Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[timbo237] 04/6/2013 21:53

Just watched an interview on CNBC with analyst Meredith Whitney who forecasts that there will be a big move by American companies (which has already begun) and European businesses to relocate from the coastal states to the those in the middle of the country due to increased economic activity, lower costs, availablity of labour, quality of life etc

Link below for anyone who's interested:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000172364

[gadolinium] 04/6/2013 20:21

Engelo,

At least IOF makes our black swans a bit more bearable.

[n3tleylucas] 04/6/2013 18:44

Ignore freshvoice, probably telling porkies. Anyone who really filters someone, rarely if ever mentions the fact. Just another b/s'ing to$$er imo.

[everybodywangchungtonight] 04/6/2013 18:24

GAH GAH GAH

[urbanyeti] 04/6/2013 18:22

New regulations regarding the reporting of short positions come into effect on Monday. In theory funds/ individuals will have till 3pm the day after 0.2% level is hit then every 0.1% thereafter. There are some exemptions for market makers & it remains to be seen how firmly it is enforced.http://www.fca.org.uk/firms/markets/international-markets/eu/short-selling-regulations/notifications-disclosures

[freshvoice] 04/6/2013 17:59

Scrut.
I don't know what numpty said but by responding to him he has said twice more. Please leave him alone or we will have the BBcluttered up with lots of filtered entries.
Thanks

[n3tleylucas] 04/6/2013 17:43

Or even better, study HMV, study the shorts, the %, over time ... you'll spot something most odd. Have fun ... then come back.

[n3tleylucas] 04/6/2013 17:38

Yes, but you don't know why they're shorting. Could simply be hedging a position, or could be that they are taking the bet against IOF suck seeding. Whether the latter is daft, remains, to be seen my friend.

Sub 2% is frack all. Come back to me when it's supra 20%.

[scrutable] 04/6/2013 17:24

N3
I do not on principle rise to your provocations, but this time you are making a fair point - but it is still too sanguine and still needs correction.

I once did a lot of research to establish the link, if any, between the excess weight of money between buyers and sellers, and the ensuing effect on the share price.

It turned out that it did not matter whether the accumulated difference between buyers and sellers on any one day was positive or negative, the capitalisation was affected in roughly the same way for any one share being examined.

I called it Edward's ratio (E)for fun and got a lot of good humoured stick for it.

I havn't had time to check it out for IOF and now may never have, but the gist of the findings was that with small caps eg £10m - £50m there was a surprisingly large response - E was about x40 times the out-of- balance over the day's trading.

My guess is that for IOF E lies between x10 and x20 times, and E declines much further with the size of Cap.

So taking round numbers to simplify the point: 2.5% of the IOF shares issued will make a difference, when thrown into the market, of between 60p and 120p (25% - 50% of cap).

I would love to see that tested. I am confident that if 2.5m shares shorted tried to close on the same day, we would see the share price driven to spike by that amount. Likewise a hedge fund selling 2,500,000 in a day or two could threaten to halve the share price.

Which is why no one does anything as daft.

But it's still daft to have borrowed 2.5% to go short on this particular share, which the shorters will be shocked to discover when IO#3 and IO#4 are commissioned and when/if their production is announced as having reached anything like 500-750 mT/pa put together. They face a similar probability when/if a water contract is announced at 75k bbls/day sold @$1/bbl.

[n3tleylucas] 04/6/2013 16:38

LEEMING,

Dunno what yer idea of heavily shorted is bud? But this baby ain't being touched by shorters ... yet.

2.25m out of 127m? sub 2% sunshine.

[scrutable] 04/6/2013 16:33

engelo

Difficult though it be to change one's mind set think of your GDP loss as an insurance premium. Everyone who pays such a premium is protected in all the risks which DON'T go wrong. Oxymoronic, I know.

But just imagine you had had all your money in GDP? Hasn't putting some of your cash elsewhere, IOF included, reduced that loss of yours and Gad's today?

The behaviour of the IOF share price over the three days after LB's exit indicates what we might have experienced if we had not quickly believed he would come back. But Dr Becker could have a fatal car crash (and so could you or I - and someone will today)

You can't value risks in retrospect any more than ask for your House insurance premium returned because your house did NOT catch fire.

There is no question about it. Keeping all your money in one share substantially increases your risk but it may be a risk which you in your circumstance can afford to take. If you had £10m to invest it would be utterly crazy to take it.

[leeming] 04/6/2013 16:32

Apologies for slightly off topic but there is a similarity here with another share I've made a couple of pennies on.
Ocado was heavily shorted but there was the rumour of good news.
Shorts have to close.
The combination of shorts closing and positive news can have a very positive effect on the share price.
Been adding to my holding on the dips because this has a similar feel.

[engelo] 04/6/2013 16:05

gadolinium: thanks for clearing up the patent position. Must try and keep up.

OT Black Swan struck again to-day: landed on my (fortunately small) hoiding of GDP.

Recently Scrutable pointed out the risk of being in 1 share only. You and I have taken the risk of NOT being in 1 share only and paid the price :-((

[n3tleylucas] 04/6/2013 15:40

Someone smells blood ...

[jonnyno1] 04/6/2013 15:32

icebergs r us.

[diggulden] 04/6/2013 15:09

Set up for a strong finish to the day.

[superg1] 04/6/2013 14:55

I think we are over the 2 mill short mark, which will make it interesting when news like the water rights appears.

Square1 did explain a while back that shorts are not always what they seem. It's been a handy supply so far though, to keep the price at good levels to buy at.

IOF is worth quite a bit more on delivery of the H2 roll out, never mind water.

[gadolinium] 04/6/2013 14:53

These patents have actually been discussed at length on the old thread see post 8419 etc.

According to Lance this is old tech as suspected: see Post 8428 on the old thread

-----------------------------------------------------------------

superg1
6 Oct'12 - 18:32 - 8428 of 26063 0 0


All re patents. I've just asked.

Those patents are old, the new tech all relates to 2012 as in isorb

'We have chemical patents that are issued that we use in our process.'

Other current patent apps can't be viewed for 12 months I'm told.

So no issues it seems. The relevant patents in play relate to the new tech.

[jonnyno1] 04/6/2013 14:49

iceberg buying?

[captain_kurt] 04/6/2013 14:39

Well Level 2 certainly changed to being positive after those large trades

[superg1] 04/6/2013 14:37

Some heavy trades going on clearly a buyer after stock and has taken some out on the supply.

I wonder if it is one or two of the new interested insti's.

[n3tleylucas] 04/6/2013 14:12

I feel the weight of a top-heavy share price here ... creaking.

[gadolinium] 04/6/2013 14:10

Engelo,

For what its worth, I don't think the patents I have seen are Iosorb, probably previous tech. For example Thomas Becker's patent application US20100119438 (to which others have alluded) for iodine recovery process from brines has a priority date of 12.11.09 so I presume pre-dates the more recent Iosorb development. Having said that I don't know what the Iosorb tech is.

I think we are placing too much emphasis on the comment by JP that he had recently paid a fee on one of their patents. People are assuming this is a grant fee. In fact fees are paid at many points in the prosecution of a patent application and continue to be paid even after grant. His comment could apply to any number of fees.
But supposing it was the grant fee, this would mean he had already been notified that the patent would be granted, so why not RNS it now if that's what they intend? If grant has already been notified they do not need to wait a month for it to be published.

With regard to your second question, I think all these brines contain iodine in the iodide form.

[engelo] 04/6/2013 13:33

Couple of questions please, and yes I'm being a bit lazy:

Patents: could someone clarify the relationship if any between the Iosorb patent that SG is expecting news of soon and the rejected/appealed patents that Gad posted? Presumably there's a whole family of patents claimed by IOF, some of which are more critical than others, and some more likely than others to be granted.

Brines: strange that I don't know this, but assume others do. On the Iochem site they state that the iodine content in their brines is sodium iodide. Is this also true of IOF's brines?

tia

[ramu kumar] 04/6/2013 13:08

Thanks Dig.

Lib, with IOF shares you'll soon be in the 'right' half.