Member Info for Hexam

Clearly the current lenders think the risk has increased as they upped the margin by 4% (and BOO were willing to pay it rather than try to get a better deal elsewhere).

Yes, they do focus on ability to repay which comes from cash flow (NOT revenue) and if they carry on as they are then they won't be able to repay. Also don't forgot that one of their facilities was refused renewal by a group a lenders and the current facility is now 4% above SONIA (was zero margin before). They also resorted to a raise and an asset sale to bring in more cash but the position is still shaky. Putting all that together suggests to me they are very much towards the top end as far as risk goes until they can demonstrate positive cash flow.

*cash losses of £100m pa

...wish it was just £100pa!

I wouldn't go as far as 'colossal' but it seems a pretty big debt to me in relation to their (non-existent) level of cash flow/profit which is what lenders tend to focus on - not revenue.

With around £70m cash and making cash losses of around £100pa that doesn't augur well.

Cash at H1 = £132m

Less Loan Repayments of £150m (to get from £275m at H1 to £125m expected)

Plus New Equity of £39m

Plus Head Office Sale of £49m

Equals £70m

They lost £50m cash in H1. If they lost a similar amount in H2 then they are really close to the wire (unless they got a sizeable sum for Leicester).

*asset sales

By my reckoning once they get the total loans down to £125m they will have around £70m cash left - less whatever they have lost since H1 plus whatever they will get/have got for Leicester. This doesn't seem a lot given how variable working capital requirements are unless they can start generating positive overall cash flow soon.

If they are confident the £125m is enough by way of RCF then I suspect they have factored in further asset sells.

At this stage the miners don’t have to take any risk whatever they think. The ball will be in the chip manufacturers’ court next week. If they like what they see, do the deals and build the chips then if that all works then I’m sure the miners will be queuing up.

I don’t care who people are or what their motives are - just the quality and veracity of what they say about BOO. For example I think you are T4G but that doesn’t matter if what you say about BOO makes sense.

Jeremy said something about BOO that was simply unbelievable - even you said it doesn’t ring true.

That Spidey is knocking this company for whatever reason. I don’t think he’s claiming to be something he is not.

What Jeremy said though is simply unbelievable. Even I don’t think BOO are that bad they have the same people working on projects every week for 8 years.

I’ve worked with McKinsey and many other consultants. If nothing else think how much that would cost let alone how they keep having things that need fixing/improving that they can’t do themselves.

Indeed Bfd but sounds very much like working directly with someone to me.

As it is I can’t believe BOO had projects going with the same people continuously for 8 years. Just nuts if you ask me.

“I attended meetings at their offices every week for 8 years.”

That doesn’t sound very indirect or very much like project work.

My spidey-sense is tingling (apologies spidey).

And if they did have the same external people working continuously on projects for EIGHT years then no wonder their cost base has been so high.

They may genuinely believe they have evidence of a breakthrough. They cannot have absolute proof though as that requires mining bitcoin at scale (which obviously they haven't) and they have not tested on an ASIC. The question is whether that evidence stands up to third party scrutiny and is enough to get deals.

If you worked 'indirectly' with them how would you know what was happening on their 'shop floor'?

Indeed, that's a good point. Maybe they think people will still excuse them again for raising false hope but expectations seem to be more firmly set this time. So maybe they really are confident and are right to be confident. As I said though, let's see...

*may not be named

It's quite simple really...

Just because you repeat the same thing over a dozen times it doesn't make it true PAS (or is it JonnyJambone now)?

Maybe they have done the impossible and proved everybody else in the industry wrong. We'll find out for sure in the next few weeks whether that's the case since if their evidence is as compelling as they claim then deals will quickly be done and they will have to be communicated in a PRN (even though the partners may not be not named) - so there will be no NDA excuses. They've boxed themselves into a corner now so they really have to deliver this time.

So let it play out and we'll soon see - nothing said here will make any difference.

"i personally dont give a flying fork whether umar is ceo, director or toilet attendant."

it wasn't the exact title as such it was more about if he really is meant to be the saviour of plt then he needs to be running it and doing so without too much interference - which is what a ceo should have. on the other hand if he is just an 'adviser' or figurehead it's hardly likely to have a big impact however good he is. sounds like he is actually something in between, though to be fair a toilet attendant may be more what they need - to clean up all the ****.

"I think one of maybe the few things you and i can agree on Hexam is that Boo works in strange ways."

At the moment I'd just settle for it working - strange or otherwise!

It all seems very odd. Just checked subs that I've worked for and all the CEOs and other senior managers who ran those companies (HR Director, CFO etc.) do appear on Companies House for the subsidiaries even though they weren't on the board of the parent company (and none of the parent company board were on the sub board).

It sounds to me like it's more an internal thing within BOO rather than 'official' and they may be managing the business in some way but not sure quite how much responsibility or autonomy they really have.