RE:Analysis of outcomeI don't disagree and perhaps my other comment was taken poorly. Allow me to clarify:
My opinion is this:
1) I agree the underlying earnings power is being asked by the legacy project overhang - the sooner those projects are wiped clean, the sooner we can see the full earnings power. This is the job of current management: minimize and eventually zero-out the LSTK's, while booking good, economically-positive new work.
2) I think management is semi-conservative. In that I mean, the CGL settlement is smart viewed from goal listed above: it removes a poor project. This is a good and conservative decision.
But also, we are continuing to take more charges on the remaining projects. Could management have taken a 600M charge 5 quarters ago? Perhaps - but that would be ultra-conservative. So that is why I describe their approach as "semi-conservative".
3) I temper my expecatations: I am not expecting a re-rating of the underlying multiple. I would love for it to happen, but I think that needs to be earned over some time of Aecon proving they book de-risked, economically-viable projects, in higher-value areas (e.g. Nuclear). I understand they are beginning to do so, but similar to your point on lawyers/settlements, things can change quickly.
That said, we don't need a multiple re-rating to win here. It is enough to cut the LSTKs and show economically-positive growth in the backlog.
Finally, I will self-confess I am not an expert in construction or engineering. I had some experience in project management for commercial/residential buildings in NYC at one of the largest firms servicing those projects, so I know just enough to get me in trouble. Hence, I learn a lot from your expertise in this business.