Member Info for Avalueinvestor

IOF is an interesting looking investment with little debt, some cash which almost balances it, a growing expertise in production of iodine and creating iodine compounds for existing and new clients.

I'd be interested to hear the views of others about the world demand for iodine and thoughts on the $70/kg price being sustainable.

I think chemical companies are very much out of favour currently, but the fundamentals of IOF do look attractive to some value investors.

Besides intraday lows, the price is at its lowest since March 2019 I reckon, but this is still an attractive price for buyers.

Nil debt.

Growing sales.

PE ration of approx 13.5.

Solid and growing foothold in the high value and large German market.

The apparent gap between price and value really does seem extreme here. It would be nice to see some Board purchases. It surely cannot remain so undervalued over the next 12 months in my view. Somewhere, someone must be running a magnifying glass over it.

A bit of research suggests a listing review by NASDAQ takes 4-6 weeks perhaps. Anyone have more knowledge ?

I agree Amy. An innovative, growing, adaptive and agile fintech company without debt and a market cap of £10m.

I think there's value there.

There's such a lot of speculation here that many of us will be reading from the sidelines with interest.

I think the profiles of the team they have put together sound impressive and they quite probably may have good instincts and ideas about useful products and services the UK need to enhance its security.

But revenue is still probably quite a little way off. Profit maybe further than that. Dividends or share buy backs further still.

I read in one of the RNS: "Two classified MOD applications already underway, with details to follow imminently". And then I imagined a foe, eagerly reading the RNSs to learn all about what the MOD is procuring.

My sense is that the shares will be lower in the future than they are today. I might be wrong though and I shall keep watching through my x-ray vision glasses, in case any of the RNSs (or all of them fitted together like an anagram ?) are in fact a special 'Arecibo message' released especially for the few, in league with the market makers, to thwart the righteous investor.

[Ducks out of sight in trench coat and flat cap].

Happy to give a shout out for AJ Bell. They have surprised me in a good way.

Looks like the best price in more than 5 years is available, for a growth company which is doing well and is not in distress and which has a very small amount of debt.

These results are reported in a way that makes the business's performance relatively easy to understand (even if one does not work in the industry or recognise all the acronyms). It's transparent I think.

Revenue is up; EPS is up; dividend is up 14%; market consensus forecasts expected to be hit at year end; management action explained and being taken to address a slight under-performance in the UK market; excellent growth in Germany with plans to make it as important to Group performance as the UK is.

Having read the release, I think the shares have a value quite a bit above their 5 year low.

Aby, it was 9th October last year I think.

It looks like there is good value at current prices to me, unless. the third strand of the business does not succeed (since it will require some capital).

I'm positive about the company myself.

A good question L0ndoner. The view from a little further north is that:

a) this is a quality company, which is growing both organically and inorganically

b) it is generating significant cash flows

c) there is a 10 year record of progressive dividend increases (and the modest interim tomorrow will likely be up 8-10% I think personally)

d) the cash flows support aggressive share buy backs (3.6m shares since 1 January 2025, being nearly 4% of the outstanding shares)

e) the AGM trading update in mid May (which was week 18 of the financial year) stated that the company expected to hit market forecasts

f) forecasts included diluted EPS of 89-94p

g)the shares have not been below the current price band for 5 years

So my sense is that the shares are priced at a level which represents good value.

I wonder to what extent the Board feels itself to be 'on the back foot' ? This is a high quality company with 'moat'. It might be having a difficult time at the moment, but one would have thought a buyer could be convinced to pay more than £2.60.

I've not come across any other business where the commitment from customers to see the company through to positive cash flow is so firm.

I didn't participate in any of the placings at 50p, 40p, 10p or 1p but I would have liked to have done so at 1p.

This looks like there is value there.

This seems like an interesting company with blue chip customers. However when I read the 21st August trading update I read something that stopped me dead in my tracks:

"The value of the minimum volume guarantee is recognised as revenue when the program under guarantee starts production. Revenue for volume in excess of program guarantee levels is recognised in the period of production. Payments of the guaranteed amounts follow the planned production schedule."

In my book that is calling an order a sale. Starting production precedes build, ship and invoice ! It sounds like reporting revenue in the accounts before the product is invoiced.

WH Smiths has just 40% of its value for announcing that it had just become aware that it's US subsidiary had done the same thing.

I agree that sometimes the perceived benefits of a main market listing help the price of a share along E_Al but it isn't a general rule without exception. Gamma Communications is an excellent company which stacks up very well on many metrics, which moved to the main market this year when the share price was £13.62. It is now just under £11.00 without any discernible bad news at all since. I don't think AT.s planned move to the main market is a banker for a share price rise.

Thanks Casapinos, that's helpful. I think that a short summary still remains the same which is that management have reported inappropriately and inaccurate profits to regulators and shareholders resulting in a significant loss of confidence. This news follows two disposals which have yielded levels of cash which underwhelmed. The share price is down about 36% since the 21st August news was announced. I think it may have further to go down.

Thanks for this Tony. I noticed that the year end is 31 August and realised that this could have come to light - may well have come to light as a result of early mobilisation of relatively junior members of the audit team starting their preparatory work for the year to 31.8.25 year end audit. As you know, the audit team mobilises early in large company audits, in the month before the year end. This is what I suspect has happened - it was picked up by a junior member of the audit team and escalated to the Audit Manager who raised it with CFO and Audit Chair. Really worrying....my view is that further bad news will follow.

It would be interesting to know what the external auditor had to say about thus accounting policy - as well as the view if the NED who chairs the Audit Committee.

These views on income recognition will have been discussed by NEDs with auditors- it can't be 'new' news. Someone must have recently decided to nake an issue of it.

It's likely a febrile and quite toxic boardroom I think. Possibly a value trap investment.

I'd be interested in buying - but not yet. Too much debt for my liking.

Nice to see that the cash is holding up well in the face of expansion and investment. From today's interims:

"As of 30 June 2025, the Group had $938.1m of its own cash on balance sheet without any debt".

That cash translates to about 31% of the market cap today covered by cash. The shares have dipped a little today - so it will likely be the case that PLUS has, through its broker, bought quite a lot in the market today. We may very well get down to 71 million shares this week.

When I first bought shares in PLUS there were 93 million available. Quite soon we will be down to 70 million - a near 25% reduction in 30 months.

I still think they are attractive at today's price.

I think the RNS we have read about the $150k payment to TEK is more problematic.

Most of the company RNS's are attributed to the CEO - RG. This one is attributed to the Chair and states very clearly that the independent directors do not consider the payment 'far and reasonable'.

This is quiet, modest language pointing to a major boardroom issue, if not a split / deadlock in my view. The independent NEDs are there to scrutinise the system of internal controls, of which the CEO is the architect and here they are saying that they did not know and if they had known they would not have felt it fair and reasonable.

To then be unable to resolve it with internal audit or external audit advisers, quietly in the boardroom is troubling. To have to issue the RNS in the form in which it was issued is a PR disaster in my view.

I don't know how things will develop, but I think the story has not yet fully unfolded and when it does, it will not cover TEK or its portfolio companies in glory.