Cannot disagree more.
The vast majority of NTA infrastructure and cap ex came from earnings, grants, loans, dairy sale, and initial equity funding.
Very little - - percentage-wise -- came from issuance at dilutive prices; i.e., 30M shares for $18M. I would not mind new equity issuance at $2.00 per share. That could be accretive. Now, it is not.
The new shares are always in the denominator that determines eps, so the numerator must show a hefty return on those extra shares -- 30% in this case EVERY year.
Do you find whatever positive argument you can muster, sophistic or not, just to support your unwavering, unilateral, unquestioning faith? How about the other way around: use reason to develop your opinion. Invariably, results will show pros and cons, not all of one or the other. I'd think this approach would have more appeal when the market place already judges 180 degrees from your unbridled opinion.
Perhaps you might just post the many positives about the company that are indeed true, and can be well reasoned and articulated using critical thinking.
