I appreciate the correction and have been SLOWLY absorbing it. Apparently my mistake was a failure to reflect the last 6 words of this sentence in my math:
"If the investment securities are valued at $357,913, this amount can be no higher that 40% of the TOTAL NON-CASH ASSETS, which would include the investment securities."
I expect that you're probably right about that, although I haven't found the actual language of the rule in question.
Later in the post you say this:
"The value of the investment securities has shifted since December 31, but, depending upon how Shaw spent the $192K on electric vehicles, it is likely there is still close to enough Balance Sheet cash available to purchase the needed additional hard assets."
Now that we know that the investment was made in the SECURITIES of the company in question, that investment only ADDS to the problem and makes it MORE DIFFICULT to acquire the needed hard assets needed with even less cash.
That's IF I understand the situation correctly. Frankly this is the first company that I've run across that portends to be an operating company but acts instead like a mutual fund.
Feel free to correct as needed...no "Sorry" necessary.
But can it core A apple?
Yes Ralph, of course it can core A apple.
