I agree on both points. Even though I don't think RE has all of the same kind of implications when ASICMiner isn't a true equity stake.
And the faster payback point will be so temporary that's not my concern at all.
And I don't care to get in to conversations about stock valuations based on increased assets due to RE.
My point, which was sidestepped with this RE tangent, is that was the IPO written in such a way to imply that exactly half of the company would be sold to the public?
So, shareholders fund the entire startup costs of the company and end up with 38% 'ownership.' It was exactly this point, what is ASICMiner's % of the company, that was debated in some detail when ASICMiner announced the IPO.
In my mind that was the expectation set. Whether or not it happened immediately after IPO or eventually as more buyers appeared.
Of course, there are no rules to prevent a 'best effort' IPO with unsold shares retained by the issuer. But with this 50/50 ownership thing in mind what is right? Jacking up RE or selling off the 12% of shares?
Anyway, it's a pretty pointless discussion. We know the likely answer is RE instead of selling off the remainder of what was offered at IPO.
Interesting, I was approaching the valuation from the other side. The principals in this company have put in the same effort that they would have if they had been funded 100% to plan, but they only attained 76% of the intended capital because of circumstances beyond their control. This means that ASICMiner (not the parent) retains ownership of those shares (which will not get dividends), and they could release them to raise additional funding if desired/needed, but that would dilute the dividend value of our shares so I'm not for it unless the benefit will outweigh the dilution.
I'm curious why you think it matters if they have 50% or 62%, it's not like a hostile takeover was likely to work without a lot of lawyers.