Why the Poor Return on Equity?, page-6

We're clearly talking past each other here. I'll be brief this time, seeing as you prefer brevity.

"I think their future ROE or ROIC can be brought to somewhere between 22% and 25"

1) There's a very large and critical difference between ROE and ROIC (both their denominators and numerators are different to one another, for starters), and 2) there's also a critical difference between current ROE/ROIC, and marginal future ROE/ROIC. I believe (2) is the principal source of your misunderstanding.

future cash flows are paid for by dilutions of shareholders, or lots of debt, with overpriced acquisitions, that is just hand waving.

Ummmm, well, when i talk about considering "future cash flows", for me it implicitly considers dilutions, share issues, capital structure and overpriced acquisitions. Why? Because those things are all, in deed, cash flows (you know, stuff that has to go in the cash flow statement).

If high future cash flows are purely organic and not dilutive to shareholders, and not driven by over priced acquisitions, then that situation MUST by definition be accompanied by high future ROE or ROIC.

That's false. If the company's WACC is 4%, then a 5% ROE would suggest the company the company is generating shareholder value, but i'd hardly consider 5% a high ROE.

"How many years from now will it be until GXL can achieve 22% to 25% ROE or ROIC?"

1) I don't know - would you like me to make a number up and tell you so feel better?
2) There's a big difference between the two metrics, as mentioned above, and there's also a big difference between in-place and marginal metrics.
3) You're so engrossed in the topic, why don't you put forward your suggestion with some detailed discussion and calculation, and i'll let you know what i think? I'm happy to read thousands of words so don't worry about brevity.