Iofina Share Discussion Threads

[cyberbub] 24/4/2014 07:05

Masurenguy, don't feed the trolls - please.

[n3tleylucas] 24/4/2014 01:07

Everyone of you should listen to this...

[n3tleylucas] 24/4/2014 01:02

Do you think I was a good poster SCRUT?

[n3tleylucas] 24/4/2014 01:02

You still about SCRUT?

You liked me...

[n3tleylucas] 24/4/2014 00:41

mr big,

The fact you can lose millions and still be okay doesn't alter the fact you as a man should never have ever posted on here.

I told you you would be beaten and you were out of your depth... many hate me, but see it as a learning curve... I am a top boy.

[napoleon 14th] 23/4/2014 23:54

ROGER - lol.

As I said in post 19647 at lunchtime, & repeated by Rock Star, they have to get some trucking organised PDQ. RS rightly said from hi-yield brine. Yes indeed!
It's a quicker & cheaper solution to mobile plants at the mo.

IOF need to get supply stabilised. If they allow some financial reward to those sending in/allowing offtake of their brine, future contracts should have penalties for non-delivery.

I hope some directors buy after results. Speaking of which, here's the difference in Lance's position, from what I've seen:
9,000,000 x 240p peak = £21,600,000
4,500,000 x 23p today = £1,035,000
Who would contest that he's motivated?
___________

Bad Rubbishbot - filtered.
Boring & repetitive. What's more, he's an...

Alpha
Sierra
Sierra
Hotel
Oscar
Lima
Echo

Don't feed the animals!

[n3tleylucas] 23/4/2014 23:27

mr big is Arron Banks, and he should never have posted on here.

[cyberbub] 23/4/2014 23:23

That article is exactly why I think 'Mister Big' really is AB. It was a high-profile article, and if 'Mister Big' was an impostor then the real AB would have heard about / been told about it, and naturally been livid and stopped at nothing to get the impostor tackled. IMO of course.

[masurenguy] 23/4/2014 23:17

'Bored multi-millionaire' investor snaps up millions of shares in iodine specialist Iofina

Followers of City bulletin boards were in a quandary recently when a 'Mister Big' proudly proclaimed that he had acquired millions of shares in Iofina. They were desperate to find out the identity of the investor and despite hours of goading on the web, he refused to come clean. Then completely out of the blue and apparently against all bulletin board ethics, he revealed himself as Arron Banks, a 'bored multi-millionaire', who had bought 4million shares or 3.16 per cent.

The iodine specialist has since returned to favour and yesterday closed 3.75p better at 67.25p. Arron Banks' pedigree was running insurance companies for Norwich Union before he decided to set up his own business. He co-founded Brightside in February 2005 and was chief executive of loans company Manx Financial. He knows Iofina very well and clearly sees it as an undervalued recovery play and is rumoured to be ready to hoover up any loose stock. There is also growing speculation too that former chief executive and company secretary Lance Baller could be on his way back. He resigned in June 2013 on health grounds. If 'Mr Iofina' does return, shareholders would be delighted as they believe current management has underperformed.

Baller could replace chairman Dr Chris Fay who resigned at the end of March. Shop broker Numis has a target price of 156p. Analyst Sanjeev Bahl believes the stock could be re-rated over the next 12 months as Iofina meets plant roll-out and short-term production expectations



Wherefore art thou Arron ????

[cyberbub] 23/4/2014 23:13

crosseyed, I agree and had posted earlier that at reduced production levels and current market prices, it would be wise to assume a margin per kg of just $10... plus say 25% for the value added by IoChem, say $12 a kg. If the company does achieve 400,000 kg per year then that would be some $5M. Let's say they manage to reduce admin expenses to $3M through their various measures, then they should still be able to have positive cashflow and 'stay afloat' until brine flows start to increase in future.

That's my back-of-a-fag-packet assessment anyway!

BR saying that the company will have "gone below $1.5M" ie. an $800K reduction in 3 weeks, seems excessive to me. At the full (non-reduced) admin cost rate of $5M p.a. then 3 weeks would be $300K. I suppose that there will also be some modest capex remaining to complete IO3,4,5,6. On the other hand there is still cashflow from sales - production is by no means zero!

NAI

[cyberbub] 23/4/2014 23:03

The basic/most significant figures from H1 2013 were:

GROSS PROFIT
$2.4M
ADMIN EXPENSES
$2.6M


ASSETS
Tangible assets: $12.4M (ignoring ALL intangibles)
Cash $16M
Inventory $7.6M (including both feedstock chemicals and goods for sale)
Net trade receivables $2.4M

LIABILITIES
Convertible loan: $16.8M (not due until 2017 now)


[The inventories position had actually increased from $4m six months earlier]

So between June 30 2013 and March 30 2014 (9 months) they have gone from a cash position of $16M to a cash position of $2.3M.

Obviously in that time they have built 3 and almost a 4th additional plant, which will have taken a lot of capex. They will also have been hiring various operational staff.

It's possible that inventories and 'net receivables' might have increased further, sucking up cash. That in itself would indicate possible poor financial management, if true.

But it does still seem like they have gone through a lorra cash in 9 months...

And the admin costs of approx. $5M p.a. do seem rather excessive... it really will be critical to get these 'at least' halved for 2014 IMO...

Anyone got any comments?

I suppose all will be clear either tomorrow or Friday AM with the full year results!

NAI DYOR

[n3tleylucas] 23/4/2014 22:55

Bad Robot,

It's perfectly clear the group will need funding very soon. Please don't hammer it down people's throats so brazenly. There are posters who have been saying that for ages.

[crosseyed] 23/4/2014 22:51

Regarding the unit cost of iodine produced in-house from the IOsorb plants, the assumed unit cost of production of ~$20/kg assumes that they are working close to design efficiency. At optimal efficency the unit cost may be somewhat lower. However, it is clear that is not the case. IO#5 will apparently not be producing at all until direct power is installed, perhaps from July 2014. There still remain more-or-less fixed overheads for all plants. And indeed variable costs actually vary dependent particularly on brine quantities, iodine concentration and monthly productivity. The closer a plant achieves its design parameters, the lower will be its unit cost of production.

As it stands, we are informed that most plants are under-supplied with brine (whose concentration is unknown), and there have been severe weather disruptions. My own spreadsheet assessment is that the average operating cost was $25.48/kg during 2013; it might be $28.21/kg during H1 2014; and perhaps $27.40/kg during H2 2014. I would ultimately expect it to be somewhat below $20/kg.

As for how IOF charge IO Chemicals internally for iodine produced in-house, it really does not matter since the group figures are consolidated. I just take the assessed average monthly operating cost of in-house iodine(which in early 2013 was higher than external market cost!) for that iodine used to produce derivatives.

c

[bad robot] 23/4/2014 22:46

and lets not forget April nearly over.

it would less than $1.5m (about £900k) in the coffers, they had $2.3m end of march.
There won't be any money by end of May. Possibly insolvent




Such measures are being undertaken to conserve the Group's cash position which was $2.3M at the end of March.

[n3tleylucas] 23/4/2014 22:45

I think a lot people seem to think I should be sticking the boot into Graham. But we did all that many months ago. I am not going to dance on poster's graves here.
I stated my case, and it's happened. The one thing I did not like was Arron Banks posting here recently. As a large professional investor someone should have told him it was a no-no, especially when it was so focused.

[crosseyed] 23/4/2014 22:20

Battery,

Thanks for your estimates. They provide some serious basis on which to discuss the value of IOF.

Regarding Admin costs, H1 2013 reported $1.933 million, so perhaps something closer to $4 million per annum might be more appropriate. Those are in addition to operating costs, so why do you think they might be reduced? A cull of directors perhaps? Though they now have the new water man! (Not that I am critical of that appointment).

c

[masurenguy] 23/4/2014 22:19

Whatever happened to Arron ? Perhaps his cruise ship sank - maybe he got food poisoning at the Captains Table or he might have had a skinful at lunchtime and is sleeping it off !

Wherefore art thou Arron ???

[superg1] 23/4/2014 22:15

A few did note the many jobs advertised so it seems the recent IOF team employed too much lead weight as I note this line in the rns

'In light of this development, steps are being taken to minimise expenses both at corporate and operational level'

In other words some unnecessary/incompetent deadwood, is being cut out.

[playful] 23/4/2014 22:15

I would not rubbish Mr B - I have been down and come back on many occasions so no reason he cannot do the same – Good luck Arron, just Mr Market playing silly games....

[madchick] 23/4/2014 22:15

Thanks everyone - good to have some sane posts (I've filtered BR). Battery, thanks for the estimates.

[crosseyed] 23/4/2014 22:12

Battery,

You state...
The chemical division used to source its raw iodine externally. It stopped buying in raw iodine 12 months ago and has since been using 'home grown' raw iodine.

However, the RNS of 17/12/2013 states...
Although not fully optimized, the three combined plants [ie IO#1-3] are averaging in excess of 1,000 kilograms of iodine per day, satisfying the Group's internal iodine demand while building inventory for future outside sales.

Is there any evidence of when IOF ceased to buy-in Iodine (from SQM or other external source) since the RNS implied that IOF had only just become self-sufficient?

My own spreadsheet suggests that might have been as late as August 2013, though with rapidly reducing requirements. For example, IOF produced just 62.5 mT in H1 2013 plus maybe another 30 mT through recycling within IO Chemicals, substantially short of the derivatives single-shift capacity of 30 mT/month. My own estimate is that they may have bought about 65 mT during 2013, mostly during H1 2013.

c

[battery] 23/4/2014 22:06

If they do 400T for IO1&2. Assume worst case iodine price $45/kgAssume worst case costs $20/kgYou're looking at a gross profit of $10M.Admin costs are $3M.Tax - nil due to previous losses carried forward.No further capex and with admin costs due to reduce due to downsizing you're looking at net profit from the 2 plants of around $7M. IOC adds 20% so around $8.4M overall. That gives an EPS of 6.6 cents or around 4p.Choose your PE to guage what the share price should be.