Baybrooke you continue to assault me which is fine. Your love for all things Brookfield is clear and consistent and we all know consistency is richly admired amongst all people in all cultures.

As to BIP, it may or it may not, be meaninful that in the lastest report 34% of cash expenses, this isn't depreciation, were removed from the FFO figures. I know given it is Bruce Flatt that you and others will devoutly refuse to investigate this issue and to your praise it has been igored in the past.

But the 34% exceeds the second largest 24% (can't remember precisely) which piqued my interest some and if it weren't Bruce you too - my guess only of course - would be quite interested.

As far as bottoms, it wasn't long ago that the bottom of a couple stocks I wasn't too keen on were posted with unbelievable fanfare, KMX at $100 and DG in the $150 range. My name was slaughtered there too. But all I did was offer a different view. Groups are groups though, and it wasn't tolerated. Interestingly, there was a time when there was more tolerance, the intense put downs weren't part of the game. But then too I disagreed on BPY and that was the end of it for my name.

Today? I can assure you that you would have a very hard time netting out positive for Brookfield Property. Why? Yes interest rates come into play but bunches of ill timed and poor purchase figures also come into play and it often, yes it often, is the trophy properties that were overpaid for.

It isn't against you that I stand, I just propose that we actually think for ourselves as to Brookfield entities, and maybe lessen the worship of Bruce?

Bottoms are bottoms and we love to pick and blame, we love naming those that maybe made a comment or two. Again all I'm trying to do is think, thinking should not be against rules in the world of worship.

As I have said for years, it seems to me that Bruce is obsessed with fast-fast-fast growth and he and the thousands working for Brookfield want constant action. I'd say with all others in this mindset that errors will be made, sometimes significant ones. Maybe Bruce is above that?

So in the past a growing, steadily growing, lack of internal profit generation would be supported by chosen asset sales to make FFO. The problem I see is that with things like BIP the internal operations are so far below making the required 8-15% every-single-quarter-consistent "growth" figure that tons of asset sales will be needed to "make it" or whatnot. If rates don't go right back down? Well, it may be hard.

Now just think of someone old like me, a guy who has 46 years of profit in Berkshire and 29 years of profit in AJG...and just think if I could get you guys to capitalize my FFO underwritten by asset sales at 10 times "profits" then think of the net worth I could claim by such actions? Hell my plan value might get to hundreds of millions.