Member Info for Hexam

"The actual numbers refer to both pre and post returns gmv, so the guidance could reflect either."

Whenever they refer to post-returns GMV it is done so explicitly. In every case where they do not specify which it is they are actually talking about pre-returns GMV. I can quote literally hundreds of examples where this can be shown for definite to be the case - can you show any at all where it isn't? As if that's not enough they actually state clearly that when then refer to just GMV it means GMV pre-returns. So no the guidance cannot reflect either - why can't your pride just accept that?

And yes, as I said, GMV may drive revenue but ultimately it is the revenue that really matters. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if revenue starts looking better than GMV then they will focus back on that more. The GMV is just another smokescreen for the absolutely appalling numbers over the last few years but most people are able to look straight through it - certainly the market is doing so.

Yes, today's RNS wasn't good in respect of the Court Case but at the time I think it was a reasonable response to your question.

I don't believe any of their methods will ever come to fruition but that's just my view and I'd be delighted if I was wrong. I'm just here for the spikes and just disappointed that this latest 'War and Peace' update hasn't produced one.

Oh...and before you get pedantic the GMV does drive revenue but it is the revenue itself which represents the income and from which they can earn profit. The amount by which GMV exceeds revenue is 'dead' money. If revenue was £1bn but GMV was £2bn it would be no different than if revenue was £1bn and GMV was £3bn. We need revenue to grow, not GMV.

Post return GMVs may be more important to you (good for you) but your comment to which you are referring was:

"The only real piece of guidance was that GMV was expected to grow in H2. The FY is now complete, so it would be odd if this hasn't happened"

That guidance (though actually just outlook really) was on pre-returns GMV and it did not grow in H2. So it seems you just misunderstood what their 'guidance' actually meant - fair enough.

To be clear I personally don't think GMV is important whether it is pre- or post-returns. It is revenue that is important. The difference between GMV and revenue is not money they can earn anything from directly - it all goes to the product provider. It is revenue that generates income and profit, not GMV. And this is down 16% FY and down 3% H2 v H1.

I think you are being pedantic but that is your right. For the record though I think their biggest achievement is winning the court case or, if they prove it works, method B. See post 14.39 on March 4th (which has not been deleted) where I effectively say this or take this post as an 'official' response to your question.

4th March 14:39 - it was on a thread responding to your thread not the thread itself. I think I made other comments re the court case but they didn't survive the board censor.

It is the company's guidance (not yours or mine) and they always mean pre-returns GMV when they don't explicitly say otherwise and as well as this being obvious to anybody reading the reports they have also explicitly defined it to be the case.

So they missed the outlook they gave at half-year that GMV (which they define themselves as being pre-returns) would grow in H2.

UserSteve - you missed off my response, which was winning the court case. Also Method B is potentially their biggest achievement - but yet to be proven so remains just 'potential'.

Bfd - This is the statement in the full year outlook in the last annual results:

"We are targeting GMV growth"

This was their guidance which they missed by a mile.

All they said at half-year was that they expected GMV to grow in the second half of the year - they didn't update on the previous guidance of growth over the year. Even here though they actually failed as it is clear that they are referring to pre-returns GMV (not post-returns) and this fell slightly in H2.

I really can't believe the lengths you go to sometimes to try to squirm out of the stupid things you say.

The initial market reaction suggests that the attempt to bury the gloomier prospects about the court case under a mountain of waffle hasn't succeeded. Still, the day is young so the rampers have got plenty of time to try to talk it up. Good luck, a penny would be nice.

First you are twisting my words on revenue so I'll skip over that. I did say I thought GMV could fall and you didn't think it could and gave a spurious reason. Ended 10% down.

I assumed you were talking about 'now' as being the FY2025 results (as that's what was being discussed) and there the maths based on what they have disclosed already does make it impossible for marketplace revenue to exceed label revenue. If you are actually talking about H1 2026 then of course we don't what is going on so anything is possible.

Yes, I did notice H2 group post returns GMV was up slightly - and Debs by a lot.

Irenwick - They are making similar promises to those they have made before but have not kept (like live demos) and making excuses which they have now ‘overcome’ but that’s also a cycle they have been through many times before.

Their best hope for income I believe has been the court case but they now seem to have set the scene for a long haul on that too.

The one intriguing thing for me is that they have more explicitly described how they are going to demonstrate Method A works (by measuring rewards based on hash rates from the pools using one chip with and one without). That does sound credible to me and so positive - though I’m not sure Method A does enough to get anybody excited (only gives 10% uplift which others are achieving already).

I’m also pretty sure that approach doesn’t work for Method B or C so still don’t know how they can demonstrate these without mining to scale on many machines.

So in short it just seems to me the sort of waffle we’ve heard so many times before and personally I’ll only be convinced when they deliver something tangible - whether that is a contract or even just proof of concept that we can see and evaluate for ourselves (or that a third party can and therefore verify).

“These trolls are absolutely clueless.”

Well, I’ve been right in every prediction I’ve made so far about QBT (unlike you) so I presume you don’t include me in that?

I’m invested so I’d love to be wrong but it sounds like yet more can kicking to me and the comments on the court case are particularly concerning.

Still, if the sp spikes because of it then I’ll be a happy bunny so give it your ramping best 🙂

“I'd guess that revenue post returns from market place is now greater than labels.”

Impossible

I'd missed how little the revenue in Debs has grown - just 10%. The marketplace element is clearly growing faster though as the GMV (which it dominates significantly) is up over 33% and so suggests the marketplace on its own is maybe up over 40%? Last year the revenue for just the marketplace was £40m so the £50-£60m suggested for this year looks a good shout but makes it less than 5% of the total business.

"I’m talking in terms of target price to break even if I needed to sell in future. It’s more likely to go to 40p than £5+"

No - it's not. That's the bit you're not getting.

The chance of the sp doubling (or whatever) is the same just before consolidation as it is just after consolidation. Consolidation itself makes no difference to anybody's chances of breaking even.

Personally I'd welcome it though as I'm fed up with thinking I'm invested in an AIM stock at these prices.

"Im pretty sure the loan is around 125 million on the remaining rcf"

That is what they will end up with but there is also a term loan of which £47m still needs to be repaid and (for me the unknown bit) there is the the part of the original £325m that was not included £250m that was refinanced (to £222m) and was the bit that they were refused an extension on. I think this was due to repaid soon but I don't know if any has been repaid already.

So basically they have the £125m plus the £47m left out of the £97m term loan plus whatever is left of the £75m that they were refused an extension on.

The £77m is the cash loss in the year not the current balance.

I'm not sure what amount the loans are now but the cash in the bank will be whatever those loans are minus the £82.7m.

Cash is definitely tight though - just not clear how tight.

They've given us the net debt figure which is £82.7m.

This has gone down from £95m at the end of last year so a £12m improvement.

However, the head office property sale and equity issue resulted in £89m of new money.

Therefore the cash loss appears to be £89m less £12m = £77m.