strawtogold's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/183682/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/87258-ten-reasons-why-i-m-waiting-to-buy-potashcorp?source=feed#comment-215842 215842
The U.S. corn market no longer drives potash volumes and prices though you continue to spout this mindless dribble. The return for potash to farmers, even with price increases, is 3:1. In the BRIC countries, it is about 8:1 (you really should read the POT website to learn about the company and its products). A decline in corn prices does not change the economics of using fertilizer.

Where in the world did you get your knowledge that Agrium and Mosaic might overproduce and adversely impact prices? Every company in the world is producing at capacity. Did you mention that in 2 years, POT will increase capacity by 30% and in 5 years by 80% - done faster and at lower costs?

You have an obligation to fully research your analyses. You have failed.]]> Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:17:48 -0400
The U.S. corn market no longer drives potash volumes and prices though you continue to spout this mindless dribble. The return for potash to farmers, even with price increases, is 3:1. In the BRIC countries, it is about 8:1 (you really should read the POT website to learn about the company and its products). A decline in corn prices does not change the economics of using fertilizer.

Where in the world did you get your knowledge that Agrium and Mosaic might overproduce and adversely impact prices? Every company in the world is producing at capacity. Did you mention that in 2 years, POT will increase capacity by 30% and in 5 years by 80% - done faster and at lower costs?

You have an obligation to fully research your analyses. You have failed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85331-the-2008-historic-potash-handoff-part-v?source=feed#comment-207408 207408
That is the problem with looking at a stock hour by hour or day by day. There is no way this isn't a $300+ stock when EPS will exceed $25.

Author should have spent more time on future earnings projections based on known sales prices.]]> Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:19:22 -0400
That is the problem with looking at a stock hour by hour or day by day. There is no way this isn't a $300+ stock when EPS will exceed $25.

Author should have spent more time on future earnings projections based on known sales prices.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74047-investing-in-a-resource-constrained-world-part-iv?source=feed#comment-157321 157321
When Don Carson of Merrill ($265 price target) asked Bill Doyle, the CEO of POT, about affordability issues at current price levels ($700/ton June 1, 2008 and $1,000/ton later in the year), Doyle replied "that affordability, while an issue, is not really a problem since US farmers make $3 for every $1 of fertilizer they purchase and in India that ratio is $7.60 for every dollar, in Indonesia it is $9 for every dollar of fertilizer purchased." As to the $1,000 price increase by the Russians, Doyle was unsupportive. Doyle just believes that Potash's customers need time to adjust and plan for the price increases to come compelled by demand vs supply issues. He said, " I want them to drink from a garden hose not a fire hose."

Doyle further stated that POT will be spending $5 BILLION to increase production.

Doyle's comments on pricing were taken as "meek".

Credit Suisse analyst Mark Connelly suspected that rising raw material costs, compounded by Potash's meek pricing strategy compared with those of its main competitor, rattled investors.

"Hold what you own through this rough patch," Connelly advised Thursday. "While Potash may arguably be not moving as aggressively on pricing …the direction of prices is clear, the prices are moving up sharply. Global concern over food has finally become front-page news, which may end up speeding up farm commercialization in several regions of the world -- that process will lead to demand for even more fertilizer."

These are facts and not innuendo. There is no economic substitute for potash and the growing worldwide demand for increased yields is essential to meeting the growing shortfall of production. POT is in an eviable position as are the Saudis with crude. The US now accounts for one of the smallest percentages of potash usage in history. Farm reports in the US have no bearing on potash consumption since all companies are producing at 100% and unable to meet demands. The Chinese miscalculated in holding off negotiations on pricing while their inventory was depleted. They did not count on India and Brazil grabbing the last capacity, leaving them with only 1 million tons available for the remainder of the year. And they have been told by Doyle that they will have to pay more in subsequent contracts to tie up significant volume. They simply tried their usual powerplay with the producers and to their dismay, realized too late that they not only had no leverage but there was no supply to be had. Product is not being held off the market as you infer (that may have happened in the past), it simply isn't there. Mr. Anthony, please don't play the potash bubble card - the numbers aren't there. Demand exceeds supply by several million tons per year and the only increased production for several years is from POT. That is simply good business and they and their owners will reap the benefits.



]]> Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:12:32 -0400
When Don Carson of Merrill ($265 price target) asked Bill Doyle, the CEO of POT, about affordability issues at current price levels ($700/ton June 1, 2008 and $1,000/ton later in the year), Doyle replied "that affordability, while an issue, is not really a problem since US farmers make $3 for every $1 of fertilizer they purchase and in India that ratio is $7.60 for every dollar, in Indonesia it is $9 for every dollar of fertilizer purchased." As to the $1,000 price increase by the Russians, Doyle was unsupportive. Doyle just believes that Potash's customers need time to adjust and plan for the price increases to come compelled by demand vs supply issues. He said, " I want them to drink from a garden hose not a fire hose."

Doyle further stated that POT will be spending $5 BILLION to increase production.

Doyle's comments on pricing were taken as "meek".

Credit Suisse analyst Mark Connelly suspected that rising raw material costs, compounded by Potash's meek pricing strategy compared with those of its main competitor, rattled investors.

"Hold what you own through this rough patch," Connelly advised Thursday. "While Potash may arguably be not moving as aggressively on pricing …the direction of prices is clear, the prices are moving up sharply. Global concern over food has finally become front-page news, which may end up speeding up farm commercialization in several regions of the world -- that process will lead to demand for even more fertilizer."

These are facts and not innuendo. There is no economic substitute for potash and the growing worldwide demand for increased yields is essential to meeting the growing shortfall of production. POT is in an eviable position as are the Saudis with crude. The US now accounts for one of the smallest percentages of potash usage in history. Farm reports in the US have no bearing on potash consumption since all companies are producing at 100% and unable to meet demands. The Chinese miscalculated in holding off negotiations on pricing while their inventory was depleted. They did not count on India and Brazil grabbing the last capacity, leaving them with only 1 million tons available for the remainder of the year. And they have been told by Doyle that they will have to pay more in subsequent contracts to tie up significant volume. They simply tried their usual powerplay with the producers and to their dismay, realized too late that they not only had no leverage but there was no supply to be had. Product is not being held off the market as you infer (that may have happened in the past), it simply isn't there. Mr. Anthony, please don't play the potash bubble card - the numbers aren't there. Demand exceeds supply by several million tons per year and the only increased production for several years is from POT. That is simply good business and they and their owners will reap the benefits.



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74047-investing-in-a-resource-constrained-world-part-iv?source=feed#comment-156918 156918
You state, " think POT is abusing its dominance power for the short term gain, but will hurt itself in the long term, like killing a hen to retrieve all the eggs at once. Natural plantations grow without potash fertilizer, because dead plants decompose on the spot, releasing potash back to the soil. Traditional agriculture removes only a very small eatable portion of the grain plantations, and return the bulk of the plant bodies to the fields, after decomposition or burning as cooking fuel. So the fields remain fertile. In recent years, Chinese farmers abandoned the traditional methods in favor of the easier potash fertilizer, due to increased income and affordability. Excessive application of fertilizers do not always result in the expected result, as potash is quite solveable in water. Rain water washes off the excessive amount of fertilizers, polluting major rivers. Will the Chinese farmers return to more sustainable traditional husbandry methods, in face of skyrocketing potash.?

You make accusations and present them as fact. By doing so, you have embarassed yourself in the business community. The price of potash was raised to $1,000 per ton by the Russians. Consumers of potash will pay that price. By linking the meteoric rise in prices to POT, where are your facts to back up your accusation that "POT is abusing its dominance power for the short term gain." I call you out to present proof of your incendiary accusation. We all know the answer to that -you have no facts or credibility. I guess you are also calling Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, and US farmers morons - after all, they dont need to buy potash and obviously paying $1,000 per ton is absolutely non-economic. You are obviously more brilliant than millions of farmers that have spent generations farming or an idiot.

As businessmen and investors, we require an ethical standard that is absolute. We also expect the truth and assertions based on fact. We all expect a retraction when you espoused unsustainable opinions or a presentation of facts. Here again, your editors and yourself should be ashamed of your unabashed bias and flagrant stupidity.]]> Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:54:44 -0400
You state, " think POT is abusing its dominance power for the short term gain, but will hurt itself in the long term, like killing a hen to retrieve all the eggs at once. Natural plantations grow without potash fertilizer, because dead plants decompose on the spot, releasing potash back to the soil. Traditional agriculture removes only a very small eatable portion of the grain plantations, and return the bulk of the plant bodies to the fields, after decomposition or burning as cooking fuel. So the fields remain fertile. In recent years, Chinese farmers abandoned the traditional methods in favor of the easier potash fertilizer, due to increased income and affordability. Excessive application of fertilizers do not always result in the expected result, as potash is quite solveable in water. Rain water washes off the excessive amount of fertilizers, polluting major rivers. Will the Chinese farmers return to more sustainable traditional husbandry methods, in face of skyrocketing potash.?

You make accusations and present them as fact. By doing so, you have embarassed yourself in the business community. The price of potash was raised to $1,000 per ton by the Russians. Consumers of potash will pay that price. By linking the meteoric rise in prices to POT, where are your facts to back up your accusation that "POT is abusing its dominance power for the short term gain." I call you out to present proof of your incendiary accusation. We all know the answer to that -you have no facts or credibility. I guess you are also calling Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, and US farmers morons - after all, they dont need to buy potash and obviously paying $1,000 per ton is absolutely non-economic. You are obviously more brilliant than millions of farmers that have spent generations farming or an idiot.

As businessmen and investors, we require an ethical standard that is absolute. We also expect the truth and assertions based on fact. We all expect a retraction when you espoused unsustainable opinions or a presentation of facts. Here again, your editors and yourself should be ashamed of your unabashed bias and flagrant stupidity.]]>