RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Vertex no longer lending IntermapI tried 3 methods to reconcile with no success.. Ultimately, despite viewing the royalty as a now separate free-floating note, I too believe transparency alone would be enough to warrant giving it its own line with 7.3 mil par value - but calling this a corporate bond would be a stretch as well, which is how its either included in the net cost or not included at all. Cost of royalty would be less total royalties paid. Came close but not close enough. The accretion concept is from Intermap's financials. Since both notes include all accrued interest up until 12/31, and in Q1 Intermap severely increased their accretion amount, I thought it logical that if this was to reconcile that Vertex could mirror the same concept along with the accrued interest of q1 and q2. Came close by chance only, still too far. Began doing npv of all cash flows the way Vertex sees it as from april 12 but nothing close enough. Got the blender out and tried brute forcing a reconciliation with no luck; shouldn't be that hard. Anyways, answer is likely in discount rate, days till maturity and possible inclusion of accrued int plus accrued royalty since sett date. But too much work to fuss over when the only thing that matters is the decision made in the next pr. Vertex will survive this and fund is not in danger of folding by any stretch. In absolute terms, they're best interest is to collect Alaska profit as payment and outlay enough capital to buy time for dp. In saying this, there are few if any bullets remaining so getting the desired return on risk here is the challenging part and likely the cause for the time its taking to negotiate. - along with finding and signing carys replacement.