RE:RE:RE:RE:CostPetz wrote: why do you try to come up with numbers that you interpret rather than using the numbers that the company gives you?
There are indeed good reasons to use defined formulas. "Free cash flow" is a standard, formal term, CFO's don't get to create their own interpretations (or they'll end up in jail). See, for example,
FCF and hundreds of other sites. While there are multiple formulas to calculate the FCF, they all MUST lead to the same numerical result when using the same financial report. Operating cash flow, EBITDA, net income, net debt, AISC - these all standard defined terms. This is done in order to enforce compliance and enable a proper discussion and valuation of companies: when I say "free cash flow", it's not unambiguous or subject to interpretation, it's a standard term backed by defined accounting formulas.
Re: Costs. From TV's MDA: "All-In Sustaining Cost per Pound measures the cash costs to produce a pound of payable zinc plus the capital sustaining costs to maintain the mine and mill. This measure includes the C1 Cash Cost per Pound and capital sustaining costs divided by pounds of payable zinc produced. All-In Sustaining Cost per Pound does not include depreciation, depletion, and amortization, reclamation and exploration expenses." In Q2, their blended four-mines AISC was $0.85 - they provide a detailed breakdown at the end of MD&A. Depreciation and amortization are not cash items. Their exploration program has a minimum committed annual budget of $13mm (from the Q2 release); assuming they are spending $20mm/yr, that's another $0.05/lb, for the total sustaining + exploration cost of $0.90/lb.
I generally don't tell people what to buy or sell, but if you really think that Trevali's operations are not generating cash at current prices, you should sell.