Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[naphar] 19/8/2014 12:34

All this takeover talk makes me quite uncomfortable, I am enjoying a reasonably steady, but increasing, share price.

If it comes (and maybe a matter of when, not if, I understand that), it comes, Lance will do his best to get a really good price, and we can deliberate it til the cows come home.

In the meantime, we have shares in a company that are slowly but steadily turning last years mishaps around, to all our benefit. I look forward to that continuing!

[bocker01] 19/8/2014 12:34

Well Che, I agree. I also think any bid would start off as friendly and then its up to the BOD what info they would share. The comapany is very difficult to value without knowing all about the leases, test data etc etc. Also it's a size where management retention would might well be seen as necessary. So I think the take out process would not be overnight, it would be slow. Gives the BOD time to canvass an auction. As it's a one-off opprtunity to gain a slice of a market in which the other competitors sit on vastly increasing op-ex and very finite resource, it would certainly grab attention many reasons. Over the next 12 months, it's a competitive bid situation that will earn us investors the brass, and lots of it.

[naphar] 19/8/2014 12:30

Bogg1e

"And what you clearly dont grasp is that it doesnt matter what anyone thinks, or what the buyer is prepared to pay, the BoD will not accept an offer below £10 per share. Simple."

It's not the BoD's choice, it's the shareholders choice. Ultimately, the board can turn down £10 a share, and if the right conditions are met, don't have to tell us (I believe but could be wrong). The bidder then simply goes hostile, ie makes an approach directly to shareholders, bypassing the BoD, and we decide if we accept or not.

[che7win] 19/8/2014 12:30

Boggle,
you would think it would be the institutions that would be the more stable owner in a takeover scenario, but Cadbury's takeover shows that they are after instance gratification, a takeover shows well on their performance metrics....

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 12:27

Che fair enough but surely the large institutional investors, funds etc, would insist on holding for the longer term? i must admit im out of touch with the number of shares (and therefore voting rights) held by II's. Wouldnt it require a 75% vote in favour in order to pass? I couldnt vote in favour of anything less than £10, the future value is way too high, but you may be right and impatience wins the day. That would be a tragic decision were it to come to pass.

[che7win] 19/8/2014 12:15

Bogg1e,
I agree with you, the board (Lance) would not want to sell at this stage, that would mean friendly approaches would be rebuffed if that is the case.

However, if enough companies were to come sniffing around, we could be in a bidding war and it would become impossible to stay independent, to use the familiar saying, we would be 'in play'.

An acquirer might well require the board to remain in situ (including Lance) for a couple of years after takeover, but they might also not care and would feel free to launch a hostile takeover.

Remember - ultimately its the shareholders - you and I - who dictate whether a company is taken over. Sure, the board can recommend rejection or accepting a bid, but it will be how greedy the majority of shareholders are that will determine our destiny in a takeover approach.

Rebuffs can work for a while, but don't think that Lance will be able to continually rebuff approaches at 100% or more above current prices forever.

Just look at Cadburys as an example for shareholder short-termism.

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 12:12

And what you clearly dont grasp is that it doesnt matter what anyone thinks, or what the buyer is prepared to pay, the BoD will not accept an offer below £10 per share. Simple.

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 12:08

Because Chris Faye stated it at the agm, that the boD would not accept an offer that was less than double figures in £'s which implies that the BoD would accept an offer of at least £10. You then say that the shares would sell at a price determined by the buyer, not the seller who in this case is the BoD, who you deemed "delusional".

[sefton1] 19/8/2014 12:06

In response to you saying they would accept ten quid a share for the company. You started on about them selling, not me

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 12:04

You stated "delusional idea of the seller".

[sefton1] 19/8/2014 12:03

boggle, I never said the directors wanted to sell the company. It was you who posted that they would 'accept ten quid a share

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 12:01

Che, fair enough but i just cant see it. Why would Lance or anyone sell a company way below par when all it would take is another year or so and the business model would be proven beyond any doubt? Perhaps its me but it just doesn't add up.

[che7win] 19/8/2014 11:58

Boggle,
I don't think Lance would be able to convince many shareholders to hold out above a price of say £2.

This is why a strong share price is recommended, first to stave off unwanted takeover approaches, secondly, there are now a lot of shareholders who will have doubled their money at 100p a share, never mind £10!

Mr Big doubles at 80p!

It would be a hard job convincing shareholders not to accept £2 a share in my opinion this year, although next year might be a different story ;-)

Even if the board were to recommend shareholders reject an offer at say £2 and they give out the business reasons why, the approach could go hostile direct to shareholders and would then be out of the boards control to a large extent.

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 11:57

"Valuation is what a buyer will pay not the delusionary idea of the seller "

What makes you think that the BoD want to sell the company or have a delusional idea of the value of the company?

[superg1] 19/8/2014 11:56

Last year was promise, now they have actually started delivering, and at a time when the world's top producer is falling apart, and every other producer in Chile (58% of world supply).

Falling apart is just the start, the Chile new government are driving in the coffin nails now re the historic cheap producers.

That was fine of course as Toyota Tsusho proudly stated.

Chile is the only commercial iodine opportunity left. :-)

And to think they were sat on it all that time without 'opposable thumbs' to exploit it.

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 11:56

sefton, who cares what "people" say? The choice is primarily that of the BoD, who have stated at AGMs that they are not prepared to accept less than £10 per share. A one year set back in a long term growth plan is not going to compel the BoD to accept a low-ball offer.

[sefton1] 19/8/2014 11:51

People were saying the same thing here last year when the price was 230 odd and it then fell by 90%. Valuation is what a buyer will pay not the delusionary idea of the seller

[bogg1e] 19/8/2014 11:31

Lance wants a billion dollar company, Chris faye stated double figures in £'s, which means the least the BoD will accept is £10 per share.

[bobsworth] 19/8/2014 11:07

Looking back at Naphar's excellent notes, here is a reminder of what was said at the AGM.

Board not concerned with the likelihood of an aggressive takeover. But if it is attempted "we can deal with that". Not going to sell out too cheaply.

I took that to mean that they have all the valuation detail to show what the company is really worth in terms of it's assets and potential.

[cyberbub] 19/8/2014 10:37

I am not surprised to see a bit of resistance in the mid-60s again, just as there was a few weeks ago with an intraday peak of 66p from which we fell back eventually to 46p.The reason is simple. The mid-60s are a trebler for the people who bought heavily at 21-22p on the day the share price collapsed in May. There was a lot of heavy buying offsetting the.panic sellers and stop losses.Over the years I have noticed that there is almost always clear resistance at the 'round' figures of 50%, 100%, and 200% profit from the low-point in the SP, especially if it was a collapse-type bottom.We just need to wait until those people who are happy with a measly 200% profit are all sold up, and then we will keep going up so the patient remainder of us can make our 500 - 1000% profit in due course... always assuming things go to plan of course!No advice intended.

[captain_kurt] 19/8/2014 10:19

Good spot testuser123.

The precursor to firming iodine prices from what has been researched and shared here by Superg

[superg1] 19/8/2014 10:18

Test

SQM said they can go to $30 but that is to probably scare competitors. That was pre the Cosayach case.

It's said all have pulled back on production.

Anyone on seawater can't get anywhere near 30.

But then of course SQM are going to have to go to seawater.

On the iodine topic here is an interesting bit of technology that looks set to increase iodine use, perhaps worldwide, news just out re that.




On top of that there were some slow burn comments about chlorine being a carcinogen, and someone was calling for swimming pools to have iodine related disinfectants in them.

Just look up it up using search terms, the news is all over the place.

[testuser123] 19/8/2014 10:05

Just saw this on indmin. They aren't saying it's the bottom for definate, but sitting on the fence still represents a marked improvement in their outlook compared to the last few months.

hxxp://www.indmin.com/Article/3372153/Iodine-prices-remain-stable-for-summer.html

In the interests of full disclosure - I should state that I'm pretty sure their source for the story is Lance.