Hey
@CadelNot wanting to disappoint
@Darkstone but the obsession with shipping is what puts the money in the bank.
In
@airconditioner post at one point he indicated that it isn't a problem because it shifts the cost from one quarter to another when it isn't shipped. Whilst you cannot call it dodgy accounting, it clouds the view.
Ideally, any expense should be offset by revenue during that cycle, of course it isn't always going to be possible to do such a thing.
Let's be up front with one another all of us. I don't come on here to be called a liar, and that I am trying to BS everyone. If there is ever anything I say that you doubt or would like further clarification on, I am more than willing to have a go at responding to clarify or provide a view, I don't send people to the Baby Jesus department... Maybe someone needs to hit me up for a dose?
And though this is the tricky part. Like anyone my view might change and yeah as
@airconditioner pointed out there are other reasons for this and it might be more extreme for me. It is what it is, and I do my best to manage it.
Maybe I did have a bit of an ulterior motive, but it won't be the one that most will think it to be.
@airconditioner can you work out what it might have been?
There was nothing in what I wrote over the weekend that was without a factual basis.
Did anyone have a somewhat dejavu experience when Pilbara issued their announcement?
I know plenty did because I had a few messages about it.
They dropped like a lead balloon when the expected ramp up and shipping was dialled back.
I was surprised by the sheer honesty in that announcement.
Am I saying I told you so? Yes, I think so.
I'd perhaps be more forgiving of Galaxy being 25 to 33% short of their shipping target if they had a converter or partial ownership in one.
That kind of scenario shifts the numbers about a little more, and mitigates risk. Iggy knew it, that's why he built Jiangsu, and if we still owned it we would probably be wanting to own another now because that one required at name plate around 139,000 tonnes of Mt Cattlin finest.
The discussion around here has increased on the idea of a share buy back, and without sounding like the little kid from the el paso ad.. Why can't we have both?
Was it
@ProCapitalism that said it would be great to have a share buy back and a JV at Sal De Vida.
Why not an acquisition of ownership in a converter and a share buy back?
Galaxy is an advanced company. It has been in production for years. The next step is inevitable and it would differentiate itself from other rock producing companies on the market.
Lithium chemicals. <-- this is why everyone wants Sal De Vida online, and at the moment it's like us having the ponds drying out in the sun and then raking it all up and sending to someone else to make the bigger bucks.
Are we good with that?
Ken at Pilbara knows what they need to do, have a look at yesterday's announcement. Still discussing the deal with POSCO for ownership in a converter in Korea.
Galaxy knows it. They are just in their usual boring way of doing things not talking about it unless asked at question time.
So it's not a matter of if, but when.
It would, mean that Galaxy could roughly make the same amount of revenue on 15,000 tonnes as it could 30,000 tonnes. Having partial ownership in a converter would make that calculation far more interesting as it would be.
Some for you.
Some for me.
Some for you
Some for me.
And so on.
I'm keeping my eye on that shipping list. It's as exciting as watching paint dry, other than that slight adjustment over the weekend that says... Maybe..
We really shouldn't be needing to keep our eye on the list. Their is a flaw in this business model if that's what Galaxy management expect investors to do all the time. - A converter pushes that down the chain and all we would see are shipments that might be slightly stockpiled onsite.
Does anyone here know if the booking is time based and how much they throw on the ship doesn't matter? - As in they could do more and it not show up on the list?
