Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[neddo] 29/5/2015 17:24

probably another 2 years ?

[freshvoice] 29/5/2015 16:54

We know HE should report in 90 days but does he legally have to or is it a target. any history of extensions?

[patrich2] 29/5/2015 16:49

dont know where people get the 6th june from, 90 days from the 6th march is the 4th june.

[neddo] 29/5/2015 16:35

well, they have certainly took the water permit to the wire, I am not that positive about it, iof never fails to disappoint, ?

[crosseyed] 29/5/2015 16:25

I've just noticed what seems to be an error brought over from the 2013 report:
- In Note 4 (p47) Depreciation is shown as $935,802.
- In Note 12 (p53) Depreciation (Charges for the year 2013) is shown as $1,191,273, the same in the Group Consolidated Cash Flow Statement (p28).

The implication is that the Administration Expense in 2013 should be higher by $255,471.

c

[cyberbub] 29/5/2015 13:46

Touch wood senden... logic suggests that we should get the permit, but logic doesn't always apply where money and piblic bureaucracy are involved...

[freshvoicem] 29/5/2015 13:46

How certain are we that the HE will stick to the timescale. After all the start date was altered when Carlisle wanted more time.

[senden11] 29/5/2015 13:35

Well, if it's not positive cyberbub, I will doubtless be hung, drawn and quartered by Trouble and Strife, after promising each month for longer than
I can remember that next month is sure to bring better news and corners turned.
I reckon we are due a break.

[cyberbub] 29/5/2015 13:24

FWIW I can still sell 100k shares at 31.3p... is someone anticipating that the water news (due in no more than 5 or 6 sessions) will be positive??

[kaos3] 29/5/2015 12:48

partially yes imho as they are one off improvements that cost. they did not report down times due to restructuring btw.

[che7win] 29/5/2015 12:44

kaos,
but does the learning and tech costs go under "manufacturing overhead" i.e. are they one-off and attributed to this line?

[kaos3] 29/5/2015 12:30

reducing inventories before prices fell even further was a good move - brave dare

there is a big impact on the profit and loss in inventories management (reasonable speculation) - when to release them - even all profit depends on it (remember taih)

all the costs of "learning", doing mistakes with the tech, installations, organisation, piping, putting the right people into the right place etc are paid for (sunk). New management is fine tuning after the old one did many costly things which became obviously redundant to see. Now is much easier to be smart. The same goes for the locations, suppliers etc. So they can drive this Co in the optimal way + tax credits due to the loss.

[che7win] 29/5/2015 12:25

kaos,
I'm not here to give management a hard time, after all, the iodine price fall is out of their control.

On cash, you are correct, cash actually increased between end of H1 and end of H2.
We started H2 with $6,270,754 and ended with $6,966,733.

However, part of the reason was careful cash management - look at the reduced inventory levels - as Crosseyed said they are quite sizable (and not necessarily a good thing).

Right now, I think the company is around cash neutral. I'm not saying that our prospects aren't good from here - any even slight rise in iodine from here on and we are well into decent cash flow.

On the sunk costs and profit overstatement comment - can you explain that - apart from the IO1 writeoff which now enhances profit (less amortization)...please expand as I am missing the understanding.

So, I'm not saying prospects aren't good....I'm saying I don't have a handle on it because of this pernicious line:

Labour, manufacturing overhead and royalties
10,961,181 2,322,380

I think we have a right to know more about this - an explanation is all I want that I can understand - it's not explained by labour, so what is it and what part of it is permanent?

[kaos3] 29/5/2015 11:56

adding to odvod post - change in the accounting practices should be stated.are they?

from here on I expect profit overstatement as sunk costs are gone.

che - regarding pumps, writedowns etc. - they are doing good job as they are making cash under present circumstances and increasing so all good.

I only hope that they do not go too much into "cost allocation" etc as it is sensible up to a certain point.

what I do not understand is the long writing about water treatment, letting water back into their water basin, sustainability... It looks that is important to them in real commercial sense not just PR.

[che7win] 29/5/2015 11:48

crosseyed,
precisely, the fact that they state the labour part in the 2014 results and the proportion attributed to IR leaves a yawning gap.

Need more details.

[crosseyed] 29/5/2015 11:43

Freshvoicem,

Certainly under their aegis. However, the figures are repeated for comparison in the 2014 results. Should they not be re-stated?

c

[freshvoicem] 29/5/2015 11:34

Weren't the 2013 accounts prepared by the terrible twins who left?

[tim3416] 29/5/2015 11:15

Says it all really...

[monkeymagic3] 29/5/2015 11:13

Tim3416 29 May'15 - 10:44 - 32854 of 32855 0 1 (Filtered)

[crosseyed] 29/5/2015 11:00

Bobsworth,

Thanks again for your communications with Lance.

So my understanding from the reply is that labour costs associated with production were included in COS in both 2013 and 2014 results under the heading "Labour, manufacturing overhead and royalties" (LMR say). The main increase in 2014 costs lies in the "manufacturing overhead" part though both labour costs (with 3 further plants brought into operation during 2014) and royalties (due to higher production of iodine) would also have increased. It is the scale of those increases that we are trying to explain, hampered by the indication that the manufacturing overhead is shown differently in the two years, those differences transferring some production-related costs in 2014 from the "Administrative Expenses" line item (detailed in Note 4).

If that is the case, there still remains a glaring inconsistency in the 2013 figures shown in Notes 4 and 5:
- the Cost of Sales (COS), LMR line item for 2013 is $2,322,380;
- but "Of the total staff costs above, $3,710,561 (2013: $2,368,023) is included within cost of sales".
The labour element in 2013 exceeds the LMR total!

c

[tim3416] 29/5/2015 10:44

Do u think you are going to remain invested here then MM3?

[bobsworth] 29/5/2015 10:38

odvod Thanks for your input. Spot on me thinks!