Why BFC Value Seems Missing

I came to BFC with a healthy degree of hope and optimism that it would be a strong long term investment. The type of company that could even grow to the dizzy heights that the former Elders once achieved in wealth and market success. Alas the more I read and researched and compared, the more questions came that needed answers.

I finally decided that BFC was not probably going to be a strong long term investment. There were the obvious bits of the puzzle: like the fact that as with any other new trading stock BFC needs to turn its blue sky story into a hard dollars reality; that until BFC becomes cash flow positive and sustainable, this company is at risk of a significant drop in its share price; either through market manipulation, macro events or simply not being able to generate a competitive difference in the market it is attempting to establish itself in. Meantime there is the big question, the deal breaker for me, the relationship between the Investment Manager (BPAM) and BFC. And that I feel is the hub of why this stock will struggle to achieve real shareholder value.

I simply couldn't satisfy myself with answers to overcome my doubts. Perhaps other HC posters will have more nous than me and will be able to answer some of these questions? Please enlighten me. I do want to find an agri stock I am comfortable with. But given what is happening to dairy (ie NZ farmers) and the finite nature of some products (ie lobster quotas) I could not see value in this stock.

Naturally I read and re-read the prospectus but I still came back to these same questions: Where is the detail that sets out future earnings? How is it conducive to adding shareholder value to the stock price by having a management fee mechanism that guarantees a dilution of the value of issued shares? How is it good business practice to have some of the same people making decisions on both company boards? How is it possible to create an independent decision making process while being aware that such a decision will financially benefit one company but it is dependent on the ability of the second company to review and accept the advice of the first company?

Would it not be simpler and cheaper for BFC to mandate independent brokers to seek out existing businesses that fit BFC's strategic model? Doesn't BFC have its own research team? And what happens to BFC's assets long term? How will BFC manage the business overtime when there is 'a general principle that BPAM will not assume direct long term management responsibility for the business operations of any of BGFC’s investments'?
What happens if BPAM withdraws (as per the notice period in the prospectus) its management services? What disruptions to the business might occur? Would it be possible in this situation (or even desirable) for those board members of BPAM to remain on the board of BFC?

The nature of BFC may evolve overtime and reach a maturity where BFC shareholders welcome the payment of the break fee to BPAM (see prospectus) in order to be a simplified company without the legal encumbrance of an Investment Manager. When that day arrives I will once again reconsider BFC.

The above post is, of course, based on my opinions and my assessments. It is in no way meant to be offered or accepted as advise. DYOR and come to your own conclusions.