InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 123
Posts 6709
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/01/2011

Re: pesquero post# 41702

Sunday, 04/24/2011 1:34:14 PM

Sunday, April 24, 2011 1:34:14 PM

Post# of 91121
I can see that, but I don't think Bob would be *insanely* dumb enough to report less than what he actually took in an effort to dodge government responsibilities...it would bring the whole operation to its knees, and most everything they have done to get to this point has been done by the book. I don't see them cooking said book on the first shipment after 5 years of blood, sweat and tears, as it were. VERY illogical IMO.

The 3.6 number *could* be an estimate of cost of shipping which was *speculated* earlier as something that consistently occurs in some arenas. That seems to make some sense considering profit margin is figured at 50-60% at market/industry rates right? The 80 number is consistent with other mining companies production costs as well. So if they did get the revenue (7 mil+) that people were projecting it would actually confirm a 50% profit, which is possible by all accounts that longs here have given and what typical industry returns are. It would explain their ability to add more heavy equipment per the PR. Otherwise they wouldn't have any money leftover to pull that particular item off (or potentially get another ship here)unless the cost of production per ton is really low for CWRN, and no one has been suggesting that as far as I can remember, Otherwise I would have seen 70-80% profit margin rants. Thoughts?