Search for "formaldehyde carcinogen" and you'll find a formaldehyde-fact-sheet on the gov's cancer site. Yahoo won't let me post the link.
Short term exposure to formaldehyde isn't much of a risk. Drywall dust is more a problem. I always wear a mask. If you get in the habit of putting on a mask when you go in and have your son do the same, he'll pick up good safety habits. Everybody else will make fun of him years later, but they'll be happy to see him when he comes visit them in the hospital during their chemo treatments.
But I was young and foolish then
I feel old and foolish now
(TMBG boy TMBG)
If it becomes cheaper to import finished steel than make it locally from DRI, then the entire US industry from ore up will be finished.
One consequence of unfettered capitalism, where fiduciary duty is paramount, is that if it its more profitable to destroy your country then invest in it, then one is obligated to buy the put and drop the bomb.
Jim Rogers now lives in Singapore.
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big mine they call Cliffsisgloomy
The market, it's said, never gives up for dead
When the gales of Oh Tae Gun blow early
Nope. They have a large amount of debt, but nothing substantial before 2018. Company has already set aside money for the remaining dividend payments too. The street is pricing them assuming the price of iron ore continues to contract so they will be forced to recapitalize by 2018. Moody's lowered their unsecured debt to B3 stable, suggesting they're in lousy shape but have enough liquidity to remain that way provided iron ore remains above $55/t. If it crashes to $30/t, and stays there for a year, all bets are off. Australia may default, China would default, and the entire world would be in a depression for at least 20 years. Unless WW3 starts, of course.
As long as the iron ore futures continue to decline, so will CLF's share price.
If you caught LG's comments in Perth, he mentioned price dropping to $30/t and all of AU effectively bankrupt. Not exactly warm and fuzzy let's-support-the-stock.
If you wanted to take a large position in options, wouldn't you want reduced volume and volatility to greatly lower the prices?
Suppose I had the theory that all of the people who died at Nagasaki and Hiroshima died from natural causes rather than the effects of the nuclear bombs. Do I understand that you would argue that the consensus theory that the bombs actually killed them would have to remain unproven, that you'd consider it a religious belief, since there was no appropriate control?
There is no evidence that the massive, swift environmental changes in the past 100 years are due to natural causes. None. There is a preponderance of evidence they are due to increased greenhouse gases. We can do controlled experiments on simulated environments and reproduce the changes we seen by increasing the levels of greenhouse gases. Although we can't model the effects perfectly yet, none of the inconsistencies explain away the experimental data and the actual climate results we have.
There's also the issue of risk. If the climate change deniers--and the word is correct since they are denying the abundant evidence we have--are correct, we will waste a large amount of money doing things that we need to do by doing them earlier than we could. If the consensus is correct, we will become extinct if we don't act.
While you may venture the theory that someone could stand in front of a freight train moving at 60 mph in their direction and survive, they have but one opportunity in life to prove it. I certainly don't want to be the one tied to the tracks while you make a bet on it.
Personally, my credentials don't affect the argument in an way. The evidence is what it is.
"Each share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock has a liquidation preference of $1,000 (and, correspondingly, each depositary share has a liquidation preference of $25). Each share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock will automatically convert on the third business day immediately following the end of the final averaging period into between 28.1480 and 34.4840 of our common shares, par value $0.125 per share (respectively, the “minimum conversion rate” and the “maximum conversion rate”) (and, correspondingly, each depositary share will automatically convert into between 0.7037 and 0.8621 of our common shares), subject to anti-dilution adjustments."
Short people got no reason
They got greedy hands
They post on Yahoo
Tellin great big lies
They say shorted@40
And itgoin to 4
Dogs only pay em
Two cents for every single post
Well, I don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Don't want no short people
Go ahead and throw your best, because global warming means warmer summers AND colder winters: increased volatility AND an upward momentum. Eventually Britain freezes, Georgia becomes a desert, and Florida becomes just a sand bar.
None of the matters. Nothing the analysts do affects CLF's performance. Nothing the shorts or longs do affects CLF's performance. The ultimate value of the company is based solely on how it performs. So how reasonable is his model for CLF's performance?
Not at all.
First, he ignores Bloom Lake. The recovery from that and other assets sales with bond repurchases could make up the shortfall even if the rest of his model was correct. Assuming zero recovery isn't plausible given what we know.
Next, he makes two fatal assumptions: no cost reductions going forth, and the cost of transporting+pelletizing ore to the midwest as being no more than 15% of any price. The former is unlikely, the latter is impossible. Even if all of CLF's contracts were to reset to being index based, they would be index based plus either a fixed cost or a cost not tied to ore prices. The price difference has to be at least the actual cost difference, and that's at least $20-$25/t no matter what. Quite simply, no will ever be able to buy DRI pellets at $57 + 15%. It costs more than $8 to ship and pelletize the product, even if you could get the ore for free.
There are reasons to short CLF even at this price. But assuming the absurd and then trying to justify it in an article isn't one of them.
Besides Graham's Security Analysis, any other book suggestions for valuing distressed assets?
If the take-or-pay contract is dismissed completely, it's virtually certain the company will get a substantial sum, but nothing is guaranteed. The court has extraordinary discretion. With no way to know what the outcome will be, we still should be able to come up with some intrinsic value to what's left. If the assets were auctioned off, what would *you* pay for them?