Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 18/3/2015 14:06

Potash could not immediately be reached for comment, but Eyzaguirre appeared to hint at problems beyond the tax probe, telling local newspaper El Mercurio: "Beyond SQM and its investigation, Chile today does not have the conditions for the company to do what it has to."

[superg1] 18/3/2015 14:03

Joe

Gee you weren't joking SQM down 15% so far today. Did anyone get a short on?

[superg1] 18/3/2015 14:02

Fresh

I was thinking we must have one major single seller but having viewed things it's just various sellers and buyers. Perhaps to do with the end of the tax year. One of note is Nomura buying some.

The 1 mill Rowan Dartington holding is down to 247k but only a few sold in the last month.

[joeblogg2] 18/3/2015 13:54

SQM looks like has been found out as stock gat battered??

[freshvoicem] 18/3/2015 11:32

We still seem to have a seller steadily offloading. Past employees/directors?

[j4ckster] 18/3/2015 11:26

Interesting article on research into Frack Wastewater.

[woodpeckers] 18/3/2015 10:23

Dunelm (DNLM) bounced nicely off support this morning. Howdens also looking good today.

[odvod] 18/3/2015 07:50

PS I see IOF as the clever future leader of an oligopoly. But to get there it must behave prudently and not over invest the first minute. There are few players and there are patents. It is a possibility. And the time is right to behave and win for all. Energy can be spent at the water, pipelines, chemicals etc.

[woodpeckers] 18/3/2015 07:45

Seems they're looking for a new production engineer....

[odvod] 18/3/2015 07:34

Depends on the quality and costs. If one uses 1 shift it is only 1 crew working during the day - the quality is much higher. If one tests a lot it takes lots of time too. Reliability increases. Later problems can be very stress full - like software debugging. Speeding increases initial costs and reduces the quality. Also lots depends on the outside factors - electricity connection (will they connect at wished day and hour - I presume no), inspections, parts logistics, tuning of the factory to the specific site takes time etc.

One can make a parallel - slow food vs fast food. I personally prefer slow

[superg1] 18/3/2015 07:25

TFC

I have to admit I look at those plant photos and wonder why it can't be put together in 3 weeks instead of 3 months and more. It's just a jigsaw puzzle that needs putting together.

I'd love to attend a build and see wtf they are doing to take so long.

[the fat controller] 17/3/2015 22:52

Which is why we should be gearing up to increase production capacity.
9 month time lag, pessimistically. Perfect.
Just saying. It would be nice to know that they'd thought about it.
TFC

[awolagain] 17/3/2015 22:47

SG

Your comment below is very important and everyone needs to have a good think about it and it applies to all Chile producers. The essence of it simple.

1) They may or may not stay in business

2) The production levels might change +/-

3) Demand will only increase over the coming years

4)This is the big one....Their COSTS will increase with powder and getting water.

5) This cost will have to be passed on to the customer, thus we (IOF) will either run with the new higher price or if we (IOF) want to keep it at a nice margin, which can be below Chile producers.

6)They have all had their fingers in the till and have been caught and will pay the price for that...!

-------------
"...Cosayach have their pipeline and will be able to increase production but it won't be a lot more than they were doing illegally, but the cost will be much higher, not just due to power usage, but because they have been found out re their tax evasion and other matters..."

[superg1] 17/3/2015 20:21

Just a reminder re the SQM iodine circs and a comment about where their lies came in.

2002 Produced 4,900 t sold 6,400 t (inventory - 1500 t)
2003 Produced 6,200 t sold 6,600 t (inventory - 400 t)
2004 Produced 7,200 t sold 7,700 t (inventory - 500 t)
2005 Produced 7,700 t sold 8,100 t (inventory - 400 t)
2006 Produced 9,800 t sold 9,800 t (zero change)
2007 Produced 8,100 t sold 9,100 t (inventory -1000 t)
2008 Produced 8,300 t sold 10,500 t (inventory - 2,200t)
2009 Produced 10,100 t sold 7,200 t (inventory + 2,900mt)
2010 Produced 8,800 t sold 11,900 t (inventory -3100 t)
2011 Produced 10,000 t sold 12,200 t (-2,200 t)
2012 Produced 10,900 t sold 11000 t (-100 t)
2013 Produced 10,800 t sold 9,300 t (+1500 t)

In 2013 they said as part of their strategy they had let some of their custom go. Ben Isaacson tried to question them about the logic of that and they went on about not letting competitors know what they were up too.

What actually happened is that they whacked the price up prior to that and sold all their inventory. Then in 2013 they had to rebuild an operational inventory, so had to drop customers to do that. Any disruption to their business would have meant they just had 6 weeks supply to cover their major buyers.

In the latest conference call, an analyst asked about production levels for 2014. The CEO gave an evasive answer making it sound like they had produced more in 2014 than in 2013.

As they did 10,800 in 2013 the analyst assumed they must be near their 12,500 mt capacity for 2014.

What he didn't know was that they had shut a mine and plant at the end of 2013 and over 1000 staff had gone. That meant around 2,500 of production should have gone, meaning around 8,300mt of production overall. That's 4000mt short of what the analyst thought they had produced in 2014.

In Q3 2014 they said they had 28% of the market. In the last news they said 26% of 31,600mt which is 8,216 mt and very close to my production estimate.

The form 20-F will have the exact details in when it eventually appears.

[superg1] 17/3/2015 20:00

TFC

I've been thinking about that and recall the comment about building plants to meet specific orders, with potentially large buyers paying for plants to go in as part of an up front payment.

Cosayach have their pipeline and will be able to increase production but it won't be a lot more than they were doing illegally, but the cost will be much higher, not just due to power usage, but because they have been found out re their tax evasion and other matters.

If SQM ever saw circs where there water rights are suspended then some iodine end users are not going to get any iodine.

[the fat controller] 17/3/2015 15:45

With the macro-economic factors working in our favour, shouldn't we be gearing up to increase production capacity?
TFC

[rhwillcoll] 17/3/2015 12:50

One big outcome of the uncertain Chile situation is the issue of continuity and consistency of supply for existing Chile iodine customers. This looks set to
be increasingly important for IOF and demand for its products moving forward. For both raw iodine and derivatives, there is likely to be an even greater queue at our door.

[1madmarky] 17/3/2015 11:48

Okay, you could be right, institutional investors could force a change in direction. But it does not get away from the fact they are absolutely dependent on water rights that could be recinded if it can be shown that the aquifer is being depleted. For their own security they need a pipeline.
At least we have some news to discuss, makes a pleasant change ;-)

[superg1] 17/3/2015 10:42

SQM have since agreed to comply and hand over the requested info. I see it was one of the Potash corp directors that resigned form the recently established investigation committee.

The board, after earlier voting against voluntarily providing information directly to the prosecutor, said in a separate statement Monday that it handed over the information to Chile’s tax agency, which it said was the competent authority in the matter.
Jose Maria Eyzguirre, who represents Potash Corp. of Sasketchewan Inc. on the board, said SQM should comply with prosecutors and resigned from a special committee established on Feb. 26 to investigate the allegations.

[brucie5] 17/3/2015 10:01

Another push down to the 30 support. Getting tedious.

[superg1] 17/3/2015 09:59

I agree 1MM but in the last week or so analysts have realised they have been told lies about iodine situation over the last few conference calls.

Those analysts represent heavy investment in the company which has been misleading them. I suspect there will be a lot of pressure form the large holders for some order to be restored.

In Q1 figures for this year, the tide will be out, and it SHOULD have then become apparent to analysts what has been going on.

SQM have destroyed their own profits in a price war closing mines to do so. I think it has been in some ways a personal vendetta against Cosayach, but that won't fit well with large holders who have watched their investment crash.

Take the Potash corp holding about 23%. At one point they were looking at an SQM T/O, now they may decide yo bail out, 3 of their guys sit on the BOD.
TBH if I was Potash I'd be kicking their asses for not realising what has been going on. All you have to do is read the 20-F forms they summit in Q2 but no one seems to bother.

I'm now waiting to see what production they show for 2014 in that form.

[1madmarky] 17/3/2015 09:45

SQM have their feet firmly placed on the throat of their foes . They will not release the pressure until their foe is vanquished. So IMHO no iodine price rises just yet. Just a little more time, they have to get that pipeline else they run the risk of being high and very dry!
Just my opinion
GLA

[awolagain] 17/3/2015 08:57

SG

"...Cosayach unknown as their costs have been based on theft, fraud, false accounts and tax evasion..." says it all and it can be applied to other companies and I think we will find out that SQM fall nicely into that camp and then the poo will hit the fan.
With the new CEO I would think we will see see the price rocket up as they need profits and not market share as that puts no money in the bank....they are not OPEC!