Seeking Alpha

Timothy Rose

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Timothy Rose's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Does Vale Represent A Strong Value Play? The Struggle For Iron Ore Miners In 2014 [View article]
    Apologies if it's wrong, source was from Deutsche Bank presentation, including shipping costs - but I wouldn't suggest using my figures in any valuations models. I agree, it seems pretty high given their costs of just production are only around $22/tonne company wide. There seems to be a lot of different figures being presented.
    Anyways, regardless, the point is that they need to ship further and that it is more costly than from Australia (the new 400,000 tonne capacity Valemax bulk ships will reduce shipping costs by around 20%).
    Jul 20 07:55 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Does Vale Represent A Strong Value Play? The Struggle For Iron Ore Miners In 2014 [View article]
    An estimate of total (all in) cash costs, including transport:
    Vale: US$75 / tonne
    BHP’s: US$55 / tonne
    Rio Tinto: US$45 / tonne

    So yeah, Vale will become more squeezed. This is one reason why there's been a huge push to increase capacity (to counteract the decreasing margins with more tonnes shipped).

    WHen I first thought about your comment regarding these figures putting Rio and BHP in a more favourable position to benefit in an upcycle, it made sense.

    However, thinking more closely, it could be the case that these tight margins actually put Vale in a more favorable position in an upcycle (and in a less favourable one in a downcycle). For example (put simply), if the price of iron ore is $90/ tonne, then Rio, BHP and Vale would be making a profit of $45, $35 and $15, respectively (assuming the prices I stated above are correct). However, if this price of iron ore increased to $100 / tonne then these companies would be profiting $55, $45 and $25, respectively (from their iron ore businesses).
    In terms of percentage increase to earnings from iron ore, this would be far greater for Vale (66.6%) than for BHPB (28.6%) Rio (18.2%)... Conversely, if the price decreased this percentage decrease would be also far greater...
    Jul 16 11:03 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Does Vale Represent A Strong Value Play? The Struggle For Iron Ore Miners In 2014 [View article]
    China will still buy off Vale. There is the demand for their high quality ore.

    Current iron ore price is currently much higher than production + transportation costs for the big 3 iron ore miners. All three will be able to sell and make money off of their products (although Vale's shipping costs are obviously more than the Australian producers - but only in the vicinity of $10/tonne I think).
    Jul 16 10:45 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Does Vale Represent A Strong Value Play? The Struggle For Iron Ore Miners In 2014 [View article]
    By comparing the stock to the stockprice, you're making a big assumption that they all are 100% iron ore miners. This isn't the case (for example, BHP has significant oil and gas, copper, uranium assets, etc).
    The trends in stockprice can be very rationally explained and would be a reason against being bullish on Vale:
    (1) Cliffs is the least diversified of the bunch and relies most heavily on iron ore - and therefore took the biggest tumble when the outlook for iron ore prices became grim.
    (2) Vale is the second least diversified of the bunch, and therefore took the second biggest tumble;
    (3) Rio Tinto is the third least diversified, and therefore took the second biggest tumble;
    (4) BHP Billiton is the most diversified, and therefore its stock remained the strongest - because lower iron ore prices will have less impact on its earnings that for the other three miners (say, on a percentage basis).

    In addition, be cautious of comparing the P/E ratios for these miners - because each of these businesses obtains its earnings from fairly different types of commodities, in different proportions. Hence, their earnings aren't exceptionally well related. Yes, the businesses are run similarly but that's irrelevant in the P/E comparison.

    They appear to be a bit of a value trap in my opinion - it's unlikely that increased production of iron ore (and some cost saving) will counteract the reduced earnings from lower price per tonne. Therefore, earnings from iron ore will probably decrease and the P/E's are justified - with Vale's P/E being the lowest because it has the lowest growth potential (i.e. least diversified).
    Jul 16 10:40 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Billabong And Quiksilver - 2 Similar Financial Paths, 2 Different Strategic Paths [View article]
    One of the better analysis I've seen of Billabong, good stuff. I was one amongst the group that got stung early last year when the proposed ~$1/ share takeover was going on (and got rejected)! I only wish I had not succumb to the fear of buying the shares when they were selling for 15 cents!
    Jun 10 07:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • France Telecom: Value Stock With A Very Reasonable Dividend [View article]
    looks like it wasn't a bad move in the end - you just gotta have faith. you still holding onto it pipopipo?
    May 26 09:31 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • France Telecom: Value Stock With A Very Reasonable Dividend [View article]
    Just revisiting this, the stock was sitting at $11 bucks when I wrote this article, now its at around $16.40. So probably (in absence of further analyses), the stock is no longer undervalued.

    However, it would have produced a reasonable return over the last 18 months.
    May 26 09:31 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QRxPharma: Pivotal Catalysts Present Significant Near-Term Upside Potential [View article]
    Drehm, no one on this board has to give a rats a s s what I say. I'm not on here to prove a point of superiority.
    Pleasingly, however, the QRx board is addressing some of the points I've mentioned and are moving on from this setback - the replacement CEO has recently announced (within the last week) that they are going to commence new trials to try and statistically show the benefits of Moxduo to a defined population. Fingers crossed the benefits they attempted to show (but not conclusively) in the post-hoc trial can be replicated in the new proposed trials.
    May 26 09:13 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is BHP Billiton A Better Buy Than Rio Tinto? [View article]
    Also, BHP is in general more diversified than Rio, the latter of which is significantly more reliant on iron ore.
    May 12 09:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QRxPharma: Pivotal Catalysts Present Significant Near-Term Upside Potential [View article]
    drehm, no I am not in healthcare and no I do not know how to interpret SaO2 data - you are clearly much more knowledgable than me in this respect. But I do no how to interpret data in general - my comments were around the statistics presented (in which I held a number of positions and have postgraduate qualifications in).

    My point was not that there are no respiratory benefits (because there may well be) it was simply that the data they presented was was not statistically conclusive/ robust. Whilst their data did show that there was a (small) respiratory benefit but the sample size was very small and the FDA advisory committees data shone doubt on the data QRx presented. And of course doubt is not going to attract a yes vote.

    In terms of if it gets approved, I personally doubt it will based on the statistics they presented. We'll have to wait and see I guess.
    Apr 27 05:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QRxPharma: Pivotal Catalysts Present Significant Near-Term Upside Potential [View article]
    Jon, agreed that some of the calls are (with the benefit of hindsight) fairly big leaps of faith - My point was simply that if the whole picture isn't available publicly, then then the accuracy or opinions of an article are always going to be inaccurate. To be fair to the author, he can only write based on the information provided by the company and other publicly available information. Any opinions are basically his only - and the same goes for any articles on Seeking Alpha - and it's up to the readers to do their due diligence.
    Apr 27 05:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QRxPharma: Pivotal Catalysts Present Significant Near-Term Upside Potential [View article]
    A good analysis based on the info provided by QRx, I think. Just poor communication by management to provide information related to FDA expectations.
    Apr 24 12:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QRxPharma: Pivotal Catalysts Present Significant Near-Term Upside Potential [View article]
    I think that blaming the FDA is a bit one-sided; somewhat reminiscent of the CEO's ranting's at the investor presentation post-meeting.

    I personally don't think that they conclusively proved in there presentation that Moxduo improves respiratory depression in their statistics. The FDA said quite clearly: "if you can provide us with sufficient evidence/ point of difference that Moxduo does have an improvement to respiraotiry depression, then we'd love to have it on the market. But unfortunately from the date you've provided, it doesn't." They also said that Moxduo "might" improve respiratory depression, but due to insufficient conclusive evidence, there was no way they were going to hang there head on the line to vote yes.

    And I agree with the FDA committee that there wasn't enough evidence. There were only very few test subjects and the doses and subjects were probably not the correct target population. And none of those board members on the FDA committee are going to vote yes on a 'hunch' that it has benefits!

    It's a failing on the managements behalf, as they failed to communicate all this properly both to us (the investors) and to the FDA (in terms of conclusively showing the drugs benefits). It's about getting a differentiating product. They need to forget about managing administrative relations with the FDA and start to focus on the science - so that they can form a strong, robust case why it is better. Without that, they'll never get the drug through.
    Apr 24 12:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QRxPharma: Pivotal Catalysts Present Significant Near-Term Upside Potential [View article]
    No, it got rejected because they couldn't prove conclusively it was different/ more beneficial from both Morphine and/ or Oxycodeine (i.e. its constituents).

    If it was abuse deterrent, then this may have certainly helped create a point of difference.
    Apr 24 11:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QRxPharma: Pivotal Catalysts Present Significant Near-Term Upside Potential [View article]
    Agreed. Absolutely furious at the lack of information they fed to us shareholders. Didn't feed a single negative thing to the market, yet I get the impression the FDA had said doubted their approach in the past.

    I watched the whole thing and QRX got absolutely ripped apart. By the end of it, I would have voted 'No' too, given how inconclusive their evidence was that Moxduo had any additional benefits to Morphine and Oxycodeine. Yet, none of that was communicated to shareholders. Instead, they just have a trading halt and let everyone lose all of there money in one hit.

    I then listened to the investor briefing after the meeting - and the CEO kept defending their stance and blaming the FDA. Well, from what I could have gathered, if they'd actually suceeded in proving conclusively that it had respiroatory benifits to the other drugs, they would have voted 'yes'. But they didn't! It wasn't the FDA's fault - they just had extremely shaky statistics.

    Grr
    Apr 24 11:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
28 Comments
13 Likes