Bell Potter Update, page-3

Sometimes I wish my skill - such as I have - was not editing. An editor reads for nuance - did the writer really mean to choose that word/phrase/juxtaposition, or was it just carelessness?

The BP note quoted above was written specifically about FAR, correct? It therefore talks about FAR's prospects, not those of others. That said, then what are we to make of, "While the issue of the PE rights involving the sale of COP's interests to WPL remains to be settled, we expect that it will be resolved satisfactorily in the near term ..."

Satisfactorily for whom?

In the context of the article, the writer must be referring to FAR. Now it's too much to infer that FAR will PE the lot, but it does suggest that BP is comfortable that FAR will achieve a decent outcome. That reasoning supports BP's valuation, which seems generous at four bags.

There you go, all you critics of the starry eyed optimists on the forum - I've just bowled you a full toss on leg stump.

OOO