The interesting thing about the list is that only one of them (in my opinion) is meaningful to the company's (as opposed to the stocks) performance - the contribution of the wholly-owned sites. Nat gas will not be a meaningful contributor in any way for at least 5 or 10 years.
That said, it is likely that any of the other three (natgas, activist, outlook) will probably have a bigger impact on the stock (as opposed to the company) performance.....which is why investing is still not an exact science, more like part analysis, part psychology, part gut feel, part chart, etc.
On the HPT conference call, the company made two comments regarding TA. First, that TA had a good qtr, and second, the locations that TA bought were under-performing. That's the reason HPT passed on purchasing these locations.
What TA will report is anyone's guess. I've said this before, I like the business model, but I don't trust this management to execute it. If management makes excuses like they did in other qtrs, that's it, I'm out.
It seems that that comment on the new sites are under performing is excuse to it investor to not allocate more asset in this space of real estate which was alluded to before by them. Now the story changes. However, it is also expected the current purchased will not be best performers because they were of another brand and management before TA bought them for cheap. Hence why they were able to low ball them. Once the site is fully branded under TA it will become part of a established network utilized by huge fleets. So this transaction will take a bit of time but it will eventually show up in the numbers soon.