I never said he'd need to lead investors on to issue shares opportunistically. He would not. That is so obvious as not to even need mention. So, bringing up dishonesty is not an issue. Glad you will now drop it.
As for your hearing me say anything about dilution, I cannot be responsible for what you hear.
Sure, the greater issue for pps is overhang. And the total capital development budget is clearly accretive. I do understand benefits beyond eps, in terms of quicker vertical integration and overall corporate strategy, including barriers to entry. They aren't nearly enough in value to shareholders to overcome diluted eps, imo.
I will listen to arguments why the dilution is not marginal; in other words, that Solomon's hands are tied. That is different: still negative per se, but necessary.
And where we agree is that in any case, the total development does generate a whole lot of income, and will generate a whole lot of cash, and that the overall business plan is brilliant.
But if the dilution is marginal, and at these share prices, it is unarguably dilutive to eps, and will never be recovered in eps. It hurts shareholder value in the interest of growing a larger less valuable company on a per share basis. The argument that absolute dollar income is higher is meaningless.
We can all hope for a bond deal, and for a higher share price, dramatically lessening dilution, if needed at all. And we can all hope for a higher p'e multiple as larger status is realized with or without the last 10% of CapEx dollars spent.
But blanket positive spins -- anti-math as they are, as Ecuador also points out -- just demotes credibility, imo.
