Standard rules of interpretation would seem to indicate you are right and that is how itmd,kills,myself and others made computations.
Otherwise,the iron ore price reports would be misleading,absent arcane or secretive insider knowledge.
A very knowledgeable person on this board had suggested the pricing regime masscommuter used and I reported that to masscommuter with suggestion to research whether that was correct because my preliminary research had been unfruitful.
The pricing regime(that would result in 108 in your example) seemed counter-intuitive and illogical to me,but I haven't had time to finish researching so I haven't said anything and try not to contradict those who are sincere.
If the 108 pricing regime is correct some of my questions were:
-why didn't those on the other side of the aisle point out such an egregious flaw in itmd and my and others computations when they were quick to correct any little item and had 100 reasons why Cwrn could not succeed-and one of these was very knowledgeable about the iron business.
- Also,why wouldn't Bullitt-who must know- have likewise corrected itmd and my etc calculations.
I've been researching this on the web but have not seen any explanation of a pricing regime other than what meets the naked eye-which would seem to support a simple literal, natural(requiring no arcane or insider knowledge)reading of the iron ore indexes.
Re O/S, yahoo and some business newsletters rely upon outdated last filing of Oct 7-09-which indicated the 5 B figure-yahoo reports its figures as of 9-30-09.
But as itmd pointed out some time ago CWRN retired 3 Billion of those shares-there was a PR re that itmd said ca Aug 4,2009 I believe.
So it would make more sense to use current otcmarket(pinksheet)O/S of 2.308 Billion and then adjust for presumed shares issued since last known float of 299 million last spring.
CWRN probably issued shares for incidentals last summer but would not be able to raise much money at the then low extant prices-and it wouldn't make much sense to issue billions of shares at those low prices when they knew they would be buying them back at much higher prices.
I figured the backers said they would get the equipment and assigned CWRN to get the permits-but as Bullitt said CWRN did not have to pay for current area they are mining -they grandfathered on the old CEMEX permit-so they only had permit fees for another portion of 14 and for 4 and possibly another area-which if those fees were 70k would've cost only 35 million shares.
We know they have substantial debt financing as the vast majority of their financing,and Bulitt said the first ship would pay off that debt.
And last PR shows financial backers are willing to back much bigger CWRN projects,such as the new much larger mine in South central Baja which has been largely ignored in the midst of all the games played by special interest groups,which is a further confirmation of debt(not share) financing.
Even the small financing Feb 2010 of $50k was debt-though convertible-so there would be no indication of issuance of billions shares since then.
People have guessed current float of 350 to a billion plus.
Interestingly TD shows O/S of 2.6 B,which is close to what I would think,but I don't know where they get their info either.
They obviously wanted some revenue and possibly buyback before posting financials,but pressed by the ce,which they indicate will be resolved "before the end of March"(2-28 PR),they may issue current financials(meaning through 12-31 unless...) this month-that's the only way to resolve the ce this month(besides the pinksheet fees which they report as paid now).
At any rate they report audited financials will be issued mid April and buyback on a ship by ship basis-remember the retirement of insider shares also.
