Thread by @mfwarder

After two solid weeks of modeling $BTU using every kind of approach imaginable, I'm comfortable saying that b/c their mines have vastly different #coal qualities, management does not provide enough information for analysts to get a confident read on projecting earnings.

1/x

Taken straight from guidance, using a combination of committed prices and average prices since 2/14 (when 10-k was released) for PLV met/NEWC/API5 to cover unpriced tons, I get around $325M in FCF...a little light but in line with other comentary I've seen.

2/x

If I use mine-level production, prices (tied back to guidance as best as we can), direct costs, and strip out royalties (which are included in mine costs), I get to a slightly lower number.

3/x

If I don't tie mine-level pricing back to guidance and just price the #coal qualities like I would model them back in my WoodMac days, I get pretty close to the first answer - ~$330M FCF.

4/x

If I assume a more normal looking production quarter, FCF increases to $421M.

I mean wtf.

5/x

Bottom line - Q1 results are going to be fine, and the answer is probably somewhere in the middle of that ridiculously wide range of $300-425M FCF.

And if the company hits their annual production targets - even in that worst case Q1 scenario - they take out Elliott by Q4.

6/x

Appreciate @tradedollarnut walking me through what he was thinking and helped me find some of these issues.

But the bigger point here is that we shouldn't quibble amongst ourselves about numbers...we should ask mgmt to report more/better granular info so we can get it right.
7/7