Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[woodpeckers] 05/6/2015 07:42

There was a strategic report in with the final results. Are we expecting a separate strategic review?

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 07:39

post 33168 is the most important in exposing the stupidity of the decision against us!

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 07:37

The company need to publish the long-delayed Strategic Review ASAP now.

[deadend] 05/6/2015 07:36

One would think in U.S they would do a "No win,no fee".

[woodpeckers] 05/6/2015 07:34

Well written rns. The company is obviously aggrieved at the ruling and still confident of a successful outcome. Meanwhile on with the job of producing iodine.

[simon301266] 05/6/2015 07:34

Sadly the price has an element of potential water price built in, can't say how much but it will have some. I really hope the market doesn't deal with IOF too harshly but expect a mark down at open and then expect a bit of a snowball as stops get taken out then we will see some steadying and upward movement but don't get too sucked in with any rally as a part will be a relief rally! That's my prediction for today. - the positive is that the business is cash flow positive and I hope the results cleared out the dead wood. For me this remains high risk and a recovery play , it will take a couple of steady quarters with no surprises to slow the market to gain confidence. IOF cannot afford another 2015

[kaos3] 05/6/2015 07:33

Fick the relevant Q and vote him down lol
Che
I did 1st point out the strange development of the saga. Can we reclaim legal costs and from whom? New process can cost millions till it is finished. And going against the state is less than 50 50 odds winning.

I guess not many have my experience. Justice can cost too much.

No one mentioned debt restructuring. Is EBITDa enough. I expected water cash infusion.

[che7win] 05/6/2015 07:33

Kaos,
The water board have decided to call our bluff and change their interpretation for us only, won't they have to revoke all the other water contracts they granted?

Or does that mean that when they come up for renewal they will have to be interpreted under the new ruling?

I think we should now make it really hard for them.

[che7win] 05/6/2015 07:29

Monkey,
" As it is we do have a company that is now making money"

I'm sure everyone knows what EBITDA actually means so will assume this is understood only in this specific context"

Actually, I think the quote about making money is accurate as it stands.
Does everyone realise what EBITDA means? Maybe not, but some are aware.

Depreciation and Amortisation aren't a cash cost, our taxes are negligible so that just leaves interest. In other words, the underlying business is making money.

[kaos3] 05/6/2015 07:28

hello? anyone?

[gadolinium] 05/6/2015 07:20

We did not have a water business yesterday and we don't have one today and it certainly was not built in to price. The fundamentals of the business have not changed by this decision, there is no logical reason for a price fall.

[che7win] 05/6/2015 07:19

Wow!

Just seen today's RNS, that is certainly fighting talk alright. IOF clearly feel they have been dealt harshly, good! It means the water business isn't written off yet.

A bullish reaction, so let's leave it to them and glad we will hear no more about the situation from IOF for now.

That RNS should limit any falls now, seems a bit irrational if we fall from here now.

[monkeymagic3] 05/6/2015 07:17

phoenixs 5 Jun'15 - 06:47 - 33155 of 33155 2 0

"Festario, I fully appreciate your POV. However, when I invested in IOF, I did not take into consideration that the price of iodine would have fallen to at some stage about $26 p/k and been manipulated by others to further their aims."

That's the point Phoenixs, thousands and thousands of posts all of which were routinely and singularly to promote Iofina in a positive light. Any negativity, concern etc were/are routinely shot down. Debate disappeared a long time ago, most posts are dissections of questions posted here. To use a phrase from SuperG on Obtala, best to wait for official updates from the company over bulletin board content.

" As it is we do have a company that is now making money"

I'm sure everyone knows what EBITDA actually means so will assume this is understood only in this specific context

"while very few people expected this to happen"

Quite a few did in fairness, they were just ignored.

"will further concentrate minds on IODINE PRODUCTION AND DERIVATIVES."

Agreed. Now where ARE those new plants (mobiles.)?


Phoenix, not a dig at you incidentally!!

[che7win] 05/6/2015 07:14

Cyber,
I can't see many long termers selling at these prices, just the short sighted or irrational.

The emphasis on the water has been a distraction for both the company directors and shareholders, too much so.
Let's see if we have any options, perhaps with Atlantis. All Montana have done now is curtail this oil industry as they are setting a precedent with this ruling.

[kaos3] 05/6/2015 07:11

Old man represented himself and persisted against my common sense. He was probably helped or adviced from the inside. all imho

It took too long and it was insider fight before releasing the decision. One should complain and clean the house.

[wizard2020] 05/6/2015 07:11

Wow. When will we see an RNS that is good news

[che7win] 05/6/2015 07:09

IOF did cover most bases, I wonder what Bellamy thinks?

They didn't cover the HE changing the goal posts, with us having been asked to only give letters of intent before, but now we are told the opposite, they are speculative.

I get the feeling they just didn't want to give us the award. I would still like us to persue any other avenues we have, maybe the recent results with the hints of Atlantis probabilities points to an alternative.

The iodine price is going to recover - with IOF being cash flow positive we will roll over debts without much issue.

[cyberbub] 05/6/2015 07:05

Good - coming out fighting as I expected.The MMs will still push it down though. Hold on, or buy more IMO.No advice intended.

[phoenixs] 05/6/2015 06:47

So from what I understand the the HE denied because IOF did not have a firm contract.Is anyone able to confirm this as the reason? In my experience you can never have a firm contract unless you have the product to sell in the first place. I do think that IOF went into this with all the bases covered based on what has happened before and according to the law. If so it begs the question as to whether this is the first time that this has happened.
If this is the case, is it up to the HE to evaluate and determine the law? I thought that precedent was the yardstick for rulings like this one or am I incorrect? If so I personally wonder what the HE's motives have been?
Considering what has happened, does IOF have grounds for appeal to a court? If so how long could it take? All sorts of other questions come to mind but not for this post.

I would like to hear asap what the company intends to do about this ruling. It is certainly a setback to plans which would have speeded up the process of mobile plants etc. However, as there company has stated before prudence and good management of finances have been put at the forefront of the company's business model.

Festario, I fully appreciate your POV. However, when I invested in IOF, I did not take into consideration that the price of iodine would have fallen to at some stage about $26 p/k and been manipulated by others to further their aims. As it is we do have a company that is now making money given the existing plants and I suspect that we are at that watershed moment which, while very few people expected this to happen, will further concentrate minds on IODINE PRODUCTION AND DERIVATIVES.

[festario] 05/6/2015 01:06

.... but its OK though, because I seem to recall that every IO plant that opens will add 100p to the share price. Remember those heady days?

[festario] 05/6/2015 01:01

I can't think of a more accident prone company.With so many 'expert researchers' that are continually WRONG!

[festario] 05/6/2015 00:58

... hands up, all those who wish they had never HEARD of Iofina.

[jasp2] 05/6/2015 00:30

The preliminary determination says:44. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 85-2-310 (9)(v)(D) states that if water will be marketed to other users, a firm contractual agreement must be provided, which is to include the specified amount of water for each person using the water. The Department has previously recognized that it is difficult to obtain contractual commitments when an applicant does not yet have a water right to sell water, so the Department requires letters of intent to purchase water with applications for water marketing use in which the total volume of the letters is equal to or greater than 50% of the volume requested in the application.