Member Info for Hexam

“I should have added, a deal could be at anytime, from tomorrow, next week, next month, month after.”

So you seem to saying two months at most, maybe three. OK I’ll remind you Jambone of this at the end of August to see if you have given up, or if you have a new timeframe, to whatever new alias you are using by then.

"Only takes 1 of the 20 companies being targeted world wide and who have been demonstrated to or who are in trials with to do a deal."

Indeed but how long are you prepared to wait if there has not been a deal for you to suspect that one is not forthcoming. Another two months? Six months? Or a year?

Will you still be saying the same things after all that time (under your latest alias) or will you finally give up the ghost?

When will you be telling the board your patience has run out - or is it unlimited?

"QBT has evolved from CLP and has taken over legacy assets it would seem from then."

Again misleading Jambone. QBT didn't take over any assets, they are the same company as CLP with the same CEO (FG) who simply changed their name.

Jambone, I was specifically referring to the investment in the facility AFTER they bought out 64bit. So are you really saying the failure of that investment was also 64bit's fault?

"So its 64 bit that messed up."

That's oversimplifying it to say the least but then that's what you do ScottJamDooogle, mislead.

Sure 64Bit didn't help but QBT subsequently raised funds to be used in part for this facility and yet that money was wasted as it never started mining again and you can't blame that on 64Bit.

Just another dead end in a company full of them.

"over the next 7 years how many Bitcoin did QBT mine from their dedicated mining facility?"

Answer: 0.454

From 2018 results:

"As already mentioned, the Company began 2018 by making its first investment under the new Board’s control; in a cryptocurrency datamining joint venture. Its partner in this operation is 64 Bit Ltd, a Maltese based specialist in data mining. Clear Leisure’s 50% stake in the joint venture was satisfied by the issue of 7,878,130 Clear Leisure New Ordinary Shares and a payment of €100,000 cash. The data centre commenced operations in July 2018 and by 20 September 2018 had mined 0.454 Bitcoins and 17 Litecoins.

Responding to the significant downturn in the price of Bitcoin towards the end of 2018, the Board elected, on March 2019, to place the data centre on “care and maintenance” until such time that the value of cryptocurrencies rose to a level sufficient to make the operation profitable. In this regard, the dramatic recovery in the Bitcoin price from just over $3,000 in December to above $12,000 at the time of writing, offers encouragement for a resumption of cryptocurrency “mining.”"

They never did resume mining from this facility despite later raising even more money for it.

Spoken like a very touchy 10 year old.

No, he has is own dictionary with different definitions - that he wrote himself. It also covers how to calculate the sum of your investment...

“otherwise why would they revise REPO upwards from the 3.4p it was”

Because that’s the interest rate being applied (to what is effectively a loan) - as it clearly states in what you posted!

“So you really think they dragged the entire Boo business into revb to protect a relatively tiny proportion of their family wealth.”

No. Which is why I didn’t say that. Never said anything about protecting their own direct shareholding in Revb. I was just pointing out what I think Kach meant which he has since confirmed himself.

Just stop it with the pointless (literally) attempts at point scoring. It’s pathetic.

Zero revenue (no BTC mined apart from vanishingly small fractions - including post year end)

Loss of anywhere between €2.5m and €4.5m

Lots of warm words that mean nothing.

But isn’t around 30% of the BOO holding family money. I think the point Kach was making was about the family using BOO to invest in Revb and dragging us along with them.

FED - BOO themselves lopped over £22m off the value of the labels in the balance sheet last year so obviously they couldn't justify the value they were holding then. But you're right, as with all things the right buyer could put a higher value on them and be prepared to pay a higher price.

I'm not saying they don't have value, I just don't know if they were included in Finlay's £500m for Debs now that the labels sit there. I think he was valuing just the marketplace but I am not sure.

So what if Topshop sold for £180m, this isn’t Topshop and it’s very hard to draw comparisons and it’s certainly not just a case of comparing revenues.

The company is worth less than £300m according to the market so whilst I agree the sum of the parts is probably higher than that, over 4 x higher (and more if the labels aren’t included in the £500m for Debs) is just silly in my view. And definitely not ‘conservative’.

Maybe they could get double at a push but I doubt it.

So you’re now quoting Finlay (bigging up his own company) and Missguided (different company, different value, different time).

I don’t think the balance sheet values would be a bad place to start, though I agree they may be a bit misleading given their history of impairments. Certainly a lot less misleading though than a pie in the sky £800m.

So it's one analyst. Seriously? And on what basis is that single view 'conservative'?

Btw if they are flogging lots of brands that's not a very 'going-concern' basis, more a 'breaking-up' basis.

"Not much to fall back on Hexam, apart from a set of brands that are conservatively valued at £800m"

I think that qualifies as misleading! Especially the 'conservatively' part.

One of the more interesting numbers that we don't know yet is the net asset figure. Despite the fund raise I don't expect this to be much higher than £50m at year end, so similar to the cash position. So very little cash and not much to fall back on either. In my view the going-concern statement will be caveated in some way (e.g. assumed move back to positive cash flow, sale of more assets, refinancing, combination thereof etc.). I don't know what the covenants are for the RCF but if they are tough/strict then the going-concern statement is likely to be even more strongly worded.

The more I think about it the more I feel this could be one of the reasons for the ongoing delay in the results.

"While pondering the possibility of QBT achieving a commercial deal it occurred to me that this might not necessarily generate a commensurate return to shareholders by way of share price increase"

I think this is very unlikely UserSteve. Even if it is only a relatively small deal on Method A and the partner has driven a hard bargain it would prove that QBT are genuine and have actually built something that somebody has been wiling to pay for. At the moment the share price reflects a lack of faith in the market apart from a few die-hards but any kind of deal gives them instant credibility. That alone will get a lot of people thinking differently about QBT - including me!

So at the very least I would expect the sp to double and probably a lot more. If it's a deal on Method C then I think we will be well into multi-bagger territory whereas the moon and stars comes in to play for Method B.

To me it's an unlikely IF but if the IF does actually become reality then I'm sure the sp will go up - just a question of by how much.

No I don’t agree with you Bfd. As far as I’m concerned (and just about everybody else it seems but you) the results HAVE been delayed. The point I was making is that they could be delayed much further, until the end of August. Any longer than that and the delay turns into a(nother) crisis.

And the possibility of problems with the going-concern statement is I think a very real one - even if it’s only a matter of the wording and caveats.