Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 7:34 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 56 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Cadiz Inc. Message Board

xds58 18 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 22, 2014 7:31 PM Member since: Mar 26, 2002
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • xds58 by xds58 Sep 22, 2014 7:31 PM Flag

    I think the exit now is a mistake. I like the optionality and mgt fees on these, and don't care on GAAP losses. Nor does anyone who has the size to move this stock over medium to long term.

    The move strikes me as capitulation at exactly the wrong time. Hold them for option value Scott! you're getting paid management fees to wait, and as far as I know they cost you nothing! Meanwhile there may be costs associated with an exit.

    And clearly the markets not impressed either.

    Rethink!

  • "U. S. Steel has decided not to pursue an expansion of its iron ore pellet operations at Keetac in Keewatin, Minn. The expansion would have increased the facility's production by 3.6 million tons annually to a total of 9.6 million tons, and included upgrading and restarting an idled pelletizing line, as well as upgrading the mining, concentrating and agglomerating processes at Keetac. The permits required for this expansion expire this month and will not be renewed."

  • xds58 by xds58 Sep 13, 2014 9:13 AM Flag

    Do a quick Google search of Levi and Korinsky. That will tell you all you need to know.

  • xds58 xds58 Jul 24, 2014 2:00 PM Flag

    I don't have time to watch that (its 1 hr)? Can you give a two line summary? It appeared to be a general evolutionary discussion, not about investing.Thanks

  • xds58 xds58 Jun 11, 2014 12:04 PM Flag

    I calculate the price between $78 and $79. CLF negotiates one to two year contracts I believe, so the price will have less near term volatility than global market. That said, the prices on renegotiation will have some correlation to global price trends. There may also be some adjusters in the contracts for very large swings in global pricing - I don't think CLF discloses its contracts at this level of detail though.

  • Reply to

    2014 shipping.

    by gutowskido May 19, 2014 8:27 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 21, 2014 10:22 AM Flag

    On their last call CLF still expected to make up the first quarter shortfall so things should pick up

  • xds58 xds58 May 21, 2014 10:19 AM Flag

    So it's all over for the global iron ore industry? You better give Rio Tinto a call so they can fire their 50,000 or so employees working on extraction.

    As it happens though, there has been some ongoing discussion of adding direct reduction capability to the Northshore processing facility, which would add the possibility of supplying electric furnaces and thereby expanding the customer base.

    that said, as long as the integrated producers have existing capacity and cost efficient transport to the end users, I think substantial share loss (from here) probably isn't in the cards - I just haven't seen much evidence of appetite for large capital investments in areas that are already oversupplied - if you've seen evidence to the contrary, please pass it on - we'd all like to see it!

  • Reply to

    Market Cap

    by gp5561 May 15, 2014 4:26 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 19, 2014 2:46 PM Flag

    Not unusual for trading companies to carry a lot of cash, so wouldn't get too excited about that, nor about book value, given low ROE

    EV/EBITDA and free cash flow yield are the relevant metrics in my opinion. On those, MIL looks cheap, but not crazy cheap. If they can get their commodity EBITDA margin to 2% to 3%, and can maintain good profits at Compton, this name almost certainly works - if not, doubt there is a lot of downside, unless they have another significant write off.

  • Reply to

    Chromium-6

    by ana_kin_skywalker May 9, 2014 3:46 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 9, 2014 4:07 PM Flag

    Yes - note this comment from MWD also to the EIR.

    Appendix B-1,
    Table 2.3
    Chromium 6 levels are 14-16 μg/L, well above the Office of
    Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Public Health
    Goal (PHG) of 0.02 μg/L. The Project water quality would not be
    acceptable for pumping directly into the CRA without treatment. The
    Final EIR must identify and analyze the environmental impacts of
    constructing and operating the treatment facilities required to
    introduce the Project water into the CRA.

    4.9-55 The water quality analysis in part relies on faulty reasoning. The
    Draft EIR assumes that “all of the water would be further treated at
    the water purveyor’s treatment facilities,” however, deliveries are
    made from the CRA to other groundwater basins without treatment
    (e.g., Metropolitan delivers Colorado River water to Coachella
    Valley Water District by releasing water for storage in groundwater
    basins in the Coachella Valley).

    btw Debbie, your comment regarding the delay signing new agency deals is incorrect. It is at the agencies option/discretion when they enter into an arrangement (see page 13 of 10-Q filed today), and the payment terms have been pre-defined.

  • Reply to

    IRT buys

    by ethison May 7, 2014 7:23 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 9, 2014 11:21 AM Flag

    If you figure IRT gets to the 2 bil portfolio they are targeting over a few years, its about 20 mil annual management and property mgt fees for RAS I believe (going on memory I think they get a 0.75% asset mgt fee plus some additional property mgt revenue through their prop mgt company) - not a bad recurring income stream for a company currently valued at 640 mil - these fee/mgt rev tend to trade at higher multiple than RAS' other businesses -

  • Reply to

    more discussion

    by xds58 May 8, 2014 3:44 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 8, 2014 4:26 PM Flag

    also, you mentioned rising $/acre/ft - I don't doubt that's true, but what are you basing on specifically? Do you have any numbers on current pricing?

  • Reply to

    more discussion

    by xds58 May 8, 2014 3:44 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 8, 2014 3:45 PM Flag

    PS - I have to chuckle at your energetic response regarding water purity - I could care less - it's the MWD you have to worry about

  • the other board was getting cluttered

    "However, it is again wrongheaded to believe that the right-of-way is a binary outcome for the company."

    How do you figure? I mean, true, it doesn't mean the project is dead, but it's another year of doing nothing, with additional risk of denial, right?

  • Reply to

    DILUTION NO SOLUTION - Confucious

    by muckahoy88 May 7, 2014 9:54 AM
    xds58 xds58 May 7, 2014 10:47 AM Flag

    in words of Confucius: "He who is too lazy to spell my name correctly, not likely to understand real estate company"

  • Reply to

    Todays news

    by xds58 May 5, 2014 5:05 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 6, 2014 3:34 PM Flag

    it is a sizable amount of water - the real question is whether the project ever gets approved, and what conditions MWD would set for carrying the water - Bureau of Land Mgt ruling on a 'rail right of way' claim is still pending, and MWD has made no indication of whether it would carry the water but has made some cautionary statements about the water purity and likely need for an expensive filtering plant

    at the end of the day, a lot of it probably comes down to cost - every $150 mil in plant cost represents $100/acre/ft in incremental cost above the base fee for water - if they can build the plant and filtering for under $300 million (creating $200/acre/ft cost) perhaps they can eventually get agency and then MWD participation -

    that said, even if they eventually got approval from BLM and deal with MWD, could still take a couple years, and then a couple years build time - could be another five years before any revenue - that's at least another $50 mil of debt which is non-reimbursable, as well as probably some more equity dilution.

    and then there's always the possibility they can't complete the build at price levels which make the water economic for the districts - if that's the case there is very likely no value here.

  • Reply to

    Todays news

    by xds58 May 5, 2014 5:05 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 6, 2014 9:07 AM Flag

    PS - I guess I should add though that I always thought CDZI would more likely than not prevail in the lawsuits - see them as more of an expensive nuisance - and would think they would prevail again on appeal, although would take another year -

    the bigger issues are the water purity, cost, MWD, and BLM

    don't you think it's strange that more than a year after you and I first discussed agency deals there have been no new announcements?

  • Reply to

    Todays news

    by xds58 May 5, 2014 5:05 PM
    xds58 xds58 May 6, 2014 9:05 AM Flag

    Hi Debbie - I don't really have any confidence - was just assuming. Do you have any sense of the timeline on BLM announcement?

  • So you have a favorable court decision that will likely be appealed and drag on for another year and you still have the BLM decision pending, as well as no new agency deals since SMWD was announced more than a year ago, and you still have a very strained relationship with the required carrier of any CDZI product, MWD. In the meantime, CDZI's generous board and executive comp continue to burn through cash.

    Sentiment: Sell

CDZI
9.44-0.35(-3.58%)Oct 20 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.