Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[flying pig] 05/7/2013 08:01

Scrutable is correct in his reasoning. A takeover at almost any price is "bad news" for rational investors with a medium term time horizon.

For short term investors, eg the very elderly, those with terminal illness or about to need cash for some purpose, institutions where long term views cover up to 24 hours,traders etc there are attractions in getting a price a multiple of todays.

I am a long term holder that will resist.

[peterz] 05/7/2013 07:59

Eyes down (or up) off we go!!

[superg1] 05/7/2013 07:58

I see the buy out comments and views.

Perhaps I need to reword my view, I think bids will come. For water I think the best thing to do is sell that side of the business.

I would like the iodine business to run, but a decent offer would probably see the large holders accept it, imo.

[baguette] 05/7/2013 07:56

SG (and capt K) Thanks that bit of history explains a lot I was not aware of the delegation issue although his many job titles suggested that.

I can see now that as the business expands and requires wider management techniques the tremendous skills Lance has obviously demonstrated can in fact become a hindrance.

Hope the guy does get an invite back (and can accept a reduced role for the sake of his investments)

[rogerbridge] 05/7/2013 07:52

Our MD has stepped down within the last few months. We have just returned from doing a deal in Strasbourg and I asked him why he, like Lance is working in the background. His answer was that he was there to facilitate a smooth transition and be on hand should his advice be required. In the meantime he is concentrating on new markets. I agree with the post 4692 by SG.

Post 4683. I agree with Scrutable, the last thing I want is a buy out. I have a lot invested here and IOF is by far the largest holding in my SIPP. I need a growing and profitable IOF to provide for my retirement. If there is a buy out, where would I invest the proceeds?
Surely, the answer for those who need the cash on a shorter time frame, is to sell some shares over time as the price increases.

[roboben] 05/7/2013 07:41

Baguette - Lance's medical condition is proving difficult for the medics to pin down. Consequently the nature of future treatments is not clear. What condition he will be in in a few months is not clear. What he is capable of today may change significantly (or not) and the timetable for any changes is not clear.

Lance has removed uncertainty from Iofina's situation by taking the course of action that he has.

[superg1] 05/7/2013 07:27

Bag

His words were long the lines of this.

The last thing a new CEO needs is the old CEO on the BOD breathing down his neck. We will be there for support and advice.

We don't need a CEO that that has to wear the many hats that I did. We need someone better than me, that is dynamic, and will to take us to the next level.


If Lance had a fault is was lack of delegation, but all the best businesses start from a CEO that is prepared to roll his sleeves up and get involved in every task.

If IOF had a sit back and delegate type from the start, they us guys wouldn't be here discussing IOF.

It took extreme determination and graft to get IOF where it is. So he has set a great business in motion to hand on a plate to the next CEO.

Take the water discharge permit. Lawyers dismissed the idea as impossible, so IOF went after it alone, and got it.

[captain_kurt] 05/7/2013 07:24

Baguette, so the new CEO hasn't got the ex CEO still officially on the board.

Lance may come back on the board sometime in the future, health permitting, but only if the new CEO invites him.

But by then the radar would have pinged anyway.

[baguette] 05/7/2013 07:14

Please can anyone help me with a conundrum. I still cannot quite get my head around the Lance issue. When I bought in to Iofina a few months ago Lance was the "main man" - then he became ill and reasonably took a back seat - then at the AGM he resigned and did not stand for re-election as a Director - then it was announced he would be a consultant - then it seems he was very active at the AGM meeting - then I read on the BB people reckon he is working 30-40 hours a week - then I read on the BB he is the one people look to for e/mail answers.

My question is simply this "why did Lance not take a Non Executive Directors role ?" (which can mean as little or as much as needed). It seems strange that a very significant shareholder founder and active participant would not even be a director of the Company. Am I missing a trick - is there an obvious reason ?.

This could be a contributory element in the share price languishing as his role seems a bit shadowy. why is he operating in an "unofficial" capacity

[writz] 05/7/2013 07:13

Scrutable, I don't thank any of us disagree with your sentiment. If the shares were held only by PIs, I'm sure even those who "need the money now" wouldn't carry the day against those who feel there's much more to be made by staying independent. I suppose a lot hangs on that word "unprecedented". It's a fair word to use in connection with IOF's market opportunity over the next 3-5 years. That being the case, and if that case can be made persuasively to IIs, there may be some flex in the amount fund managers would feel it's worth holding out for in a bid. It's never going to reflect the long term value of the company (it never could), but it might, handled deftly, and with a couple of highly motivated bidders, yield more than we'd normally expect. I think that's exactly why the "under the radar" policy has been pursued, and why, now we're emerging into view, the race is one to prove up the technology and production rates as fast as possible. If the ping has to happen, let's hope it's a big one.

[festario] 05/7/2013 01:37

SCRUTABLE, Warmsun and others.
I abhor the thought of a takeover, I believe the potential of IOF is entirely life changing for me and my family.
But, despite the 25% rule, I do not expect we will have much of a say.
IOF will be sold, and we will get what we are given.

This is simply because the II's will have a trigger point to sell, (as we saw with Stena), and the board will have a vested interest to sell at a certain level as they own many millions of shares.
I'm not happy about it at all, I was hoping for IOF to become a dividend creating cash machine for us all. (Like my other main holding GVC)
But the world is very rarely like that.

[warmsun] 05/7/2013 00:52

Scrut, I for one most definitely do NOT want the company to be taken over....but...there are many here, with, dare I say it, many more years ahead of them than you (damn, I said it) and they will want cash for various things....house, family, holidays etc etc etc...some will, unfortunately, be happy to sell at a given price. I personally (probably like you) don't need the cash right now, but, even then, what is the point in hoarding an asset....if you understand?
I do 'get' what you are saying, but each individual investor here will be at a different stage in their life....different hopes/aspirations/needs etc.....
Speech over, I am not selling unless the shares are taken from me against my will....

[scrutable] 05/7/2013 00:33

sandbag
There must also be a threat from asset strippers. The sum of the parts is much greater than the whole. On gaining the licence to supply, the 75k bbld water rights are arguably each worth more than the current cap.

Surely it is paramount that the board quickly hives off the other resources into a separate vehicle?

[scrutable] 05/7/2013 00:27

eeza
My holding is not decisive - though my SB provider does hold the rights to the underlying shares.

And how does my personal position have any relevance to the carefully expressed argument in post 4683?

What then is your considered response to the argument?

[eeza] 05/7/2013 00:20

Unfortunately, Scrutable, your SB holding won't count in a TO.

[scrutable] 05/7/2013 00:12

I am simply horrified that so many PIs are contemplating, hoping for, even eagerly anticipating a sell out - at any price likely to be offered.

They can't possibly be thinking of spending all the proceeds on bread and circuses. After they have spent enough on immediate family needs, on LT improvements to life style and on dreams long dreamed, surely they are wise enough to consider how to re-invest a large part of the proceeds.

So where on earth do they hope to find investment opportunities remotely comparable to IOFINA?

Offers of x3 or x4 of current cap are historically unlikely, and x10 unprecedented Yet there ie is the serious probability within 3 years of a much higher multiple cap value than these from the data already available from the last AGM.

Anyone who accepts the oft repeated data
...on opex and spot price,
...on the rising pilot production at IO#2,
...the bonanza prevalence of Iodine ppm in Oklahoma brine sources,
...the very high yield from the IOF patented extraction system,
...the derivative profit margins, and finally
...the roll out schedule up to at least 200 plants,
must be sadly lacking in numeracy to fail to see that the 3-year outcome from any probable roll out schedule can far exceed any traditional bid process.

With hindsight would current IOF PIs hoping for a T/O have refused a bid for GOOGLE/MICROSOFT/APPLE/ASOS shares at x4 the prevailing quote say four years after listing?. How would they have regretted that today?

PIs are simply not using enough imagination to encompass this extreme IOF case.
Or else they must disbelieve everything said to them publicly by the Board so far. But why? What is untrue?

A bid for ASOS when the share price was itself quoted at 180p would certainly have succeeded at an improbable x3 level ie £5.40 yet the share price today is £43.60 having risen sharply again today x24 times that 180p.

And still we have not brought the future water profits into the account, nor the value of other resources held by IOF.

I urge you must solemnly to consider the following thoughts of arguably the greatest investor alive today - Warren Buffet

"When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever..."

"The stock market serves as a relocation center at which money is moved from the impatient to the patient..."

Contemplating a sale defies logic and self interest. A bidder must inevitably pay far less than can be derived from future management of the company. Are PIs prepared to face ridicule and regret, not to mention criticism from their families for the rest of their lives, for being blind to the real long term potential at IOF and being too impatient to wait a year and beyond for far greater promise .?

As our stalking provocateur has often wisely repeated "For a T/O to fail it only needs 25% to refuse to sell"

[sandbag] 04/7/2013 23:52

bobbyshilling,

Whilst this is only my opinion it is based on many years of working for oil companies and being the manager of an oilfield machine shop / fabrication shop. I just can't see any small or medium sized American O&G company wanting to be involved with iodine production. Drillers eat sleep and breathe drilling (even their wives do but that's another story). It's only when a company grows to the size of Shell do they have different divisions which for example sell lubricating oils or aviation fuel.
I may be totally wrong but an early takeover from an O&G company doesn't worry me. An early takeover from the likes of Lundin or Dow for example does.

[freshvoice] 04/7/2013 19:54

WillIo2 reach30k bod?

Or will we have to wait for IO3?

Seems alonger than expected wait for 2, could be 3 gets there first.

[bobbyshilling] 04/7/2013 19:21

Sg, any thoughts about a possible bid from a O&G company we have contracts with?

[superg1] 04/7/2013 19:12

It's all there, they just need to deliver, and get a plant running at 30k bpd in OK, and declare the production rate.

At that point, investors will say 'wow', and iodine producers 'ow'.

[pcjoe] 04/7/2013 18:23

Foot anchors still on SG - but loosening all the time - If your right, Xmas is coming early


Make that all our Xmas`s turning up together!

[bobbyshilling] 04/7/2013 18:20

BAGUETTE,

yes, good point about how the cost of acquiring IOF could get pretty steep, whilst an oil/gas company could get themselves cheap water in the deal as well as a profitable iodine business. It is certainly another line of thought anyway.

[orslega] 04/7/2013 17:18

back to the drawing board!lol

[bogg1e] 04/7/2013 17:17

Cheers sg1. Nearly finished the write up. Any thoughts on takeover evaluations? Given the general consensus that acquisition is the direction the company is going?

[ansana] 04/7/2013 17:12

Well that told him SG. LOL