No I am simply inferring that the related group being both...

No I am simply inferring that the related group being both landlord and tenant is not as valuable as an independent operator as tenant. For me it seems we have an "engineered REIT". Keeping it simple, if you take away the landlord/tenant and REIT structure then RFM/RFF becomes simply a corporate farmer (across the various operations). Valuation drops to a simple multiple of earnings. That's a reduction in valuation. So in simple terms I see a decline in valuation here.

This fundamental point seems to be lost in the detail of accounting and questionable transactions. I think its simply a question of valuation of a REIT versus a corporate farmer.

I disagree with your point that its not easy to find a tenant. Quality farmland and ag infrastructure assets generally always have a strong tenancy bid, usually from the neighbour who can add the expanded farm to his operations and enjoy the benefits of synergy. I accept some of the assets in RFF are more specialised (eg. poultry sheds) however if they are quality assets there will be a tenant option.

I agree on your last comment - seems to me RFF/RFM realised the reaction to their original poultry business was valued highly as a REIT and they could access the public market for more capital to grow funds under management. Keep feeding the machine. My question now is whether the public market will continue to value the REIT as it has or see it for what it may be, engineered?