Member Info for Hexam

Reads like a very bad limerick :-)

"I agree but then what? Hashers work non-stop until the winning hash is found. Ask yourself at what point does the method c hasher stop ?"

It doesn't but what I think they are saying is that although you are using the same electricity doing the same number of hashes you have discarded 30% that never had a chance of being the winning one so you've narrowed the search and have 30% (actually it would be 43%) more chance of being successful with the same electricity cost .

OR you could reduce the hashing and hence reduce the electricity but still have the same chance of being successful than you did before but with 30% less effort and cost.

That's all good except for two things. First, how can they prove those discarded hashes would never have been successful and secondly it is the hashing that leads to share of pool rewards so the pool rewards will be bigger if Method C works but the share of it won't be therefore those using Method C will only benefit by whatever percentage of machines were running Method C. In other words the benefit is diluted and spread across all participants in the pool regardless of whether they are using Method C or not.

Oke - Debt does look manageable if they make a sensible disposal but only temporarily. The problem will keep coming back if they can't turn cash flow back to positive and that still seems a challenge to them.

I agree the delay (from normal expectations and what they said themselves to some on here) could easily be because they are in negotiations now and under an NDA.

I don't think Debenhams on its own can carry the group as it is just not generating enough profit nor seems capable of doing so. They need the youth brands to bounce back in my view, wherever they sit.

Good to have your sensible voice back though Oke.

Good advice. I'll start with you. Bye.

ARB didn't mug investors, they achieved success and took the shareholders with them but then made a series of catastrophic mistakes which unfortunately took shareholders with them again.

Maybe QBT will repeat ARBs success but at the moment it is still just promises - not delivery of anything concrete.

It would good know how exactly shareholders are meant to 'fight' the board?

Many here voted against the board recently but they have the votes sewn up anyway with their own holdings and the institutions behind them.

They have shown complete disdain for any communications from posters here raising issues, making complaints or simply asking questions.

Maybe a march on Manchester?

Perhaps Neil can help and add some value to the board as to what exactly he expects us to do rather than just attacking the posters on it (which ironically is exactly what he is complaining about).

Thanks for providing such a clear example of what makes me view you as being odious and untrustworthy.

You said a leak WOULD drive SIGNIIFICANT volume. I said in reply that it was not always the case. You then twisted that into me saying that a leak doesn't drive volume (missing out the word significant and suggesting I didn't think it drove volume at all). You then water down your own statement so that the 'would' becomes 'usually'.

You also talk about personal insults. I've lost count of the number of posters you've called 'thick' over the last few days. It also seems to escape you that there is a difference between calling someone 'odious' or 'thick' and saying that in your view someone is 'odious' or 'thick'. You always deal in certainties as if your view is the only view whereas I think you're an odious person but that is just my view based on what you write. I'm sure there are others that know you from here or elsewhere who do not think that - but I can only go on what I you post and make my own judgement. I don't pretend to speak for anybody else.

“So you don't believe a leak would drive volume Hexam.”

Nice twist on what I said. It doesn’t always drive ‘significant’ (to use your actual word) volume.

"A leak would drive significant volume. It didn't happen here"

It doesn't always - just another incorrect statement on your part.

And I don't 'condemn others for holding a different view' just for the way that they choose to express it and in my view you are one of the most odious and untrustworthy posters to grace these boards Mr. 2%. But that is just my view, please don't condemn me for it ;-)

"So Hexam do you believe anyone who posts that Boo could go into admin as soon as today would continue to hold long shares?"

Yes, I am one of them.

I'll ignore your algo nonsense and your make believe top-slicing (for someone with so much faith in the company to take just 10% profit...).

*condemn not condone

The irony of talking about adjusted profits given how much BOO make use of them and believe me their adjustments will be eye-watering (again) this time around.

You bang on about SCB's CFD that you've invented as if it is a fact but condone anybody for thinking there may have been a leak yesterday despite the suggestive sharp fall in sp. It is you that continue to be blind.

Maybe there was a leak yesterday. The lack of results don’t prove that there wasn’t one (results are not something you can rush out if they are not ready to go anyway).

Frasers revenue may have been down 7% but their profits (remember them?) are up. And big.

It begs the question though of how does Method B (or C for that matter) help if you mine in a pool? From the description surely any benefits will be diluted across the pool with those that don’t employ the methods.

If method B leads to a 10% improvement then you will only get close to the full benefit if you dominate the pool or everyone in the pool is using the method. If you only make up 10% of the pool for example then your improvement will only be around 1% if nobody else is using Method B.

By definition I don’t think a passive fund can be underweight on BOO - though I’m not sure what index they might be on that is invested in by institutions anyway? Are there any aim index funds?

Is it close to administration?

Well, cash is low – very low. We know from what numbers they have released, and assuming they only have the £125m RCF outstanding now, that cash is just over £42m. At least it was just over four months ago and the business had been losing £5m to £10m a month over the last year so is likely to be even worse now.

They had one loan extension refused and have reportedly been tapping the higher interest side of the loan market. That would fit with the above and again points to a weak financial position.

Even then they have only been kept afloat by selling property and issuing equities. Of course if they hadn’t paid off some of the loans early then cash wouldn’t be so tight but the fact they did and left them with so little in the bank AND they are looking for other sources of loans so soon suggests to me that the refinancing they did get (and with a 3% higher interest margin) came with strings attached which necessitated both the repayments and the cash raises.

The absence of any sort of positive trading news suggests to me problems are worsening not improving. Understandably, like many companies, they are quick to shout any crumb of good news from the rooftops and go all bashful when it is not (they may be in a close period now but that can’t excuse the silence before then).

So my conclusion is that administration is fairly inevitable unless they secure new loans, sell parts of the business, issue more equity or find some other way to bring more cash into the business. The good news is that any or all those things could easily happen and probably will (and could indeed be the reason behind the continued results delay). The bad news is that it’s only a sticking plaster – unless they get cash flow positive then they will need to keep raiding the first aid kit. So the key things to me to look for in the results are what (and how big) the plasters are that they have used (as I expect some announcement on these) and how much tangible evidence they can give that they can return to positive cash flow and profitability (and by when).

In the meantime the tumbling share price suggests there is not much by way of market confidence in the outlook and there may even be leaks supporting this – but we will soon see for ourselves. Hopefully.

“engaging in the kind of posts you claim never to do.”

Just following your fine example 👍

"Have they not proven to the ASIc manufacturers and miners then?"

Maybe, who knows but since you say yourself in 1. that the manufacturers are 'testing' and with 2. the commercial discussions have yet to yield anything - then probably not.

"It's a sad life when you have nothing better to do with your life than post anger, hate and lies on an anonymous chat board"

It is, so why do you do it?