Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[che7win] 30/5/2015 20:14

Crosseyed,
I appreciate your forensic insight, you must have a great spreadsheet setup!

[woodpeckers] 30/5/2015 17:49

Spike, crosseyed, thanks very much for your replies. Great to have so many posters here who have obviously put a lot of hours in to the company themselves!

[madchick] 30/5/2015 16:39

Thanks, great posts, crosseyed (i hope you're not getting cross-eyed with all the looking at the accounts!).

[woodpeckers] 30/5/2015 14:34

crosseyed,

How could they have increased output by 37% at IOC without increasing staff numbers? Unless many were part time staff previously and started working longer hours?

[crosseyed] 30/5/2015 13:57

Bogg1e,

The increase in production staff during 2014 was almost exactly commensurate with the increase in the number of new IOsorb plants, at 7 per plant, with a slight reduction in administrative staff. That also implies a constant 32 production workers at the IOChem facilities.

c

[bobbyshilling] 30/5/2015 12:41

patrich2 29 May'15 - 16:49 - 32874 of 32891 1 1

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



It's stated in the final results 27th May.

[bogg1e] 30/5/2015 12:35

I imagine that IOC will expand with iodine production. They took on more staff in 2014 so imagine that as production grows IOC will expand until they hit about 800-1000 tonnes by increasing staff further etc. Thereafter IOC will need more laboratory/manufacturing space etc, ie a bigger building.

[woodpeckers] 30/5/2015 11:36

madchick, - "Good news is excess iodine, bad news is that they haven't expanded IOC sufficiently fast (yet)" - and/or bad news because they don't want to supply the market with cheap iodine.

[woodpeckers] 30/5/2015 09:48

SG, re Algorta, could they have purchased iodine from us?

"The Group did have its first outside sales of iodine in 2014 totalling $750,132."

I admit to rather naively being puzzled over the phrase 'will need to sell" here.
""The Group is working to increase revenue from the sale of iodine derivatives and possibly will need to sell the iodine produced in excess of the iodine requirements needed for the production of those derivatives."

Your explanation about Algorta's situation would account for IOF's reluctance to sell excess iodine.

[che7win] 29/5/2015 23:11

Superg,
Yes, I think SQM are looking to squeeze out the weaker players in Chile.

I suspect Turkmenistan production is dependent on gas production to some degree? If so, then iodine production will also be curtailed if the gas market their slows?

A very interesting point you make on Algorta, I didn't think about that and iodine is a market that is closed in many ways.

The only other avenue of supply I can think of is recycling - Japan is doing 1/3rd iodine recycling afaik.

[woodpeckers] 29/5/2015 22:45

che, exactly, what's done is done, time to move on unless you really don't trust management, auditers etc, in which case I would be moving out, which I'm not.

I'm happy to see that we have turned an important corner in to profitability this year and see no reason not to expect a far better year than last, regardless of water news, though I fully expect that to be good.

Always happy to hear the company being questioned but it never ceases to amaze me why those who appear to have no faith in the management's capabilities bother to hang around, far too many cowards sitting with their fingers on the red thumbs.

[woodpeckers] 29/5/2015 21:15

Would love to hear why 'someone' disagrees with my point?

[woodpeckers] 29/5/2015 20:59

Boggle, the point worth remembering is that with the current low iodine price, profit margins are slim for ALL producers which is why it won't last and as shown, as soon as prices go up our profits start to look seriously impressive.

Just a question of time and patience. Those who have both will be rewarded .

[bogg1e] 29/5/2015 19:57

Netters, I agree that with the current low iodine price, profit margins are probably slim. Furthermore, the rise in costs over what we expected in 2014 is a problem IF these unexpected costs are continuous or likely to recur. I'm sure we shall get to the bottom of it. Iofinas woes can only last so long, if they have cash in the bank, a low cost base and continue to expand production, which they have. So Earnings positive for 2015 thus far is surely the sign we've been waiting for that demonstrates Iofina has at last turned the corner?

[bogg1e] 29/5/2015 18:43

Brucie, I bought in late-ish 2012 and gave them 5 years to make it work, so im happy atm. They are now in profit after 2 years of continual losses. I just wish Lance had pointed out that despite high costs were incurred in turning the company around, they have now been profitable for x months. We just need the iodine price to rise. A positive water hearing would be helpful. Only 5 working days to go before, according to the authorities own regulations, a verdict must be given. We may have to wait further for the official docs to get to Iofina and for them to announce it, etc but it can't be long now, as frustrating as it is.

[brucie5] 29/5/2015 18:26

For a share with such knowledge in depth as possessed by Boggle and Superg, this has turned out to be duff investment. With respect to them, we all of course must make our own decisions, but it does bear up my longer held sense that charts are often more helpful than fundamentals. Of course this could all change with water rights, etc and so forth.. but. Something's been missed here which ACT, for all his annoyingness seems to have sussed. At least thus far.

I've had to relearn quite a few lessons this past year, which I thought previously I'd never forget...

[j4ckster] 29/5/2015 18:25

@patrich2.... from the last RNS they state "We expect a ruling on or before 6 June 2015"