I
If you agree with
@8horse's formula you need to assume that the shipped tonnes for the quarter is = to the tonnes receipted. Which does seems logical, but i'm not 100% if tonnes are receipted on departure from port hedland or upon arrival to destination.
Surely AJM couldn't state it's receiving $599USD if it's in fact receiving a lower price. Additionally they infer a margin which re-affirms this receipted price given their OPEX costs. (not a holder btw).
More likely a book balancing event which may boost receipts next quarter. Someone with more experience at port's may be able to weigh in here.
I found their quarterly rather positive. Only down due to CR IMO forecasted to make a profit next quarter of 10m according to the quarterly cashflow. Not 100% sure if that includes debt repayment but i presume it would. Noting receipts is higher in that quarter than the last which seems to align with my first 2 paragraphs.
What is bizarre to me is if they have just shipped 2 boats in october and these receipts were not included into the last quarterly then i would have expected their cash on hand as of today, to be higher than the 1.5m or whatever it was at the end of the last quarter. Given they're forecasting 10m overall profit then why the need for a CR? Could just be they want to give themselves a buffer which is smart - but shows they may lack confidence in achieving that.
AJM literally on knives edge to succeed - but significant gains i believe if they pull it off. In a much better position (production wise) than PLS - who, whilst are cashed up, have been unable to sort their plant issues and continue to feather production. AJM looks to coming out the other end with potentially net positive cashflow next quarter. PLS forecasting this to occur Q4 FY20. Both probably limitted in terms of downside risk as is much of the market in the lithium space i assume.
SF2TH
(20min delay)