Member Info for Hexam

“Mickey, the 43% originated from Hexam and then Phimx, not daffy.”

It’s also basic maths. Surely Mikey is not questioning that?? Daffy also helpfully gave all the plausible reasons why FG may have said only 30% so surely he can’t be reporting for those either?

I’m so glad I can’t see Mikeydj’s posts any more -especially if he did indeed report Daffy’s eminently sensible and mathematically accurate post.

Yes, very strange - but they do lots of things that seem strange. Like opening a DC centre in the US and quickly closing it and trying to reward themselves huge bonuses for failure so nothing surprises me about them anymore.

However, I presume they are planning on significant asset sales if they are not in the process of doing them already. The £42m cash they have is simply not enough to run the business as it is going at the moment.

43% if it works, 0% if it doesn’t - so why is he saying 30%?

Then they are really strapped for cash already then. Something needs to happen very soon to fix that (return to positive cash flow, sale of asset or equity raise).

If they already are down to £125m RCF then they are already down to £42m cash at the end of Feb - which is really not a lot for their type of business with such fluctuating working capital requirements (and probably still burning cash on top of that at the moment).

They did say they were going to pay the rest of the term loan but I haven't seen anything that confirms they have. Also they still had at least some of the loans from the other banks at half-year which wasn't due for repayment until after year end (but not long after).

I agree, I don't think they can get through the next 12 months without raising more money unless the cash flow starts to turn positive very soon or they can defer scheduled loan repayments. However, I would be surprised if part of their plans do not involve selling part(s) of the business which would buy them some time.

The key figure for me in this year results is their cash position together with how much of the loans are still due for repayment for this year - and what current cash burn is perhaps suggested. If they are really aiming for a debt facility of just £125m then this suggests they only had about £42m of cash headroom at year end (as they've already disclosed a net debt figure of £82.7m).

Even if Boo were valued at £140m or Debenhams on its own were valued at £400m the two would not necessarily be incompatible - though Debenhams valued at £400m is just fantasy in my view.

Not sure what you mean by 'highly cash generative'. Its profits are currently low and no reason to thing cash is not similar. I know this is how the update refers to it but it also said it was 'very' profitable. I think they have their beer goggles on for both.

I don't know AWL (I can't remember how Method B achieves its improvement exactly) but I seem to remember the company suggesting they could work together?

In any event that's getting ahead of oneself. As you say it's assuming they work and the market's tepid reaction to yesterday's positive PRN seems to suggest that it has grown weary of all the updates and 'progress' and wants nothing short of hard evidence now that they do - which is disappointing for me and my chances of getting the spike I'm looking for :-(

“If the method c oracle discounts 30% of the blocks as unworthy to attempt, what happens when 2 or more miners are using it. Will they reject the same 30% of blocks? Apologies if my terminology is wrong.”

That’s an interesting question AWL though yes, your terminology is a bit iffy - better to replace ‘blocks’ with ‘inputs’ as the block is the ultimate prize that they are looking for.

It is also better to think of more machines generally than more miners specifically as the question is relevant regardless of who those machines belong to.

The good news is that it is not an issue in the way you’re describing. Think of it as searching for treasure buried on a desert island. If you can rule out 30% of the island that you know doesn’t hold the treasure then you have a better chance of finding it than those who still search the whole island and obviously each digger you employ has that same increased chance no matter how many there are. Even better it is not a 30% better chance but a 43% better one (so if Method C really does discard 30% of inputs ‘instantly’ then it actually improves the chances of finding the block by 43%)!!!

There is a diminishing impact though of more machines using Method C. The block/treasure is becoming easier to find so difficulty will be raised. In bitcoin terms the difficulty is adjusted every two weeks (roughly) to ensure the same number of blocks are still found. In terms of the treasure you can think of it making the island bigger!

Ultimately if every machine uses Method C then nobody benefits.

Hope that helps.

You seem obsessed with perfume as if it is going to be some kind of magic bullet. I imagine it will have a very low return rate but I don’t think that will make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

“Net sales are currently about one third of GMV but the ratio should increase as labels revenue becomes a smaller proportion of sales”

I think you have that the wrong way around which might explain why you think 11% of GMV is at all possible (if that is what you are indeed suggesting).

It was the 11% margin I was calling silly, being applied to the £2bn GMV. That was you wasn't it?

I don't know if that was the margin old Debs achieved but it's obviously not relevant, or possible, as far as the new Debs is concerned, now being predominantly a marketplace.

Enough said 😊

“2bn GMV venue at 11% margin would justify a mcap in thenbillions southcoast....”

It could well do where have they claimed anything like that? Those are just silly numbers (assuming I’ve read your comment correctly given the typo).

I have also not reported your posts KK. Why would I when it’s so funny to see you constantly shoot yourself in the foot and implode on an almost daily basis with your rants so full of abuse (see also Baserite).

Besides, your more fruity posts where you lose control and get so nasty tells others what kind of person you are much better than I or anybody else could.

So I’d rather your posts stayed up for all to see but unfortunately it seems the mods aren’t as tolerant of your abusive comments as those that they are aimed at. Shame.

Garwool - I never said you had multiple ids. It was Obelix that I was referring to.

There are no shorters (at least over 0.5%) so whilst of course you can have an opinion on that clearly the evidence is against you and there are no significant shorters. Even if there were they couldn’t hold the sp down THAT much!

“Personally the chance of success I would say is really quite high.”

That is of course your view which you have every right to and it will pay off handsomely for you if you are right as you are backing against the market which (from the sp) clearly thinks the chances are very low. Good luck.

“Garwool, more people here understand who is the person with multiple ID's and using A.I. to reply...”

Do you have any proof of either of those things or is it just more wild speculation on your part? Bit rich as well you talking about multi-IDs when you hilariously blew your own cover once by posting under one of your other IDs by mistake.

Nobody here knows everything or even pretends to know everything. Anybody who thinks they know more things than they don’t know is an idiot.

Nobody for example can know whether QBT will succeed or not, we just each have our view and our own reasons for that view.

So please just accept that and stop making stuff up.

Usersteve,

A P/E ratio of over 30 is quite normal for tech companies etc. that are just starting to make profits as the future prospects of growth are generally very high.

My point was simply that I don’t think you can compare QBT with such companies if they’ve already got a big contract with MARA for example on Method B and hundreds of millions of annual revenue already coming in. So they would have leapt from zero to huge revenue very quickly but it is difficult for me to see where significant growth would come after that.

If we’re talking about Method A then the 30 is very reasonable as the revenues are much lower and the growth can possibly come from other methods. Also method A won’t affect difficulty as much so there is not so much of a problem with benefit erosion (so can simply increase revenue more easily from just the one method).