Your explanation shows a disregard in accepted logic in order to leap to your conclusion.
Please explain?
It also implies that TAT.AM can be worth less than zero, which is obviously impossible.
No it does not! My model simply calculates TAT.AM as being worth exactly 95% of the full AM shares if you buy and hold forever. There's no way it can be worth less than zero with my model.
You can put any numbers you want into my model, you'll never get a negative valuation for TAT.AM