International Ferro Metals Share Discussion Threads

[konil] 12/12/2015 15:19

good point sledin.

[sledin] 12/12/2015 14:21

IFL is simply too small for those big shareholders to care about.
For example, take a look at Aberforth Smaller Companies Fund, who hold about 10% of IFL. At their peak, this 10% only equated to 0.3% of their total funds. They still have IFL as part of their holdings, but now it is worth 0.0% of their total funds.

So, unlike PI's these large shareholders are mostly well diversified (IFL is only one holding in about 80 for Aberforth), so it simply isn't worth their effort to pursue this. They simply write it off and move on.

[konil] 12/12/2015 13:57

random musings...while we wait to hear that shareholders have got nothing or next to nothing...

if the outcome of the brp for shareholders is as dire as it seems to be, then it seems strange that large shareholders (jisco 29%, goldman 9%, jupiter 7%...and more...nominees notwithstanding of course) and founder stephen turner 7.39% have gone down this route.

why would they not keep the company operational albeit loss making in the near-term. i can only think that debt financing was not forthcoming...but then what about equity financing. or what about putting ops onto c&m to ride out the lull in fecr prices. or a combination of the above or something else. anything except let the assets go at such a massive impairment.

after all, for shareholders how much worse than a return of zero or as near as dammit, could it have got?

were the big shareholders expecting a better outcome to the brp?
will there be a better outcome as a result of the brp that the likes of me cannot see?
did the big shareholders just lose sight of the strategy...and let the assets go for a song?

does ifml have any assets over and above what has been sold to samancor, i doubt it, but i don't know.

email the company...maybe...maybe not...the brp die is cast...

[konil] 09/12/2015 15:10

didn't send any.

done deal.

[rishika2] 09/12/2015 14:24

did you receive any reply konil to your emails

[konil] 08/12/2015 14:42

looks like samancor, having access to all the accounts, pitched the offer to just cover the company's creditor liabilities, so that management are not held responsible for anything and can walk away clean. thus management would support the plan and clearly so would the creditors.

remains to be seen whether we are all mis-reading this and in fact there will be a 'reasonable' distribution to shareholders - but seems unlikely.

even on an impaired basis, taking 20p nav down to 1.2p or less seems extreme.

perhaps they should have continued operations albeit loss making, for a few more quarters.

mainly all history now.

[konil] 08/12/2015 14:34

the brp fees have been accounted for (under creditors) prior to any distribution to the company. but brp aside, there will probably be other expenses.

even so, 1.2p (let alone anything less) is miserable compared to a nav of 20p.

[bam bam rubble] 08/12/2015 12:56

If it completes at the suggested level, there may be 1.2p cash/share left, but
that won't mean 1.2p distribution to shareholders as there'd be liabilities at
the plc level. The size of those will affect whether shareholders see a return

[tomboyb] 08/12/2015 07:56

I find it staggering that this company had a quarter of debt versus that of assets and significant buisness interests i.e hardly any goodwill and intangibles

20p was after the debt.. that has been written to zero??

[tomboyb] 08/12/2015 07:53

I think BAM BAM mentioned a possibility of around 1.2p per share left for shareholders -

Not sure I can see that unless someone else can -

[gark] 08/12/2015 07:50

All done now. Zilch for shareholders. CEO should be taken to court for mismanagement and miscommunication!

[konil] 08/12/2015 07:26

rns.


of course the brp would be approved by creditors because it ensures they get everything back.

what do shareholders get? what's happened to the 20p nav?

[mip55] 08/12/2015 07:12

The principles of the offer from Samancor are as follows:currently is non-binding, and will only become legally binding once comprehensive sale and purchase agreements are executed;has offered an aggregate consideration of ZAR720 million of which:ZAR650 million is for the business and assets of IFMSA; andZAR70 million is for certain receivables of Sky Chrome;is subject to a number of conditions being satisfied before Samancor would be required to complete the acquisition, including obtaining regulatory approvals and consents of other parties to certain material contracts, which are usual for transactions of this nature.Further announcements in relation to the Business Rescue process will be released in due course.- ENDS-

[konil] 03/12/2015 21:14

imo its probably a done deal. also we are unlikely to be big enough for them to bother with (even collectively, though of course I can't know for sure).

that said, i'd be happy to add my voice to a group missive.

[rishika2] 03/12/2015 17:21

also what do you guys feel about writing a joint email from the group (konil, gark, myself, any others)

[rishika2] 03/12/2015 17:19

will be good if we can know aberforth views on this. Can anybody dig up a contact and we can ask them to respond on this thread.

[konil] 03/12/2015 16:47

rishika, have replied.

[rishika2] 03/12/2015 13:55

I have sent an email to you konil. please check advfn inbox

[tomboyb] 03/12/2015 12:17

3 PIES of assets and 1 PIE of debt -

BRP = 1 pie of debt with almost all PIES of assets written down. And this is / was a proper business.

[konil] 03/12/2015 12:13

i'm hoping i've read the brp all wrong and that there will be at least a few p left over for shareholders.

but my gut tells me its going to be zero or next to nothing. if that's the case then 20p nav to zero is a huge impairment charge - surely management would have been better struggling through this period with recourse to the alternative funding sources they kept assuring us were available.

[konil] 03/12/2015 12:09

rishika, your point about brp vs. liquidation is well made because imo they could use that as a bargaining ploy to get a better deal for shareholders - potential suitors will be more interested in the ifl business as a going concern with sales contracts and favourable raw material purchase contracts already in place, not to mention the smelters, rather than just buying the assets for break-up value.

please let us know if you get any reply to your queries.

[rishika2] 03/12/2015 11:10

they have a legal obligation to reply

[rishika2] 03/12/2015 11:10

they reply

[konil] 03/12/2015 10:50

and dont forget turner who has a 7.39% holding. i dont have an address for him.

but i'm not hopeful of replies.

[rishika2] 03/12/2015 10:41

[e-mail]>

[e-mail]>