Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/5/2015 17:28

Graham, you sure about this one?

[bogg1e] 11/5/2015 16:35

Monkey, SG cheers.

[superg1] 11/5/2015 16:19

For the record I am mightily p'd off as I was looking forward to reading the results tomorrow. It just means I have to wait 2 more weeks

It doesn't change my view of the team.

I also think it won't make a lot of difference re the results.

On the plus side, more time for the water permit decision to come through pre results.

Bogg1e

As long as it's not Chinese rules, I don't mind which.

EDIT

Not SQM or Cosayach accounting standards either, oh, and RB energy, I think that's it.

[monkeymagic3] 11/5/2015 16:10

The Directors are required by the AIM Rules of the London Stock Exchange to prepare
group financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS") as
adopted by the European Union (“EU”) and have elected under company law to prepare the company
financial statements in accordance with IFRS as adopted by the EU.

[bogg1e] 11/5/2015 15:46

cheers Naphar and SG. Do IOF follow American or British accounting standards (if there is a difference!) Thanks.

[superg1] 11/5/2015 15:41

We don't know if it is that Bogg1e. Look up post balance sheet events.

[naphar] 11/5/2015 15:40

Accounting rules Bogg1E, simple as that, and rules is rules

[bogg1e] 11/5/2015 15:25

One thing I don't understand is how can a decision effecting IO1, made in 2015, have any bearing on 2014 end of year accounts? Thanks.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/5/2015 15:12

IOF Key dates.

12th May 2015 Y/E results 2014.

pmsl, when you've reassured everyone you got into this, maybe update the header... it's wrong already! LOL

ffs an error so quickly is even by your 'standards', quite worrying.

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/5/2015 15:05

Bogg1e,

Hey bud, how's it going? You reckon b/e? I had a p/t loss of £3m, jb has $4m... I'm revising mine down to minus £5m and a shock funding.

[che7win] 11/5/2015 14:58

Monkey,
I think Tom has adopted this one:

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope." – on her election as prime minister in 1979

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/5/2015 14:53

Mind you, auditors are good people, they really get down to it... professionally so to speak. It's a matter of standards you see, so if they have spotted something that they refuse to sign off, then I'm sure IOF will be able to supply the correct data.

As long as the result is not a stonking great loss that the market hasn't been warned about.

If it is? Wow, credibility here is wafer thin as things stand... I'd hate to see the market tested once more, that would be brutal.

Hi Graham, how are you? Okay?

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/5/2015 14:46

Look, this is a quality company... there's no way in the world the auditors have spotted a massive descrepency.

[monkeymagic3] 11/5/2015 14:44

Che,

"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end."

Margaret Thatcher

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/5/2015 14:43

Maybe they are having trouble totting up all the profits?

[arlington chetwynd talbot] 11/5/2015 14:42

Oh dear, wonder what the problem is?

[che7win] 11/5/2015 14:40

Monkey,
To be really pedantic, they never promised to deliver results tomorrow, they only said on April 15th that they 'intend to'.

Gosh, think we are all getting too much like politicians...

[woodpeckers] 11/5/2015 14:25

Thanks SG. It was this comment by Iofina (Additionally, and separately, The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation ("DNRC") examiner denied the objector's request for an additional hearing with respect to discovery. ) which makes me think they must be very confident that they will be granted permission and would IMO, excuse them if they have already started making real moves to start the ball rolling which the auditors feel need reporting but which for obvious reasons they don't want to.

[monkeymagic3] 11/5/2015 14:23

micknickbanny 11 May'15 - 13:52 - 32415 of 32422 2 0

"We are disappointed in the delay but were not willing to rush to put out something that may not have been fully vetted by management. We simply needed more time to ensure that the document was accurate as the Company is committed to providing proper results and outlook to the market."



To be pedantic their "commitment" is irrelevant, it is an obligation upon them regardless of whether they are committed to it or not.

Stricty speaking they have six months after year end to provide them so they havent "breached" any code but have helped, once again, to cut away a further slice of their wafer thin credibility.

[meb123] 11/5/2015 14:20

Not particular helpful that response from CEO. Surely the management had 4 months to vet the accounts ie, they are prepared by IOF and presented to the auditors. If significant post balance sheet events impact on the 2014 results , no harm in saying so imo

[superg1] 11/5/2015 14:11

Cyber a delay is a delay and yes it's all sounding like account notes re io1.

It just gives time to reset the previously arranged appointments.

A post balance sheet event which simply means and event post year end and pre results that may need inclusion in the accounts. A non cash note perhaps about io1.

Tom's comments seem to point in that direction. Thanks for sharing that Mick and as you can see it's along the same lines that others have been saying all morning, excluding Hurricane.

[woodpeckers] 11/5/2015 14:09

May be being optimistic here, but is it possible that following the hearing they were so certain that the application would be granted that they have entered in to an agreement of some sort with Haliburton or whoever and the auditors feel it should be reported but they don't want to upset the HE by making it public? These results are already a couple of weeks later than last years which they may have planned thinking they would have the formal decision through by now and hence why they have waited until the last minute to delay in the hope of receiving them?

SG, you mentioned you were keeping an eye on the John Ames case as this was the one before ours. Do you know if a decision has been made on that one yet, I can't find it?