Hi Kingharris,I'd like to discover similar Australian companies...

Hi Kingharris,
I'd like to discover similar Australian companies with Lepidico Ltd (LPD). I've looked but found none like it. How do define LPD?

Briefly, my definition is that of a Chemical Company that processes raw material, such as MICA, combined with other materials to produce, primarily a chemical substance(s) known as LCE and LiOH, along with a series of by-products.

It has mineral resources, namly in Namibia and Portugal, with the former most likely to be its source of supply. Its plans are not only to derive its ore from its internal sources but also contract with other mining companies in the lithium sector to value-add to their mica tailings.

Yes it is disappointing that the results have had a timeline slippage, and it would be great to see the value of its shares at a higher level. However, if one thinks that management can pull their business plan off (it's not going to be easy, given the climate for this sector in the Australian financial markets -- Oz banks are extremely conservative and lend capital mostly to the residential market) LPD has mainly needed to depend on SHs to fund the cost of its program of innovation and development of its capital [the economic sense of the word]. However, one must ask oneself has the funds used contributed economically to the company's progress to fet where it wants to be, and improve and validate its technology. Although L-Max has been side-lined for the present its results, in my view were great:

Date released 16-Sep-19

Product		Producer
Content		Lepidico	Lepidico	SQM	FMC	Albemarle	TIanqi
		Pilot Plant	Mini-Plant
Li2CO3 (% min)	LCE	99.9	99.9	99.2	99.5	99.8	99.5
		Impurities
SO4 (ppm)	Sulphate	<10	134	300	1000	500	800
Na (ppm)	Sodium	<10	13	600	500	650	250
K (ppm)	Potassium	<10	14	50	10	-	10
CaCO3 (ppm)	Calcium carb	919	140	250	1000	400	125
Fe (ppm)	Iron	<10	9	-	5	-	20
Moisture (%)		NA	NA	0.2	0.5	0.35	0.4

This then leads on to whether they have utilised those funds wisely and frugally, or have the funds been squandered by keeping management in the life-styles they have become accustomed to. My view on this is the former. I base that on the fact that on my perusal of their quarterly reports I do not see any divergence in outgoings to remunerations for staff or companies performing services for them. Nor are they out of line with other companies in the sector that have yet to have a saleable product.

To conclude, the two biggest gripes I've noticed over recents months is (1) the number of shares on issue, and (2) Management not meeting or making announcements timely and/or often enough. I've been invested in companies that have been guilty on both account on these issue, consolidating their shares (issue 1 share for every 10 held- all it achieves is giving the B of D an opportunity to water-down SH wealth by more rights issues) thus allowing management to go with further CRs to accommodate their life-styles- it's a wrought. And we all know of company(s) that enjoy making trivial announcements 'at the drop of a hat', vague and factless. No quantitative detail that can be analysed and tested for authenticity, we often get poster from such a company - one I've still got an indirect holding.

I know where I'd rather be.

I do hope you provide your definition, I've responded because I feel one should first make clear where your stand on the subject and are clear.