldn't leave it hanging. I was just going to edit it down and give a set of assumptions that I believe gave £5 (or £10) and that I thought was plausible. Everybody will have a different view of the assumptions, which is great, but I just get fed up with the endless line of predictions (both from rampers and de-rampers) that have either no substance at all or rely on soundbites. To get from £600m mcap to £2.3bn or £4.6bn mcap doesn't happen on a wing and a prayer.

oops pressed post half way though!

won't bother with the rest of the calculations but £275m revenue and 80% mining margin gives £220m mining profit then take perhaps £70m off for other expenses (including depreciation on machines) to give £150m profit before tax.

This is only half the required £300m but there are a lot of assumptions (all marked *) and tweaking these can easily get to £300m and on top of this there are other sources of revenue (BTC appreciation, hosting, return on investments such as Pluto) less interest on loans assuming this is how the machines are funded.

So the point of the thinking out loud calculations (which I never meant to send at all!) is that a £5 or £10 valuation is possible depending how aggressive you are with the assumptions. For example a bit of FOMO or exciting plans we don't yet know about could mean a valuation of the company of 20x earnings or more is possible.

Of course there are also lots of risks and the assumptions could turn out much worse too. On the other hand some here would clearly be much more optimistic on the assumptions than me and could justify much more than £10.

But the conclusion is that it is possible to answer Chuz's question without getting the pitchforks out.

"Maybe it's the first sign of insanity but I think my posts are way more grounded and based in reality than the 5-10 pounders."

Can't argue with that (not the insanity bit but the grounded part). Certainly much rather read your posts (and quite a few others on here) that give much more balanced view than one gets from the rampers or trolls where the numbers are just plucked out of the air (whether it be BTC value, the sp tomorrow or in this case the sp next year) and everything is either rosy or rotten in the garden.

To answer your very reasonable question though perhaps it better to work backwards:

£5 valuation on *467m shares = mcap of £2.3bn (nb assumes no further dilution)
Forward P/E ratio of *10 suggests this would need £230m net profit, or assuming *25% tax implies £300m profit before tax
So question becomes can the company be expected to make £300m PBT in 2023?
We know they are aiming for at least *3.7 EH by the end 2022 but we also know mining difficulty is likely to at least *double but we also expect ARB to be more efficient by then. So maybe they could double what they are mining now so 330 BTC pm.

Assuming *£70k per BTC (so approx $100k) this would give an annual revenue of 330x12x70k = £275m
With an 80% mining margin

Hi iParsnip - Yeah, it's annoying the value of shares can't be seen until they are allocated but if you want to know what your total is worth just multiply the total number of shares you have (including the ones you purchased with the rights) by the share price and ignore any value of rights still showing. It'll look pretty ugly at the moment but at least you'll know how ugly.

Not too fazed by the drop as think things will turnaround but now regret not selling the rights when their value was riding high :(

fordm - The third booster jab is simply because the effectiveness of the jabs wears off hence the need for another one after 6 months. As for not doing the job the vaccines have been very effective in terms of reducing the chance of serious illness which is why the numbers in hospital have been much lower than previous peaks despite the high number of cases.