Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Coal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (211)	1/5/2006 11:30:19 PM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2031

Wilbur is a shrewd distressed company investor and consolidator. It is likely that the value of ICO is simply not showing up in the crude indicators you are tracking Willbur bought in at the equivalent of 2$/share. With the shares at 9$ currently one can hardly make the case that holding on to ICO means that he believes that ICO is undervalued now. Apparently others came to a similar conclusion: Message 22016702 FWIW, I see that ICO has 800M short tons of reverves which currently sell at around 40$/ton. Coal in Wyoming sells much cheaper (but is also cheaper to produce) so it's difficult to compare apples to apples but based on those and other metrics (EV/EBITDA is my favorite) i don't think ICO is cheap. Regarding legancy costs, i believe that CNS has about 2B$ but BTAU looks much better with pensiones fully funded. The absence of legacy costs does make a difference but it's not huge from what I can tell. if someone can come up with a compelling reason why ICO is cheap I am willing to listen...