Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[n3tleylucas] 03/6/2013 12:00

Ain't mm's playing games, you're playing games v each other. But you know that.

[superg1] 03/6/2013 11:57

Jam

That's why we call them icebergs, as only part of the order shows.

VMH explained it. rather than just go big on a buy or sell, you spread it over the day and you get more chance of achieving the average price.

Ramu

Patent news is one that is in play re iosorb. The timeline for issue was 1 month plus from early May, so there is a possibility that will come.

Water permit apps for ND.

Maybe a slim chance of water permit news re Montana.

While IOF have said 3 months/Q3 for the permit application approval, it depends what they mean.

I've mentioned the unofficial, and official versions before.

I can now explain what that means.

We have known for a while that Dry Prairie were to have rights approved in May.

The reason for that is that is the 45 day rule. A water bureau makes the decision to grant rights, known as a 'preliminary determination to grant rights'. Then they put out a 45 public notice, much like planning do in the UK.

So there is the unofficial grant of rights 45 days before the official version.

IOF said 3 months about a month back. Do they mean the unofficial grant of rights, or the official grant of rights. I suspect it's the latter. If that is correct, the unofficial version will be visible to PI's here, regardless of whether the Montana water bureau post the application on line, we know where to look and IOF are aware.

Knowing how they tend to underplay things, could there be a surprise before the AGM.

Maybe not and the water rights will take longer. But those are the circs as above on how the water rights permit system works.

So that event could catch some out, but not us of course. With that 45 day window for official rights awarded in Q3 3, we are already 2 weeks into the window of unofficial rights given.

It's the sort of fine details that could catch some cold.

However as the interest short term is iodine, water is a free bet, so no worries, unless of course you have bet the wrong way and it would be very costly.

[warmsun] 03/6/2013 11:55

jam,

When we have an iceberg it is difficult to know what shares are available...but,in 'normal' trading when we don't have an iceberg L2 very clearly shows the strength of a share and you can see when it is due to tick up (or down!).

Even today is interesting; even though we (seemingly) currently have an iceberg, it can be seen that if the iceberg were to disappear then there aren't (currently) that many shares on the Offer before we could very quickly shoot up to the £2.50 mark again...! Having said that, there are always games being played....people wanting to get stock as cheaply as possible.

Better do some work!

[warmsun] 03/6/2013 11:35

jam,

it can happen on the buy side or indeed on the sell side....if you have an 'iceberg' more shares will be placed on the Bid/Offer as and when the shares that are shown as available are bought/sold.

[n3tleylucas] 03/6/2013 11:27

jamonit,

Well what you see isn't the full picture, there are icebergs, there's ISDX, and there are others not put on there. You really need to pay for a good broker to get the real feel, they can see it better, they ring around.

[diggulden] 03/6/2013 11:21

Jamonit, I'm still getting my head around it all, but I would liken it to a game of poker. If you wanted to sell 50,000 shares, you wouldn't want to show that to everyone as they may drive down the price you could get, knowing you have a large amount to get rid of. Same as if you were holding a full house in poker, you would keep it yourself! Poor analogy I know but that is my basic understanding!

[ramu kumar] 03/6/2013 11:09

Guys, can we give t/o a rest - what other news can we expect before AGM, thanks.

[warrensearle] 03/6/2013 10:44

Scrutable I'm sure your posts come with good intentions but you are sounding more and more like a classic ramper - constantly referring to ASOS and now Warren Buffet ! We all agree we have a great investment here but ASOS is a totally different business as has been pointed out here before.

[superg1] 03/6/2013 10:09

neddo

Why would it continue up after such a steep rise ?

Retraces are always needed and always happen, lack of them is more worrying that drop backs.

On the take over talk, this isn't a thread shouting buy IOF as a takeover is coming. So many threads say that about their shares.

In this case it's not just a useful add on to someone, it's company destroying technology and contracts.

I'm sure post water rights achieved the water side of things will probably be taken out. There are far too many big players muscling in on that industry, so I am not thinking too far ahead re water revenues.

On the iodine side, IOF left to run, is a big risk for some producers and chemical divisions. IOF in quick time could create significant production levels and within 3 years squeeze prices iof they wished to push others out of the market to grab their share.

The takeover is a fear, not a desire, or ramp to create buy interest.

Currently there is nothing short term that anyone can do to match IOF's capex or opex. There is no quick fix. Chile are stuck in years of infrastructure problems, lack of power, and water.

The takeover threat is significant. So if a patent is issued for their tech, interest will come.

Toyota want 15% of the market, and they have not got what they wanted to achieve re buying into the Algorta set up.

IOF have the tech and contracts to produce near 20k mt of iodine per year.

That is more than every producer in Chile. They could do that for less capex than it would take SQM to pay for a seawater pipelines, with opex up to 1/3 or 1/4 of some in Chile.

[n3tleylucas] 03/6/2013 10:06

You see SCRUTABLE senses the BOD want a cosy t/o within a year or two. He thinks that's the aim, the whole idea, the real strategy. He tried to explain the folly of this, and got shot down, and is still getting put down on here.

Is he right? On what? Do the BOD want to be t/o? Yes.

Could IOF go on to become a £10b firm? Sigh, not with I alone, they'd either have to branch out to become a major chemical firm, and/or get really lucky with the oil & gas side, and/and/or/or develop the water into a big player.

So it's possible, but I think they'd have to be so lucky to do it, and the way they are currently avoiding costs of a proper listing ... makes me wonder.

The point is ... if 25% plus 1 vote it down, it's down.

[johncsimpson] 03/6/2013 10:04

Agree with you neddo.

The way any t/o might shake down is purely hypothetical and although some discussion has merit, until there is evidence rather than conjecture, all that's happening here is that two respected posters are at loggerheads over what is currently a non-event.

And there's a third one nobody gives a stuff about.

edit - next post up

[scrutable] 03/6/2013 09:46

retiree

I hope I have answered your question in 816. If not you will no doubt let me know

The board are obviously very much concerned to keep their eyes on the ball, and we all have great confidence in their abilities and resolve. I, like everyone else, think that I was very, very fortunate to have met Lance Baller ( at the AGM held at The Mint) three years ago.

It is reasonable to assume that the Board don't spend five hours a day researching the remaining 2400 shares on the LSE and probable from JP's response that they think that they can do better from the proceeds of a competitive bid than they can from their own company.

I have the evidence that they can't. If you agree, why support a bid however high ?

[neddo] 03/6/2013 09:43

gone the opposite way to what I expected this morning, I hate this imaginary talk of t/o's, just where do you get these rumours from , stop inventing things that are not true, agh

[n3tleylucas] 03/6/2013 09:37

That's true naph, but if you're in a 250p stock that could hit £100, it's doubtful you'll all be able to lump the value at say £20 right into a stock that might 10 bag, the liquidity issue LOL ...

[superg1] 03/6/2013 09:35

Warmsun

many of the trades on Friday were MSCI related.

Naph, I note your prices.

Some much better placed than us, won't even mention what they think the price will be late next year, as it all sounds too nuts, but you can't argue with the figures based on delivery.

The patent rns that could be any day now, going by that 1 month on 'rule', and that will change the view of a few.

It will be good to have tech in place and producing so early in the term of the patent issue, which in the US is 20 years from filing

[scrutable] 03/6/2013 09:33

supreme mo

I won't agree to disagree with such a rational person as yourself until I am convinced that you see my point and still disagree.

So not yet.

I do not mean to suggest that it makes no sense to sell at a huge profit. Any individual has alternative expenditure that is more important than further profit-making, particularly housing or schooling or early retiring or starting a dream business- or reaching the tipping point as a marital prospect for someone previously out of reach! We only get one life and most people have a life changing ambition - as I still have, long after others may have given me up as senile.

Nick Robertson never sold the majority, let alone all his shares for the sake of the money. I'll bet that in his case of an understandable, individual part sale it was housing.

My case is set against a blanket rush to take all one's profit off the table for fear of the future. That is to sell out for the sake of a bigger bank account, which is what, perhaps out of visceral fear of losing it all, so many people apparently can't resist- only to find that for most options you place cash in a sieve and see it ebb away with erosion of purchasing power. That's where my opponents in this debate like yourself or Jeff Ploen differ from the likes of the justifiably admired Warren Buffet when he stated:

"the stock market is an effective device for taking cash from the impatient and giving it to the impatient".

I agree with others that once the board have decided en masse to sell out there is little left one can do but to envy the skilful buyer who has bought an asset from which he can make the greatest return in his life.

There is nothing wrong in being a philanthropist but I will never perceive a mass sell out to SQM or Chesapeake or Toyota or a hedge fund as being to a suitable beneficiary. How they will laugh at the sellers.

I do see the benefits from my investment in IOFINA for myself as an opportunity to monetise SB margin surpluses from time to time as income for an enhanced day to daylife style. I don't think that many people have tumbled to the possibility of using SB to have your cake and eat it. I still control every share I have ever added to my position , yet drawn out a six figure sum to increase consumption from the accumulating surplus - whilst still continually reinvesting the balance back to increase the overall holding.

To summarise my purpose: I want to make sure that the board fully understand that beyond life changing expenditure they will never find a better use for their accumulating value than to leave it in this company and emulate Warren Buffet.

And nor will anyone else.

[naphar] 03/6/2013 09:27

Defending a takeover at anywhere close to he current price is of the utmost importance in my opinion, as the potential multiple of gains from here is high and I can see IOF outranking many other companies from this price in the share price growth charts.

But, the idea that we should not sell out, full stop, is incomprehensible to me. Lets assume a takeover offer at £15 in a couple if years, either a bidding war or boD negotiation increases that to £20. The potential multiple of gains from there is much lower. Even if you believe IOF could reach £100 if left independent (I am not for one minute suggesting it is possible, just hypothesising), then your investment can only go up by a multiple of 5 at that time. There will always be potential 5 and 10 baggers on the market, it would be much easier at that stage to find a better investment elsewhere.

Scrutable's point about IOF being the best investment potential may be true at the current point in time, but will not be the case forever.

[n3tleylucas] 03/6/2013 09:06

"if the price is high enough for the majority they will sell and it's a done deal."

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong! How many times do I have to tell you all?

75% is the takeover threshold!

Come back SCRUTABLE! They don't understand the simplest of takeover rules!

And let's sort that one out 1st before we tackle the 10% rump rule LOL ...

Still stands doesn't it SCRUT? They gotta get 90% to de-list? Has that changed?

[warmsun] 03/6/2013 08:59

sg, did we 'enter' the MSCI as at close of business on 31 May or was it official during the 31 May? I only ask because if it was at close of business then would investors have been buying before we were officially 'in' or could the buying not in fact actually be related to the MSCI...if you follow?

[superg1] 03/6/2013 08:51

Those trades are probably MSCI related. More forced buys than anything else.

As described certain investors have to be properly weighted in the share when it enter the MSCI index.

That's how it's been explained, I didn't read Pc Joe's link in full. It seems to me the entry into the MSCI adds confidence re liquidity, as certain factors have to be met before inclusion.