And that is why I'm in @22, looking to add on dips (missed the last one).
As an ex-GPer of the 70s and 80s, the distribution / mill business is not the future - timber / land / resources is. I also own RYN, POPE, TRE.TO (SNOFF.PK), TWF_U.TO (TMWEF.PK) and have owned PCL since its IPO many, many moons ago.
WY, as we know it, needs to go away and convert to a low overhead REIT. Sell the mfg assets to someone who can cut overhead costs and increase management effectiveness. Downturns have always hit this industry hard, with huge layoffs of highly qualified people. Its the cycle.
The future for investors is linked to the timber assets.
1. They can't give away the remining manufacturing and distribution resource they have left right now. No one wants them. If they could be sold they would be sold.
2. They don't have the cash. Become a REIT would require huge amounts of cash and they are not generating any cash. They would have to sell a whole lot of land at the bottom of the price cycle to generate the cash to become a REIT.
3. Dan Fulton and Patty B. are bumblers who let the moment for action pass by. Dan was recklessly adding to RE while the market was crumbling. Patty misjudged the depth and length of the recession on an ongoing basis.
Betting on a WY REIT is bucking the odds for the rest of this year. And without a REIT this stock is only going down. Not much upside to only being able to wish you were a REIT.
From the Willins Report - more than one way to skin a cat
We have long advocated a separation of WY's timber operations from its non-timber businesses and we feel that this "divorce" can be done tax-efficiently, through a tax-free "reverse" spin-off.
Our view is that WY should (i) "lever up" the timber business and use the proceeds of the leverage to remit a "special dividend" to its shareholders and concurrently distribute, in a tax-free spin-off, the stock of a Newco which would conduct WY's non-timber activities.
Immediately after the spin-off, WY, now conducting only the timber activities, would elect to convert itself into a REIT. We firmly believe that this spin-off would be eligible for tax-free treatment because the transaction would, in fact, satisfy the "business purpose" requirement.
We are not convinced that electing REIT status is the type of "tax avoidance" that adversely affects a transaction's claim that it is undertaken for one or more corporate business purposes and, even if it is, it is still clear that such a spin-off would be carried out, "in substantial part" (which is all that the regulations demand) for one or more corporate business purposes. "