who owns the land, page-12

Wrong on every count.

TIM had water shortages because they were selling high security water on the temporary market to keep the company alive then telling the investors there was a water shortage. High security has been (as the name implies) very secure. But the spot price was more attractive.

Much of the 'unirrigated' (read - high rainfall coastal former dairy land) was bought in bidding competitions with other MIS promoters at prices far above what it would otherwise have sold for. Further much of it is a/ either encumbered with long term leases to MIS tree growing punters or will be covered in stumps that will require considerable cost to clean up in the near to medium term.

Argueably the real risk is in the land bank bought for the bluegums but nobody really knows because a/ the pulpwood market is iversupply but the forestry MIS market is still alive and allowable under current tax legislation but b/ is suffering likely lack of demand due to reputation damage and lower tax driven demand in the short term. Question is - are other MIS companies and long term forestry operators that DONT have the problems besetting TIM (and GTP) likely to step up and buy at anything other than firesale prices?

Irrigated almond groves have a 25 to 30 year life - way beyond the income earning exposure of the poor mugs that bought the MIS lots so buyers of these assets (for example SHV) know they are getting a bargain if they can raise the cash.

Not so sure about the economics of the olives but buyers can rest assured they are getting the best groves that money can buy when it has no need to be spent conservatively......