RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Only good news?Look, my hope is that through this transaction they can create some value. Then the ownership dilution is not an issue. In theory, this is the approach they took down in Tennessee by creating a JV and giving Davis 45% ownership. Presumably that is the price of locking in a partner to move things forward on that front (assuming something actually happens).
My concern is that they live up to their track record of failed execution. They bought this asset in 2013 and basically acheived nothing in 8+ years. And we all know how things turned out the last time they spun out a business....even though apparently it made sense at the time.
None of this stuff makes a difference until they prove that everthing works as advertised. The skimpy pres releases meet their regualtory requirements to disclose while not overstepping by making claims that might attract regulatory scrutiny like they do in those shareholder updates.