Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[serratia] 16/12/2023 13:52

Not here for an argument and not here to read beer's silly comments so I'll leave the board alone. Best wishes.

[beercapafn] 16/12/2023 13:21

Pinkpudycat: There is a re-election coming up that could see the back of Lance. Just needs a few of the main shareholders to vote against his re-election. I think his time at IOF and his appalling handling of the seeds fiasco demand his removal.

[pinkpudycat] 16/12/2023 12:13

Chill, while Cos have issues, this is not the real problem, we have the puppet master away with his head in the next pipe dream and his partner also seeing little confidence in Iofina leaving the puppet to knock in his twilight working years and build up his pension, the BOD needs a clear out and market knows it.

[chillpill] 16/12/2023 07:32

Statement from the Unions below. From what I have previously read this expansion is required for Cosayach to maintain their current production levels…which if I am correct could have a big impact on the iodine market. I’m not sure how close the current area is to being “mined out”.

“Faced with the recommendation of the SEA, Regional Directorate, to reject the declaration of environmental impact of the "Anlargement Negreiros" project, a task in which the company COSAYACH produces about 2,500 tons of iodine and another 40,000 tons of nitrates, we declare the following: We see with concern the continuity of the operation of the task of Negreiros. Here the Environmental authority is not considering the labour stability of more than 1,000 workers and our families. We will be more than 5,000 people, we, our women and our children who will be affected and without work by the closure of work. We categorically reject what is indicated by the environmental authority: that the project presents territorial incompatibility, in relation to the land uses established for the area, according to the Intermunicipal Regulatory Plan. In its ICSARA 2, the company clearly explained that there would be no territorial incompatibility between the leaching piles and storage pools with the use of rural land, because they are works covered by the mining concession that do not involve construction. On the other hand, the construction of work will be done outside the area regulated by this PRI and would not require a building permit. Therefore, the authority only demonstrates once again with this type of decision that it aims to eliminate mining activity in the area, an activity on which thousands of families in the Tarapacá region depend. With regard to the considerations of National Monuments, - an organisation that as is public knowledge has dedicated in recent years to enter the approval of projects that collaborate with the development of the country and the well-being of our families - we strongly reject that this organisation considers incompatible the protection of the archeological, historical, and cultural heritage of this area related to the ancient wealth of saltpeters with the current generation of wealth that an iodine and nitrate-producing companies - such as Cosayach - can produce for our country and our families. The company COSAYACH has committed to protection buffers for the San Jorge and Valparaíso saltpeter offices, of 100 m. for the operation of machinery and 820 m. for the realisation of trunks, in order to protect the integrity of the facilities that still remain and the archeological contexts that exist in its perimeter. Therefore, we reject all the other archeological demands that are made, since they seem disproportionate to us and that they do not know the needs of flesh and blood workers like us. For all these reasons, we want to warn the national authorities of the Environmental Assessment Service that, if they reject the extension of the DIA of Negreiros, the workers of COSAYACH will march and fight for our right to maintain our jobs that are at risk today.

[chillpill] 16/12/2023 07:07

Perennial bad boys Cosayach are in trouble again. This week they have been refused expansion of their ageing facility by the Environmental Agency meaning 1000 jobs are at risk.

The workers have been striking.

“The protests of the COSAYACH Mining workers continue due to the SEA's recommendation to reject the "Negreiros Expansion" project, putting more than 1,000 jobs in the Tarapacá Region at risk and affecting hundreds of families.”

[jamesgreenbury] 15/12/2023 10:58

13.5 of ebitda is broadly flat on the last 12 months (h1 current year plus h2 last year), which would be disappointing given the amount of capex spent and increased output volumes.

[chillpill] 15/12/2023 08:30

I liked the comment from Premier Miton I quoted yesterday:

“The foundations for big gains in the next small cap bull market are being laid now, for those brave enough to invest in quality stocks with solid balance sheets in the AIM sector.”

They must think IOF fall into this category as they have been accumulating IOF shares most of the year- at last count over 12m shares.

[chillpill] 15/12/2023 08:22

Not sure what research you are looking at fft but Canaccord 2 weeks ago had an improvement on all metrics for next year except for price weakening to $60.

EBITDA rising from $11.5m to $13.5m
EPS rising from 3.5c to 4.2c
Sales $51.5m to $55.3m

What figure do you have? As far as I am aware CC are the only ones with estimates in the market.

[fft] 15/12/2023 01:20

Jeff (co founder) decided to sell his shares and join forces with Lance in a new venture. Obviously Jeff didn't find either the financials or mgmt at IOF compelling enough.The slow rollout pace of IO9/10 and the share price action didn't seem to give Jeff the feeling he wanted.Also worth pointing out that, despite the extra production, revenue/profits/eps estimates from the broker are all lower in 2024 than 2023.As owenga has pointed out below (and I paraphrase), production is flaky. More plants don't necessarily mean more production a few years down the line as supply is not under IOF control. Every year we hear about actions to optimise them. The cost to run has been going up significantly. If it has been this difficult to secure 9 and 10(which hasn't broken ground yet), which should be the lowest hanging fruit, how much more difficult will it be to get 11/12/13 etc. there do not seem to be any appreciable economies of scale on the production side.And, finally, whatever happened to the fortune 500 company that was mentioned years ago - or was that just another ruse (like IO9 being imminent) to keep investors quiet for a bit longer ?

[pinkpudycat] 14/12/2023 23:09

Lance is as trustworthy as a politician, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool!

[naphar] 14/12/2023 17:08

Beer
Who have I not met?

[beercapafn] 14/12/2023 16:27

OK. But do you still want someone who cost us $ 1,000,000 with he got the upside, and covered the downside?

Nap: I don't think you have met the mam.

[naphar] 14/12/2023 16:22

What makes you say he “bullied”;?

I may be stupid, naive etc, call it what you want, but I believe they did a genuine business deal that went wrong due to changes in the market.
I don’t like the deal or how it was structured, but it did seem like it was a good project when initiated… no-one without government links in the right place could possibly have known the impact legislative changes would have had…

[naphar] 14/12/2023 15:46

Beer
They had a resolution to allow them to do buy backs… so they could take advantage and remove a large block seller from the market at an advantageous price.

They had that situation when AB was selling at maybe 16p and thought they could maybe buy him out at say 14p (I forget exactly the numbers now). They didn’t have the requisite permissions then.

I do t think they had a fund but they had someone that would have provided a loan to do so I believe.

So I don’t believe there is a special fund for doing a buy back currently. I don’t believe they would buy back small amounts in the market, their intention with that resolution was to be able to buy back large blocks having an adverse impact on the share price.

I haven’t seen anything to make me believe it’s one large holder trickle selling a block of shares but I could be wrong. If I am right, the situation hasn’t been such to trigger them doing a block buy back. I know you don’t like that answer, but I believe it’s the reality of the situation, as frustrating as recent declines are.

[beercapafn] 14/12/2023 15:39

Because I believe in the business model and patented technology.

Not its current operators.

[beercapafn] 14/12/2023 14:34

That is 3.05 % for ALL the directors collectively.

[beercapafn] 14/12/2023 14:27

Serratia: I fundamentally disagree.

They are unable to spend/use the cash generated by the existing plants back to the core business for some very frustrating reasons.

It is the responsibility of the BOD to use available funds / or borrowed funds for the best financial outcome.

In the last 6 months, I believe the expenditure of a million $ in buybacks would have kept the Share Price at 32p and resulted in a share price that could be used in an M&A potential in a much more solid way.

Unless someone on the BOD has a more sinister agenda of choking the value proposition, for their own agenda.

It is worth pointing out that the involvement of BOD in ownership is not reflected in the running of the company in the interest of the bulk of shareholders.

7. MAJOR SHAREHOLDING

The Company is aware of the following shareholders holding 3% or more of the issued share capital of the Company as at 30 September 2023 adjusted for TR-1 notifications through 30 September 2023:
Shareholder Percentage
Richard Sneller 19.03%
Hargreaves Lansdown, stockbrokers (EO) 12.90%
Interactive Investor (EO) 12.10%
David & Monique Newlands 8.11%
Premier Miton Investors 6.40%
Barclays Smart Investor (EO) 3.96%
AJ Bell, stockbrokers (EO) 3.17%
Directors 3.05%

My point is that I would like to see someone with a shareholding looking for a return on their capital employed to have a place on the BOD.

I don't trust Lance.

Bit of a ramble, but I have been here for 9 years.

Not a happy bunny.

[festario] 14/12/2023 12:04

A dividend is actually one of the basic entitlements of a shareholder. As long as there is no debt to service first, shareholders are entitled to a share of the profits of any listed company. These American chappies at the helm would do well to remember that.

[serratia] 14/12/2023 11:11

At the H1 results IOF had cash of $6.3m and net of their loan it's $0.2m. After finance costs they generated $4m in H1. IO10 will cost around $5m. At year end they might have $4.2m cash net of the loan with $5m committed. Not all of the IO10 costs will fall in H1 2024 so IO10 costs should be covered. Where do you see the cash coming from for buy backs ?
As it stands they're using the cash for expansion so no reasons for buy backs / dividends. Maybe in 2025 if there's no IO11 on the horizon.

[beeezzz] 14/12/2023 10:59

Maybe a dividend would help, instead of only Employees making money out of IOF, they should start paying more respect to investors..I suppose one can always sell at a loss...

[beercapafn] 14/12/2023 10:48

I did, and the reply was we are saving our capital to further expand the company.

I said, but you have a buyback fund for the explicit purpose of a buyback.

" We have it under constant review "

Hence my question ? When would you the BOD invoke that fund?

[nellyb] 14/12/2023 10:39

beer, why don't you ask the company that question?