Posted On: 10/20/2014 3:16:29 PM
Post# of 39368
You're only half right. You've been yelling the same thought's over past 2 years and correctly so.
But there's the back end to the equation that we must look at. What happens after the wins. The Mitchell was a win but the shareholders did not enjoy that win significantly.
The revenues were bastardized out to the point of paying salaries and expenses. Then the production was sold (smart move) as home office couldn't deliver a viable alternative to funding. There was also an issue with the driller Tommy.
Gwen bought none productive wells even after I told him in to forget about it, sternly. Seems deal weren't predicated on shareholder interest.
The capital structure is where the problem has been.
Promoting deals that are self-enriching and not shareholder enriching won't be tolerated by market forces.
BULL
But there's the back end to the equation that we must look at. What happens after the wins. The Mitchell was a win but the shareholders did not enjoy that win significantly.
The revenues were bastardized out to the point of paying salaries and expenses. Then the production was sold (smart move) as home office couldn't deliver a viable alternative to funding. There was also an issue with the driller Tommy.
Gwen bought none productive wells even after I told him in to forget about it, sternly. Seems deal weren't predicated on shareholder interest.
The capital structure is where the problem has been.
Promoting deals that are self-enriching and not shareholder enriching won't be tolerated by market forces.
BULL
(0)
(0)
