To: E_K_S who wrote (19843 ) 10/12/2004 10:53:30 PM From: Stewart Whitman Respond to of 78714 If I recall correctly, the profit sharing part of SFL is that, above a certain base rate, SFL gets 20% of the rate and FRO gets the rest. The base rate, that goes to SFL (less some expenses), is actually quite high - around average day rates for prior periods. The publicly reported info on the SB analysis indicated that part of the downgrade of SFL was because it was trading up some percentage (e.g. 50% since June, 30% in the last month). This was based on the initial trading price of SFL post-spin-off. But, it's pretty clear that SFL shouldn't have been trading around $12 - that's a ridiculously high dividend (about 12%). I think that's higher than the bank rates they pay on their debt. Another thing, if, as you mentioned, the SB analyst really expected that SFL would get $600 million in profit sharing, that's about $8 per SFL share. If he really thought that, I wonder what his valuation of SFL would be! That's their mistake - I don't think anyone expected that. I think that people have failed (or perhaps will fail) to correctly value FRO. It doesn't matter too much now, as SFL is still mostly consolidated as part of FRO and day rates are very high. But if FRO spun of all of SFL (which I doubt will happen) and day rates drop significantly, FRO probably would make very little money - less that in previous down cycles. I.e., during a down cycle, separately, FRO might even be valued for less than SFL. Also, if you believe FRO & SFL reflect day rates, and that day rates have peaked and are going lower, then today's stock pricing action for SFL (-9.2%) and FRO (-7.3%) is pretty irrational. After all, proportionally, FRO benefits more than SFL from higher rates, so it should drop more than SFL. Personally, I was happy buying SFL in the low teens. I'd be happy selling in the mid to high twenties. I'd feel better about SFL if SFL had a business plan that was more independant of FRO. Regards, Stew