Seeking Alpha

Wildebeest

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Wildebeest's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    this is another useless comment. You cite numbers without citing expected volumes both as absolute volumes or as % of global supply. A capex number without mentioning what volume the capex will produce is meaningless in a discussion of supply driven loss of margins.

    Further, the majority of capex is coming from the 3 majors, yet you would have us believe that a market with high margins will see new players arrive and drive margins down. In some vanilla textbook this might be the case but you need to get out of your office and into the real mining world. The new developments are coming from the majors for a very good reason.

    So your comment simply shows you do not know this market.
    Apr 12 10:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    "no margins like these survive for long on a commodity"

    "The investment in mining has exploded over the years in many places, since margins have been high for several years. "

    more vague hand waving from you.

    The facts are that, with the exception of a global collapse in everything in 2008/2009 margins have been high for 5 years. For all your talk about investment you know nothing about how much volume is currently being developed (as a % of current global volume). Additionally the bulk of new supply that comes online from 2015 with be from the big 3 majors (3.5 if you include FMG) not from new entrants.

    You make these hand waving statements about supply but you are unable to provide any examples of what new supply is currently being developed and how much that will add to global supply.

    By the time 2015 comes around it will have been 8 years of high margins and the bulk of new supply coming onstream will be from majors. This is all a surprise to you because you have no idea whatsoever about mining, have no idea whatsoever about how long it takes from someone wanting to enter the market to produce an economic mine, and just have no idea whatsoever, period.
    Apr 12 08:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    Thank you for the timeline of your 50% prediction.

    The reason I mentioned that high margins had been around for approx 5 years is because of your baseless assertion that supply will be added to remove those high margins. You haven't addressed that at all, instead digressing into other areas ...as you have done in many comments.

    Your assertions about margins not lasting have been based on a supply response -- notwithstanding that you are pessimistic about demand. My point is that because you do not understand mining you have no idea about the timelines for supply responses.
    Apr 12 07:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    Very cute play with words but note that I have given an explicit timeline before large volumes come on to the market and push prices down.

    All you do is offer hand waving.

    Be explicit -- do you expect large increases in supply before 2015 or not? When are iron ore stocks going to plunge 50%+? Put a timeline on it -- I don't expect to the nearest day but to the nearest half year or quarter would be nice.

    "no margins like these survive for long on a commodity"

    These margins have so far lasted 5 years with the exception of approx a year when all global markets collapsed in 2008/2009. Because you do not understand mining you do not understand that supply does not get added instantaneously when large margins exist.
    Apr 12 06:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    Mr Santos you have demonstrated in the past you know zero about how long it takes to get a mining project from idea to producing mine. You have no understanding whatsoever.

    If you think significant volume will be added to the market before 2015 tell me where it will come from. I challenge you to name specific projects currently being developed and that will be shipping volume before 2015 and to put a number to the % increase in global volume from these projects.

    The major additional supply will be coming from expansion by the big 3 (or 3 1/2 if you include FMG expansion).
    Apr 12 06:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    In the past month we've now had Ashby from BHP and Ferreira from Vale forecast continued growth in demand for iron ore. And we have import data showing China is continuing to import more iron ore.

    Major additional supply is unlikely before 2015 -- a date that is probably going to be pushed back to 2016. With growing demand and supply not yet catching up things are looking good for the medium term.
    Apr 12 02:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chinese iron-ore demand remains strong, says VALE CEO Ferreira, unworried about slowing future growth there as it's now coming from a higher base. His firm expects average China GDP growth of 7% over the next decade. His remarks stand in contrast to those of a (now-departed) BHP exec who last month mused about flattening Chinese demand.  [View news story]
    well said.

    It is amazing how so many never let facts get in the way of a (non) story.
    Apr 12 02:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BHP iron-ore division head Ian Ashby will unexpectedly step down on July 1. Ashby spooked his company's shares and markets worldwide last week with his admission that Chinese demand for ore is flattening out. A firm spokesman says those comments have nothing to do with is departure. BHP shares +1.8% in Sydney.  [View news story]
    "but all he did was voice what people were thinking - China's demand is softer"

    no that's not what he said at all. Have you read the transcript and seen the presentation (available on BHP website)?

    He said GROWTH in demand was flattening out but that demand will continue to grow through to 2025 -- which was their forecast range.
    Apr 12 02:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BHP iron-ore division head Ian Ashby will unexpectedly step down on July 1. Ashby spooked his company's shares and markets worldwide last week with his admission that Chinese demand for ore is flattening out. A firm spokesman says those comments have nothing to do with is departure. BHP shares +1.8% in Sydney.  [View news story]
    Um, why mislead people on this site?

    Only the brain dead were spooked because those with functioning brains understand that demand is different to GROWTH in demand. Ashby explicitly stated that BHP saw demand for iron ore rising but that GROWTH in demand is flattening out. In other words what he said is that growth will be at a constant, positive, rate.

    Instead of reading lies and rubbish emanating on this website, investors should read the actual company presentations to get the facts rather than lies and misreprentations.
    Apr 12 02:13 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chinese iron-ore demand remains strong, says VALE CEO Ferreira, unworried about slowing future growth there as it's now coming from a higher base. His firm expects average China GDP growth of 7% over the next decade. His remarks stand in contrast to those of a (now-departed) BHP exec who last month mused about flattening Chinese demand.  [View news story]
    "His remarks stand in contrast to those of a (now-departed) BHP exec who last month mused about flattening Chinese demand. "

    Flat out wrong.

    Ian Ashby of BHP "mused" about flattening GROWTH in demand. Ashby stated explicitly that BHP saw demand for iron ore growing. Unfortunately a peanut gallery of brain dead reporters -- including whoever wrote this "current" -- do not understand the difference between demand and growth in demand.

    Ashby and BHP are on exactly the same page as Vale on this.

    I'd recommend anyone interested in the iron ore market, or investing in these companies, to source the actual presentations of these executives -- available on company websites -- rather than being mislead by misreporting that seems prevalent.

    (For the record Chinese imports of iron ore grew 8% last quarter YOY. The dollar value of imports was down due to prices last year being at exponential highs.)
    Apr 12 12:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    if you are not seeking to mislead people with your bearish narrative why would you only mention the total dollar value of imports and not state that import volumes continue to rise.

    imports out of port hedland (RIO, BHP) are even better -- up 23%. I don't expect to read any of this from you. You clearly cherry pick your data.
    Apr 11 06:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    you're a piece of work. you have deliberately misrepresented the situation and I called you out on it.

    China imported more iron ore than the year before. This is not an investment slowdown. Using your twisted logic if the iron ore price had of halved you would be calling an investment collapse no doubt.

    You are misrepresenting facts so as to suit your narrative. zero credibility.
    Apr 11 06:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind China's unexpected March trade surplus was a surprise (to some) slowing in imports. With the excuse of the Lunar holiday out of the way, it's another sign of slowing domestic demand there. Iron ore purchases -9.1%, steel product -20%, both Y/Y. Increasing was the value of oil imports, +20% Y/Y, thanks to high Brent crude prices.  [View news story]
    iron ore volumes were up. Strange that the impact of a rising value of oil is specifically mentioned but no commentary on the impact of iron ore prices of cumulative dollar value of imports.

    A year ago iron ore prices were at record highs -- I doubt any pundit or iron ore producer saw those prices as sustainable. With prices lower -- but still multiples of cash cost -- the value of imports a year later is off 9%. However import volumes rose 8%. Iron ore remains a license to print money at this stage.
    Apr 11 02:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    Sorry but I thought you actually followed iron ore. Everyone who follows iron ore knows how the price has been trending:

    http://bloom.bg/Ai7x3Y

    So the only people who would NOT have expected a $ fall in YOY imports are those ignorant of how the iron ore price has changed since Q1 2011. I doubt that anyone within the industry thought H1 2011 prices were sustainable. They were clearly windfall prices for producers.

    In your article you explicitly link (imaginary) falls in iron ore imports to your china slowdown thesis. But your facts are wrong -- iron ore imports rose. Misrepresenting what has occurred with respect to imports is very disingenuous on your part. Will you correct you article?
    Apr 11 12:23 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The General And The Particular [View article]
    Geez, don't let the facts get in the way of your bearish narrative. :)

    Iron ore imports were *UP* for the quarter by ~8% YOY.

    Prices at the moment are lower than last year so the cumulative dollar value was lower but import volumes *GREW*.

    It is good news for iron ore producers that volumes continue to rise. Despite the misreporting of comments by Mr Ashby of BHP last month, what he actually said was that BHP expects demand for iron ore to *increase* ...but at a slower rate than before.
    Apr 10 11:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
778 Comments
2,574 Likes