@iceman101I wouldn't say I have a particular agenda except to make management accountable. DRO is a plaything for me. It is also an interesting challenge.
My view is that I am deeply conflicted by DRO and its management. I would rate them 10/10 for their ability to build a business and deliver in what is an incredibly difficult market. I would rate them 0/10 for transparency and taking care of shareholder interests. That's the dilemma.
You are right, I have questioned the Q3 reports because they lack the transparency that shareholders should expect. The posts by me, yourself and other contributors were all trying to work out what the 2024 numbers were really looking at and none of us could come come up with a really convincing figure of what was going on. That says something.
You and I have taken different positions on what we are willing to accept as accurate when we are unsure. I respect your view and accept that you may be right. I just don't know. Nor does anyone else. I've taken the more conservative figure because of managements lack of transparency and poor history on delivering on their history/claims. There is good reason not to trust them. I have taken the lower end because of that lack of trust (I think the market has too), because I would prefer to miss out on a gain than be burned. I bought back in yesterday because I thought that the share price was reasonable given my position
You miss the point about my criticism. It maybe that they cannot disclose individual contracts and I have no problem with that. What they can disclose is rolled up numbers, exactly as they have done in the Q3 report.
The problem that I have, is that this is old news pretending to be both new and significant. That's at best pretty serious spin, at worst a lie. The first poster was obviously duped by the claim. Personally, I live in a world where I believe that management is answerable to shareholders and has a responsibility to inform them and the market of what is going on where they can. Was this announcement intended to inform or mislead? I am suggesting it was the latter - and it obviously succeeded in some cases.
It would be fair to call my approach questioning and conservative. It's not unfairly negative. Its my money at stake so I am going to ask some of the more uncomfortable questions. I know plenty of other people won't and that's their prerogative.
By the way. Thanks for the post. It was a really good one. I am happy to be challenged on my position. It's a pity many posters won't accept management being challenged on theirs (you are an exception and I appreciate the respectful questioning).
But will not accept false accusations or misinformation (none from you - thanks again!).
(20min delay)