Lucky the cupboard is full, page-32

lol!

Step 1: Throw out a baseless sensationalised EV number;
Step 2: When challenged on the inaccuracy of the math, tell the challenger not to take it literally; and
Step 3: Follow-up by saying it's not a problem because the incorrect math of said baseless numbers understated things anyway. Never mind that it's all a baseless sensationalised estimate in the first place!

"You said it yourself in a previous post, what's a few rounding errors between friends?"
Can you post the link? Or are you being loose again by misquoting this post, in which I presented my workings and rounded it off by 1?

Here's the rub, in simple terms:
1) There is little plausible basis to suggest that POS will be forced to use its precious cash reserves to satisfy the Sept, 2020 CN maturity.
2) There is zero historical evidence to support a $20m EV for POS. That's not to say that it cannot happen in the future (anything is possible), but to put it out there with no substantiation or plausible argument to support it constitutes sensationalism, in my view. And when coming from a non-holder, one might be forgiven for calling it lazy downramping.