Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[dolores123] 25/3/2014 16:28

Looking a bit over sold now?

[angel of the north] 25/3/2014 16:19

On Thursday I received an email saying they 'anticipated releasing an update in the very near future' - Today I have responded!

[trav5] 25/3/2014 16:12

A 50% fall in 3m's you have to conclude the market has decided the company will need to raise further funds and I cannot see the share price improving until the company proves otherwise.

[shonny] 25/3/2014 16:09

Fifties it is. Shonny spot on again. Could be massive bad news on the cards. Get out while you can still get something for your shares.

[beeezzz] 25/3/2014 16:05

Are the nerves starting to look a little frayed, looks like capitulation from those with profits and those with huge loses. One thing you can't do in an ISA is offset the loses.

[koolade] 25/3/2014 16:04

WTF happened here?

[roger melly] 25/3/2014 15:04

You spoke to one of who?

[dontshoutatonce] 25/3/2014 15:01

Roger Melly, two weeks because I spoke to one of them last week and was told 9th April we'd be told and it all seemed good to him and that's good enough for me.

[1madmarky] 25/3/2014 14:54

Bobby - that is exactly what I'm planning to do

[bobbyshilling] 25/3/2014 14:48

Well if Ennismore were closing their short I can't see how the price would be dropping like this. Either someone knows something we don't or this share is out of fashion at the moment. There are plenty of sells again today. Fingers crossed we get some good news soon.

EDIT, on the bright side though, we can shift far more into the ISA soon!

[roger melly] 25/3/2014 14:23

Hey Dontshouttwice
why 2 weeks?

[dontshoutatonce] 25/3/2014 14:20

Afraid they won't do that for 2 weeks Bobsworth.

[dontshoutatonce] 25/3/2014 14:20

Afraid they won't do that for 2 weeks Bobsworth.

[frog1] 25/3/2014 14:05

che,

You say They can roll out future plans (capex) out of:

1. Cashflow - I hope so, but at last figures this was negative

2. sales factoring - This comes at a cost and it is far from certain that customers for their product would be interested.

3. plant financing - becomes much more difficult is 1. is not there

4. partnership agreements - again this always comes at a cost and I'm not sure with who you believe they would operate.

My own view is 1. is the only game on town and if that builds too slowly they will need more money.

At the end of the day, it is what the market perceives that will drive the price, and currently there is more selling with far from enthusiastic buying. I like the business model and the indications are that they will succeed given time. So in my view that leaves the market with the question do they have time, which means do they have enough money and at the moment the answer is not certain. To the market that's like a no and until there is clarity the price will drift.

[astorcourt] 25/3/2014 13:55

Shonny must be listened to from now on

[bobsworth] 25/3/2014 13:52

Ouch! Time Iofina put a statement out to knock this on the head once and for all

[shonny] 25/3/2014 13:34

Shonnys predictions not looking so shoddy now. I hope all the deluded rampers will finally accept that they got this one massively wrong. Fifties shortly by the way. Never mind, not long till xmas and £1.

[square1] 25/3/2014 13:02

Clearly Q1 will have been a poor quarter and hopefully will mark the nadir for production. In Q2 we should have 5 plants up and running with the 6th on the blocks. The management of the rollout has clearly been disappointing but the nature of the Company changes from Q2 on IMO. Will Q1 production news be sold?-perhaps, although falls look like taking the negatives into account ahead of events. Opportunity is presenting itself and I expect things to bottom v soon.

[che7win] 25/3/2014 12:36

frog,
I don't think the cash position is an issue.

They can roll out future plans (capex) out of:

1. Cashflow
2. sales factoring
3. plant financing
4. partnership agreements.

I would say that the water application if successful will need capex, it has always been deemed as non-core and therefore will probably be a joint venture. That is the only question mark I have.

The rest is entirely manageable. It depends how fast we want to roll out.

As regards to IOF's model, it works, management are satisfied that it works and more optimistic than last time I talked to them.

The share price is reacting to lack of communication and some slip ups in roll out, the finer details that I have mentioned before.

I think we will have a beefed up management team going forward, a young company needs to increase headcount.

We will also likely produce 70% or more of our revenues second half.

The first quarter production will have been affected by the severe weather (O&G fields freezing), the second quarter will look good against them when we have 5 plants and no weather issues.

Brine supply isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned.

IO#2 production was $500,000 monthly profit last May, no reason we can't increase efficiencies and get to those figures again.

[roger melly] 25/3/2014 12:27

Frog
thanks for your detailed response and fwiw I agree with what you say.

Bryproj
Superg2 has hinted

[bryproj] 25/3/2014 12:25

Well certainly it would be in Lance's interest assuming he still owns 7m shares.Not sure whether the health issues were resolved but I understand that he is working full time for IOF in a consultancy role.

[frog1] 25/3/2014 12:24

roundup

Sorry I should say competitive buyers. Buyers may buy when the price reaches their price, but they are not fighting to get stock. They can get what they want. There needs to be competition for stock to drive the price up. We have no idea who those buyers are. If they are just shorters closing their positions, they are clearly not buying for the investment opportunity, but to reduce their risk/exposure which is not a great plus for the investment case.

[frog1] 25/3/2014 12:19

Roger

I don't know Lance but I suspect the market would react favourably. Whether that is justified is another issue. Looking back at the company before I was interested in it, it seems there was a charismatic person (Lance) leading it who was very convincing. However, it looks to me he was always over promising (something that people struggling to get something off the ground do) and convinced a lot of people. The company may not have got anywhere without that type of leadership when it occurred. However, when he left, they had just 2 sites up, and the 2nd seemed to have taken a long time. He had promised a pile of sites by the end of the year and within a few months of him leaving that had been downgraded significantly. Also, the revenue figures were no where near the projections. So on delivery of promises, I think he was poor. On leadership and drive excellent.

He was involved in the initial Stenna funding which seemed like a good deal at the time based on his promises and given the strength of the share price. In retrospect, a straight fund raising of $15 m at £1.40 or so would have been a much better move and removed any repayment pressur. I suspect the board believed his story/projections about a very rapid roll out and quick increase in production and revenue, so they went for the higher conversion price with the decreased risk that Stenna wanted in return. That initially meant less dilution, but has since meant much more dilution (easy in hindsight I know). From my experience, expansion always costs much more than people think and is harder to manage and I think Chris Fey should have made that point more forcibly, arguing for a less ambitious roll out plan that they could get much closer to. I'm not sure what contribution he actually brought and I thinkhe was weak next to a strong CEO like Lance.

I think the current team have been struggling with the problems Lance left since they have been in charge. I am hoping with 6 sites, the initial over promise and under delivery will be ended and we can expand as a company should.

So on balance for me, I think he would give more focus and drive, but he needs to be tempered by a steady person who delivers what is promised. The real problem would be those roles are normally the CEO driving forward and the Chairman bringing some realism (which Chris Fey seems to have failed at). In this case those roles would be reversed with a steady CEO and a driving Chairman.