Ann: Half Yearly Report and Accounts, page-93

Not an answer to the simple question asked by Smockie. Just the usual counter accusations and invectives. To claim Smockie is "ramping" or demonstrating "convoluted logic" and use "stupid" is simply absurd (but typical of your tactics). You make many claims of sticking to the facts. So why not answer the simple question asked of you?

Instead we get the usual tactic: abuse and then pivot. First claim he is convoluted and stupid (while not answering the qu) and then pivot to a new accusation (suspicious motives, implications of fraud, etc). I suspect you are talking to yourself in an echo chamber and that any sane reader can see straight through your invective. You simply do not have any substance.

Costs are down since the acquisition of the haulage business. Where were these cost savings generated if they are, as you repeatedly claim, not coming from the FN deal?

Talking of FACTS, Mr Poshman's analysis (which is valid and relevant) does indicate that the company reduced costs during the period. It identifies that hedging saved the day and that at the prevailing iron ore price during the period the company (without hedging) was basically breaking even. None of this is surprising. It is a reality. That is why the FN deal was so important. Imagine what would have happened to the company if there was no hedging locked in and cost had risen by 20%? $11m profit could easily have been a $15m loss! Now that would have been the wheels fallen off results that you are claiming!! In reality the company is in good position (IMO). Mr Poshman has sold out at 24c for a small 1c profit. Good for him. I am holding expecting much better gains. Why are you holding?

Btw, Mr Poshman's analysis assumes that the savings represented in the P&L are the ONLY savings generated by the FN deal. The analysis assumes that all other costs period on period remained exactly the same. Even this shows that the FN deal did generate savings. The analysis does not contemplate the obvious reality that many costs for Fenix, and all iron ore miners, went UP during the period (eg fuel, wages, consumables, contractors, etc) and so the cost reduction is the net effect of big savings made on haulage offsetting cost inflation across the other parts of the business. Can you provide an alternative explanation for the positive performance?

On your pivot to accusations of nepotsim/cronyism it seems about face. Previously in the deal set up by Rob Brierley, Newhaul was gifted, from inception, a Life-of-Mine highly profitable contract with cost protections. This contract was Fenix's biggest cost component. Newhaul had limited exposure to iron ore price or Fenix profitability. In fact the opposite: Newhaul could make lots of money even where fenix was generating losses. The higher the haulage cost the bigger the profits for Newhaul. The FN deal reversed this. It creates total alignment between newhaul and fenix to drive profits into Fenix (not Newhaul). The more I try to investigate why you might claim it was a dud deal the LESS evidence and facts i find that support that. It is a game changing deal that has reduced costs for the existing biz and aligned the biggest cost generator for future growth such that Fenix SHAREHOLDERS benefit rather than Newhaul. A bit like Welborn's share loan (that you also hate), it makes sense in that it aligns the motivation towards shareholder return. Everyone wins when the share price goes up.

Good luck!

J9