Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

BHP - BHP Group

haemitite

FIFO and Accounting Depreciation are accounting metrics that are irrelevant to cashflow, and hence NPV

FIFO & Depreciation [Depletion] are not irrelevant to cash-flow.
That they are non-cash charges, does not mean that they are unaccountable. Thus if your premise is incorrect, logically, your conclusion must also be incorrect with regards to NPV.

The cash cost of producing a stockpile is taken into account in the NPV model when that cost is actually occurred. As is the revenue realised when the stockpile is sold.

With regard to Inventory accounting in the above example, Inventory, under LIFO, FIFO, or Normal Stock method all mark inventory "at cost, or market" whichever is lower.

In an environment of rising prices, which currently is the case with many of the commodities, FIFO, will overstate the value of the inventory on a book basis, which also corresponds to the NPV valuation.

The accounting concept of valuing that stockpile at the lower of cost or net realisable value for balance sheet and P&L purposes has no cash impact.

But yes it does...........
If the market price falls below the cost price based on FIFO.
LIFO & Normal Stock specifically avoid precisely this problem.
Therefore, the choice of accounting policy can have a very important impact on cash generation.

BSD

You have divided your response into four topics;
*Demand
*Supply
*Prices
*Acquisitions

I shall try to continue the above topic areas.

*Demand

The US will not put tarriffs on Chinese goods. Despite the bluster from fools in the developed countries like the US and Australia, anyone with half a brain can see that our standards of living are not going to increase from having more factory jobs and more expensive consumables.

While I concur that tarriffs are absolutely the wrong response, unfortunately, globally, tarriffs are on the way back. Europe as a simple example has placed tarriffs on bananas, the US has had tarriffs on lumber, there are many more examples, and unfortunately they are currently on the increase.

The Chinese are not good at allocating capital - but nor are we. Their innefficient use of capital leads to volume at all cost production with razor margins and ours leads to bottlenecks and the inability to funds infrastructure required to exploit opportunities. A match made in heaven!

The Chinese are very poor at capital allocation.
Poor capital allocation does indeed lead to low, or non-existent margins.
The destruction of capital unfortunately does not lead to good things.
It lead to the increase in the banking system of bad debts & writedowns.
Writedowns impair the liquidity of banks balance sheets.
Credit withdrawal is the outcome.

That China is a managed economy, the result is not cut & dried, and due to the requirement to keep employment high and growing, industry will most likely be subsidised at a loss. This is already the case in a number of industies in China.

If (when) the Chinese stop buying USD and if (when) the yuan appreciates, the developed nations will stop importing deflation from China and will have inflation.

What do you want to own when inflation comes - commodities.

China cannot stop buying the $US, until, internal demand rises.
Only 42% of output is domestically consumed.
This is exceedingly low.

If the Yuan revalues, what will potentially happen is similar to when the Yen revalued at the end of the 1980's early 1990's. Asset bubbles will become unsustainable, and start to collapse.

The real estate boom in China, both commercial & residential, will in part form the equity of the lending banks on the asset side. Similar to Japan, falling land values will severly impact liquidity requirements on the Balance Sheet, leading to credit withdrawal/restrictions. There are any number of scenarios that could trigger the same outcome.

I understand that China exports a lot to the US. But even if the US has a recession, the effect is not going to send China into a tailspin. The 10% GDP growth rates of the Chinese economy have not been exclusively fuelled by the US and will not be turned negative by a US slowdown.

Well we disagree.
In my opinion, China is currently very heavily reliant on the US, not just for export markets, but for direct investment. If the US turns away from China, there will be very severe consequences for China & exporting nations [Australia & BHP] to China.

The US is not homogenous and the banrupcty of property spivs in Florida is not going to turn the entire country into recession. The recession fear in the US maybe warranted - but it is hardly a structural long term problem.

I tend to agree.
I am longer term bullish on the US, despite a number of problems.
*pensions [pension reform just passed in Congress is particularly onerous]
*medicare
*medicaid
*social security

Which raises a further concern with China.....
The age of the population.
Their percentage in the crucial age band of 15yrs - 64yrs is higher than that of the US & Europe and their wealth much lower.

Population:
1,313,973,713 (July 2006 est.)

Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.8% (male 145,461,833/female 128,445,739)
15-64 years: 71.4% (male 482,439,115/female 455,960,489)
65 years and over: 7.7% (male 48,562,635/female 53,103,902) (2006 est.)

Median age:
total: 32.7 years
male: 32.3 years
female: 33.2 years (2006 est.)

Population growth rate:
0.59% (2006 est.)

Birth rate:
13.25 births/1,000 population (2006 est.)

Death rate:
6.97 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
9.9% (official data) (2005 est.)

GDP - per capita (PPP):
$6,800 (2005 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 12.5%
industry: 47.3%
services: 40.3%
note: industry includes construction (2005 est.)

Labor force:
791.4 million (2005 est.)

Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture: 49%
industry: 22%
services: 29% (2003 est.)

Unemployment rate:
9% official registered unemployment in urban areas in 2004; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas; an official Chinese journal estimated overall unemployment (including rural areas) for 2003 at 20% (2005 est.)

In summary as far as demand.
Demand from China is not as clear cut, and bankable as some seem to advocate. If, the problems creep into the Chinese economy, and demand for whatever reason wanes, exporters to China will note the contractions in their net profits.

to be continued.........
 
I don't think there are too many analysts/investment managers who care whether Hills use FIFO or LIFO. It has an effect on reported profits, but no significant effect on cashflow/NPV and over the long term will average itself out.

The only effect on cashflow from non-cash items (depreciation and revalutions of stockpiles) is on the level of tax paid.
 
haemitite & BSD

I don't think there are too many analysts/investment managers who care whether Hills use FIFO or LIFO.

Quite possibly true. This would certainly explain their bullishness on the prospects for BHP going into the future.

It has an effect on reported profits, but no significant effect on cashflow/NPV and over the long term will average itself out.

The only effect on cashflow from non-cash items (depreciation and revalutions of stockpiles) is on the level of tax paid.

And while tax, can also be a book entry, [deferred tax assets/liabilities] and not necessarily a cash transaction in that accural period, the tax asset or liability, in theory will be a cash transaction in some future period.

Depreciation [depletion] in the case of oil resouce companies is a cash transaction, and taken into the Income Statement, and therefore by definition is a cash expense matched to the accural period via GAAP. Mineral resources, are paid for up front......a cash transaction, and entered as an asset, and depreciated over a number of years.

Therefore, the cash, by definition has already been paid, the depreciation charged represents the loss of value [due to consumption] of the asset [mineral] and therefore represents the cost - production * price received of the asset sold [excluding for sake of the example all other costs]
By definition, a cash transaction.

FIFO, far from being irrelevent, becomes very relevent, in times of rising prices, as if prices fall, this will be reflected in short-term earnings.
The market, does not like earnings surprises, and can react quite negatively.

jog on
d998
 
Sorry mate, but we are getting bogged down in semantics.

As i said in the first paragraph of my recent response, analysts have noted the benefits to earnings of provisional pricing/FIFO accounting at around $1bn last year.

It is in the numbers and is not going to surprise. The analysts are all expecting commodities to fall and therefore have stripped this benefit out of their future earnings forecasts.

It is in the numbers, not new, all accounted for and another reason upside exists if the commodities stay where they are.


We will have to disagree on your other point concerning depletion etc too.

I am focussing on NPV, the Income Statement and in particular non-cash items like depletion of the carrying value of assets have little to do with the cash NPV I am talking about.

The depletion will be accounted for in the mine life - the years of cash flow generated.

You are talking accounting and reported earnings, I am talking finance and discounted cashflow valuations.

The cash cost of Prominent Hill is expected to be $750m - this is not the NPV of the mine - only the accounting cost.

The NPV is above the cost of the mine and therefore a project adding to the value of OXR shares.


Back to more important things; even if you though no one else was accounting for the $1bn FIFO effect, I still cant understand how you get a price target of sub-$18:

What are your earnings forecasts (or cashflow) per share assumptions for 07 and 08

/and what copper and oil forward curves are you using for the same years?


Remember that iron and coking coal are already locked in for the next twelve months and that iron ore is expected to be priced strongly again after doubling in the last two years.
 
BSD

Back to more important things; even if you though no one else was accounting for the $1bn FIFO effect, I still cant understand how you get a price target of sub-$18:

Getting stuck on semantics.
Well not really.
You are querying how I value the shares [I understand you differ]
If you dismiss the importance of Depreciation, FIFO, or GAAP anomalies generally, you will never follow my reasoning.

However, the price range of $13 - $18 is not a price target, but the intrinsic value of the shares and should price fall below this range, you would have a resulting undervaluation

BHP contains currently in the price per share, a speculative element
This speculative element contains the future expectations that the pricing environment, the demand etc will remain strong, and earnings will continue to improve. I do not pay for speculative outcomes.
I pay for value, tangible, generally available when everyone else hates the stock for any variety of reasons. Currently BHP is popular, and this popularity is also expressed in the share price.

The base scenario in analysing BHP must be consensus or individual analyst forecasts. We can only really identify our personal differences with the assumptions used by the analysts and identify the effect this has on our valuations.

As i said in the first paragraph of my recent response, analysts have noted the benefits to earnings of provisional pricing/FIFO accounting at around $1bn last year.

I have zero interest in their projections.
The reason being that;
*this is a resource based business [stock]
*the company's depreciation rate cannot be my rate, as I did not purchase the assets at their prices, rather, the price paid in the market. Therefore, the accounting policies have great importance to the value I am receiving [or not] at the purchase price.
*I don't believe from their numbers, that they have adequately discounted the effects of a FIFO policy.[if they even care]
*based on the above, I will calculate my own depreciation rate, and require a return [discount rate] prior to purchase.
*the resultant range is $13 - $18 as fair value, therefore, should BHP fall 50% below this range, I would be a buyer [except I don't buy resource stock]

I don't think there are too many analysts/investment managers who care whether Hills use FIFO or LIFO. It has an effect on reported profits, but no significant effect on cashflow/NPV and over the long term will average itself out.

In your opinion, analysts are not unduly concerned with this aspect.
If this is true, their valuations will be overly optimistic in any downturn.
If prices continue to rise, well then things will work out nicely.

In summary, the difference lies in the valuation approach.
You are projecting earnings, and discounting via NPV
I am depreciating assets, & discounting.
The resultant values we calculate are quite disparate.

jog on
d998
 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20430759-31037,00.html

Key investor sells down BHP stake
September 18, 2006

GLOBAL financial group Lehman Brothers International's stake in the BHP Billiton has fallen below 3 per cent, the mining giant said today.
BHP Billiton (bhp.ASX:Quote,News) said it had received a letter dated September 14 relating to major interests in shares of BHP Billiton (bhp.ASX:Quote,News) as at September 12.

Lehman Brothers' European operations was listed as a substantial shareholder in BHP Billiton, having held a 5.1 per cent stake in the company as of September 8.

"We write to inform you, pursuant to s198 of the Act, that as at the close of business on 12 September 2006, the interest of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) in the ordinary shares of BHP Billiton Plc had fallen below three per cent," Lehman Brothers said in the letter to the company.

BHP's share price has fallen 9.7 per cent since the beginning of the month to close at $25.02 on Friday.
 
Look out BHP! I wouldn't want to mess with some of those Hollywood Stars!

Mmmmmmmmm Cindy Crawford, Daryl Hannah and Charlize Theron, I'll vote for whatever they want :D




Hollywood A-listers take on BHP Billiton
Wednesday Sep 20 13:07 AEST
Hollywood's biggest stars are going to war with Australian resources giant BHP Billiton.

A who's who of A-List celebrities, including Tom Hanks, Charlize Theron, Barbra Streisand and Cher, have launched a high-profile campaign in the US to halt BHP Billiton's $US5 billion ($A6.67 billion) plan to build a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal off the coast of the Los Angeles seaside community of Malibu.

Australian singer and actress Olivia Newton-John, a longtime resident of Malibu, has also joined the fight against the company.

"We want to stop the BHP Billiton LNG terminal now!" a letter signed by the 45 high-profile actors, singers, supermodels and Hollywood executives states.







Leading the A-List campaign is former James Bond, Pierce Brosnan, who gave a keynote address at a fundraiser in Malibu last week.

The function's attendees were asked to donate $US250 ($A330) each.

"This proposed liquefied natural gas terminal is part of a globalised assault taking place on our Earth," Brosnan said.

"We cannot let this project be approved."

The campaign, if successful, would be a blow to BHP Billiton and the Australian economy, with the project potentially worth $A15 billion to Australia in exports.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard deemed the project so important for Australia he flew to Los Angeles in 2004 to lobby California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The BHP Billiton LNG proposal involves the construction of a massive deepwater terminal 23km off the coast of Malibu. The gas would be brought to the terminal by ship from Australia and then piped from the terminal to the US mainland.

Brosnan said the terminal would be 14 stories high and three football fields in length.

Malibu City Council has also launched an aggressive campaign against the LNG project, with council members voting unanimously "to protect and preserve Malibu by strongly opposing the proposed LNG terminals".

The council has allocated $US50,000 ($A66,600) to fight the anti-terminal campaign.

The project could receive US government approval as early as December.

Malibu Council, the celebrities and other environmental groups are heartened by other grassroots campaigns in the US that led to similar proposals being scrubbed.

"Other communities such as Humbolt and Vallejo have successfully stopped LNG facilities from being built," Brosnan said in his address.

"We can, too."

The terminal's opponents claim the project would be an environmental polluter, negatively impact "the health and safety of our families" and would be an attractive terrorist target.

"This floating LNG terminal will emit more than 200 tons of smog-producing pollutants per year, in an area long known for high occurrences of asthma in both children and adults," the letter signed by the celebrities states.

"Additionally, it is estimated that the project as a whole will emit 25,000,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, further contributing to global warming."

Howard, after his meeting with Schwarzenegger in 2004, backed Australia's LNG safety record.

"We of course can boast a great record of safety and reliability over a period of 15 years we've been supplying LNG to Japan," Howard said at the time.

"No accidents, always delivered on time. Something in the order of 26,000 voyages that can be pointed to without any difficulties."

Howard also downplayed the terminal as a terrorist target, noting the distance the terminal would be located off the coast of Malibu.

Several other companies have proposed rival LNG terminals on the Californian mainland.

"Terrorists always want to inflict maximum misery on people and if they can attack an installation which is closer to a large centre of population, that might be a more attractive target than something that's offshore," Howard said.

Schwarzenegger surprised all sides in the LNG debate a year ago when he said the BHP Billiton proposal "could probably be the most safest one for California".

In January, Australia's Woodside Petroleum announced a rival LNG terminal plan the company billed as safer than the BHP Billiton project.

Woodside's project would not involve a giant terminal built off the coast.

Woodside plans to build special ships that could deliver the natural gas straight into an underwater pipeline 24km off the California coast.

Other celebrities who are supporting the anti-BHP Billiton proposal include Danny DeVito, Rhea Perlman, Sting, Dick Van Dyke, Jane Seymour, Dylan McDermott, Martin Sheen, James Brolin, Kenny G, Ted Danson, Mary Steenburgen, Cindy Crawford, Daryl Hannah and Ed Harris.
 
"Brosnan said the terminal would be 14 stories high and three football fields in length."


:confused: Doesn't sound very big to me.... the LNG ships themselves are roughly that size :eek:
 
And it's 23ks off the coast. Perhaps Hoff will be bumping into it on one of his training swims...

Really, these brain dead hollywood talking airbrushed heads and stunt bottoms should stick to what they do best. Pretending to be people they're not. About as much credibility as Anna Nicole at an old age home.
 
Anyone notice that BHP have progressively increased their holdings in their own shares since 7/9/06 by approx 35%. Previous shares held prior to 7/9/06 were 18,820,000 now up to 25,420,000 (about 6.6 million shares, val approx $165mil).
Do they know something we don't?
 
They are cashed up thats what!!!!

billion dollar profits and paying shareholders ****ty dividends, maybe they have too much cash.

I looked at the start of this thread, and people were saying it was breaking down around $20.00 mark, and should reduce long term.......

the forecast in my westpac broking account says hold....

so thats what i am going to do!
 
|Possible buyback in progress....always good for a big company and at this price it could be a buy....my opinin is that it was always only worth $23 a share and was wy over priced at 29-32$$$$$$$....will,be a slight up soon and a down to $22 then buy big time.
 
pacer said:
|Possible buyback in progress....always good for a big company and at this price it could be a buy....my opinin is that it was always only worth $23 a share and was wy over priced at 29-32$$$$$$$....will,be a slight up soon and a down to $22 then buy big time.

If it's only worth 23, why buy up big at 22?
 
Sorry forgot to to mention I went long CFD1000 on tuesday...a minor amount and have lost 0.32% today........that is nothing....sentiment is a little low but at the moment the yanky market has been good over last two days with stuffall rise over here......tomorrow willl prove up anything.......can only stay flat if anything....will not loose here on a punt.....getting out at first sign of a downturn...but up is my guess...graph looks to be at a turning point....IS THIS THE BIG BEAR.....ME THINKS NOT ...THIS YEAR AT LEAST....No october crash coming ....all you scaredy cats.....everything looks fine and take advantage of any skeptics......the FED took care of that one with the rate rises...that's why I went long on MBL 3000 on tuesday aswell....yyyyeeeehhhhaaaaaaaaa

3000 mbl went up 3.3% today.....glad I stayed up late and caught the news!
 
If the commodity party is over, and with hundreds of billions of dollars newly available to global marketplaces, it's time to ask a crucial question: What's next?
An awful lot of money flowed into commodities the last few years, and now a lot of cash is running for the exits.

Amaranth Advisors, which once boasted $9 billion in assets, told investors Monday that it likely lost billions in wrong-way bets on natural gas futures last week. The hedge fund said it's down about 35% year to date. It had been up as much as 22% in August.

Clearly, stocks have gained from oil's tailspin. The Nasdaq, home to many growth names, posted a follow-through day Aug. 15. Crude oil topped out July 14, but its descent really picked up steam Aug. 8.

"In the beginning of August, many hedge funds were leaving Canadian resource funds (oil and gas stocks and mining issues) and going into technology stocks," said Frank Holmes, chief investment officer at U.S. Global Investors in San Antonio.

Chip stocks in particular got a leg up from that flow, he said.

The chipmaking group has shot up to 33rd out of IBD's 197 industries from 136th five weeks ago.

But some fund managers aren't convinced that oil money is flowing directly into stocks.

"You have different groups of investors. I doubt this money coming out of oil and gas futures contracts is going into the stock market," said Richard Perkins, portfolio manager at Perkins Capital Management in Wayzata, Minn. "But lower energy is just one factor to make the average investor more comfortable."

Still, growth stocks are showing signs of life, said James Peterson, portfolio manager at Duncan-Hurst Capital Management in San Diego.

Wherever this rush of refugee cash is headed, it could make a spectacular splash. But experts don't seem to have a consensus as to where the next party will be.

Part of the problem is where some of this hot money came from.

"We have a plethora of new people, a lot of funds new to commodities or those that have conservatively traded commodities through equities but were never before directly involved," said Bill O'Neill, partner at Logic Investors, a financial markets research group in Napa, Calif.

Some pension funds were lured by the new hot markets: copper, gold, oil and natural gas. A number of hedge funds were created to play these markets.

And exchange traded funds made commodity plays easier -- and more seductive -- than ever for the retail investor.

IShares Silver Trust, the first silver ETF, quickly become the world's biggest buyer of that metal. Bullion prices ran up to $13.51 ahead of that ETF's April 28 launch. They're now 18% lower.

Since these rookies had never played, they had never lost money in these markets. So Wall Street has no history with which to predict how they'll react.

Some argue there's precious little out there that begs to be bought. Paul Kasriel, director of economic research at Northern Trust in Chicago, says it's crucial to realize why commodities are falling.

"It's a barometer of the economy," he said. The latest GDP data show growth is slowing. And the marked cooling of the housing market likely will slow the economy further.

Markets look forward, Kasriel said, and commodities are telling us that global copper and oil usage will fall. You can't expect China and India to maintain their torrid growth rates if their best customer shuts his wallet.

Stocks? Other than the traditional defensive plays and the occasional runaway stock, Kasriel finds it hard to look at equities in a slowdown scenario.

Bonds typically gain from a weaker economy. But those returns also don't do it for Kasriel. The yield curve is flat, and the spread between Treasuries and corporate rates is slim.

Duncan-Hurst's Peterson, who co-manages CAN SLIM Select Growth Fund, likes the outlook for growth stocks.

"Starting in mid-August, we've been seeing signs of life in traditional growth stocks like tech, health care and some big drug companies," he said. These groups appear to be the new leadership of this stock market uptrend. "Even some retail stocks have gotten a boost."

jog on
d998
 
pacer said:
Sorry forgot to to mention I went long CFD1000 on tuesday...a minor amount and have lost 0.32% today........that is nothing....sentiment is a little low but at the moment the yanky market has been good over last two days with stuffall rise over here......tomorrow willl prove up anything.......can only stay flat if anything....will not loose here on a punt.....getting out at first sign of a downturn...but up is my guess...graph looks to be at a turning point....IS THIS THE BIG BEAR.....ME THINKS NOT ...THIS YEAR AT LEAST....No october crash coming ....all you scaredy cats.....everything looks fine and take advantage of any skeptics......the FED took care of that one with the rate rises...that's why I went long on MBL 3000 on tuesday aswell....yyyyeeeehhhhaaaaaaaaa

3000 mbl went up 3.3% today.....glad I stayed up late and caught the news!
pacer, I think that BHP and the market in general is going to have a bad day. But seeing as BHP was up overnight in London, it might not fall as hard. Just curious, where did you enter the BHP CFD trade and do you have a pre-determined level that you want to exit at? What about the MBL CFDs?

I bought some CML CFDs on Wednesday at $14.23 in anticipation of a positive investor reaction to its restructure details. I also think that another bid and even a bidding war is imminent. The private equity players have A LOT of money (that they are prepared to leverage with) and it's hard to see them backing off now.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601012&sid=aeneMAFmYp.0&refer=commodities


BHP, RIO and OXR are due for massive upgrades. Fundamentals will eventually outweigh the macro money.


The speculative money in metals is short, but physical demand remains strong at these prices.

Some hedge funds and manipulating shorts are going to lose their shirts.

Who is short 30,000 tn of Nickel? There is only 6,000tn at the LME

Supply is tight, inventories low and the copper market remains in deficit.

Analysts are using $2.60 copper for calander 2007 - that is only two months away. We will need Cu to be at $1.80 at the end of 2007 just to get the $2.60 number for the year.

Why would copper fall 50% in 14 months if it is in deficit?

These Cu forecasts are the basis for the $30+ price targets in BHP - not spot.

Spot gives 20% upgrades.


US home building has already fallen at a rapid rate it is not a new story. Speculative money went short months ago and copper remains above $3.00


I cannot see a valid reason for BHP, RIO, OXR or the base metals complex to be a sell beyond the tired and flawed "because it has gone up so much"

Selling BHP at 8 times and buying tech stocks would appear an amusing trade for those who hate money or have an investment timeframe of three minutes.
 
BSD said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601012&sid=aeneMAFmYp.0&refer=commodities


BHP, RIO and OXR are due for massive upgrades. Fundamentals will eventually outweigh the macro money.


The speculative money in metals is short, but physical demand remains strong at these prices.

Some hedge funds and manipulating shorts are going to lose their shirts.

Who is short 30,000 tn of Nickel? There is only 6,000tn at the LME

Supply is tight, inventories low and the copper market remains in deficit.

Analysts are using $2.60 copper for calander 2007 - that is only two months away. We will need Cu to be at $1.80 at the end of 2007 just to get the $2.60 number for the year.

Why would copper fall 50% in 14 months if it is in deficit?

These Cu forecasts are the basis for the $30+ price targets in BHP - not spot.

Spot gives 20% upgrades.


US home building has already fallen at a rapid rate it is not a new story. Speculative money went short months ago and copper remains above $3.00


I cannot see a valid reason for BHP, RIO, OXR or the base metals complex to be a sell beyond the tired and flawed "because it has gone up so much"

Selling BHP at 8 times and buying tech stocks would appear an amusing trade for those who hate money or have an investment timeframe of three minutes.

Dont forget about ZFX
I dont think the market has realised that its $2billion profit was due to a realised zinc price of USD2105/tonne
At USD3300/tonne, even if the spot price doesnt move from us$1.50/lb (=3300), which is where it is now, their profit will still be 50% higher
 
Top