FEX (ASX) Ann: Half Yearly Report and Accounts

Originally posted by jayneen: ↑

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

Expand

Which part of the question you’re asking is convoluted don’t you understand?

If you’re claiming the F/N deal saved “at least” $10/t but you’re failing to demonstrate how that is, why is it on to me to then demonstrate how that isn’t the case?

If readers actually believed what you posted was factual, there would be no hesitation in seeing FEX get bought up. Thank God they’re not falling for your misconceptions even though the forum moderators are purposefully turning a blind eye to them.

No.	Vol.	Price($)
28	1561063	26.0¢

No.

Vol.

Price($)

1561063

26.0¢

Price($)	Vol.	No.
26.5¢	182689	7

Price($)

Vol.

No.

26.5¢

182689

No.	Vol.	Price($)
28	1561063	0.260
7	240000	0.255
27	399005	0.250
13	474345	0.245
16	492867	0.240

No.

Vol.

Price($)

1561063

0.260

240000

0.255

399005

0.250

474345

0.245

492867

0.240

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.265	182689	7
0.270	223961	7
0.275	319941	5
0.280	324281	10
0.285	206513	3

Price($)

Vol.

No.

0.265

182689

0.270

223961

0.275

319941

0.280

324281

0.285

206513

(20min delay)
Last 26.5¢		Change 0.000(0.00%)		Mkt cap ! $190.9M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
26.5¢	26.5¢	26.0¢	$402.3K	1.532M

Ann: Half Yearly Report and Accounts, page-95

ClearVue inks deal with UK heated glass player to combine solar tech with its offering

Overland drilling proves promising for Australian Rare Earths' uranium hopes

To make modern missiles, you need 3D Printing. And in that gold rush, Amaero is selling shovels

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News

Ann: Half Yearly Report and Accounts, page-95

Top Stories

ClearVue inks deal with UK heated glass player to combine solar tech with its offering

Overland drilling proves promising for Australian Rare Earths' uranium hopes

To make modern missiles, you need 3D Printing. And in that gold rush, Amaero is selling shovels

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

Featured News

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Featured News