Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[iof multibagger] 30/12/2013 13:26

Try to buy proper shares this time round lads. I told you guys big bounce is
coming. RECORD PRODUCTION, PATENTED TECHNOLOGY, YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
WEBSITE PICTURES AND SEE THE SORPHISTICATED IO3 PLANT NOWONDER THEY HAVE BEEN
DELAYED. GOING FORWARD NOW WITH RECORD PRODUCTION MORE PLANTS ROLLING OUT WITH
MORE PRODUCTION MORE REVENUES TO FOLLOW..

£3 by feb if the water permit is granted otherwise £2 by feb

[iof multibagger] 30/12/2013 13:20

£3 target

[ansana] 30/12/2013 13:05

Not long now, out with the old and in with the new. IOF have hit the reset button, so we now have realistic deliverable targets for 2014. We are about to claw back the slippage and please the market. It won't be long before we hear that the towers are on site and construction is underway. No wonder then that people are piling back in.

[neddo] 30/12/2013 10:54

netley are you holder now?

[rickcanning] 30/12/2013 10:53

It was hugely oversold, mostly by PIs I would suspect. Those same PIs who sold are now piling back in as its obviously going to rise in the short term.

With IO4 news around the corner, not sure we will under £1 for long, people are now panic buying!

[che7win] 30/12/2013 10:40

Fresh,
Totally exposed himself.

I like to use a term for current trading - "forced buyers".

Many wanted to get in cheaper, now with the stock turned and rising they are forced to buy, greed and fear are two strong influences on share prices.

A bit of short covering maybe kicking in too.

[freshvoice] 30/12/2013 10:34

Che,
Great exposure of Nutters, I have him filtered so hadn't seen the shot in foot post.LOL

We might get back to his 235 valuation this quarter, without water.

[che7win] 30/12/2013 10:17

Eddie,
A nice ski slope for you to take off from, lol!

This is where greed takes over when everyone knows the stock is cheap but no one wanted to jump in until the turn.

Let's get back to a more realistic price, Netley likes to value stocks on a P/E of 10 two years out, he values this at 235p on his 'crude' method.

[che7win] 30/12/2013 10:07

N3tley,
You have been more wrong than anybody and for longer. You are consistently wrong all year with your targets here and on other stocks such as XEL. The amazing thing is that you let slip your valuation method on the TUNG thread which now means you can't claim your 75p target without contradicting yourself!


You use double standards for valuing IOF against other stocks you are in such as TUNG.

To quote you from the TUNG thread:

"
N3tleyLucas 22 Oct'13 - 13:03 - 25 of 26 0 0

It's easy to value mate, 100m x share price .. you mean judge it against peers and the general market?

Now that's tricky, no broker or company est's yet. My rule of thumb is MV/10 = pre-tax 2 years out = about right. So £23m FY 2015, more and it's cheap, less dear.

Of course that's my blunt measure of good/bad value... there are certainly more refined ways."

So applying your rational to IOF, I estimate 2015 will have between 1500-1800 MT with a profit of ~£30m.

So applying YOUR method to value IOF would give a current fair market cap of £300,000,000.

So YOUR method gives a share price target based on 2015 earnings for IOF of 300m/127.3m = 235p.

235p is the IOF current fair price using YOUR method.

I'm surprised so few have worked out how you have exposed yourself with your double standards.

I just hope you and the other one liners haven't forced investors out at a silly price.

Personally, I bought more on the initial fall, I like to buy when to quote Rothschild "there's blood in the streets".

Now I'm neither buyer or seller, happy to keep and let the story unfold.

[eddyeagle1979] 30/12/2013 10:03

Nice little jump here today!

[tsmith2] 30/12/2013 09:37

Defo think Chart's turning

[n3tleylucas] 29/12/2013 22:36

"Oh no"

Oh yes...

"Nutters woken up from his Christmas booze,"

You assume I'm anything like you? I'm a Jew.

"glad"



"I have two filtered,"

Testicles?

"still hoping"

Aye.

"to get a full page some day!"

You might get a full shilling.

[freshvoice] 29/12/2013 22:17

Oh no Nutters woken up from his Christmas booze, glad he is filtered . I have two filtered, still hoping to get a full page some day!
Edit 3 now!

[n3tleylucas] 29/12/2013 21:58

"wow, surprised to see anyone posting at around 5am"

That is why you are the fool that you are.

[engelo] 29/12/2013 21:52

Che7: re PEs your rule sounds good to me. Back to basics here: what growth rate can we anticipate? Evidently 2013 vs 2014 is pretty meaningless.

Comes down to instinctive judgement of iodine price, production rates and sales: imo for the next few years growth of 25% would seem modest in IOF's case. However if the share price sticks anywhere near these levels, a cheap takeover will save us the effort of calculating it all ;-)

[bobbyshilling] 28/12/2013 20:24

mail2, wow, surprised to see anyone posting at around 5am. Anyway, you indicate in your post that you think IOF is a highly speculative stock. Maybe a bit more research is in order? I agree that spread betting can leave one open to large losses in the short term, but if the homework has been done and the company fundamentals are in place then for longer term investors it is a different story. Anyway, each to his own.

[masurenguy] 28/12/2013 19:21

SCRUTABLE - 14117: masurenguy, when the price suddenly plunges everyone is stopped out.....
Not necessarily so! You can be very selective with your choice of SB firms, and only trust those very few who will allow you to lose substantial equity without insisting that you top up immediately to 100% of margin required

Those were Paul Scotts views. You should address your comments to him rather than to me !
He was also addressing the impact that SB stops can have on the short term shareprice rather than debating the merits of Spread Betting or the pros and cons of individual SB providers per se !

[mail2] 28/12/2013 04:57

even when individual stocks crash. It's crazy the way some people take large leveraged bets on highly speculative stocks. That's just an accident waiting to happen. We've seen that with the high volatility of stocks like Iofina (LON:IOF), a favourite of Spread Betting clients apparently. When the price suddenly plunges, everyone is stopped out, and if their position size is too large it can lead to a large chunk (or even all!) of their equity being wiped out. Why take the risk? In my view Spread Bets only make sense for more stable stocks, and even then only if gearing is carefully controlled (or not used at all - there is no obligation to gear up in a SB a/c). It's also vital to diversify properly in a SB a/c. Overall I would say that Spread Betting is far too risky for anyone but the most experienced investors, who also possess strong self control. - See more at: hxxp://www.-.com/content/small-cap-value-report-27-dec-iof-csfg-cnc-80164/#sthash.f54dabsd.dpuf

[scrutable] 27/12/2013 19:12

masurenguy
when the price suddenly plunges everyone is stopped out.....

Not necessarily so! You can be very selective with your choice of SB firms, and only trust those very few who will allow you to lose substantial equity without insisting that you top up immediately to 100% of margin required

Unfortunately many PIs have had all or most of their money in the one stock.
If you balance your portfolio, so that IOF or any other share is limited to say 10% of the total value, a fall of 50% in its share price will 'only' reduce your total equity (asset value) by roughly 20.0%.

That would be my recommendation to very cautious investors or traders.

However, Heavy risk takers, USING THE BEST 2/3 SB COMPANIES could justify up to a 25% disproportionate unbalance with a favourite high growth share if they were able to sustain a loss of 50% in their asset value from say IOF alone.

Most PIs with less than 10 years experience should stick to the 10% limit.

[naphar] 27/12/2013 17:13

Che,
not really jumping to any conclusions, more asking for clarification as I was not sure that was what you meant. You put no limitations on it, and foreseeable future makes it worse in reality, as it shortens timescales. I might only think foreseeable future is 2 years, if my second year has profit growth of 100%, I could read your rule of thumb to mean a company should be in a PE o 100 for profits 2 years out.

[tsmith2] 27/12/2013 16:37

Graph turning...

[che7win] 27/12/2013 15:09

Naphar,
I suggest you reread my post as I don't know why you jump to that conclusion, it doesn't work to the extreme!
I used the term 'foreseeable future' for a reason as I know of no company that can grow consistently at a rate above 25%.

Usually, those companies growing at 25% consistently have a unique franchise, e.g. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Dominoes.

Maybe a few like ASOS have done it for the early stages of their existence, but for one thing, it gets harder to grow at that rate when a company grows larger.

You'd never find me buying a £5 billion market cap on a current P/E multiple of 124 as ASC is currently valued at. It's a great business at the wrong price valuation.

I stick by the rule of thumb I use as it's used by Peter Lynch and he consistently grew his fund by 30% for an extended period of time, see below:

"Lynch seems to prefer the second phase the most. He does have some comments about what an appropriate multiple for P/E ought to be. He uses the rule of thumb that P/E should be the growth rate (e.g. 20 P/E ~ 20% growth in earnings). He's skeptical of growth greater than 25% and likes buying when the P/E is below the growth rate".

[shroder] 27/12/2013 14:30

It looks as though Chile are net importers at least on the energy front.



____________________________________________
superg1 26 Dec'13 - 17:43 - 14095 of 14111 0 1

Shroder

Most predict a turn and they can't cope at current rates, so if it does turn things will become more difficult

[naphar] 27/12/2013 14:17

Che, so a stock growing at 100% a year deserves a PE of 100? Really? Not sure I agree with that rule of thumb!