Member Info for Hexam

“Absolutely embarrassing sp action.”

Yes, the company should be ashamed of what they have done to the share price.

They've already told us the cash figure as they said that net debt was £82.7m which, with £125m debt, means cash is £42.3m. It may be a bit higher than that at their year end (28th Feb) as I don't think they had quite paid off all the other debt by then but they should have done so by now so the effective position at year end would still be just over £42m. That's not a lot at all given the nature of their business so would expect a sale of another asset pretty soon...

AWL - I’ve filtered Kool and the Gang (one for the oldies) so thankfully don’t see the worst of it now :-)

Next news I think will be interesting and possibly pivotal. One way or the other. Just a case of waiting…

AWL - I can’t see an obvious reason why they can’t work together for double bubble and they said as much themselves - but let’s not be greedy, one proven to working would be plenty enough to get the sp motoring!

"they need to ensure they remain FCF positive whilst they wait for the marketplace strategy to bear fruit."

One step at a time! To remain FCF positive they've got to get to FCF positive first - and preferably by enough to cover the cash outgoings that are not included in that metric so that they are truly generating cash.

"Good Free Cash Flow generation of £210.2m"

Less Growth Capital Expenditure £59.3m

Less Acquisitions £57.9m

Less Adjustments £99.2m

Plus Other £5.4m

Equals minus £0.8m - i.e. 'flat' and so net debt remained at £1.20bn

So if you strip away adjustments and those few other things then they are not generating cash. OK, if they don't have any adjustments or spend on those other things then great - yes, they are making money. Thing is though is when will they not need to? After all last year was the same - positive FCF of £163.7m but then reduced to just £6.2m after the adjustments etc.

I believe they will turn this around but all I'm suggesting is to be wary of basing such belief on headline numbers or throwaway comments (like it's 'a cash generative business') when such things are an oversimplification - and misleading.

“This is still a cash generative business, profitable and growing with options to raise cash.”

The accounts suggest otherwise. Cash was flat and profit was just £60m or so but only after a whole heap of adjustments (not just the impairment). I think they can turn it around but with net debt over a billion, a fire sale of NASB and ongoing profitability and cash generation far from certain it is no surprise it is being hammered at the moment. Better times lie ahead though - hopefully!

"Sp at this level is not a big risk with minimal downside risks.."

You are joking aren't you? The downside risk is 100% like it is with any stock except in this case that 100% is a lot more likely than most given its revenue is far less than its costs, it has little to no chance of reversing that and it doesn't have much cash left now (but a lot of debt still). It hasn't even got any assets worth speaking about.

Really can't believe this is still being ramped as it heads into suspension. Reckless and irresponsible.

"Free Cash flow...I think we need to be a bit careful with their stated numbers"

Spot to HV. FCF (and even more so EBITDA) are often misleading given that they both exclude things, so both make the cash (and profitability) look better than they are, especially with so many adjustments on top of the usual exclusions. As you say cash flow was actually flat overall whilst adjusted EBITDA of £426m seems quite impressive until you look closely at what's missing.

Having said that there still looks to be a profitable business waiting to break out if they can stop the adjustments (the intangibles are still nearly a £1bn most of which is goodwill, so that risk at least remains). Therefore I continue to average down at these prices and just hope that doesn't just translate eventually into chasing losses...

“As I've said multiple times this is a small bet for me based on Debenhams.”

It doesn’t matter how many times you say it - it still doesn’t make it true. Really can’t believe a word you say T4G - oops, sorry, I mean Bfd.

Even I've got more than a "couple of percent in here". Who'd have thought that I'd be demonstrating more confidence in BOO than Bfd/T4G? Certainly not me...

I was replying to your post Miker before it was deleted for some reason 🤷‍♂️ Apologies that I was daft enough to take your sarcasm seriously but equally there are those on here even dafter that would actually believe you!

I agree the original post was disruptive as they were asking a leading question when the answer is well known and at the moment largely irrelevant.

…that’s assuming you are talking about the number of BTC that QBT have mined (or own)?

“Not sure but I believe about 1,150 but through mining pools, I could be wrong.”

Indeed you are I’m afraid - by around 1,150.

“do you want to use 30% £247,297,000 or 47% £387,432,000for an uplift”

I presume you mean 43% not 47%?

You should use the 43% but adjust for the difficulty increase it creates (if all MARA’s machines use the new chip) and so reduce it to around 39%.

If 50% of all miners in the world use method C then the 43% reduces to 18%.

If every miner in the world uses method C then the 43% reduces to 0%.

You’re welcome.

Good for them if they believe and good for you if you do too. Let’s hope you’re all right and then we can bank our big profits soon 👍

Dooogle - I agree the methods are worth serious cash if they work - I just don’t think they do.

If Method C does work as claimed though then it is 30% less time looking or it is mining 43% extra. It can’t be 30% for both.

That’s the idea Phimx - or even more simply you could just switch it off for 30% of the time.

So using the example if you could mine on average a bitcoin every 100 days without the Oracle you can choose to still mine a bitcoin every 100 days with it but only need to have it switched on for 70 days (so a 30% saving in electricity) OR you can still leave it switched on for the whole time and use the same electricity as before but now mine on average 1.43 BTC instead.

That’s true UserSteve except that it is a 43% increase in hashrate if it takes 70 days instead of 100. So it takes 30% less time to mine the same number or they can mine 43% more in the same time.

That’s right AWL - OR if they decide to keep costs the same they could mine with an effective 43% higher hashrate (not 30% as claimed and is the point Phimx is making).

So yes, well worth it to miners if it does work but the fact they haven’t even got the basic sums right, or have just been very lazy saying 30% for both, doesn’t exactly inspire me with confidence.